Sneaking across Lake Superior undetected

"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!

"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

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

"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