Aviation Pioneers Return to Chicago Lakefront

[[email protected]]

Chicago Sun Times Jul 21, 2005

"A plane splashed down on Lake Michigan early Wednesday morning,
prompting a passerby to call 911 and touching off an emergency rescue
operation. But before rescuers responded, the plane took off.

The sea plane touched down around 8:30 a.m.
"It landed and took off before we got there," said Larry Langford, a
spokesman for the Chicago Fire Department.
The plane was spotted in the lake a few blocks south of North Avenue,
but it was not clear from the caller how far from shore the plane was.

The Federal Aviation Administration is investigating to make sure the
pilot -- who is unknown -- followed all safety precautions and
regulations. But because the airspace there is uncontrolled, the
landing was not illegal, said Elizabeth Cory, FAA spokeswoman.

Steve Whitney, president of Friends of Meigs Field and a sea plane
pilot, said lake landings are rare because the water is too choppy.
When Meigs was open, the pilot would have contacted air traffic
controllers there, he said.
"Generally, Lake Michigan is kind of rough for sea plane operations,"
he said. "But if it is smooth, it is perfectly suitable."

[BTIZ]

I love that line... "When Meigs was open, the pilot would have contacted air
traffic controllers there"

But now that Meigs is closed.. the city will never know... hehe
Thank you Mayor Daly

BT

> wrote in message
oups.com...
> Chicago Sun Times Jul 21, 2005
>
> "A plane splashed down on Lake Michigan early Wednesday morning,
> prompting a passerby to call 911 and touching off an emergency rescue
> operation. But before rescuers responded, the plane took off.
>
> The sea plane touched down around 8:30 a.m.
> "It landed and took off before we got there," said Larry Langford, a
> spokesman for the Chicago Fire Department.
> The plane was spotted in the lake a few blocks south of North Avenue,
> but it was not clear from the caller how far from shore the plane was.
>
> The Federal Aviation Administration is investigating to make sure the
> pilot -- who is unknown -- followed all safety precautions and
> regulations. But because the airspace there is uncontrolled, the
> landing was not illegal, said Elizabeth Cory, FAA spokeswoman.
>
> Steve Whitney, president of Friends of Meigs Field and a sea plane
> pilot, said lake landings are rare because the water is too choppy.
> When Meigs was open, the pilot would have contacted air traffic
> controllers there, he said.
> "Generally, Lake Michigan is kind of rough for sea plane operations,"
> he said. "But if it is smooth, it is perfectly suitable."
>

[Nathan Young]

On Thu, 12 Jan 2006 16:46:33 -0800, "BTIZ" >
wrote:

>I love that line... "When Meigs was open, the pilot would have contacted air
>traffic controllers there"
>
>But now that Meigs is closed.. the city will never know... hehe
>Thank you Mayor Daly

It is funny that Meigs was closed partially under the guise of
improving security, but by eliminating Meigs - you can now transit
down the lakeshore without talking to anyone.

[Skylune]

>>by Nathan Young > Jan 13, 2006 at 04:34 PM


On Thu, 12 Jan 2006 16:46:33 -0800, "BTIZ" >
wrote:

>I love that line... "When Meigs was open, the pilot would have contacted
air
>traffic controllers there"
>
>But now that Meigs is closed.. the city will never know... hehe
>Thank you Mayor Daly

It is funny that Meigs was closed partially under the guise of
improving security, but by eliminating Meigs - you can now transit
down the lakeshore without talking to anyone.<<

This is shocking. Daley should immediately petition DHS to create an ADIZ
to cover the city and surrounding airspace.

[Steve Foley]

I'm pretty sure he already has.

"Skylune" > wrote in message
lkaboutaviation.com...


> This is shocking. Daley should immediately petition DHS to create an ADIZ
> to cover the city and surrounding airspace.

[Michael]

> This is shocking. Daley should immediately petition DHS to create an ADIZ
> to cover the city and surrounding airspace.

He did. Fortunately, cooler heads prevailed and his petition was
denied.

Micahel

[.Blueskies.]

"Michael" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>> This is shocking. Daley should immediately petition DHS to create an ADIZ
>> to cover the city and surrounding airspace.
>
> He did. Fortunately, cooler heads prevailed and his petition was
> denied.
>
> Micahel
>


....for now!

[Doug]

I wonder who has jurisdiction over the use of the surface of the water
on Lake Michigan in that area. Wisconson, Illinois, Michigan, Chicago
or the Federal governement or ....? Surely NOT the Chicago police
department. I don't know of any laws prohibiting landing of a Seaplane
on Lake Michigan, but there may be some that I don't know of. Also it
depends on WHERE on Lake Michigan. The harbors are one jurisdiction and
the Lake is another and just where you are on the lake matters also. I
am certain that on some parts of Lake Michigan it is perfectly legal to
land a Seaplane. Not sure about the part in question. But the Chicago
Fire Department???? Where do THEY get jurisdiction?

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Doug" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> I wonder who has jurisdiction over the use of the surface of the water
> on Lake Michigan in that area. Wisconson, Illinois, Michigan, Chicago
> or the Federal governement or ....? Surely NOT the Chicago police
> department. I don't know of any laws prohibiting landing of a Seaplane
> on Lake Michigan, but there may be some that I don't know of. Also it
> depends on WHERE on Lake Michigan. The harbors are one jurisdiction and
> the Lake is another and just where you are on the lake matters also. I
> am certain that on some parts of Lake Michigan it is perfectly legal to
> land a Seaplane. Not sure about the part in question. But the Chicago
> Fire Department???? Where do THEY get jurisdiction?
>

Jurisdiction? It was a rescue operation, a plane was reported down in the
lake.

[George Patterson]

Doug wrote:
> I wonder who has jurisdiction over the use of the surface of the water
> on Lake Michigan in that area. Wisconson, Illinois, Michigan, Chicago
> or the Federal governement or ....? Surely NOT the Chicago police
> department.

The Federal government has jurisdiction over all navigable waterways.

George Patterson
Coffee is only a way of stealing time that should by rights belong to
your slightly older self.

[mr]

"George Patterson" > wrote in message
news:6Yhyf.124$pq5.55@trndny02...
> Doug wrote:
>> I wonder who has jurisdiction over the use of the surface of the water
>> on Lake Michigan in that area. Wisconson, Illinois, Michigan, Chicago
>> or the Federal governement or ....? Surely NOT the Chicago police
>> department.
>
> The Federal government has jurisdiction over all navigable waterways.

The Chicago Police has a marine unit also. I believe they patrol up to 3
miles out. This web site is a bit dated but talks about the unit.
<http://www.chicagoboaters.com/PeopleProfiles/CPMU.htm>

[sfb]

While local law enforcement may patrol along their shores, the Feds
retain jurisdiction over all navigable waterways.

"mr" > wrote in message
...
>
> "George Patterson" > wrote in message
> news:6Yhyf.124$pq5.55@trndny02...
>> Doug wrote:
>>> I wonder who has jurisdiction over the use of the surface of the
>>> water
>>> on Lake Michigan in that area. Wisconson, Illinois, Michigan,
>>> Chicago
>>> or the Federal governement or ....? Surely NOT the Chicago police
>>> department.
>>
>> The Federal government has jurisdiction over all navigable waterways.
>
> The Chicago Police has a marine unit also. I believe they patrol up to
> 3 miles out. This web site is a bit dated but talks about the unit.
> <http://www.chicagoboaters.com/PeopleProfiles/CPMU.htm>
>

[Doug]

As someone who has owned a Seaplane for several years and flown it all
over USA, Canada and Alaska, I can tell you it is not as simple as
"Feds retain juridiction over all navigable waterways". What is
navigable? What is a vessel? There are many, many, many waterways
where boating and recreation are under state, county, city or some
other entity's control other than the "Feds". And they are waterways
being navigated, so in some sense, they are navigable.

Now Lake Michigan being a large, obviously commercially navigable
waterway, I am sure the Coast Guard has juridiction over much of it.
But it also lies in numerous states and there are numerous harbor
authorities that come into play, cities, counties, parks, who knows
what all?

[[email protected]]

mr wrote:
> "George Patterson" > wrote in message
> news:6Yhyf.124$pq5.55@trndny02...
> > Doug wrote:
> >> I wonder who has jurisdiction over the use of the surface of the water
> >> on Lake Michigan in that area. Wisconson, Illinois, Michigan, Chicago
> >> or the Federal governement or ....? Surely NOT the Chicago police
> >> department.
> >
> > The Federal government has jurisdiction over all navigable waterways.
>
> The Chicago Police has a marine unit also. I believe they patrol up to 3
> miles out. This web site is a bit dated but talks about the unit.
> <http://www.chicagoboaters.com/PeopleProfiles/CPMU.htm>

The CFD helo would also respond, as would their scuba team. The scuba
team "practices" between North Ave. and Oak St. in the summer, but are
really checking out the babes by the chess pavillion.

The Park District owns the harbors in the city, with CPD MU and
security contractors patrolling.

A "mayday" call within radio distance of Chicago would get you CPD,
CFD, coast guard
helo from Waukegan? and the occasional IL state conservation police
boat.

In conclusion, this "stunt" served as either a training run for the
responders, or a grossly
childish stunt that caused responders to drop normal patrols and risk
collisions in a rushed
response to a "aircraft down"....JG

[Dave Stadt]

> wrote in message
ps.com...
>
> >
> In conclusion, this "stunt" served as either a training run for the
> responders, or a grossly
> childish stunt that caused responders to drop normal patrols and risk
> collisions in a rushed
> response to a "aircraft down"....JG

A float/sea plane landing in the open waters of Lake Michigan is anything
but a stunt. It is no more a stunt than any of the thousands of boats that
ply the waters on a summer week-end. The city has absolutely nothing to do
with those waters other than the fact the residents drink the water after
dumping raw sewage into it. If people can't tell the difference between a
float/seaplane and a plane with wheels, oh well. Capisca?

[George Patterson]

Doug wrote:

> What is navigable?

Usable by commercial vessels traveling both up and downstream. For example, the
Tennessee river is considered navigable for its entire length; however, neither
the French Broad nor the Holston (which form the Tennessee) are considered
navigable. Quite large boats can travel either the Holston or the French Broad,
and, in fact, Tennessee was settled in part by commercial vessels (flatboats)
coming down the FB from North Carolina. You can't take a commercial barge up
either river today, though.

George Patterson
Coffee is only a way of stealing time that should by rights belong to
your slightly older self.

[ZikZak]

On 1/15/06 2:26 PM, in article
m, "
> wrote:

> In conclusion, this "stunt" served as either a training run for the
> responders, or a grossly
> childish stunt that caused responders to drop normal patrols and risk
> collisions in a rushed
> response to a "aircraft down"....JG
>

Could you please explain what is childish about landing a seaplane in the
water?

[[email protected]]

ZikZak wrote:
> On 1/15/06 2:26 PM, in article
> m, "
> > wrote:
>
> > In conclusion, this "stunt" served as either a training run for the
> > responders, or a grossly
> > childish stunt that caused responders to drop normal patrols and risk
> > collisions in a rushed
> > response to a "aircraft down"....JG
> >
>
> Could you please explain what is childish about landing a seaplane in the
> water?

Lets see,
For starters this part of Lk. Mich. gets arr & dep traffic from ORD.
How responsible is it
to attempt a take off without telling FAA controllers? MDW traffic goes
over the southern portion of the lake, and the occasional Hooters
flight from Gary too.

And what if the take-off is faulty, how much boat traffic is in the
"crash zone"??

[Dave Stadt]

> wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> ZikZak wrote:
>> On 1/15/06 2:26 PM, in article
>> m,
>> "
>> > wrote:
>>
>> > In conclusion, this "stunt" served as either a training run for the
>> > responders, or a grossly
>> > childish stunt that caused responders to drop normal patrols and risk
>> > collisions in a rushed
>> > response to a "aircraft down"....JG
>> >
>>
>> Could you please explain what is childish about landing a seaplane in the
>> water?
>
> Lets see,
> For starters this part of Lk. Mich. gets arr & dep traffic from ORD.
> How responsible is it
> to attempt a take off without telling FAA controllers? MDW traffic goes
> over the southern portion of the lake, and the occasional Hooters
> flight from Gary too.
>
> And what if the take-off is faulty, how much boat traffic is in the
> "crash zone"??

Those are the dumbest statements ever. One can fly up and down the lake
front 24 hours a day and not talk to anybody. Controllers won't talk to you
even if you want them to. It is not under airtraffic control. Boat traffic
in the middle of winter? Yea right. Even in the middle of summer boat
traffic is not a factor. You have obviously never seen Lake Michigan. If
the takeoff is faulty you land on the 333 mile long runway or the 85 mile
long cross runway.

[George Patterson]

wrote:

> For starters this part of Lk. Mich. gets arr & dep traffic from ORD.
> How responsible is it
> to attempt a take off without telling FAA controllers?

Perfectly responsible. Even very close to ORD, the controlled airspace only goes
down to 3,000'. In other words, there's over 2,300' of airspace above the lake
that's uncontrolled. It would actually be irresponsible to try to talk to ORD;
the controllers there are some of the busiest people in the world, and they have
no desire to talk with aircraft that are outside their area and intend to remain so.

George Patterson
Coffee is only a way of stealing time that should by rights belong to
your slightly older self.

[[email protected]]

Dave Stadt wrote:
> >>
> >> > In conclusion, this "stunt" served as either a training run for the
> >> > responders, or a grossly
> >> > childish stunt that caused responders to drop normal patrols and risk
> >> > collisions in a rushed
> >> > response to a "aircraft down"....JG
> >> >
> >>
> >> Could you please explain what is childish about landing a seaplane in the
> >> water?
> >
> > Lets see,
> > For starters this part of Lk. Mich. gets arr & dep traffic from ORD.
> > How responsible is it
> > to attempt a take off without telling FAA controllers? MDW traffic goes
> > over the southern portion of the lake, and the occasional Hooters
> > flight from Gary too.
> >
> > And what if the take-off is faulty, how much boat traffic is in the
> > "crash zone"??
>
> Those are the dumbest statements ever. One can fly up and down the lake
> front 24 hours a day and not talk to anybody. Controllers won't talk to you
> even if you want them to. It is not under airtraffic control. Boat traffic
> in the middle of winter? Yea right. Even in the middle of summer boat
> traffic is not a factor. You have obviously never seen Lake Michigan. If
> the takeoff is faulty you land on the 333 mile long runway or the 85 mile
> long cross runway.

Lets see ds, claims:
"Dave S.
2 years a pilot
15 years a competative Lake Michigan sailor"

So maybe you traveled this part of LM near north ave beach, maybe not.
But in the summer it IS crowded and anyone playing Chuck Yeager needs
to grow up.

Or have you forgotten the MIAMI WRECK ??

[Orval Fairbairn]

In article . com>,
wrote:

> Dave Stadt wrote:
> > >>
> > >> > In conclusion, this "stunt" served as either a training run for the
> > >> > responders, or a grossly
> > >> > childish stunt that caused responders to drop normal patrols and risk
> > >> > collisions in a rushed
> > >> > response to a "aircraft down"....JG
> > >> >
> > >>
> > >> Could you please explain what is childish about landing a seaplane in the
> > >> water?
> > >
> > > Lets see,
> > > For starters this part of Lk. Mich. gets arr & dep traffic from ORD.
> > > How responsible is it
> > > to attempt a take off without telling FAA controllers? MDW traffic goes
> > > over the southern portion of the lake, and the occasional Hooters
> > > flight from Gary too.
> > >
> > > And what if the take-off is faulty, how much boat traffic is in the
> > > "crash zone"??
> >
> > Those are the dumbest statements ever. One can fly up and down the lake
> > front 24 hours a day and not talk to anybody. Controllers won't talk to you
> > even if you want them to. It is not under airtraffic control. Boat traffic
> > in the middle of winter? Yea right. Even in the middle of summer boat
> > traffic is not a factor. You have obviously never seen Lake Michigan. If
> > the takeoff is faulty you land on the 333 mile long runway or the 85 mile
> > long cross runway.
>
> Lets see ds, claims:
> "Dave S.
> 2 years a pilot
> 15 years a competative Lake Michigan sailor"
>
> So maybe you traveled this part of LM near north ave beach, maybe not.
> But in the summer it IS crowded and anyone playing Chuck Yeager needs
> to grow up.
>
> Or have you forgotten the MIAMI WRECK ??

So? How is that relevant? The ignorant "jgrove" attempts to pronounce
knowledge on aviation safety, but he is more like a representative of
the streetwalkers union promoting chastity.

--
Remve "_" from email to reply to me personally.

[Dave Stadt]

> wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> Dave Stadt wrote:
>> >>
>> >> > In conclusion, this "stunt" served as either a training run for the
>> >> > responders, or a grossly
>> >> > childish stunt that caused responders to drop normal patrols and
>> >> > risk
>> >> > collisions in a rushed
>> >> > response to a "aircraft down"....JG
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >> Could you please explain what is childish about landing a seaplane in
>> >> the
>> >> water?
>> >
>> > Lets see,
>> > For starters this part of Lk. Mich. gets arr & dep traffic from ORD.
>> > How responsible is it
>> > to attempt a take off without telling FAA controllers? MDW traffic goes
>> > over the southern portion of the lake, and the occasional Hooters
>> > flight from Gary too.
>> >
>> > And what if the take-off is faulty, how much boat traffic is in the
>> > "crash zone"??
>>
>> Those are the dumbest statements ever. One can fly up and down the lake
>> front 24 hours a day and not talk to anybody. Controllers won't talk to
>> you
>> even if you want them to. It is not under airtraffic control. Boat
>> traffic
>> in the middle of winter? Yea right. Even in the middle of summer boat
>> traffic is not a factor. You have obviously never seen Lake Michigan.
>> If
>> the takeoff is faulty you land on the 333 mile long runway or the 85 mile
>> long cross runway.
>
> Lets see ds, claims:
> "Dave S.
> 2 years a pilot
> 15 years a competative Lake Michigan sailor"
>
> So maybe you traveled this part of LM near north ave beach, maybe not.
> But in the summer it IS crowded and anyone playing Chuck Yeager needs
> to grow up.
>
> Or have you forgotten the MIAMI WRECK ??


Two years a pilot? I think not. Don't know where you get your information
but I suspect it is from a place which does not see sunshine. In the summer
it is NOT crowded. If you want to see crowded go up to the Chain of Lakes
or Lake Geneva and guess what? There are a number of float plane ops there
with nary an incident even though a significant number of the boat operators
are several sheets to the wind.

What's this about Miami?

[Marty Shapiro]

"Dave Stadt" > wrote in
:

>
> > wrote in message
> oups.com...
>>
>> Dave Stadt wrote:
>>> >>
>>> >> > In conclusion, this "stunt" served as either a training run for
>>> >> > the responders, or a grossly
>>> >> > childish stunt that caused responders to drop normal patrols
>>> >> > and risk
>>> >> > collisions in a rushed
>>> >> > response to a "aircraft down"....JG
>>> >> >
>>> >>
>>> >> Could you please explain what is childish about landing a
>>> >> seaplane in the
>>> >> water?
>>> >
>>> > Lets see,
>>> > For starters this part of Lk. Mich. gets arr & dep traffic from
>>> > ORD. How responsible is it
>>> > to attempt a take off without telling FAA controllers? MDW traffic
>>> > goes over the southern portion of the lake, and the occasional
>>> > Hooters flight from Gary too.
>>> >
>>> > And what if the take-off is faulty, how much boat traffic is in
>>> > the "crash zone"??
>>>
>>> Those are the dumbest statements ever. One can fly up and down the
>>> lake front 24 hours a day and not talk to anybody. Controllers
>>> won't talk to you
>>> even if you want them to. It is not under airtraffic control. Boat
>>> traffic
>>> in the middle of winter? Yea right. Even in the middle of summer
>>> boat traffic is not a factor. You have obviously never seen Lake
>>> Michigan. If
>>> the takeoff is faulty you land on the 333 mile long runway or the 85
>>> mile long cross runway.
>>
>> Lets see ds, claims:
>> "Dave S.
>> 2 years a pilot
>> 15 years a competative Lake Michigan sailor"
>>
>> So maybe you traveled this part of LM near north ave beach, maybe
>> not. But in the summer it IS crowded and anyone playing Chuck Yeager
>> needs to grow up.
>>
>> Or have you forgotten the MIAMI WRECK ??
>
>
> Two years a pilot? I think not. Don't know where you get your
> information but I suspect it is from a place which does not see
> sunshine. In the summer it is NOT crowded. If you want to see
> crowded go up to the Chain of Lakes or Lake Geneva and guess what?
> There are a number of float plane ops there with nary an incident even
> though a significant number of the boat operators are several sheets
> to the wind.
>
> What's this about Miami?
>
>
>
>
>

jgrove24 is just displaying his ingornace of what DOI means in the FAA
data base.

--
Marty Shapiro
Silicon Rallye Inc.

(remove SPAMNOT to email me)

[Steven P. McNicoll]

> wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> Lets see,
> For starters this part of Lk. Mich. gets arr & dep traffic from ORD.
>

No part of Lake Michigan gets arrival and departure traffic from ORD.


>
> How responsible is it
> to attempt a take off without telling FAA controllers?
>

It's completely responsible. FAA controllers have no interest in seaplane
operations there.


>
> MDW traffic goes
> over the southern portion of the lake, and the occasional Hooters
> flight from Gary too.
>

Much traffic goes over the lake. None of it is a factor for seaplane
operations on the lake.


>
> And what if the take-off is faulty, how much boat traffic is in the
> "crash zone"??
>

What is the "crash zone"? Boats do not have any more right to operate on
the lake than do seaplanes.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"George Patterson" > wrote in message
news:c7BCf.1299$Ix.335@trnddc07...
>
> Perfectly responsible. Even very close to ORD, the controlled airspace
> only goes down to 3,000'.
>

Ehh? Very close to ORD the controlled airspace goes down to the surface.
None of that surface is Lake Michigan, however.


>
> In other words, there's over 2,300' of airspace
> above the lake that's uncontrolled.
>

Along most of the Illinois Lake Michigan shoreline controlled airspace
begins at 700' AGL.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

> wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> So maybe you traveled this part of LM near north ave beach, maybe not.
> But in the summer it IS crowded and anyone playing Chuck Yeager needs
> to grow up.
>

Playing Chuck Yeager? What does that mean? Boat traffic needs to lookout
for seaplane traffic. The seaplane traffic is already looking out for boat
traffic and has as much right to operate on the lake as boat traffic does.


>
> Or have you forgotten the MIAMI WRECK ??
>

Miami wreck?

[George Patterson]

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:

> Ehh? Very close to ORD the controlled airspace goes down to the surface.
> None of that surface is Lake Michigan, however.

Then it would be pretty hard for a seaplane to be taking off there, wouldn't it.

> Along most of the Illinois Lake Michigan shoreline controlled airspace
> begins at 700' AGL.

I've got the sectional right in front of me. The class B floor is 3,000' or
higher over the lake. Now, you can be an asshole and try to pick nits if you
like, but THERE'S NO REQUIREMENT FOR THAT SEAPLANE TO TALK TO THE ORD
CONTROLLERS PRIOR TO THAT TAKEOFF, NOR WOULD THE ORD CONTROLLERS WANT TO HEAR
FROM HIM.

George Patterson
Coffee is only a way of stealing time that should by rights belong to
your slightly older self.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"George Patterson" > wrote in message
news:z8WCf.546$OY4.296@trndny02...
>
> Then it would be pretty hard for a seaplane to be taking off there,
> wouldn't it.
>

No, an amphibious seaplane could takeoff from ORD quite easily.


>
> I've got the sectional right in front of me. The class B floor is 3,000'
> or higher over the lake.
>

Good. Look at the shoreline and move your gaze about ten miles east.
You'll find magenta vignette there roughly parallel to the shoreline. Now
examine the chart legend to discover what magenta vignette means, you'll
find it in the lower left.

You wrote:

"Perfectly responsible. Even very close to ORD, the controlled airspace only
goes down to 3,000'. In other words, there's over 2,300' of airspace above
the lake
that's uncontrolled. It would actually be irresponsible to try to talk to
ORD;
the controllers there are some of the busiest people in the world, and they
have
no desire to talk with aircraft that are outside their area and intend to
remain so."

You said nothing about Class B airspace.


>
> Now, you can be an asshole and try to pick nits if you like, but THERE'S
> NO REQUIREMENT FOR THAT SEAPLANE TO TALK TO THE ORD CONTROLLERS PRIOR TO
> THAT TAKEOFF, NOR WOULD THE ORD CONTROLLERS WANT TO HEAR FROM HIM.
>

That's correct, but do you now understand that controlled airspace begins at
700' above the lake surface, not at 2300' above it? I'd be happy to give
you further lessons in controlled airspace and chart reading if you like.

[[email protected]]

George Patterson wrote:
> Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
>
> > Ehh? Very close to ORD the controlled airspace goes down to the surface.
> > None of that surface is Lake Michigan, however.
>
> Then it would be pretty hard for a seaplane to be taking off there, wouldn't it.
>
> > Along most of the Illinois Lake Michigan shoreline controlled airspace
> > begins at 700' AGL.
>
> I've got the sectional right in front of me. The class B floor is 3,000' or
> higher over the lake. Now, you can be an asshole and try to pick nits if you
> like, but THERE'S NO REQUIREMENT FOR THAT SEAPLANE TO TALK TO THE ORD
> CONTROLLERS PRIOR TO THAT TAKEOFF, NOR WOULD THE ORD CONTROLLERS WANT TO HEAR
> FROM HIM.

>From a practical matter, does the seaplane have any duty to radio that
they're taking off? What about any traffic flying in back of the
seaplane, in blind spots? And ORD arr. and dep. traffic appears lower
than 3000'
near the Chicago shore.

JG

[[email protected]]

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
> > wrote in message
> oups.com...
> >
> > So maybe you traveled this part of LM near north ave beach, maybe not.
> > But in the summer it IS crowded and anyone playing Chuck Yeager needs
> > to grow up.
> >
>
> Playing Chuck Yeager? What does that mean? Boat traffic needs to lookout
> for seaplane traffic. The seaplane traffic is already looking out for boat
> traffic and has as much right to operate on the lake as boat traffic does.
>
>
> >
> > Or have you forgotten the MIAMI WRECK ??

http://www.theage.com.au/ffximage/2005/12/20/21CRASH_wideweb__470x276,0.jpg

[John Theune]

wrote:
> George Patterson wrote:
>
>>Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Ehh? Very close to ORD the controlled airspace goes down to the surface.
>>>None of that surface is Lake Michigan, however.
>>
>>Then it would be pretty hard for a seaplane to be taking off there, wouldn't it.
>>
>>
>>>Along most of the Illinois Lake Michigan shoreline controlled airspace
>>>begins at 700' AGL.
>>
>>I've got the sectional right in front of me. The class B floor is 3,000' or
>>higher over the lake. Now, you can be an asshole and try to pick nits if you
>>like, but THERE'S NO REQUIREMENT FOR THAT SEAPLANE TO TALK TO THE ORD
>>CONTROLLERS PRIOR TO THAT TAKEOFF, NOR WOULD THE ORD CONTROLLERS WANT TO HEAR
>>FROM HIM.
>
>
>>From a practical matter, does the seaplane have any duty to radio that
> they're taking off? What about any traffic flying in back of the
> seaplane, in blind spots? And ORD arr. and dep. traffic appears lower
> than 3000'
> near the Chicago shore.
>
> JG
>
But the traffic is not below 3000 feet over the water and the departing
traffic from the water would be broadcasting on a separate frequency
from the airliners in any case. The landing traffic would be looking at
the water where they are landing and has the responsibility to ensure
that the area is clear.

[Skylune]

by "Doug" <anothername@[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Jan 13, 2006 at 02:49 PM


I wonder who has jurisdiction over the use of the surface of the water
on Lake Michigan in that area. Wisconson, Illinois, Michigan, Chicago
or the Federal governement or ....? Surely NOT the Chicago police
department. I don't know of any laws prohibiting landing of a Seaplane
on Lake Michigan, but there may be some that I don't know of. Also it
depends on WHERE on Lake Michigan. The harbors are one jurisdiction and
the Lake is another and just where you are on the lake matters also. <<

According to a publication I read, there is one large area over Lake
Michigan, adjacent to the Sheboygan area, that is restricted airspace to
provide space for a program called Rockets for Schools. It was approved
decades ago by the FAA to provide high school students a place to launch
sub-orbital small scale rockets.

The Great Lakes Aeorspace and Science Center at the Sheboygan Armory may
see a future (private) rocket launch facility built, I read.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

> wrote in message
ps.com...
>
> From a practical matter, does the seaplane have any duty to radio that
> they're taking off?
>

No.


>
> What about any traffic flying in back of the seaplane, in blind spots?
>

That traffic must see and avoid the seaplane.


>
> And ORD arr. and dep. traffic appears lower than 3000'
> near the Chicago shore.
>

It isn't.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

> wrote in message
ups.com...
> http://www.theage.com.au/ffximage/2005/12/20/21CRASH_wideweb__470x276,0.jpg
>

Were you trying to make a point?

[Travis Marlatte]

Chicago Police Marine Unit have jurisdiction out 3 miles along the city
limits. It doesn't matter. So far, they don't prohibit seaplane operations.
According to City Ordinance confirmed by me with the Chicago Police, they
view planes in the sky as not their problem. Planes on the water are treated
like boats. Further out is Coast Guard jurisdiction and has practically no
special restrictions.

I have landed inside the breakwalls just off Navy Pier. The timing was
right - waves and boat traffic were low. The Chicago Police monitor marine
channel 16 and are very knowledgeable and friendly.

There are boating restrictions that apply to seaplanes on the water. Like,
no boats within 150 feet of marked beaches, no wake zones, etc. As long as
you abide by those rules, the Police are more interested in taking pictures
and asking questions than causing a fuss.

If I think it is likely that I will be landing in their back yard (so to
speak), I call them with my name, N number, a description of the plane, and
the fact that I will be monitoring channel 16 on the water. The last time,
they came out, called me by name and asked to come along side. They had a
pot of coffee in the galley and I ended up spending about 45 minutes with
them. Nice guys!

jgrove24 sounds a bit scared but berating him (or her) here does nothing to
promote aviation. The references to low flying ORD traffic is either a
misjudgment of altitude (easy to do for the novice) or a reference to
non-ORD traffic flying under the Class B. Either way, there is certainly a
risk which should be acknowledged. I happen to think it is a very small risk
of collision and an incredibly small risk of damage to the land-based
population should tragedy strike.

The recent move by an alderman to suggest a restriction against seaplanes to
avoid unnecessary calls to 911 will probably go away but we continue to
monitor the situation. Of course, the ordinance is a ridiculous response but
it has good company with the actions of the mayor. The best counter-response
is reasoned education, not flame throwing. I'll take the same path with
jgrove24.

--
-------------------------------
Travis



"Skylune" > wrote in message
lkaboutaviation.com...
> by "Doug" <anothername@[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Jan 13, 2006 at 02:49 PM
>
>
> I wonder who has jurisdiction over the use of the surface of the water
> on Lake Michigan in that area. Wisconson, Illinois, Michigan, Chicago
> or the Federal governement or ....? Surely NOT the Chicago police
> department. I don't know of any laws prohibiting landing of a Seaplane
> on Lake Michigan, but there may be some that I don't know of. Also it
> depends on WHERE on Lake Michigan. The harbors are one jurisdiction and
> the Lake is another and just where you are on the lake matters also. <<
>
> According to a publication I read, there is one large area over Lake
> Michigan, adjacent to the Sheboygan area, that is restricted airspace to
> provide space for a program called Rockets for Schools. It was approved
> decades ago by the FAA to provide high school students a place to launch
> sub-orbital small scale rockets.
>
> The Great Lakes Aeorspace and Science Center at the Sheboygan Armory may
> see a future (private) rocket launch facility built, I read.
>
>
>

[Doug]

Interesting. Are there any docks you can dock a Seaplane at Chicago
Lakefront? What kind of Seaplane do you fly, Travis?

[Travis Marlatte]

As far as I can tell, there are no publicly accessible docks that would work
with any kind of floatplane.

I forget who it was but somebody was running for office and was going to
land a Grumman off Navy Pier and make a grand entrance to a campaign stop.
They never did it because of high winds on that day but the plan was to moor
the plane and use a shuttle to get to shore. I take that to mean that there
are no places to easily get a shore without getting your feet wet.

I fly a Lake Buccaneer.

--
-------------------------------
Travis
"Doug" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> Interesting. Are there any docks you can dock a Seaplane at Chicago
> Lakefront? What kind of Seaplane do you fly, Travis?
>

[[email protected]]

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
> > wrote in message
> ps.com...
> >
> > From a practical matter, does the seaplane have any duty to radio that
> > they're taking off?
> >
>
> No.
>
>
> >
> > What about any traffic flying in back of the seaplane, in blind spots?
> >
>
> That traffic must see and avoid the seaplane.
>
>
> >
> > And ORD arr. and dep. traffic appears lower than 3000'
> > near the Chicago shore.
> >
>
> It isn't.

If you want to see seaplanes in a busy harbour, go to Vancouver. In the
January "Canadian Aviator", an article describes how Vancouver Harbour
ATC manages floatplanes, helicopters, freighters and cruise ships from
the worlds tallest control tower. The magazine is at
http://www.canadianaviatormagazine.com/ but the latest issue is not up
yet.

John Halpenny

[Larry Dighera]

After years and years of daily participation in the
rec.aviation.piloting newsgroup, George Patterson seems to have moved
on. Why would he leave without saying goodbye?


On Sun, 29 Jan 2006 02:55:27 GMT, George Patterson
> wrote in <z8WCf.546$OY4.296@trndny02>::

>Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
>
>> Ehh? Very close to ORD the controlled airspace goes down to the surface.
>> None of that surface is Lake Michigan, however.
>
>Then it would be pretty hard for a seaplane to be taking off there, wouldn't it.
>
>> Along most of the Illinois Lake Michigan shoreline controlled airspace
>> begins at 700' AGL.
>
>I've got the sectional right in front of me. The class B floor is 3,000' or
>higher over the lake. Now, you can be an asshole and try to pick nits if you
>like, but THERE'S NO REQUIREMENT FOR THAT SEAPLANE TO TALK TO THE ORD
>CONTROLLERS PRIOR TO THAT TAKEOFF, NOR WOULD THE ORD CONTROLLERS WANT TO HEAR
>FROM HIM.
>
>George Patterson
> Coffee is only a way of stealing time that should by rights belong to
> your slightly older self.

[Montblack]

("Larry Dighera" wrote)
> After years and years of daily participation in the rec.aviation.piloting
> newsgroup, George Patterson seems to have moved on. Why would he leave
> without saying goodbye?


YIKES! Get out of my head Larry. <g>

I was going to post this same thought last night. It was late and I didn't
want to do any more searching - I tried a quick (weak) Google search for
GPIII and came up with nothing solid - then went to bed.

He was a little down of late ...then he sold his Maul and was even more
down. He had one or two days, there, where it sounded like he was standing
out on the ledge - typing.

Hope he's doing well. Spring is here - even in NJ.


Montblack
Maybe, after all of these years, he FINALLY succumbed to the power that is
Television.

[Peter Duniho]

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
>
> After years and years of daily participation in the
> rec.aviation.piloting newsgroup, George Patterson seems to have moved
> on. Why would he leave without saying goodbye?

Assuming for the moment he's not just on extended hiatus...

There's a variety of reasons he wouldn't say goodbye. For example, perhaps
he got sick of the constant bickering and contentious nature of the
newsgroup. As we've seen with other posters who have left, explaining that
sort of reason is usually met with a fresh crop of (usually unfair) "don't
let the door hit your ass on the way out" kinds of replies.

Whatever the situation, only George himself knows the answer. If you want
an actual answer, you should probably send HIM email. Posting here is
unlikely to provide the information you seek.

Pete

[john smith]

In article >,
Larry Dighera > wrote:

> After years and years of daily participation in the
> rec.aviation.piloting newsgroup, George Patterson seems to have moved
> on. Why would he leave without saying goodbye?

He did say goodbye.
It was about the same time Roger Long made his announcement.
Georges's was just a simple statement along the same line of reasoning
as Roger's.

[Jay Honeck]

> He did say goodbye.
> It was about the same time Roger Long made his announcement.
> Georges's was just a simple statement along the same line of reasoning
> as Roger's.

He did? I must've missed that.

I just got an email from George, asking for Paul Sengupta's (another
former regular poster) email address. Paul has just been too darned
busy flying the wings off of his Bulldog to post -- George...has just
gone AWOL.

We are diminished without them.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Margy Natalie]

Jay Honeck wrote:
>>He did say goodbye.
>>It was about the same time Roger Long made his announcement.
>>Georges's was just a simple statement along the same line of reasoning
>>as Roger's.
>
>
> He did? I must've missed that.
>
> I just got an email from George, asking for Paul Sengupta's (another
> former regular poster) email address. Paul has just been too darned
> busy flying the wings off of his Bulldog to post -- George...has just
> gone AWOL.
>
> We are diminished without them.
> --
> Jay Honeck
> Iowa City, IA
> Pathfinder N56993
> www.AlexisParkInn.com
> "Your Aviation Destination"
>
Paul was actually in the States, hence no posting. He was here in DC
and then took off for Sun-n-Fun. We had a lovely dinner with him and
one of his buddies from England in late March. I assume he will show up
shortly as Sun-n-Fun is over and I think he was going home after that.

Margy

[Larry Dighera]

On Thu, 13 Apr 2006 13:45:33 -0500, "Montblack"
> wrote in
>::

>("Larry Dighera" wrote)
>> After years and years of daily participation in the rec.aviation.piloting
>> newsgroup, George Patterson seems to have moved on. Why would he leave
>> without saying goodbye?
>
>He was a little down of late ...then he sold his Maul and was even more
>down. He had one or two days, there, where it sounded like he was standing
>out on the ledge - typing.

If he sold his airplane, that might explain it.

>Hope he's doing well. Spring is here - even in NJ.

I believe he's still posting in other newsgroups.

[Larry Dighera]

On Thu, 13 Apr 2006 21:29:11 GMT, john smith > wrote in
>::

>
>He did say goodbye.
>It was about the same time Roger Long made his announcement.
>Georges's was just a simple statement along the same line of reasoning
>as Roger's.

I guess it missed it. Thanks.

[Matt Barrow]

"john smith" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> Larry Dighera > wrote:
>
>> After years and years of daily participation in the
>> rec.aviation.piloting newsgroup, George Patterson seems to have moved
>> on. Why would he leave without saying goodbye?
>
> He did say goodbye.
> It was about the same time Roger Long made his announcement.
> Georges's was just a simple statement along the same line of reasoning
> as Roger's.

Along the same lines, what ever happened to Mike Rappoport?

--
Matt
---------------------
Matthew W. Barrow
Site-Fill Homes, LLC.
Montrose, CO

[Montblack]

("Matt Barrow" wrote)
> Along the same lines, what ever happened to Mike Rappoport?


HECTCOP?


Montblack

[JJS]

>> Along the same lines, what ever happened to Mike Rappoport?
>
>
> HECTCOP?
>
>
> Montblack
>

Last I knew he went to Florida after 9/11.

Joe Schneider
8437R



----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

[JJS]

>
> Along the same lines, what ever happened to Mike Rappoport?
>
> --
> Matt

I was wondering the same. Maybe he's too busy building the Murphy Moose?

Joe Schneider
N8437R



----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

[Matt Barrow]

"JJS" <jschneider@remove socks cebridge.net> wrote in message
...
>
>
>>> Along the same lines, what ever happened to Mike Rappoport?
>>
>>
>> HECTCOP?

If you do, you're gonna clean it up! (oaky...what's the acronym?)


>>
>>
>> Montblack
>>
>
> Last I knew he went to Florida after 9/11.
>
> Joe Schneider
> 8437R

He was here as recently as last Fall or so.

[Larry Dighera]

On Fri, 14 Apr 2006 19:46:07 -0700, "Matt Barrow"
> wrote in
>::

>
>"JJS" <jschneider@remove socks cebridge.net> wrote in message
...
>>
>>
>>>> Along the same lines, what ever happened to Mike Rappoport?
>>>
>>>
>>> HECTCOP?
>
>If you do, you're gonna clean it up! (oaky...what's the acronym?)
>

He's a Russian emigre systems programmer who was flying by the WTC
with his camera on 9/11: http://www.maxho.com/wtc/

As I'm flying closer, almost opposite the WTC, right next to the
Harborside Center in Jersey City, I see this airliner coming down
in a steep bank, my first thought was, WTF is this guy doing!???
Why is he diving so steep to take a look at the fire! And it's an
airliner! (looked like a 737 to me at the time). I muttered
something along the lines "Jeez, this guy is gonna get so fired by
his airline, it's not even funny!" The next moment.... it hits the
building.... I felt like I was inside a cartoon or a movie, maybe
that "Independence Day" flick, at the moment I thought I was
seeing things, like this can't be, this isn't real... But I had my
camera in hand and snapped virtually a split second later after
the impact, I was simply too awestruck when I saw the plane, so it
didn't click in me to actually shoot the thing (but if I had a
Stinger SAM with me, damn, I wish I did and I would)



>>>
>>>
>>> Montblack
>>>
>>
>> Last I knew he went to Florida after 9/11.
>>
>> Joe Schneider
>> 8437R
>
>He was here as recently as last Fall or so.
>

Google Groups shows this as his last Usenet post:
Message-ID: t>
Date: Thu, 22 Dec 2005 17:56:47 GMT