Flight over Lake Michigan?

T

tabrina

Filing Flight Plan
Joined
Aug 9, 2007
Messages
17
Location
Cedar Rapids, IA
Display Name
Display name:
tabrina
Hey,

I just got my PPL, and I'm planning a flight from Cedar Rapids, IA to Mancelona, MI here in a couple of weeks in a Piper Cherokee 180. I'm debating whether I should fly over the lake or just to go down south around Chicago. If I were to fly up north across the lake, I would take the thinnest part (about 52 miles by my calculation) - but even from 10,000 feet I won't be able to glide to land if my engine quits in the middle of the lake (it turns out the Cherokee doesn't make a very good glider :)
That and I'm not even sure I can legally fly over the lake without the proper life boats and such. According to FAR 91.509 I can, but I've been told by other pilots that it's not allowed unless I can glide to land.

Any advice from the wiser, more experienced pilots of POA?
 
I've done both. Lake Michigan is cold, even in the summer. The decision comes down to:

"Are you willing to bet your life that you won't have a complete engine failure during the time window when you won't be able to glide to land (or at least relatively shallow and warmer water)?"

If you are willing to make that bet, fly over the lake. Hedge the bet a bit by going as high as you can (pop quiz: How high before you must use Oxygen?) and crossing the lake as narrowly as you can.

If you're not willing to make the bet, fly around to the south or the north. Be advised that you can go VFR along the shoreline low under the Chicago Bravo, you won't get flight following through it. It's a pretty flight, so you get some value in the extra time. It used to be great fun to land at Meigs for fuel.

I will take the bet in some faster airplanes I know well if solo. I will not take the bet with pax or family on board, unless in a twin.
 
Go around the lake. The lake shore transition is very scenic (except for Gary, IN). You best bet is to fly to Waukegan (UGN) and just follow the shoreline over Meigs and stay out of the Bravo. You may be able to get Flight Following (I did the last time I did the transition), but don't rely on it.

Well I just looked up your destination, and you may want to go around the top of the lake instead.You could go up door county, Washington Island to Manistique, and then over Beaver Island. Much less water exposure that way, and also very scenic.
 
tabrina said:
Any advice from the wiser, more experienced pilots of POA?
Click to expand...
The water is between 40 and 50 degrees right now. If you ditch and do not have exposure protection and other life preservers you have about 30 minutes before you will go unconscious and die. Rescue helos from the Coast Guard are at Waukegan, IL and Traverse City, MI. More than 30 minutes away form most points in the lake.

When I fly beyond gliding distance of the shore of lake Michigan I am wearing a dry suit with undergarments, I carry a life raft and I have life preserver with a ELT. Even then I don't like flying out that far.

I mostly will go around the south end. It only adds a little bit of time and is far safer.

That all being said many people cross every day and have no problems. You have to decide what level of risk you want to live with. If you do cross make sure you can do it at the altitude you really want. With your new PPL you will likely be VFR so you altitude is dependent on cloud coverage.

Once you do get out over the lake it can be like flying in the clouds without a horizon and you would have to rely on your instruments. Are you sure you can?
 
FYI...91.509 doesn't apply to Cherokees...check out the title of the Subpart.:D
 
ha ha - touche. I just googled overwater operations and it took me right to that. Didn't think to look at the subpart :)

Given the overwhelming advice for going around - I think I'll do that. 40 degrees is pretty cold!


Thanks!
 
I've crossed the lake many times, I'd guess more than 20. I've made just as many trips around the south end if any of my personal requirements couldn't be met.

With a single it was always as high as I could, never below 9k, on an IFR flight plan, during the day, and normally flew the Manitowac/Ludington route. At 9k on a clear day you can easily see the other side. (the only vacuum pump failure I've had in a single was in IMC over the middle of Lake Michigan. Know your "outs", mine was a simple decent to VMC at 5000 ft)

In a well equipped twin I'll go IFR/IMC, day or night, and I'll be a little more liberal about altitudes and routes, depending on winds, still always on an IFR flight plan. Be sure your IFR skills are up to speed for night crossings, it gets awfully dark over open water.
 
One of my favorite risk management scenarios.

The presence of cold water makes the potential death sentence palpable, but if you think about it, there are other times/places when your life is just as at risk should the engine pack it in at the worst possible time. Yes, you want to stack the odds in your favor, and that suggests the over-land options or, at the very least, proper survival gear. However, having said that, there are no guarantees in life, and there are probably points along the city of Chicago route where an engine failure would lead to a similarly bleak fate.

Look at the time you will be out of glide range of land. 10 minutes? 15 minutes? You are playing the odds that a failure will not occur in those 15 minutes out of the thousands of hours the airplane has been operated. To some, those odds stink given the stakes. To others, they're acceptable. It's up to YOU. For what it's worth, my old statistics prof used to say that odds of less than 1:1000 are zero for all pratical purposes. Of course, he was talking about lotteries, not life and death.
 
The risk of 52 miles over water at 10,000' is really the 10 miles in the middle. And then you should land 5 miles from shore if you did a good job ditching the plane, which will either make it extremely visible, or better yet, near some boats, which should get you out of the water pretty fast.

TMetzinger said:
pop quiz: How high before you must use Oxygen?)
Click to expand...

12,500' to 14,00' you can fly 30 minutes w/o oxygen, and above 14,000' you need it immediately.
 
Go around the top very pretty, and you can cut the corner because there is an island with a strip halfway across. You also have the opportunity to land at Mackinac Island that in itself is reason enough to go. You also can get some time over water and stay within gliding distance.

Dan
 
vontresc said:
Well I just looked up your destination, and you may want to go around the top of the lake instead.You could go up door county, Washington Island to Manistique, and then over Beaver Island. Much less water exposure that way, and also very scenic.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't even make the cut to Beaver Island. Follow the north shore to Mackinac. I got auto-rough just on that 12 mile stretch of water from the tiny island north of Washington Island to the U.P.

I did the calculation once and figured I'd need to be at 17000 feet at the midpoint to make the shore and that was only with favorable winds and a quick reaction to get to best glide speed, and *maybe* being able to make the turn to final for the beach.

Not for me - ever.
 
Last edited:
TMetzinger said:
I've done both. Lake Michigan is cold, even in the summer. The decision comes down to:

"Are you willing to bet your life that you won't have a complete engine failure during the time window when you won't be able to glide to land (or at least relatively shallow and warmer water)?"

If you are willing to make that bet, fly over the lake. Hedge the bet a bit by going as high as you can (pop quiz: How high before you must use Oxygen?) and crossing the lake as narrowly as you can.

If you're not willing to make the bet, fly around to the south or the north. Be advised that you can go VFR along the shoreline low under the Chicago Bravo, you won't get flight following through it. It's a pretty flight, so you get some value in the extra time. It used to be great fun to land at Meigs for fuel.

I will take the bet in some faster airplanes I know well if solo. I will not take the bet with pax or family on board, unless in a twin.
Click to expand...

Good advice.

One thing to consider even if you are able to glide to the shore is, are you looking at farm land or downtown buildings? I've often thought about this when crossing Lake Ontario to Toronto. I like to stay within gliding distance, but its not like there is any place to land even if I glide to the shore. Landing on water next to the shoreline might be the best case.

Another thing to consider is, what if your engine quits when taking off from a place like, say, Chicago Midway. There is nothing but a sea of concrete and glass all around. But many Cherokees and Cessnas do it every day without a second thought. I think of that as a far more serious concern than staying beyond gliding range for a few miles over water.
 
If your engine quit coming out of Gaston's, then I'd say you have far fewer options than if it quit at 12,000 feet over Lake Michigan. I've always thought of crossing Lake Michigan in a single as a no go for me...but I just flew into and out of Gaston's dozens of times. I was always thankful to get to the Lake...but I was willing to do it.

That said, as a newly minted PPL, I would probably be much more conservative in my assessments of these types of situations.
 
Phooey. Engines suddenly cutting out with no warning whatsoever are rare as can be. I wouldn't do it without some sort of flotation device, but then I definitely would. I'd use the lake reporting system, and if I did encounter problems I'd scream Mayday on the radio long and loud enough to bring out the whole damn coast guard. Descend 500ft/minute from 10,000 feet and you've got 20 minutes to give your rescuers a head start.

If I really want to be risk averse I'll stop flying.
 
How are your skills in actual instrument conditions? If it's one of those hot hazy days that July and August are famous for, there is likely to be a lot of haze over the lake and you will have no visual horizion. Your options for keeping the shiny side up at that point are to go on instruments or to drop down to say, 100 feet or so, where you will have enough "surface" that looks different from the haze to work as a ground reference.

Of course, if you aren't current in IMC I wouldn't suggest attempting to make the crossing on instruments, and if you want to be in gliding range of shore for at least part of the trip, 100 feet isn't going to cut it either.

Been there, done that, exactly once. And once was enough.
 
FlyNE said:
If your engine quit coming out of Gaston's, then I'd say you have far fewer options than if it quit at 12,000 feet over Lake Michigan. I've always thought of crossing Lake Michigan in a single as a no go for me...but I just flew into and out of Gaston's dozens of times. I was always thankful to get to the Lake...but I was willing to do it.

That said, as a newly minted PPL, I would probably be much more conservative in my assessments of these types of situations.
Click to expand...
Exactly.. And flying in cruise flight anywhere over the UP presents very few options as well. Basically get lucky and land on one of the two roads or land on top of the trees and hope for the best.

IMHO, crossing the lake in the day is less dangerous than flying VFR cross country at on a dark night in a single. The lake only has a few minutes of exposure to a fatal situation if the engine quit. The night VFR flight--almost the whole thing.

I'm not scared to fly VFR at night, no matter how dark the night is, which means I wouldn't be afraid to cross the lake either.
 
Last edited:
Ken has some very good poins. Some hard surface landing options are as bad as or worse than water, Some folks talk about citys and buildings. On my way to Gastons two years ago I flew over West Virginia. The mountains there are Nasty and there is no where to put down. I'm sure out west it can be even worse. I suspect the big problem with Lake Michigan is the cold water. I have flown over NY bight and Cape Cod Bay which is also cold but there are enough boats that I could most likely put down near a boat. I suspect from what I am hearing there is not near as much boat traffic on Lake Michigan.
 
There's one key difference. If you maintain control of the airplane over land - you'll probably walk away with minor injuries, and your worry will be staying warm and hydrated while awaiting rescue, which (if you do the right things) shouldn't be terribly long in coming - maybe a day.

After a successful ditching, you need to keep from drowning or freezing to death. Much much harder to do for any extended period of time. Thus, while the odds of an off airport landing are the same, the consequences of that event are much much worse in the situation under discussion.

Nearly all of our search and rescue missions in the CG where a boat went down and we were more than 1 hour to get on scene were search and recovery missions if the folks weren't in a raft. Even 60+ degree water will kill you if you're in it for hours with just a life vest.

I'll put in a plug here - get a 406 MHz beacon, preferably with GPS, register it, and you'll often cut your rescue time down to less than 3 hours.
 
I have not done Lake Michigan but I cross Lake Erie a lot.

I have learned that once you cross the shore line over the lake if there is any haze and the far shore is not visible you are hard IFR.

I have seen different resulats and it appears to me that ditching close to shore in shallow water is much prefered to landing among dwellings, on beaches or tree lined shore lines. Sand is soft and attracts people. You can walk away in four feet of water and are less likely to hit something bad.

I try to stay close to the Michigan or Ontario shore or over the Islands between Pt Pelee and Sandusky.

Even in summer with a raft I don't want be on the lake 20 miles from anything with just a paddle.
 
I've never gone over LM except in a twin, and doubt I will. It's the conservative choice with little additional cost.

It's about risk/benefit/cost analysis. Going around the lake isn't hard to do. It avoids the risk of going down in very cold water, where your maximum survival is measured in minutes. You have a ready alternative that still allows you to complete your mission.

OTOH, if you're going to the Bahamas, I have done that before in a single. The exposure time was higher than the lake because of the distance from shore, though the warmer water would have increased the potential survival time before hypothermia. However the benefit of completing the trip to the island was great, and there was no acceptable alternative.

For some of the other scenarios presented, there are specific things that can be done to mitigate safety. One just needs to make a determination for oneself whether the costs of that mitigation are worth it.

For example, trips over the UP can be done largely along roads, or you can route it so you're at least traveling from airport to airport and looking for places to put down.

You can do night VFR from airport to airport. You can make sure it's a moonlit night. You can wait for morning. You can make sure you have almost no chance of IMC.

I'll say, though, that I do fly at night, both VFR and IFR. I'll go direct over UP forests, though I am being particularly vigilant in looking for potential landing spots. And, as I said, I've flown to the Bahamas. I've also flown over shark-infested waters in New Zealand (I know, because Leslie and I caught a few of the sharks). But I'll still fly around the lake. It's your choice.

Edit: Oh, and I'll second Tim's recommendation for a PLB. We have TWO of them for the upcoming Alaska trip!
 
I would fly over the lake in a heartbeat, and here's why:

I have and would again fly over the rockies. For a much longer period than 10 minutes or 20 minutes, you deal with the idea that engine failure is probably going to be death, as there is no place to land without cliffs or rocks or hills, etc.

That said, its my comfort level that allows that. I would never suggest to anyone that it is fine to do anything in an aircraft where the liklihood of survival is reduced unless they felt comfortable with it.
 
SkyHog said:
I would fly over the lake in a heartbeat, and here's why:

I have and would again fly over the rockies. For a much longer period than 10 minutes or 20 minutes, you deal with the idea that engine failure is probably going to be death, as there is no place to land without cliffs or rocks or hills, etc.

That said, its my comfort level that allows that. I would never suggest to anyone that it is fine to do anything in an aircraft where the liklihood of survival is reduced unless they felt comfortable with it.
Click to expand...
I flew over the lake once in a single (C-210) and it was a little bit creepy but I did it. On the other hand I probably have a thousand or two hours flying over the Rockies in a single, sometimes at low altitudes where there really weren't many options. I was much more comfortable with that than the lake. Like other people have said, it depends on your own personal view of risk and no one can decide that for you. You can also become desensitized to situations by having done them many times. There are definitely pros and cons to that, but it happens.
 
I've been across LM over a hundred times. These days I fly a twin but I've made the crossing many times in singles as well. The narrowest crossing is from Door county WI, to just north of TVC. The furthest you will be from shore is 20 nm which means you need to be at least 14,500 to glide to shore from the center in an airplane like a Cherokee or Cessna fixed gear single with a glide ratio of 8.5-1. In a slicker airplane like a Mooney, Bonanza, or retractable Cessna which have a glide ratio around 10-1, 12,500 is sufficient. These numbers are based on the concept that you only need to reach the shore where you would ditch in shallow water and wade ashore. To be able to actually land on the ground you'd need at least another 1000 ft of altitude.

For the trip that the OP specified, the shortest path "around" the lake would be to fly directly to Schoolcraft airport (ISQ) and then overfly Beaver Is on the way to the lower peninsula. That keeps you within 10 nm of land all the way and adds about 80 nm to the trip. Around the south adds close to 90 nm and that's assuming that you're willing to fly low under the Chicago Class B. OTOH taking the south route is the only way if you want to stay entirely over land and not cross any open water. It would also end up shorter if clouds prevented the pilot from flying higher than a couple thousand feet and they wanted to remain within gliding distance of the shore.

As to the acceptability of crossing LM without a raft at an altitude that precludes gliding to shore the bottom line is that the odds of ending up in the water are very low but the chances of survival are near zero most of the time.

A raft plus inflatable life vests would increase your chance of survival significantly, an exposure suit (worn in flight) would bring your chances up to or beyond that of a successful emergency landing on the ground. IMO the main value of the exposure suit is that it will make it far more likely that you'd be able to board the raft in rough water. If the surface wind was below 20 kt I don't think a suit would make much difference and might actually hinder escape from a submerged cockpit.

Also FWIW, the surface temp of LM varies from a little below 50F to over 60F this time of year although a stong wind can mix the surface with cooler water below.

Tabrina, you mentioned Mancelona as the destination. I assume you'd be flying into Bellaire (ACB) since that's the closest airport with fuel AFaIK. That's where I usually fly into when headed for Michigan.
 
What a conisidence... I planned a flight from KDBQ direct to KBIV this afternoon in an Archer II. It was cancelled due to wx coming into DBQ when we could be coming back. I really wanted to make the flight, it would have been the first time for me to cross Lake Michigan. We would have crossed at 11,500 VFR so there would be a peroid of time where the glide distance would come up short. I packed life jackets for everyone incase we went into the drink. I would have been on a VFR flight plan and also utilize the lake reporting service. Plan was if the engine quit we would get SAR going right away...that would save 20 mins in the water. That is a lot of time to figure out maybe why the engine quit.... So I know I would go, but thunderstorms is what kept us on the ground... It all about the risk you are willing to accept and the controls you put in place to medigate the risk. It should be noted that I fly helicopters also:)
 
Living in Michigan, I have to make this choice often. When I was flying a SE, I chose to overfly the lakes using the theory that the engine doesn't know that we're over water. However, now that I fly a twin, I look back on my SE over water flights and think they were a poor choice. I think my appreciation of the risks of a water landing and subsequent survival has gone up (read: I'm less likely to take the risk). The twin gives me some additional comfort, but if/when I go back to a SE, I probably won't be making the long overwater flights. YMMV. :)
 
Crossed it more times than I can remember in a Cherokee 180. I even *gasp oh the horror* crossed at its WIDEST east west point once during the month of March. Ahhhhh...I'm gonna die!!!!!! Oh wait, nope. I'm still here.

For those of you that insist on going around the lake, try these:

www.hertz.com
www.avis.com
 
EdFred said:
If you wanted to go around the lake you could rent a car.

Crossed it more times than I can remember in a Cherokee 180. I even *gasp oh the horror* crossed at its WIDEST east west point, in March. Ahhhhh...I'm gonna die!!!!!!
Click to expand...
Don't forget you also crossed at night.
 
smigaldi said:
Don't forget you also crossed at night.
Click to expand...

I did that time. Well, on the way back I did. It was a lunch/dinner hop to BUU with mom. Also crossed it IMC another time at night. And during the day, and....wow you were fast on the quoted reply.
 
lancefisher said:
OTOH taking the south route is the only way if you want to stay entirely over land and not cross any open water.
Click to expand...

Schoolcraft to Mackinac bridge is not really open water is it? The amount of water your over is less than a small lake. and adds very little to the trip if you are going to Schoolcraft anyway.

Dan
 
stingray said:
Schoolcraft to Mackinac bridge is not really open water is it? The amount of water your over is less than a small lake. and adds very little to the trip if you are going to Schoolcraft anyway.

Dan
Click to expand...

Even if you go the south route, which I fly a lot, there are few places to land if you have an engine out. Most of the land is developed from Gary to Milwaukee. I few places have beaches that are landable and there are a few airports close to the shore. The extra risk of flying over the water is the cold water. There are plenty of place, Gastons was mentioned where you would be in deep doo doo if you had an engine out. The cold water is just one more factor to deal with. Lots of people fly over the lake, almost all with out the proper survival equipment. Yet there rarely ever is an incident and almsot never an accident.

Know your gear, your limits, and have an out. Then make your risk assessment as to what you think will work for you.
 
I'm torn. If I go over, the plane probably won't die and I'll be just fine. I'll save $150 and about an hour and a half round-trip. But it's kind-of a battle between my logic which says go for it, and my gut instinct that says go around. I'm pretty sure I'll be making this flight a lot, but for now I think I'm going to play it safe. I've got less than 45 hours of flight time, and at the moment only 1.5 in a Cherokee - I scream inexperience, and while I think I could fly a strait line IFR across the lake just fine, it'll be challenge enough for this to be my first flight longer than 3 hours.

So I think in the future I will fly over the lake, but this time I think the odds are stacked up against me a little too much for my comfort.

Another question for the wise - I'm taking my boyfriend with me and he's set on getting a GPS for the trip, but he doesn't want to spend the money on an aviation one. So we're thinking of getting a car GPS as a backup to my reckoning and the GPS in the plane. Any thoughts? Will a car GPS work at all just for lattitude/longitude in case we get lost? I'm a little worried that I'll be going too fast for it or that it'll freak out because I won't be over roads the whole way.

Thanks for all your input!!
 
tabrina said:
I'm torn. If I go over, the plane probably won't die and I'll be just fine. I'll save $150 and about an hour and a half round-trip. But it's kind-of a battle between my logic which says go for it, and my gut instinct that says go around. I'm pretty sure I'll be making this flight a lot, but for now I think I'm going to play it safe. I've got less than 45 hours of flight time, and at the moment only 1.5 in a Cherokee - I scream inexperience, and while I think I could fly a strait line IFR across the lake just fine, it'll be challenge enough for this to be my first flight longer than 3 hours.

So I think in the future I will fly over the lake, but this time I think the odds are stacked up against me a little too much for my comfort.

Another question for the wise - I'm taking my boyfriend with me and he's set on getting a GPS for the trip, but he doesn't want to spend the money on an aviation one. So we're thinking of getting a car GPS as a backup to my reckoning and the GPS in the plane. Any thoughts? Will a car GPS work at all just for lattitude/longitude in case we get lost? I'm a little worried that I'll be going too fast for it or that it'll freak out because I won't be over roads the whole way.

Thanks for all your input!!
Click to expand...

It depends on the GPS. I have a Garmin eTrek and a Magellan SportTrac (yes I know, they're old as hell), and they work great for aviation applications!

Now, others such as Tom Tom, or the Nuvi series? I understand they require you to be on a road, so you'll not get an accurate depiction of your current position.

As an aside, the boyfriend thing was disappointing! You're a pretty good lookin' chick! Lemme know if that doesn't work out ;)
 
Nick!

At least wait til you get your mouth unwired.....sheesh....

And the rash...did you tell her about the rash...? :rofl:

SkyHog said:
.
.
.
As an aside, the boyfriend thing was disappointing! You're a pretty good lookin' chick! Lemme know if that doesn't work out ;)
Click to expand...
 
tabrina said:
I'm torn. If I go over, the plane probably won't die and I'll be just fine. I'll save $150 and about an hour and a half round-trip. But it's kind-of a battle between my logic which says go for it, and my gut instinct that says go around. I'm pretty sure I'll be making this flight a lot, but for now I think I'm going to play it safe. I've got less than 45 hours of flight time, and at the moment only 1.5 in a Cherokee - I scream inexperience, and while I think I could fly a strait line IFR across the lake just fine, it'll be challenge enough for this to be my first flight longer than 3 hours.

So I think in the future I will fly over the lake, but this time I think the odds are stacked up against me a little too much for my comfort.

Another question for the wise - I'm taking my boyfriend with me and he's set on getting a GPS for the trip, but he doesn't want to spend the money on an aviation one. So we're thinking of getting a car GPS as a backup to my reckoning and the GPS in the plane. Any thoughts? Will a car GPS work at all just for lattitude/longitude in case we get lost? I'm a little worried that I'll be going too fast for it or that it'll freak out because I won't be over roads the whole way.

Thanks for all your input!!
Click to expand...
We all struggle with decision just like you are now with the overflight. I have learned that I should go with my gut and be Mr. Safety man. One can always reflect back on the rick they did not take, but one thing for sure, they are alive and safe when they 2nd guess themselves.

As for the IFR statement are you actually IFR rated? I had the feeling you were just rated for VFR with your PPC? Or di you just mean you think you could handle flying on gauges but still be leagal in VMC flying VFR?
 
1) Tabrina I personally think you made a good choice based upon your experience and all of the other factors you mentioned. Just like they say its better to be on the ground wishing you were in the air than in the air wishing you were on the ground its probably better to be over land wishing you had taken the over water route. Plus it won't be helpful for you to be over 50 min of water stressing the entire time. There will be other opportunites.

2) FWIW I can only recall two (2) planes down in LM in the past 3-5 years both fatals. First was the college kid who ran out of fuel short of the WI shore line and called 911 while stading on the wing somewhere in the lake. Totally preventable and moronic. and The other Was the Univ of Mich Transplant team in the citation. Dont' know what happened there.
 
tabrina said:
Another question for the wise - I'm taking my boyfriend with me and he's set on getting a GPS for the trip, but he doesn't want to spend the money on an aviation one. So we're thinking of getting a car GPS as a backup to my reckoning and the GPS in the plane. Any thoughts? Will a car GPS work at all just for lattitude/longitude in case we get lost? I'm a little worried that I'll be going too fast for it or that it'll freak out because I won't be over roads the whole way.

Thanks for all your input!!
Click to expand...

You're better off with a 'hiking' GPS instead of a car GPS. They'll tell you your groundspeed, course, heading, etc. Works pretty much just like an aviation GPS except you have to manually enter the longitudes and latitudes.
 
AdamZ said:
2) FWIW I can only recall two (2) planes down in LM in the past 3-5 years both fatals. First was the college kid who ran out of fuel short of the WI shore line and called 911 while stading on the wing somewhere in the lake. Totally preventable and moronic. and The other Was the Univ of Mich Transplant team in the citation. Dont' know what happened there.
Click to expand...
There was one more. Near Waukegan that just dropped out of sight and still has not been found. He was near the shoreline too. Well within gliding distance.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top