Sneaking across Lake Superior undetected

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)

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"?

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.

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.

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

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!

"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

"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

"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

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"