Narrative:

The convention was in progress in chicago, il, adjacent to cgx.' business required us to land at cgx 3 times this day. During preflight briefing, FOD FSS was specifically asked for all NOTAMS concerning cgx. Received only 1 NOTAM concerning 24 hour operation of cgx tower. On an IFR flight plan eok-cgx, I was cleared 'radar vectors for mdw ILS runway 31C until you can cancel IFR and proceed VFR to cgx.' (this is a routine clearance.) mdw is southwest of cgx. Cgx ATIS stated VFR arrs accepted only from south and east. Advised mdw approach several times of intentions to land cgx, and questioned them if it was possible to cancel IFR and still land legally at cgx under these circumstances. I was told by mdw approach that mdw and cgx tower would handle everything. Cgx information included the local WX and a detailed NOTAM number but no NOTAM details. It also said to 'advise you have the NOTAM.' I canceled IFR at mdw. Mdw cleared me 'at or below 2000 ft, 030 degree heading to the lake shore, contact cgx tower.' cgx tower asked if I had the NOTAMS. I responded that I had the NOTAM number from information, but no details. Cgx instructed me to remain clear of the area, call ikk FSS to obtain the NOTAM information, and call cgx back. (The NOTAM described a prohibited area that included the cgx class D airspace.) at that time, I was expected by cgx tower to remain clear of cgx class D airspace, mdw class C airspace, ord class B airspace, maintain my own traffic avoidance, and avoid a temporary prohibited area defined by a NOTAM that I had yet to receive, all in conditions that cgx considers below minimums for the charted visual approach procedure! Such critical NOTAM information should be much easier for pilots to obtain. It was not given to me by FOD FSS although specifically requested. It was not given by cgx ATIS, only a detailed number. (This NOTAM was given in detail on several other ATIS broadcasts by surrounding airports. Why not at the airport it affected?) it could have been delivered by cgx tower in 15 seconds or less. Operating in the vicinity of the busiest airport in the world (ord) is no place to be required to abandon all ATC services designed to provide traffic separation/flow, and hunt for such critical information as temporary prohibited airspace overlying the destination airport designated on the filed IFR flight plan! This type of information needs to be easier to obtain. Callback conversation with reporter revealed the following information: reporter states this was the first flight of this day and was very unnerving. Cgx approach is VFR only and as stated reporter was told coordination would occur between approach and tower. When told to remain clear of the area by tower, reporter refused for safety reasons. Tower did handle the approach and reporter landed. There was no question as to reporter's intentions, approach knew and tower knew but neither bothered to give the NOTAM information. Reporter had asked for NOTAMS in his briefing and was not given this information. He found out when landing at an airport 35 mi away what the NOTAM actually said. This he learned through the FSS but only when pressing the briefer who searched for the NOTAM. It was listed under the general chicago area, not under the actual airport named. This was the major problem as there was a raft of NOTAM information during the convention period and it was not easy to decipher. Reporter made 3 other flts that day and the only difference was that he said 'yes' when queried if he had the NOTAM. He was cleared directly to land. Reporter suggestion is that NOTAMS be listed under the airport name which is affected by the NOTAM and in a case such as this that the NOTAM information be spelled out on the ATIS, not just a number which a pilot then has to reference on another frequency. He feels this was a very dangerous situation in which he was placed and could have easily been avoided.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: CORP ACFT KING AIR 200 HAS PROB WHEN TEMPORARY RESTR ESTABLISHED AND NOTAM INFO NOT ISSUED AT BRIEFING OR ON TWR CONTACT.

Narrative: THE CONVENTION WAS IN PROGRESS IN CHICAGO, IL, ADJACENT TO CGX.' BUSINESS REQUIRED US TO LAND AT CGX 3 TIMES THIS DAY. DURING PREFLT BRIEFING, FOD FSS WAS SPECIFICALLY ASKED FOR ALL NOTAMS CONCERNING CGX. RECEIVED ONLY 1 NOTAM CONCERNING 24 HR OP OF CGX TWR. ON AN IFR FLT PLAN EOK-CGX, I WAS CLRED 'RADAR VECTORS FOR MDW ILS RWY 31C UNTIL YOU CAN CANCEL IFR AND PROCEED VFR TO CGX.' (THIS IS A ROUTINE CLRNC.) MDW IS SW OF CGX. CGX ATIS STATED VFR ARRS ACCEPTED ONLY FROM S AND E. ADVISED MDW APCH SEVERAL TIMES OF INTENTIONS TO LAND CGX, AND QUESTIONED THEM IF IT WAS POSSIBLE TO CANCEL IFR AND STILL LAND LEGALLY AT CGX UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES. I WAS TOLD BY MDW APCH THAT MDW AND CGX TWR WOULD HANDLE EVERYTHING. CGX INFO INCLUDED THE LCL WX AND A DETAILED NOTAM NUMBER BUT NO NOTAM DETAILS. IT ALSO SAID TO 'ADVISE YOU HAVE THE NOTAM.' I CANCELED IFR AT MDW. MDW CLRED ME 'AT OR BELOW 2000 FT, 030 DEG HDG TO THE LAKE SHORE, CONTACT CGX TWR.' CGX TWR ASKED IF I HAD THE NOTAMS. I RESPONDED THAT I HAD THE NOTAM NUMBER FROM INFO, BUT NO DETAILS. CGX INSTRUCTED ME TO REMAIN CLR OF THE AREA, CALL IKK FSS TO OBTAIN THE NOTAM INFO, AND CALL CGX BACK. (THE NOTAM DESCRIBED A PROHIBITED AREA THAT INCLUDED THE CGX CLASS D AIRSPACE.) AT THAT TIME, I WAS EXPECTED BY CGX TWR TO REMAIN CLR OF CGX CLASS D AIRSPACE, MDW CLASS C AIRSPACE, ORD CLASS B AIRSPACE, MAINTAIN MY OWN TFC AVOIDANCE, AND AVOID A TEMPORARY PROHIBITED AREA DEFINED BY A NOTAM THAT I HAD YET TO RECEIVE, ALL IN CONDITIONS THAT CGX CONSIDERS BELOW MINIMUMS FOR THE CHARTED VISUAL APCH PROC! SUCH CRITICAL NOTAM INFO SHOULD BE MUCH EASIER FOR PLTS TO OBTAIN. IT WAS NOT GIVEN TO ME BY FOD FSS ALTHOUGH SPECIFICALLY REQUESTED. IT WAS NOT GIVEN BY CGX ATIS, ONLY A DETAILED NUMBER. (THIS NOTAM WAS GIVEN IN DETAIL ON SEVERAL OTHER ATIS BROADCASTS BY SURROUNDING ARPTS. WHY NOT AT THE ARPT IT AFFECTED?) IT COULD HAVE BEEN DELIVERED BY CGX TWR IN 15 SECONDS OR LESS. OPERATING IN THE VICINITY OF THE BUSIEST ARPT IN THE WORLD (ORD) IS NO PLACE TO BE REQUIRED TO ABANDON ALL ATC SVCS DESIGNED TO PROVIDE TFC SEPARATION/FLOW, AND HUNT FOR SUCH CRITICAL INFO AS TEMPORARY PROHIBITED AIRSPACE OVERLYING THE DEST ARPT DESIGNATED ON THE FILED IFR FLT PLAN! THIS TYPE OF INFO NEEDS TO BE EASIER TO OBTAIN. CALLBACK CONVERSATION WITH RPTR REVEALED THE FOLLOWING INFO: RPTR STATES THIS WAS THE FIRST FLT OF THIS DAY AND WAS VERY UNNERVING. CGX APCH IS VFR ONLY AND AS STATED RPTR WAS TOLD COORD WOULD OCCUR BTWN APCH AND TWR. WHEN TOLD TO REMAIN CLR OF THE AREA BY TWR, RPTR REFUSED FOR SAFETY REASONS. TWR DID HANDLE THE APCH AND RPTR LANDED. THERE WAS NO QUESTION AS TO RPTR'S INTENTIONS, APCH KNEW AND TWR KNEW BUT NEITHER BOTHERED TO GIVE THE NOTAM INFO. RPTR HAD ASKED FOR NOTAMS IN HIS BRIEFING AND WAS NOT GIVEN THIS INFO. HE FOUND OUT WHEN LNDG AT AN ARPT 35 MI AWAY WHAT THE NOTAM ACTUALLY SAID. THIS HE LEARNED THROUGH THE FSS BUT ONLY WHEN PRESSING THE BRIEFER WHO SEARCHED FOR THE NOTAM. IT WAS LISTED UNDER THE GENERAL CHICAGO AREA, NOT UNDER THE ACTUAL ARPT NAMED. THIS WAS THE MAJOR PROB AS THERE WAS A RAFT OF NOTAM INFO DURING THE CONVENTION PERIOD AND IT WAS NOT EASY TO DECIPHER. RPTR MADE 3 OTHER FLTS THAT DAY AND THE ONLY DIFFERENCE WAS THAT HE SAID 'YES' WHEN QUERIED IF HE HAD THE NOTAM. HE WAS CLRED DIRECTLY TO LAND. RPTR SUGGESTION IS THAT NOTAMS BE LISTED UNDER THE ARPT NAME WHICH IS AFFECTED BY THE NOTAM AND IN A CASE SUCH AS THIS THAT THE NOTAM INFO BE SPELLED OUT ON THE ATIS, NOT JUST A NUMBER WHICH A PLT THEN HAS TO REF ON ANOTHER FREQ. HE FEELS THIS WAS A VERY DANGEROUS SIT IN WHICH HE WAS PLACED AND COULD HAVE EASILY BEEN AVOIDED.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of July 2007 and automatically converted to unabbreviated mixed upper/lowercase text. This report is for informational purposes with no guarantee of accuracy. See NASA's ASRS site for official report.