Aviation Pioneers Return to Chicago Lakefront

"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

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

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?

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

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?

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.

On 1/15/06 2:26 PM, in article
, "
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?

ZikZak wrote:
On 1/15/06 2:26 PM, in article
, "
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"??

wrote in message
oups.com...

ZikZak wrote:
On 1/15/06 2:26 PM, in article
,
"
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.

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.