Let’s say my “craft” could fly only well under FAA juridiction heights (say from ten to a hundred feet). Could I fly around as a “law unto myself” free from interference from the police? How about tresspassing? I can’t imagine that “air space” would be an issue since you don’t see landowners suing (at least not successfully) airlines for violating their airspace. Heck let’s take it one step further. If my “hovercraft” didn’t need to EVER land (let’s say it uses a hypothetical fusion generator and only lands at remote islands for occasional servicing) would I even be subject to most laws at all? After all if I “parked” my hover craft over public land (in the air) what could they charge me with?
A hovercraft sits on a cushion of air. The higher off the ground it is the more inefficient it is, since it needs a cushion with a larger volume and a larger boundary where leakage can occur. Most hover a few inches above the ground; if any hovercraft hover as high as 10 feet it would only be the vary largest ones. Anything that hovers at 100 feet is a helicopter, not a hovercraft.
Do you need a licence to hover on the road? Depends on where the road is, obvious, but according to the Hovercraft FAQ (http://www.olshove.com/HoverHome/hoverfaq.html)
-
in no state of the US do you need either a pilot’s license or a driver’s license to operate a hovercraft, but
-
you may not operate a hovercraft on a public road, and in any case because of the camber of the road it is technically very difficult to do so. Sadly, they don’t say why you may not operate a hovercraft on a public road - i.e. they don’t give any authority for the proposition.
You could operate the hovercraft over your own land. You could operate it over someone else’s private land, with his permission. Could you operate it without his permisssion? I don’t know, but I suspect not. The analogy with an aircraft is not a good one. In general I control access to the airspace over my land, which is why you cannot, for instance, build a projecting overhang from your house which crosses the boundary and hangs over my land. I don’t know this, but my guess is that civil aviation legislation creates a general right to overfly private land, but this is probably limited by (a) the need to have a pilot’s license, (b) the need to be flying an aircraft, or © some mimimum height restriction, and any of these would mean that a hovercraft operator wouldn’t benefit from the general right.
-
-
- Well I think that if you are guessing that your vehicle will not fall under any laws, you are mistaken.
-
- There is no regulations for land-bound hovercraft that are not capable of flying out of ground-effect. There are however regulations for vehicles operated on public roads. Note how just recently, Segways were banned from most roadways as hazardous, as well as the trendy “normal” 2-wheel tiny gas and electric scooters for kids–and the reason that they were banned was for not satisfying existing motor vehicle requirements. There’s at lease one golf/retirement community in the US where golf carts are permitted on roadways, but in 99% of US towns they are not, at all.
- Your “under FAA regulation” technically does not exist: the most unregulated class of aircraft in the US is ultralight aircraft, and even they have a number of requirements they must meet: they don’t require licenses to operate at all but they are limited to only one pilot (no passengers), and they have limited power and performance characteristics that ensure they remain low-speed limited-range vehicles. There are two-seater ultralights, but they are classes under different rules, and require licensing to operate.
- But all that I have seen was for fixed-wing aircraft, and then (relatively recently) for powered parachutes. I have never seen any rotating-wing or lighter-than-air aircraft that were classed as “ultralights” and had no licensing requirement, but I dunno exactly know what I am talking about. You can get single-person balloons, but I think that (operators of) balloons require licensing also…?
… - Generally, if you want to build a screwy street-legal vehicle in the US, the easiest way is to make certain that it only has three wheels. Anything with three or less wheels is classed as a motorcycle, and motorcycles have far fewer physical requirements than cars do, such as safety glass windows, laminated-glass front and rear windshields and bumpers. And you could claim that your hovercraft qualifies as a motorcycle, as it having less than four wheels–but motorcycles still require licensing, and the motor vehicle department can refuse to register any vehicle they feel is unsafe. And you are free to drag them into court, as well.
- But quite frankly, the small hovercraft I have seen were not-real-great performers in any respect, except in crossing over water/mud that wheels couldn’t handle. They sucked fuel like mad and the skirts rub the ground on pavement and abrade rather quickly, and are expensive to replace. …Hovercraft make fantastic military/marine landing vehicles, but they are expensive to operate and so they aren’t real good for much else.
~
Assuming that this is an experimental new fangledy hovercraft that hovers at 50 feet, I think DougC is right that it would have to fit into existing rules for ultralights (ie. only person, unless you’re certified as an instructor, then two)
can operate “just outside” our reality (but lets me see what’s going on here). THEN, I would only “phase” completely into our reality on my own property.
An autogyro is not classed as ultralights?
You might be surprised what the FAA considers its jurisdiction…
Anyhow, if you’re at 10 feet I don’t think the FAA will be too concerned, but at a hundred they’ll start to notice you. Even if they do nothing, you still might have problems, but I’ll cover those in a minute or three.
Depends on where you are. In the middle of Chicago? You’ll get bothered. In the middle of the Arizona desert? Who cares?
Airliners cruise at 35,000 feet, not 10 or 100, which is a significant difference.
As a general rule, landowners control the first 200 feet of air above their real estate.
There are provisions for emergency landings that protect a pilot from trespassing laws, but if every flight ends in an “emergency” they’ll find a way to ground you. Having once made use of an emergency off-airport landing zone, I must also point out that being questioned by the FAA and/or local officials in regards to your claimed emergency is a real possibility, and may not be a pleasant experience.
Under 200 feet - endangering public property (telephone poles, tall buildings, streetlights, etc.). Violation of noise ordinances. Public nuisance.
Over 200 feet - it depends somewhat on the vehicle and where you’re flying it, but possible charges could include operating an aircraft without a license, operating an unregistered aircraft, and being a hazard to air navigation…
Depending on the local population density, minimum altitude for an aircraft is between 500 and 1000 or even more feet. If you get that high you’ll be considered an aircraft regardless of what you may prefer to be called.
My guess would be because it’s not a licensed motor vehicle. I’m not entirely clear on the rules for making a vehicle legally “road worthy” but they do exist.
No, I very much doubt it.
I also feel compelled to point out that, despite the law, some landowners still attempt to shoot down aircraft over their property. Most recently, last month in Florida. Which is another reason not to fly too close to the ground.
At present, the Federal government is the legal owner of the skies.
A pilot (of any sort) is required to maintain at the very minimum a distance of 500 from any person, building, or object - and that’s in “unpopluated” areas. The next level of restriction calls for a 500 foot minimum altitutde, then 1000 feet, and over a very large city, such as Chicago, minimum hieghts may be as great as 2000 or 3000 feet.
You don’t have to demonstrate a “need” to fly an aircraft, you may do so on a whim or just for fits and giggles (once you are properly licensed, with a few exceptions)
The license issue is another thing - MOST things that get you off the ground require a license but not ultralights (in the US - I can’t think of any other country where that’s the case. Everyone else does require a license for an “ultralight”). And ultralights are a very strange corner of aviation. They are defined in Part 103 of the regs as weighing less than 254 lbs (for powered vehicles), have a maximum level flight speed of 63 mph, has only seat, and carries no more than 5 gallons of fuel. So if your hovercraft conforms to all that, you’re an ultralight and don’t need a license. Where you can fly it is also limited, though - you’ll have to keep away from cities and towns.
But I very much doubt you could build a working hovercraft under the ultralight rules.
No, there are no “two-seater ultralights” in the US. What you’re looking at there is one of two things:
-
it’s an ultralight trainer. It operates under an exemption to the regulations, and must also weight less than (if I recall correctly - it’s only been 9 years since I was in one) 496 lbs, carry no more than 10 gallons of fuel, has no more than 2 seats, and also has a speed limit (which I can’t recall a the moment). It also can only be used for instructional purposes. So unless you were planning to teach hovercrafting to the masses this may not be practical.
-
it’s a “light aircraft”, which falls under the regular FAA regs for it’s type (fixed wing, rotor, powered lift, lighter-than-air, etc.) Most such are licensed under the “experimental” category, and do require a license to operate legally.
No one has come up with a practical ultralight helicoptor, but there are gyrocoptors that fall under that category and they are rotorcraft. There are also single-person blimps that fall under the ultralight group but they’re quite rare, being very expensive to operate, chiefly because of the helium. Helium is cheap in one sense, but you need a LOT of helium and that drives the cost up.
There’s a gent in my area with a two-seat blimp (that’s licensed under the normal lighter-than-air regs) and he says it takes thousands of dollars to fill it up with lift gas.
Then again, if you have the money, utilizing helium for most of your lift in a hovercraft may let you use smaller (and quieter) fans and engines. Hmm… this has possibilities…
If the balloon (deflated) weighs less than 155 lbs, has 5 gallons or less of fuel on board, and carries only one, it’s an ultralight and requires no license (in the US)
If it doesn’t meet that requirement, it falls under the regular ballooning regs and does require a license. However, a balloon pilot license is significantly different than a license for powered aircraft.
That said, taking a few flight lessons of some sort might be a good idea since once you’re off the ground you are subject to things like wind and ground effect, which you will need to understand to operate your hovercraft safely.
One note, if this is a practical question:
Make sure to keep the eel population in your hovercraft down. Nothing is more unpleasant than having a hovercraft full of eels.
I´m a bit worried about how Roland Deschain may be planning to power his hovercraft.
It would certainly rise a stink around the neighbourhood. 
What I want is the paint from “Danny Dunn and the Anti-Gravity Paint.”
For those who somehow missed this classic of literature, you paint it on the bottom surface of anything and it cancels the pull of gravity on everything above it. Okay, some tinkering is needed, a few surfaces left free of the paint so you can ‘aim’ them at the ground ahead of you and let the gravity of that area pull you that direction. Maybe a few wing shaped additions for some lift to offset that downward pull. A fan or something to get you off the ground to begin with.
Mere details.
Anyway, build a nice sized platform, paint the bottom, bolt a geodesic down atop, and there you have it: the flying island home! All the advantages of a house boat times 10,000.
Hovercraft, or “air-cushion vehicles” do not classify as aircraft because they do not fall into any of the FAA’s four categories of vehicles: Fixed-wing, rotary-wing, glider, or lighter-than-air.
You can’t operate them on a public road because they do not qualify as road vehicles. For example, the California Vehicle Code defines a “motor vehicle” as any vehicle that is self-propelled. Since I can’t find anything in there that explicitly covers ACVs, suffice it to say that the DMV (or any other state authority) probably wouldn’t grant permission to operate a hovercraft on public roads unless you built it with lights, mirrors, license, the whole nine yards.
You’d also need some way of stopping all the air above you tornadoing into space.
Are you telling me that there’s a Danny Dunn book I’ve never read? How is this possible?
Chronos staggers off to the library website, stunned
One significant problem you will encounter is that most motor vehicle departments strongly recommend that road-worthy vehicles have brakes. Hovercrafts do not. Reversing thrust is not nearly as effective a braking mechanism as scraping several square inches of sticky rubber on the ground. There’s also the issue of the airflow from the skirt effectively sandblasting the paint and windows of adjacent vehicles and, in extreme conditions, blinding the drivers with clouds of snow, rain, or dust.
So for pragmatic reasons, I think you would find yourself forbidden to use public roads.
All this assumes that you are talking an actual “hovercraft”, rather than a craft that hovers using some as of yet unknown mechanism that doesn’t involve air flow.
Hmmm… what about “powered lift”? You know, the hover-capable fixed wings, vectored thrust, and that weird thing the osprey does…
I know a couple of trikes (powered hang-glider type wings) have been N-numbered - goodness knows what they filed those under. They aren’t gliders because they’re powered, they aren’t rotocraft, and those wings are awful darn flexible for “fixed”.
The “experimental” category potentially leaves a great deal open. In the past, the FAA (and predecessors) has seemed willing to accomodate radical new designs.
They’re writing regs for private spacecraft right now (guess they want 'em done before someone grabs the X-prize, like Rutan)
Anyhow - I think it has more to do with never getting out of ground effect more than how hovercraft fit into various categories of aircraft. If you did have a hovercraft capable of gaining significant altitude I’d expect it to either fall under rotorcraft or powered-lift (if there is such a category, which I think there is, but obviously I’m due for my annual reg-review)
Let’s look at this from another point of view. Let’s say you’re correct, you are not on Amrican territory while hovering next to the Lincoln Memorial. Since, US Attorney Yojimboguy would argue, you’re not on American territory, that means you must be on foreign territory. And you’re argueing that you are a law unto yourself? Sounds like a possible terrorist, or maybe even an enemy combatant, to me! The US military can kill you, capture you, and do more or less what it wants to with you, without giving you the protection of judicial review.
If I were you, I’d much prefer to be an American on American territory.
A Harrier-type AC would be fixed-wing, since that’s the mode in which it primarily flies and you could just leave the nozzles fixed pointing back and operate it in conventional mode if you choose.
However this does raise a good question about straight-out hover-fliers of the sort that were experimented with in the 1950s (i.e. 4 big ducted fans aiming down, one aiming back). The rotors on helos and gyros do act like wings since they not only lift but they are used to control the turns of the aircraft. Hoverfliers that just blast pure thrust downward and use something else altogether to steer and propel would behave differently.
My money would be on “fixed-wing” because while in operation, the lift is generated by an airfoil that is fixed in the path of the airstream and moving along it at the airspeed of the entire aircraft assemblage – even if it’s not physically rigid.
Hmmm… also makes you wonder about when someone designs a practical powered manned ornithopter (wingflappercraft). It’s not a rotary wing but it lifts and propels (and controls) by beating the air at variable speeds and angles even if the vehicle itself is moving too slowly to generate airflow lift. Specially if it flies like bugs with no “gliding” stroke like birds often use.
tilt-rotors and “x-wings” (at a certain fwd speed the 4-bladed rotor stops at 45-deg to the centreline and the blades act like wings and canards) would be a tricky one … may have to depend on such things as powering of the system and % of the operation that happens under fixed lift vs. under rotary lift, and whether upon losing power in-flight an emergency landing can be achieved by gliding.
As fot the hovercraft over roads: in my jurisdiction, the law says an authorized motor vehicle has to comply with a series of conditions, including that it be wheeled and equipped with pneumatic tires (animal-drawn vehicles may have solid wheels/tires). Exceptions are made for construction or farm machinery that may need to cross short stretches of public road under their own power to get between work areas (and in this case they’re thinking of tracks, but I can see how ACVs and “walkers” could be accommodated). Propelled scooters are allowed provided they have a seat, and the signaling devices required of motorcycles.
-
-
- I have always pondered the possibility of inflatable aircraft–and I suppose a hovercraft would be possible also. If you have seen a parafoil, you know that the front is open and air flows in to keep it inflated to an airfoil-shape–well, I don’t mean like that. I mean a big, sealed plastic wing, something like a giant beach toy. You blow it up once at the start of the flight, cork it, and the wing stays “rigid” because it’s inflated. …I saw a kid flying a kite once that was made this way–it was plastic film, like an inflatable beach toy–but it had no sticks needed. You just blew it up and it held the shape it needed. It would seem to me that at it would be possible to make a lighter-overall structure than if you had a solid frame of any kind. And it’d be easy to store, too! -And for extra-lifting power, you could fill it with helium! Woo-hoo!!! You all owe me one jillion dollars.
-
- But for a hovercraft, it could work too–instead of a “solid deck/frame with a rubber skirt” as normal, you’d have a shape that when inflated is something like a life-raft turned upside down. Then you would just need a small frame that sat on top of that, and held the seats and the engines. Of course if you ran into a pointed stick you’d be SOL, but hey, I ain’t Einstein. Figure that out for yourself.
~
Something like this ? Not flying yet, so far; but geting closer.
A Cavorite [url=http://www.monstersinmotion.com/ships/cavorite.html]vessel would seem to work pretty well, for that. You even have a way of selectively controlling the anti-grav effects, using a series of shutters.