Sneaking across Lake Superior undetected

On Sun, 28 Dec 2003 12:11:05 -0600, "Henry Kisor"
wrote:

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

Hi Henry,

Judging from the number of reports I hear of mysterious engine
problems that come and go, just claiming that the engine acted up so
you made a precautionary landing might be believable :-/

Or... could you claim the pilot inadvertently ran run one tank empty
and didn't discover the problem until after the dead stick landing?

Rob

On Mon, 29 Dec 2003 01:20:05 +0100 (CET), Nomen Nescio
] wrote:

Your pilot could also file an inaccurate flight plan, or no flight plan,...

Aren't flight plans mandatory for cross-border flights? If so I think
a radar track that didn't correspond with a known flight would
certainly draw attention.

Rob

In article , Rob
wrote:

Aren't flight plans mandatory for cross-border flights? If so I think
a radar track that didn't correspond with a known flight would
certainly draw attention.

Not necessarily.
I can fly from Sandusky Ohio across Lake Erie overflying Ontario to
Port Huron Michigan. I don't have to talk to anyone at any time in the
flight nor do I have to file a flight plan. NORDO, uncontrolled airport
to uncontrolled airport.

"Henry Kisor" wrote in
:




Given the information, I can say that you would NOT be able to avoid a
AWACS track/intercept at 200'.

Without giving out details, I spent 10 years flying around in an aircraft
with a "10-ton skunk-flavored M & M" on top in areas of the world where
they look out for these types of things. And that was over a decade ago,
and I am sure that the radar has improved.

Given the increased security post 9-11, I happen to know that for at least
a year(it may still be on-going), there was 24x7 100% coverage of N.
America.

Also, the Coast Guard and Navy ( there is a base in Michigan) routinely fly
in the Bg Bear and Snoopy MOA's. P-3 Orions from time to time.

Good Luck. I hope that you let us know the title of the book!
Larry

Henry

So easy.

Put a gallon of water in one tank and not use that tank until you have
landed. Switch to it and let engine suck up the water and quit.

On your radar question.

At 200 feet you would have to be very close to any land based radar to
be seen. On the AWACS, I doubt if they have 7/24 AWACS over the Lakes.
Too many hot spots around the world and limited resources.

There could be some Aerostats (sp) (Tethered balloons with Radar) up
there like they have along the southern border that would paint? Just
don't know about that.

Maybe someone up there is knowledgable about that system on Norther
Border???

If you are working on the Meigs Field fiasco, have at it G.

Big John



On Sun, 28 Dec 2003 12:11:05 -0600, "Henry Kisor"
wrote:

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!