Sneaking across Lake Superior undetected

[Henry Kisor]

All:

Can a 172 flying at 200 feet above water across Lake Superior get through
undetected by radar or AWACS? Are there holes in radar coverage?

I ask cuz I'm a mystery novelist at work on a new whodunit and wonder what
goes on when a small plane flies from Canada to the United States over a
Great Lake. I presume the small plane has to land at an official port of
entry so Customs can go over it looking for bad stuff.

Also, when a plane crosses the border does it have to be in radio contact
with ATC? (Being deaf, I'm a NORDO pilot so don't know anything about that
stuff.)

Thanks to all.

Henry

[tony roberts]

> Can a 172 flying at 200 feet above water across Lake Superior get through
> undetected by radar or AWACS? Are there holes in radar coverage?

You would have a good chance of sneaking through radar but if an AWAC
were monitoring the area then you don't have a chance. When I lived in
the middle east they could detect pickup trucks smuggling Scotch across
the border from Yemen.
--

Tony Roberts
PP-ASEL
VFR OTT
Night
Almost Instrument :)
Cessna 172H C-GICE

[BTIZ]

that's why all those balloons have been placed along the southern border..
they look down on the drug smugglers.. keep this up and we'll have them
along the northern boarders too.

BTW, I'd hate to be the one flying a C172 over the lake at 200ft AGL, get
out away from either shore... loose the horizon and depth perception.. and
splash..

BT

"tony roberts" > wrote in message
news:nospam-BF5DB8.18453227122003@shawnews...
> > Can a 172 flying at 200 feet above water across Lake Superior get
through
> > undetected by radar or AWACS? Are there holes in radar coverage?
>
> You would have a good chance of sneaking through radar but if an AWAC
> were monitoring the area then you don't have a chance. When I lived in
> the middle east they could detect pickup trucks smuggling Scotch across
> the border from Yemen.
> --
>
> Tony Roberts
> PP-ASEL
> VFR OTT
> Night
> Almost Instrument :)
> Cessna 172H C-GICE

[Geoffrey Barnes]

> Can a 172 flying at 200 feet above water across Lake Superior get through
> undetected by radar or AWACS? Are there holes in radar coverage?

With the transponder off, and at low altitude, I suspect a 172 could get
across the more remote portions of Lake Superior without being seen on ATC
radar. I'm not sure how much the controllers really notice tracks that
don't have a transponder data block. Maybe there wouldn't even be a track
visible on their scopes, maybe the return would be painted but not noticed
by the computer, and maybe it would be noticed by the computer but ignored
by a controller who had plenty of other things to worry about. You are
writing a novel here, and it doesn't need to be 100% accurate on things like
this. If I read this in a novel, I could suspend any disbelief, at least in
relation to ATC radar.

AWACS would be a whole different ballgame. If an AWACS was on station and
specifically tasked with looking for this 172 (or just covering the Lake
Superior area), I strongly suspect that it would find it. The 172 is boxy,
with all kinds of right angles and things sticking off of it to produce a
radar return. It's radar cross section is pretty large for such a small
plane, especially from above.

Some of what you descrive would depend on where the AWACS was stationed. If
it were flying an orbit over Michigan, for example, then flying low wouldn't
help very much. The idea behind flying low is typically to either get below
the radar horizon, get lost in ground clutter, or both. An AWACS flying
nice and high would be able to see the entire surface of Lake Superior, so
you wouldn't be able to get underneath the horizon. And a flat lake surface
wouldn't produce much in the way of ground clutter to hide in. More to the
point, the AWACS was specically designed to look for low targets, and it's
radar is unlikely to get confused easily.

If I was reading about a 172 that was able to sneak past an AWACS, I don't
think I really could suspend my disbelief. Maybe if the book was written by
someone who knew the AWACS systems really well, but not otherwise.

The one caveat to this might be if the AWACS was specifically looking for
only high-speed targets, and the 172 was flying very, very, slowly. I don't
know anything about the AWACS radar specifically, but most systems can be
set to ignore radar tracks that are beneath a certain speed. This way, the
system operators aren't presented with a bunch of returns coming off of cars
on an interstate highway or watercraft on the lake. If the AWACS was on
station looking for something fast, and the 172 was in slow flight, then
maybe (and this is a big maybe) the radar return from the 172 -- while the
computer would see it and recognize it for what it was -- would never show
up on the scopes because the computer would judge it to be too slow to be of
any concern. Tom Clancy used this trick in his book "Debt of Honor". A
helicopter flys directly over a train, matching it's speed. The airborne
radar detects it, but the radar crew adjusts the system filters to ignore
it, since they are sure it is a harmless train.

That is somewhat believable for a helicopter (which can fly as slow as it
wants) over land, and especially over a land with very fast trains like
Japan. But a 172 over Lake Superior wouldn't have many things it could
pretend to be. It could never go slow enough to pretend it was a freighter
or other commercial vessel on the lake. It probably could go slower than a
speedboat, but I personally wouldn't want to be on that boat running at 50
knots across the shipping channels of a choppy Lake Superior.

Good luck with your novel!

[Peter R.]

BTIZ wrote:

> BTW, I'd hate to be the one flying a C172 over the lake at 200ft AGL, get
> out away from either shore... loose the horizon and depth perception.. and
> splash..

That's what a dual axis Bendix/King KAP 140 prevents... ;-)

--
Peter










----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

[BTIZ]

"Peter R." > wrote in message
...
> BTIZ wrote:
>
> > BTW, I'd hate to be the one flying a C172 over the lake at 200ft AGL,
get
> > out away from either shore... loose the horizon and depth perception..
and
> > splash..
>
> That's what a dual axis Bendix/King KAP 140 prevents... ;-)
>
> --
> Peter
>
flying that distance.. over water.. will result in pressure changes.. CAP140
flies on pressure?? if the pressure over distance is moving the wrong way...
splash..

BT

[Ron Natalie]

"tony roberts" > wrote in message news:nospam-BF5DB8.18453227122003@shawnews...
> > Can a 172 flying at 200 feet above water across Lake Superior get through
> > undetected by radar or AWACS? Are there holes in radar coverage?
>
> You would have a good chance of sneaking through radar but if an AWAC
> were monitoring the area then you don't have a chance. When I lived in
> the middle east they could detect pickup trucks smuggling Scotch across
> the border from Yemen.
> --

Agreed... Airborne radars can see to the ground. We've got them patrolling
the DC area and they can see stuff that ATC doesn't have a clue about.

[Roger Halstead]

On Sat, 27 Dec 2003 19:44:18 -0600, "Henry Kisor"
> wrote:

>All:
>
>Can a 172 flying at 200 feet above water across Lake Superior get through
>undetected by radar or AWACS? Are there holes in radar coverage?

Under normal circumstances, that would be an unequivocal yes. However
these are not normal times. The northern borders are pretty heavily
patrolled and like coming across the Gulf it's unlikely the plane
would make it undetected.

Also, IF detected coming across Lake Superior at 200 feet? That is
more than a little suspicious.

I'd bet dollars to donuts the plane would be greeted at the US side
with an escort. That is of course if they were not coming ashore near
a sensitive area. Then they'd pick up an escort and be "urged" to
change course and come ashore where the military preferred.

Fail to change course and ... well, Lake Superior is large and they
don't have to worry about *stuff* falling on civilians.

>
>I ask cuz I'm a mystery novelist at work on a new whodunit and wonder what
>goes on when a small plane flies from Canada to the United States over a
>Great Lake. I presume the small plane has to land at an official port of
>entry so Customs can go over it looking for bad stuff.
>
>Also, when a plane crosses the border does it have to be in radio contact
>with ATC? (Being deaf, I'm a NORDO pilot so don't know anything about that
>stuff.)

Are you a Pilot?
Without going into detail, NOTAMS and FSS will brief a pilot on what
is required and what must be done.

I do not think it wise to give out that particular information on a
news group, even if it is widely available to all pilots.

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member & Great Lakes area pilot)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair?)
www.rogerhalstead.com

>
>Thanks to all.
>
>Henry
>

[db]

I have been intercepted (in the middle of the country, not at the edges) at
least twice. This happened more than 10 years ago.

Once was by a pair of F15's that I spotted climbing toward me. They got
to my altitude, turned parallel in the opposite direction, did a 180 turn
then a roll as they came by. I was flying a quite small plane and I would
bet money that this was a radar intercept.

The other one I never saw, but was told about it by the crew of the
intercepting aircraft. They just followed me around a bit testing out their
stuff.

There is no doubt in my mind that any airplane at any altitude can be picked
up by either ground or airborne radar if the operators want to. The trick is
to decide which target you want to watch.



In article >, "Ron Natalie"
> wrote:
>
>"tony roberts" > wrote in message
> news:nospam-BF5DB8.18453227122003@shawnews...
>> > Can a 172 flying at 200 feet above water across Lake Superior get through
>> > undetected by radar or AWACS? Are there holes in radar coverage?
>>
>> You would have a good chance of sneaking through radar but if an AWAC
>> were monitoring the area then you don't have a chance. When I lived in
>> the middle east they could detect pickup trucks smuggling Scotch across
>> the border from Yemen.
>> --
>
>Agreed... Airborne radars can see to the ground. We've got them patrolling
>the DC area and they can see stuff that ATC doesn't have a clue about.
>

[Henry Kisor]

I just KNEW somebody would call me "Osama." But thanks to everyone who
answered my message. The long and short of the answers I have received is
"Maybe, but not likely." I'll have my evasive pilot (not a terrorist but a
good guy on a mercy mission of sorts) file a flight plan, cross the lake at
a reasonable altitude, have "engine trouble" and land well short of his
posted point of arrival to offload his cargo before the sheriff arrives.

Now how could I fix the engine to seem to have had engine trouble? Loosen a
couple of magneto leads? Anyone?

Henry


"Nomen Nescio" ]> wrote in message
...
> From: "Henry Kisor" >
>
> >Can a 172 flying at 200 feet above water across Lake Superior get through
> >undetected by radar or AWACS? Are there holes in radar coverage?
>
> Nice try, Osama!
>
>
>
>
>

[Dave Stadt]

"Henry Kisor" > wrote in message
...
> I just KNEW somebody would call me "Osama." But thanks to everyone who
> answered my message. The long and short of the answers I have received is
> "Maybe, but not likely." I'll have my evasive pilot (not a terrorist but a
> good guy on a mercy mission of sorts) file a flight plan, cross the lake
at
> a reasonable altitude, have "engine trouble" and land well short of his
> posted point of arrival to offload his cargo before the sheriff arrives.
>
> Now how could I fix the engine to seem to have had engine trouble? Loosen
a
> couple of magneto leads? Anyone?
>
> Henry

Fuel or oil leak?



> "Nomen Nescio" ]> wrote in
message
> ...
> > From: "Henry Kisor" >
> >
> > >Can a 172 flying at 200 feet above water across Lake Superior get
through
> > >undetected by radar or AWACS? Are there holes in radar coverage?
> >
> > Nice try, Osama!

[Peter Duniho]

"Dave Stadt" > wrote in message
y.com...
> > Now how could I fix the engine to seem to have had engine trouble?
Loosen
> > a couple of magneto leads? Anyone?
>
> Fuel or oil leak?

IMHO, carb ice would be the best option. It can create significant engine
trouble, and yet is often completely undetectable once the engine has been
shut down and the ice has melted. Claim you have carb icing, and it would
be VERY difficult for anyone to come along later and prove it wasn't.

Leaks would be one of the worst choices IMHO, since the flow pattern of a
leak would most likely be different while in flight versus while on ground.
Unless the pilot in this story actually created a leak prior to takeoff, a
good investigator could probably figure out that there was no in-flight
leak.

Loosening electrical connections might be reasonable, but the pilot would
have to be careful when loosening to not mar the surface of the connector(s)
otherwise an investigator might notice tool marks and determine that the
connector was loosened intentionally, rather than working its way out
through vibration. Of course, one would have to loosen a connector that
isn't required to be safety-wired, since otherwise the additional question
of why it wasn't safety-wired comes up.

I'd go with the carb ice. Obviously, the pilot would have to make sure he
wasn't flying a fuel-injected airplane. :)

Pete

[Dave]

If you are a writer, you can make up your own truth, and your own
justification. Tom Clancy does it all the time... doesnt matter what the
real truth is (although I suspect Clancy is close to the real thing most
of the time)..

And I would venture to say.. if there are holes, nobody is going to tell
you about them.

You COULD always try to "research" it on your own and simply try. Of
course, 200 ft over a huge lake in the middle of winter with a single
engine plane isnt necessarily dangerous, but it does entail some risk
taking.

Dave

Henry Kisor wrote:
> All:
>
> Can a 172 flying at 200 feet above water across Lake Superior get through
> undetected by radar or AWACS? Are there holes in radar coverage?
>
> I ask cuz I'm a mystery novelist at work on a new whodunit and wonder what
> goes on when a small plane flies from Canada to the United States over a
> Great Lake. I presume the small plane has to land at an official port of
> entry so Customs can go over it looking for bad stuff.
>
> Also, when a plane crosses the border does it have to be in radio contact
> with ATC? (Being deaf, I'm a NORDO pilot so don't know anything about that
> stuff.)
>
> Thanks to all.
>
> Henry
>
>

[Dave]

Yup... that wonderful box will maintain you at whatever pressure
altitude you set it at..

High to Low.. Look Out Below!..

Dave

BTIZ wrote:

> "Peter R." > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>BTIZ wrote:
>>
>>
>>>BTW, I'd hate to be the one flying a C172 over the lake at 200ft AGL,
>
> get
>
>>>out away from either shore... loose the horizon and depth perception..
>
> and
>
>>>splash..
>>
>>That's what a dual axis Bendix/King KAP 140 prevents... ;-)
>>
>>--
>>Peter
>>
>
> flying that distance.. over water.. will result in pressure changes.. CAP140
> flies on pressure?? if the pressure over distance is moving the wrong way...
> splash..
>
> BT
>
>

[Martin Hotze]

On Sun, 28 Dec 2003 19:00:03 +0100 (CET), Nomen Nescio wrote:

>>Can a 172 flying at 200 feet above water across Lake Superior get through
>>undetected by radar or AWACS? Are there holes in radar coverage?
>
>Nice try, Osama!


.... posted by an anonymous idiot using a remailer service. coward.

#m
--
Position Statement on the Use of RFID on Consumer Products
http://www.privacyrights.org/ar/RFIDposition.htm

[Martin Hotze]

On Sun, 28 Dec 2003 11:35:41 -0700, Peter Duniho wrote:

>I'd go with the carb ice. Obviously, the pilot would have to make sure he
>wasn't flying a fuel-injected airplane. :)


good idea. and set the weather accordingly.

#m

--
Position Statement on the Use of RFID on Consumer Products
http://www.privacyrights.org/ar/RFIDposition.htm

[Henry Kisor]

A writer CAN take liberties with the facts, but not to the point of a reader
throwing the book in the corner and saying, "Bull****!" Mystery readers in
particular are extremely picky about accuracy. One who read my most recent
whodunit said early on I misspelled a Finnish proper name (Antala instead of
Anttila -- Antala is a **Slovak** name) and from then on she couldn't trust
what I'd written.

And that's why I'm asking you guys to help me avoid stupid aviation
mistakes, even though (maybe BECAUSE) I am a pilot.


"Dave" > wrote in message
nk.net...
> If you are a writer, you can make up your own truth, and your own
> justification. Tom Clancy does it all the time... doesnt matter what the
> real truth is (although I suspect Clancy is close to the real thing most
> of the time)..
>

[EDR]

In article t>, Dave
> wrote:

> You COULD always try to "research" it on your own and simply try. Of
> course, 200 ft over a huge lake in the middle of winter with a single
> engine plane isnt necessarily dangerous, but it does entail some risk
> taking.

Of course, it is getting to be that time of year when you could just
drive a car across it and not worry about anything but the ice fishing
shacks.

[Dennis O'Connor]

The planes I have observed smuggling drugs from Cananda into the USA fly
about 20 feet off the water, not 200 feet, come ashore through a cut in the
trees, and skim the tree tops, dipping down to a few feet off the ground
when crossing open fields.....
And, yes there is a good chance you can scoot across the Lake down low
without ATC seeing you, even at 200 feet... The last time I was shore
running, I lost all transponder activity just North of Tawas, Michigan...
There was a small area around the Mackinac Bridge/Drummond Island where the
transponder lit up, but within 20 miles north of the bridge it was gone
again...There was not a single transponder reply the entire route along the
south shore of Superior, of course I was only 50 feet off the water - and
NO, I was not running drugs, just sight seeing...

Denny
"Henry Kisor" > wrote in message
news:tfOdnakYwLTtqHOiRVn-

[Peter R.]

BTIZ wrote:

> flying that distance.. over water.. will result in pressure changes.. CAP140
> flies on pressure?? if the pressure over distance is moving the wrong way...
> splash..

That would take a mighty inattentive pilot to let 200 feet go that close
to the surface without noticing...

"Gee, those white caps are looking much larger than 10 minutes ago...
must be an optical illusion."

** SPLASH **

--
Peter










----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

[Teacherjh]

I find it interesting the difference between this thread ("I need something to
go wrong with an airplane"... for a book) and a previous thread ("I need
something to go wrong with an airplane"... for a movie)

Jose

--
(for Email, make the obvious changes in my address)

[Verbs Under My Gel]

Martin Hotze > wrote in message >...
> ... posted by an anonymous idiot using a remailer service. coward.
>
> #m

Are you referring to "Nomen Nescio" or "Henry Kisor"?

[Martin Hotze]

On Sun, 28 Dec 2003 21:40:04 +0100 (CET), Nomen Nescio wrote:

>>I just KNEW somebody would call me "Osama."
>
>No offense intended, Henry. Just an attempt at a little humor.

what humor?

>>>Can a 172 flying at 200 feet above water across Lake Superior get through
>>>undetected by radar or AWACS? Are there holes in radar coverage?
>
>There are, indeed, holes. If the 172 was at 25 ft, it would be more reasonable. Smugglers
>do it all the time.

or using a composite plane would maybe also help ...

#m

--
harsh regulations in North Korea (read below link after reading the story):
http://www.laweekly.com/ink/04/04/open-mikulan.php
oooops ... sorry ... it happened in the USA, ya know: the land of the free.

[Martin Hotze]

On Sun, 28 Dec 2003 22:20:02 +0100 (CET), Nomen Nescio wrote:

>>... posted by an anonymous idiot using a remailer service. coward.
>
>Replied to by a humorless
^^^^^^^^^
well, this might be true

> piece of spam bait
^^^^^^^^^?

hu? can you explain?
(and yes, I read http://www.houghi.org/jargon/spam-bait.php )

> who hasn't read my explanation for why I post
>through a remailer.


there are almost no good reasons for posting anonymous on r.a.p.
there are reasons to post anonymous on other groups, though. (besides, your
statement would mean keeping this info fresh on a regular basis)

>Relax, take a valium,

this would need a prescription ...

> and get a less angry life, Marty!

oh, everything is ok.

#m

--
harsh regulations in North Korea (read below link after reading the story):
http://www.laweekly.com/ink/04/04/open-mikulan.php
oooops ... sorry ... it happened in the USA, ya know: the land of the free.

[Henry Kisor]

Am I wrong that one needs to file a flight plan to enter the US from Canada
these post-9/11 days?

The US/Canada border isn't an ADIZ, though, so it's not required to be in
touch with ATC while crossing the border, is it?


"Nomen Nescio" ]> wrote in message
...
> From: "Henry Kisor" >
>
> >The long and short of the answers I have received is
> >"Maybe, but not likely." I'll have my evasive pilot (not a terrorist but
a
> >good guy on a mercy mission of sorts) file a flight plan, cross the lake
at
> >a reasonable altitude, have "engine trouble" and land well short of his
> >posted point of arrival to offload his cargo before the sheriff arrives.
>
> Your pilot could also file an inaccurate flight plan, or no flight plan,
land at an uncontrolled
> but active airfield, dump his cargo, and immediately takeoff and blend in
with other traffic
> to disappear and go flying off into the sunset. A quick change of N
numbers wouldn't hurt,
> either.
>
> Another possibility would be to have a couple of pilot/accomplices on this
side of the pond.
> They all converge, shuffle directions, and fly off with ATC unsure as to
who is who.
>
> Your pilot might also use a modified car radar detector to help him
"thread the needle" of
> radar coverage.(It's been done).
>
> The point is that I don't think you absolutely MUST abandon the "covert
flight" premise for
> the "engine trouble" premise to keep it realistic.
>
> Good luck
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

[Jeff Franks]

Hrmmmmm. could your pilot become a submariner?

;)


"Henry Kisor" > wrote in message
...
> I just KNEW somebody would call me "Osama." But thanks to everyone who
> answered my message. The long and short of the answers I have received is
> "Maybe, but not likely." I'll have my evasive pilot (not a terrorist but a
> good guy on a mercy mission of sorts) file a flight plan, cross the lake
at
> a reasonable altitude, have "engine trouble" and land well short of his
> posted point of arrival to offload his cargo before the sheriff arrives.
>
> Now how could I fix the engine to seem to have had engine trouble? Loosen
a
> couple of magneto leads? Anyone?
>
> Henry
>
>
> "Nomen Nescio" ]> wrote in
message
> ...
> > From: "Henry Kisor" >
> >
> > >Can a 172 flying at 200 feet above water across Lake Superior get
through
> > >undetected by radar or AWACS? Are there holes in radar coverage?
> >
> > Nice try, Osama!
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>

[Peter Duniho]

"Martin Hotze" > wrote in message
...
> good idea. and set the weather accordingly.

Fortunately, carb ice can theoretically occur in a wide range of weather
conditions. Furthermore, it's hard for someone to claim that there weren't
localized areas where carb ice could occur, in spite of generally forecast
conditions that might suggest otherwise.

IMHO, rather than making the weather just coincidentally be especially
conducive to carb icing, it makes more sense to just let the weather be
whatever it would otherwise be for the story, and have the pilot knowingly
make a false claim about having carb ice. Remember, the goal here is not
for something to actually go wrong with the airplane. Just for the pilot to
have a plausible-but-false story of engine trouble.

Pete

[Peter Duniho]

"Teacherjh" > wrote in message
...
> I find it interesting the difference between this thread ("I need
something to
> go wrong with an airplane"... for a book) and a previous thread ("I need
> something to go wrong with an airplane"... for a movie)

You have misread the request. He doesn't need for something to *actually*
go wrong with the airplane. He needs for the pilot to have a plausible
excuse while *pretending* something went wrong with the airplane.

The difference being, of course, that the original poster of the previous
thread had already decided a priori to have an airplane fail dramatically,
while the original poster of this thread intends (apparently) for the
airplane to operate in no unusual manner.

Pete

[Peter Duniho]

"Nomen Nescio" ]> wrote in message
...
> I do take offense that I'm immediatly called a coward because I use a
remailer.

You take offense at the apparent truth?

Your reasons given so far for posting anonymously don't hold any water. You
can easily avoid spam while still providing your real identity, and while
posting from a non-anonymous source. It's not like the spammers are
checking Usenet posts for your name, and then cross-referencing that with a
list of people's email addresses. If they have the email address, they're
using it. They don't need to bother with the cross-reference step, and you
don't need to provide a real (or at least, easily extracted) email address
with your Usenet posts.

Furthermore, posting from a source that makes your posts indistinguishable
from any other random person using the same source is just silly. When we
kill-file you, you'll have screwed the pooch for all the other people using
the same anonymizer.

Anonymizers are dumb, and people who post using them have absolutely no
credibility. They certainly ARE the refuge of cowards. If you take offense
at that interpretation, then you need to rethink your cowardly actions
rather than asking people to not call you a coward.

Pete

[Dylan Smith]

In article >, Henry Kisor wrote:
> All:
>
> Can a 172 flying at 200 feet above water across Lake Superior get through
> undetected by radar or AWACS? Are there holes in radar coverage?

It depends.

As a point of data, our local airport's radar (Ronaldsway, EGNS) can
see shipping in the Irish Sea quite clearly. There are especially big
primary returns on the larger vessels like the Sea Cat (a large
vehicle-carrying catamaran). However, the local geography (a mountain)
means that to the north of the island, their radar can't see anything
below about 3000' AGL (and indeed you have no radio contact either
in that area).

IIRC, that part of North America is fairly flat so radar will be able to
see very low. As for non-metallic aircraft, when I was flying in Houston
under IFR once, I was advised of a slow moving primary target, which
turned out to be a flock of geese.

--
Dylan Smith, Castletown, Isle of Man
Flying: http://www.dylansmith.net
Frontier Elite Universe: http://www.alioth.net
"Maintain thine airspeed, lest the ground come up and smite thee"

[Ron Natalie]

"Jeff Franks" > wrote in message ...
> Hrmmmmm. could your pilot become a submariner?
>
>
Can someone explain to me why you would need to "sneak across" the Lake Superior
anyhow? You could fly across the thing at 12,000 feet squawking 7700 and probably
not be excessively interfered with.

[Gig Giacona]

"db" > wrote in message
ink.net...
>
> I have been intercepted (in the middle of the country, not at the edges)
at
> least twice. This happened more than 10 years ago.
>
> Once was by a pair of F15's that I spotted climbing toward me. They got
> to my altitude, turned parallel in the opposite direction, did a 180 turn
> then a roll as they came by. I was flying a quite small plane and I would
> bet money that this was a radar intercept.
>

They would have Sh!t themselves if you had performed a split S.

[G.R. Patterson III]

Nomen Nescio wrote:
>
> A quick change of N numbers wouldn't hurt, either.

Back around 1970, there was a smuggler who had two aircraft, one legit and the
other stolen. He had the stolen one painted to match the legitimate one. He used
to make drug runs in the stolen one while keeping the legit plane conspicuously
and legally busy several States away.

Worked just fine until the landing gear collapsed at TYS on a smuggling run one
day.

George Patterson
Great discoveries are not announced with "Eureka!". What's usually said is
"Hummmmm... That's interesting...."

[Andrew Gideon]

Nomen Nescio wrote:

> Gee, you show an address as >
> is that your real e-mail or are you too cowardly to post your real
> address. If you're so brave, why don't you post your home address, too.

Um...are you kidding? You really don't see the real address in there? Is
this some variation of "color blind", perhaps?

- Andrew

[Charles Talleyrand]

"Nomen Nescio" ]> wrote in message ...
> From: "Henry Kisor" >
>
> >The long and short of the answers I have received is
> >"Maybe, but not likely." I'll have my evasive pilot (not a terrorist but a
> >good guy on a mercy mission of sorts) file a flight plan, cross the lake at
> >a reasonable altitude, have "engine trouble" and land well short of his
> >posted point of arrival to offload his cargo before the sheriff arrives.
>
> Your pilot could also file an inaccurate flight plan, or no flight plan, land at an uncontrolled
> but active airfield, dump his cargo, and immediately takeoff and blend in with other traffic
> to disappear and go flying off into the sunset. A quick change of N numbers wouldn't hurt,
> either.

I fly in the Upper Peninsula of Michigan. I fly over Lake Superior all the time.

There are a zillion airports within 40 miles of the lakeshore. Lots of them have no personel
at all at any time (just grass strips). There are (as far as I know) only two control towers in the
whole area (Marquette MI and Duluth, MN). There's just not much FAA up here.

There is a radar at Sawyer (Marquette) but it does not have line-of-sight to the
lake shore, and the radar doesn't even show in the airport control tower. It
reports to Minneapolis center.

I assume there is a radar at Duluth.

I believe those are the only two radars on the Lake Superior shore.

Lake Superior is pretty narrow near Sault St. Marie, and there are no control towers
(and I think no radars) anywhere near there.

BTW, every book should have a part set in Mackinaw Island. It's just a neat place,
so work that into the story. It has neither control tower nor radar, but does have a
park service official.

[EDR]

In article >, Charles Talleyrand
> wrote:

> I believe those are the only two radars on the Lake Superior shore.
> BTW, every book should have a part set in Mackinaw Island. It's just a neat
> place,so work that into the story.
> It has neither control tower nor radar, but does have a park service official.

And, as in the Caribbean... take lots of cash!

[Kevin McCue]

AWACS frequently operates with a doppler filter set to 60 or so.
Anything slower is thrown out by the computer. Don't have to watch all the
cars that way.

--
Kevin McCue
KRYN
'47 Luscombe 8E
Rans S-17 (for sale)




-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----

[Andrew Gideon]

Kevin McCue wrote:

> AWACS frequently operates with a doppler filter set to 60 or so.
> Anything slower is thrown out by the computer. Don't have to watch all the
> cars that way.

Oh, boy. Slow-flighting my way at 20'...*that* would be interesting.

- Andrew

[Peter Duniho]

"Nomen Nescio" ]> wrote in message
...
> You seem to be getting a little obsessed with me, Pete. Don't you have
anything better to
> do.

Huh? I've barely bothered to even read your posts, never mind respond to
them. Hardly an obsession.

> Gee, you show an address as >
> is that your real e-mail or are you too cowardly to post your real
address. If you're so brave, why
> don't you post your home address, too.

My home address is 12900 NE 78th Place, Kirkland, WA. Feel free to send
whatever junk mail to that address you like. We have recycling. As for the
email address, anyone with a half-ounce of intelligence can easily convert
the address you've quoted to a genuine address usable for sending me email.

As I said, it is trivial to obscure personal information enough to avoid
spammers, without hiding behind an anonymous reposter.

> Get on with your life, Pete. I ain't going away.

Never thought you would. So what?

> This will be my last response to you on this subject, so think whatever
you want. You've made
> it abundantly clear in a half dozen other posts that you don't like
remailers or me.

I challenge you to quote 6 posts in which I have "made it abundantly clear"
that I don't like remailers, or that I don't like you. As usual, your
anonymity appears to be giving you the courage to post whatever lies you
feel like.

Pete

[Matthew P. Cummings]

On Sun, 28 Dec 2003 18:33:32 -0600, Henry Kisor wrote:

> Am I wrong that one needs to file a flight plan to enter the US from Canada
> these post-9/11 days?

Henry, your pilot is doing some not so legal things anyhow, why would he
obey the law if he's breaking the law? What's one more little broken law
between friends?

If you want a real provable engine problem, have them obtain a lead fouled
spark plug, land and replace the good one with the bad one. Instant
engine problem and since plugs are changed all the time anyhow, it's not
going to be unusual to find the tool marks on it, he could even make a log
entry stating he cleaned the plugs to explain the markings...

[Rob]

On Sun, 28 Dec 2003 12:11:05 -0600, "Henry Kisor"
> wrote:

>I just KNEW somebody would call me "Osama." But thanks to everyone who
>answered my message. The long and short of the answers I have received is
>"Maybe, but not likely." I'll have my evasive pilot (not a terrorist but a
>good guy on a mercy mission of sorts) file a flight plan, cross the lake at
>a reasonable altitude, have "engine trouble" and land well short of his
>posted point of arrival to offload his cargo before the sheriff arrives.
>
>Now how could I fix the engine to seem to have had engine trouble? Loosen a
>couple of magneto leads? Anyone?
>
>Henry

Hi Henry,

Judging from the number of reports I hear of mysterious engine
problems that come and go, just claiming that the engine acted up so
you made a precautionary landing might be believable :-/

Or... could you claim the pilot inadvertently ran run one tank empty
and didn't discover the problem until after the dead stick landing?

Rob

[Rob]

On Mon, 29 Dec 2003 01:20:05 +0100 (CET), Nomen Nescio
]> wrote:

>Your pilot could also file an inaccurate flight plan, or no flight plan,...

Aren't flight plans mandatory for cross-border flights? If so I think
a radar track that didn't correspond with a known flight would
certainly draw attention.

Rob

[EDR]

In article >, Rob
> wrote:

> Aren't flight plans mandatory for cross-border flights? If so I think
> a radar track that didn't correspond with a known flight would
> certainly draw attention.

Not necessarily.
I can fly from Sandusky Ohio across Lake Erie overflying Ontario to
Port Huron Michigan. I don't have to talk to anyone at any time in the
flight nor do I have to file a flight plan. NORDO, uncontrolled airport
to uncontrolled airport.

[My name]

"Henry Kisor" > wrote in
:

>
>

Given the information, I can say that you would NOT be able to avoid a
AWACS track/intercept at 200'.

Without giving out details, I spent 10 years flying around in an aircraft
with a "10-ton skunk-flavored M & M" on top in areas of the world where
they look out for these types of things. And that was over a decade ago,
and I am sure that the radar has improved.

Given the increased security post 9-11, I happen to know that for at least
a year(it may still be on-going), there was 24x7 100% coverage of N.
America.

Also, the Coast Guard and Navy ( there is a base in Michigan) routinely fly
in the Bg Bear and Snoopy MOA's. P-3 Orions from time to time.

Good Luck. I hope that you let us know the title of the book!
Larry

[Big John]

Henry

So easy.

Put a gallon of water in one tank and not use that tank until you have
landed. Switch to it and let engine suck up the water and quit.

On your radar question.

At 200 feet you would have to be very close to any land based radar to
be seen. On the AWACS, I doubt if they have 7/24 AWACS over the Lakes.
Too many hot spots around the world and limited resources.

There could be some Aerostats (sp) (Tethered balloons with Radar) up
there like they have along the southern border that would paint? Just
don't know about that.

Maybe someone up there is knowledgable about that system on Norther
Border???

If you are working on the Meigs Field fiasco, have at it <G>.

Big John



On Sun, 28 Dec 2003 12:11:05 -0600, "Henry Kisor"
> wrote:

>I just KNEW somebody would call me "Osama." But thanks to everyone who
>answered my message. The long and short of the answers I have received is
>"Maybe, but not likely." I'll have my evasive pilot (not a terrorist but a
>good guy on a mercy mission of sorts) file a flight plan, cross the lake at
>a reasonable altitude, have "engine trouble" and land well short of his
>posted point of arrival to offload his cargo before the sheriff arrives.
>
>Now how could I fix the engine to seem to have had engine trouble? Loosen a
>couple of magneto leads? Anyone?
>
>Henry
>
>
>"Nomen Nescio" ]> wrote in message
...
>> From: "Henry Kisor" >
>>
>> >Can a 172 flying at 200 feet above water across Lake Superior get through
>> >undetected by radar or AWACS? Are there holes in radar coverage?
>>
>> Nice try, Osama!
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>