Runways... we don't need runways.

[Shorrick Mk2]

Meanwhile in Russia... - YouTube

[Pace]

Amazing :ok: Could just imagine what would happen if you did that on the M40, M1 or M25 in the UK :ugh:

Think of the media coverage you would get as well as the prosecutions?

Not sure even in Russia that they will get away with it? Maybe the landing but not a subsequent takeoff?

Pace

[RTN11]

I've heard plenty of stories about the early days of microlighting in the UK, where when you needed fuel you landed in a field next to a petrol station to get some. I've also heard that this was the birth of Popham airfield, which does have rather an awkward approach due to the petrol station being there.

Never heard of anyone actually landing on the motorway itself though...:ok:

[A and C]

During the construction of the M1 the chief engineer had an Auster that he used for site visits, landing on the finished part of the roadway. That all stopped once the road was opened to the public.

[Pace]

Maybe someone can answer this ? Obviously a Microlight is not licensed or insured to operate on a public highway!

Hence the antics in this film would be illegal!

Looking at an aero car which could theoretically be licensed and insured to operate on a public highway what would the legal implications be of at 60 to 70 mph becoming an aircraft by rotating skywards?

Probably stupid question?

Pace

[riverrock83]

Well isn't there a rule somewhere that says you can't take off / land unless you are the only thing on the runway (or ATC allows)?

And you probably need permission of the owner...

But other than that - surely a road could be treated as an unlicensed aerodrome?

So not for commercial / scheduled / instruction if you're over 2730kg / flight testing. And you are the only one on the "runway"...

[Halfbaked_Boy]

Regarding an aerocar, so long as it's taxed, MOTed, insured, roadworthy, and the driver/pilot holds a valid driving licence, it can be driven on a road.

At the moment you 'rotate skywards', you are no longer a car but an aircraft, so rules of the air apply. Thus you will also need a valid C of A, pilot's licence and be rated on the aircraft.

Regarding the transition between road and air, you are exempt from the 500' rule due to being in the process of takeoff or landing.

As mentioned above, all you would need is the permission of the Highways Agency (if a motorway or primary route) or the local council if a minor route.

And knowing the UK, this is probably where the stumbling block lies. Which means aerocars are really only ever going to be good for taking off landing at licensed aerodromes (or unlicensed, with the owner's permission), entering and exiting via the aerodrome emergency services entrance, performing the car/aircraft conversion somewhere in between.

Practicalities must also be born in mind... How many roads in the UK do you know that are wide/long/straight/uncrowded enough to accommodate takeoff/landing of something that's 30' wide? Not to mention driving it to the point of takeoff!

[Lightning Mate]

I enjoyed almost eight years flying this piece of kit.

The M55.

http://i636.photobucket.com/albums/uu82/Lightning_29/M55_zps987aa8ca.jpg

[India Four Two]

I'm sure the Safety Elves wouldn't allow that these days!

[Lightning Mate]

It isn't a problem providing one sticks to the rules and drives on the left....

http://i636.photobucket.com/albums/uu82/Lightning_29/M55_zpse54b85a6.jpg

[Pace]

A number of countries including Switzerland use motorways as emergency military runways but they close them.
I do not think you land or takeoff over the top of aunt Matilda on her sunday afternoon jolly up the M1 :ok:

Pace

[Lightning Mate]

The Draken and Viggen were designed specifically to operate off roads, and the latter had stretches built into them for just that purpose.

The Jaguar was designed for rough strip operations and the undercarriage could take quite a pounding I assure you from experience.

[Silvaire1]

As I mentioned in the other thread on the same subject, its legal to land on roads in Alaska, Montana and some other places as long as its done safely. A recent magazine article described being stopped on an Alaskan gravel shoulder in a Mooney, waiting for weather to clear. After a while a police car happened by and stopped. Apparently they chatted for a while, then the cop said 'be careful' and went upon his way.

[BackPacker]

Looking at an aero car which could theoretically be licensed and insured to operate on a public highway what would the legal implications be of at 60 to 70 mph becoming an aircraft by rotating skywards?

All the aero car proposals I've seen so far require some sort of reconfiguration to be used as an airplane. Extending the wings is one obvious thing, but they might also need reconfiguration of the controls (from steering wheel to nosewheel pedal steering, from middle pedal to differential braking, from foot operated to hand operated throttle, etc.) and possibly other things as well.

My gut feeling would be that your MOT, or car type certificate, or something like that, would somehow be invalidated or suspended once you've done the reconfiguration. That would mean that using an aero car in "airplane" configuration would be illegal on a public road.

Similarly, when the aero car is in "car" configuration, it would be illegal to use as an airplane. (Apart from the fact that in that configuration the laws of physics will probably prevent any sort of flight other than ballistic.:E)

As for the transition in between, I would estimate that the manufacturer would stipulate that this can only be done when the vehicle is parked with the engine shut off.

However, there are also proposals for a multi-fan hovering kind of aerocar, which looks like it would not need (extensive) reconfiguration to fly. The legal status of that one would be more dubious. But as it's more a helicopter than an airplane, it would not need to take off or land on a public highway anyway.

[Pace]

Backpacker

You have a valid point! It would have to taxi and takeoff as an aeroplane and would have to be licensed as a road vehicle in that configuration.
The simple fact that the wings would be extended would probably preclude a road licence etc.

The next point would be insurance.

Obviously any aircraft in difficulty engine failure fuel problems etc can land on a road but its the refuel and subsequent takeoff again with a serviceable aircraft which would be a no no!

Pace

[Silvaire1]

I've known of two instances (since I've been flying) where forced landings on roads where it is otherwise prohibited to land were followed by repairs and flying out: once in a Mooney 201 and once with a Stearman. In the first case (in New York State) the pilot went to traffic court and was fined $1. In the second case (in California) the pilot wasn't cited. In both instances, the police closed the road temporarily because it was easiest way to move the aircraft.

In rural Mexico, particularly Baja California, until relatively recently it used to be the rule versus the exception to operate on roads but as the drug war ramped up it became an issue. Of course, with it being Mexico the rules are never exactly clear but when groups of heavily armed youths dressed in green show up, the message comes across loud and clear.

[rateone]

When I was a kid - must have been in the very early '70s - we were travelling up the M1 northwards approaching Leicester Forest services when a light aircraft flew over our car and landed on the northbound carriageway. Scared the bejesus out of my parents. I thought it was great. Cops showed up and the aircraft taxied into the services.

I think it was a Cessna - but I could be wrong. It was a long time ago.

Rateone

[Flyingmac]

Cops wouldn't let it depart using the road, so it was craned over the fence and took off from the field at the back.

[Pace]

We are not talking about an aircraft being forced to land because of technical problems and then maybe being flown out with the police closing the road to do so with permission from the authorities.

We are talking about a microlight landing onto a motorway with other motorists driving on that motorway taxiing in to a fuel bay refueling, taxiing back out onto a busy highway, finding a space in the traffic and taking back off!

Uk he would have the book thrown at him and would probably end up in jail for endangering the lives of other motorists.

The Captain of an aircraft can over ride any rules or regulations if he deems it in the interest of safety but obviously has to answer for his actions. I do not think picking up fuel and departing would work here :ugh:

Pace

[Silvaire1]

We are not talking about an aircraft being forced to land because of technical problems and then maybe being flown out with the police closing the road to do so with permission from the authorities. We are talking about a microlight landing onto a motorway with other motorists driving on that motorway taxiing in to a fuel bay refueling, taxiing back out onto a busy highway, finding a space in the traffic and taking back off! UK he would have the book thrown at him and would probably end up in jail for endangering the lives of other motorists.Obviously Alaska, Montana and the like are on the opposite end of the spectrum relative to Europe when it comes to aircraft regulation, but landing aircraft on roads is none the less legal there, so the microlighter would have no trouble.

In Russia (as in Mexico) I can imagine that the law would be 'flexible', ill-defined, or uninforced but there are locations where there is no ambiguity and aircraft can land on roads legally, as long as it done safely. I think I'd want somebody to keep people away from the prop, although in places like Alaska your average Joe is smart enough to know that! :ok:

[BackPacker]

The simple fact that the wings would be extended would probably preclude a road licence etc.

True. For example, there are width limits for cars, trucks and so forth. In the Netherlands this is 2.55m. I have not seen any aircraft (except model aircraft) that would remain within those limits. Even a cri-cri is a lot wider (at 4.9m).

I would also think the road authorities would have some objection against a spinning propeller. It's not exactly safe in the presence of pedestrians. Heck, even a stationary propeller might already be considered a hazard, so the propeller might need to be shielded or removed for road use. (Apart from the fact that the propeller would be pretty vulnerable to gravel and such being thrown up against it when the aero car is used in car configuration.)

[PompeyPaul]

I land my pa28 on the a3 - fill up at the services. What exactly would I be charged with, if it was done safely?

[BackPacker]

Depends on whether the PA28 is cleared for mogas:E.

(Assuming the service station doesn't supply 100LL but I think that's a fairly safe assumption.)

It does remind me of an old joke though. Student pilot on a QXC is lost and out of fuel. Lands on a highway and taxies into a fuel station. Fills up, then walks into the building to pay. Asks the guy behind the counter "I bet you don't see this everyday, an aircraft at your service station to fill up?" "No", says the guy behind the counter. "They usually stop at the airport on the other side of the fence."

[Silvaire1]

"They usually stop at the airport on the other side of the fence."

That's good! :) :)

I knew a guy, now passed away, who happened to be an early SR-71 pilot. He was great, rode motorcycles and drove fast cars to about age 85 or 90 which is when I knew him. Hearing of my interest in old puddle jumpers he told me that he'd had a job delivering Interstate Cadets from their El Segundo factory. It would've been in 1941 or so. The coastal fog is well known there, but one time after getting above it and heading on top to the desert, no radios or gyros mind you, he and another aircraft got lost. The solution was to land on a road, get auto fuel, ask the attendant where they were, find it on the chart and head onward to destination. I think it was fairly commonplace then - people were just less uptight, particularly in farm areas.

An Interstate Cadet is very little different than farm equipment anyway, it'd blend right in.

[mad_jock]

Pompey you would more than likely be ok with the landing.

The takeoff would be a bit sticky. But if you managed to do it without being stopped I suspect the out come would be cheaper than getting the plane broken down and transported to an airfiled if it wasn't designed that way to be trailered.