At first I thought this was a Dasysyrphus given the abdominal markings, then I noticed the head was not quite right. Then, I looked at Eupeodes volucris, also similar in the markings, but again, the head was not quite right. Finally, as unusual as it may seem, it looks like this is a Scaeva species. Now, in the Key to the Genera of Nearctic Syrphidae, it says we only have only one species (S. pyrastri), plus one introduced Palearctic species, Scaeva selenetica. In the draft guide to Syrphidae of NE N Am, Skevington et al. also state that the native species has been split from S. pyrastri and should be called S. affinis. When looking online at pics of S. selenetica and S. pyrastri (affinis), I feel this is a better match for S. pyrastri (affinis), but I have little experience with this Genus. I think it is safe in Scaeva for the time being and I will send the pics to Skevington and post them iNaturalist as well. I should point out that there are no dots on the map of Scaeva in North America east of (Oklahoma?) on Key to the Genera of Nearctic Syrphidae, although Skevington et al. point out that it is "very rare" in the East. I am not sure how far east they are talking about, but I did find this very interesting, recently updated discussion on Bug Guide about a sighting in Michigan and a possible sighting in Toronto?: https://bugguide.net/node/view/1498485

In Europe, Scaeva pyrastri and selenetica are said to be migratory (Ref Britain's Hoverflies: A Field Guide, Revised and Updated Second Edition). Perhaps it is not unreasonable to think that our Scaeva affinis behaves in a similar way?