Date: 201510
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: MDW.Airport, IL
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Light Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Operator: Corporate
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class B ORD
ATC / advisory: TRACON C90
Reporter organization: Corporate
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Confusion; Distraction; Situational Awareness; Workload
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation - Speed All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew FLC complied w / Automation / Advisory; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification
Contributing factors: Procedure; Human Factors; Airport
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: Basic issue - ATC issued 250 knot speed instruction while below Class B airspace; in violation of 14 CFR 91.117(c). Prior to our flight; during the brief; we included a discussion and awareness of the Chicago Class B airspace. We correlated the ENDEE3 arrival and 31C transition to landing runway and identified its location relative to Class B airspace and the consideration of speed limitations while operating below Class B airspace. We were filed and cleared JALAP.ENDEE3 and expected the 31C transition. We were initially instructed to descend via the arrival with the 31C transition; we complied with all instructions. At STKNY we were at 6000; and then issued a clearance to descend to 5000. Prior to reaching 5000; and about halfway to KEMPZ we were issued clearance to proceed 'direct to RUNTS (FAF ILS31C); descend to 3000; maintain 250 knots.' We could see (airspace displayed on DU) this would take us below the Class B airspace (floor 3600) and as a crew discussed regulated speed restrictions. Numerous other aircraft following behind us were issued the same clearance. We complied with instructions but I delayed our descent below Class B to minimize our speed/airspace transgression. Once inside KMDW Class C airspace we fully complied with speed instruction but then slowed to 210 and eventually cleared for the visual approach with speed 170 knots to RUNTS. ATC was not informed of our concerns due to frequency congestion; sterile cockpit philosophies; and distraction mitigation. Based on most recent experience; within previous 3 weeks; when we refused speed instructions; 170 knots to FAF; due to inability to slow down and configure for stabilized approach; we were argued with and essentially scolded for not providing our restrictions when handed off from Chicago Center. This created a distraction and eliminated; for the moment; the sterile cockpit environment and created additional frequency congestion during high density operations.Although I had considered speaking up and refusing ATC instruction previous experience has been controllers getting upset and arguing with you and creating more of a distraction. Although this remains the Pilot In Command prerogative; and would be the best course of action; it must be weighed against risks of disrupting sterile cockpit; creating a distraction and other risk factors. I would certainly recommend knowing and understanding the airspace around you and include in briefings and be prepared to refuse any ATC clearance deemed counter-regulatory. Although we complied; I called Chicago TRACON and spoke with an ATC manager. The individual was very understanding however when I explained our situation and concerns he indicated the ATC handbook; FAA Order 7110.65V; 'allows ATC to issue speed instructions contrary to FAR 91.117; if the controller feels it is an 'operational necessity.'' I explained FAR 91.117 does not provide for ATC exceptions and I wasn't sure how 'ATC Operational requirements' relative to terminal flow control overrides FAR's. He understood the pilot's perspective and indicated the pilot always has the option to refuse instruction and provide an acceptable speed (200 knots). Although I agreed; I reminded the manager of our previous experience relative to refusing ATC clearances in the terminal area and emphasized the complexities associated with sterile cockpit and distraction concerns as well as frequency congestions. I reviewed FAA Order 7110.65V; section 5-7-2; Methods (Speed Adjustments). Under Methods there is a note: NOTE: 1. A pilot operating at or above 10;000 feet MSL on an assigned speed adjustment greater than 250 knots is expected to comply with 14 CFR Section 91.117(a) when cleared below 10;000 feet MSL; within domestic airspace; without notifying ATC. Pilots are expected to comply with the other provisions of 14 CFR Section 91.117 without notification. The note continues... However; in airspace underlying a Class B airspace area designated for an airport; in a VFR corridor designated through such as a Class B airspace area; pilots are expected to comply with the 200 knot speed limit specified in 14 CFR Section 91.117(c). A detailed search of FAA Order 7110.65V failed to identify any instances where instructions are provided relative to issuing speed clearances to aircraft that would violate 91.117 was authorized under 'operational necessity.' In fact; the previous notes specifically address 91.117(c) compliance requirements. Unfortunately in the past three months this is the second instance; at two separate locations; where speed instructions were issued that were not in compliance with 91.117(c).




Synopsis: C90 TRACON requested a crew fly 250 knots below ORD Class B which the Captain questioned as an FAR 91.117(c) violation. ATC cited that FAA Order 7110.65V; section 5-7-2 allowed an operational exception but the pilot disagreed.