A aviation & planes forum. AviationBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » AviationBanter forum » rec.aviation newsgroups » Piloting
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Sneaking across Lake Superior undetected



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old December 28th 03, 04:00 AM
Geoffrey Barnes
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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!


  #2  
Old December 30th 03, 08:28 PM
Kevin McCue
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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! =-----
  #3  
Old December 30th 03, 08:45 PM
Andrew Gideon
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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

  #4  
Old December 28th 03, 05:39 PM
Roger Halstead
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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


  #5  
Old December 28th 03, 07:37 PM
Dave
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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



  #6  
Old December 28th 03, 08:20 PM
Henry Kisor
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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)..



  #7  
Old December 28th 03, 09:22 PM
EDR
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article et, 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.
  #8  
Old December 28th 03, 09:33 PM
Dennis O'Connor
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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-


  #9  
Old December 29th 03, 01:45 PM
Dylan Smith
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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"
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
The National Lake Eutrophication Survey 1971-1973 Badwater Bill Home Built 18 June 16th 04 03:27 AM
NC Lake Dystrophication jls Home Built 0 June 9th 04 08:49 PM
P-40 raised from Kunming lake Cub Driver Military Aviation 1 November 20th 03 03:18 PM
Great Lakes lake effect snow Paul Tomblin Instrument Flight Rules 30 October 21st 03 06:15 PM
How I got to Oshkosh (long) Doug Owning 2 August 18th 03 01:05 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 02:02 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2025 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.