Boat/hovercraft/plane - which license?

[Ripline]

From BBC World News:

BBC News - Flying hovercraft takes to the skies (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/8543202.stm)


I have to say this looks fun. Can't see the authorities taking kindly to people doing the Cowley to Oxford commute in one, though.....

Ripline

[eocvictim]

There's a mob in the states that have been making these for about 10 years, they're fine so long as they stay below a certain height. Because its a WIG i'd say it'd be more of a maritime affair.

[sitigeltfel]

Also on Sky with commentary from the reporter

Flying Hovercraft: Inventor, New Zealand Mechanic Rudy Heeman, Auctions WIG Vehicle | Strange News | Sky News (http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/Strange-News/Flying-Hovercraft-Inventor-New-Zealand-Mechanic-Rudy-Heeman-Auctions-WIG-Vehicle/Article/201003115563210?lpos=Strange_News_Second_Home_Page_Feature_T easer_Region_0&lid=ARTICLE_15563210_Flying_Hovercraft%3A_Inventor%2C_New_Ze aland_Mechanic_Rudy_Heeman%2C_Auctions_WIG_Vehicle)

Is she really wearing a bone dome, but no seatbelt?

[Pilot DAR]

they're fine so long as they stay below a certain height.

I've heard 15 feet.

My hovercraft experience suggests to me that an engine failure would be doubly scary, when your source of thrust, and your landing gear, dissappear at the same time! There won't be time to worry about it though!

[ChrisVJ]

It would be interesting to see demonstrations of engine out landings on land and water. I saw demonstrations of hovercraft engine failures, I guess sometime around 1966, and they were non events. One of the reasons hovercraft have been largely irrelevant economically is the accident of their birth as an aviation machine.

JMHO of course.

[L'aviateur]

Commercially hovercraft are 'piloted' by seafarers with 'type ratings', and I would imagine it will remain the same way. Particularly over long distances, due to insurance and the legal and commercial experience of sea Captains.
The WIG has been in development for years, and has even been included in the amended 'Prevention of Collision Regulations', but the problem seems to be related to weather limitations.

[BoeingMEL]

... but, whatever tricks this machine does on land or water it's an aircraft. Oh, M.L'Aviateur.. the plural of hovercraft is hovercraft...not hovercrafts! :ugh:

[Whopity]

Looks like SEP(Sea) to me!

[onetrack]

I'd like to see the result when that machine is airborne, and one wing dips and hits the water! The result would not be dissimilar to an aircraft doing the same thing, methinks - with equally disastrous results.

[Mark1234]

wow.. that's one ugly looking aerofoil! and rudder elevator only it seems?

Nice to know there are still some proper nutters out there :)

[MichaelJP59]

I'd like to see the result when that machine is airborne, and one wing dips and hits the water! The result would not be dissimilar to an aircraft doing the same thing, methinks - with equally disastrous results.

If you watch the Sky News link above, it does just that - with no ill effects.

I guess landing engine-out would be no problem as long as you keep the nose (prow?) up. Surprised to see that journalist passengering without so much as a safety belt - I guess it's like the old racing car philosophy; in an accident you're better off being "thrown clear" :)

[Pilot DAR]

I guess landing engine-out would be no problem as long as you keep the nose (prow?) up

Hmmm, I don't agree...

The engine is doing three things for you on a hovercraft, and by extension, this machine: Provides thrust, pressure for cushion lift, and airflow over the rudders for directional control.

Loosing any one of these can be a problem, all three simultainiously - loss of control is likely. When a hovercraft is not producing cushion pressure, the drag relative to the surface, be it water or ground, is very high. If you touch down at high speed, with high friction, it's going to be bad (particularly with no seat belt). Worse, with no real directional control, nothing really prevents you touching down going sideways, which is certain to result in a rollover. Even a hovercraft in the normal sense, flying on cushion, is at risk of rollover while moving sideways, if the engine stops.

It looks like great fun, 'till something goes wrong, and someone is hurt. Then people line up to ask: "How could they be allowed to fly such a thing?". Then someone makes a regulation about it, and everyone cries about more regulation. Then someone dreams up another type of machine in which to hurt themselves, and the cycle repeats itself.

It's not that I'm against innovation, but when it is not accompanied by some mitigation of risk, a whole (or in this case, more than one) industry gets painted with a black mark, and more heavily regulated.

There are a lot of design standards out there, which when followed, are very likely to result in a product which is acceptably safe to our society. As has been said so well,

"Regulation is for the guidance of wise men, and the obedience of fools"

This is why....

[penguin-uk]

When a hovercraft is not producing cushion pressure, the drag relative to the surface, be it water or ground, is very high. If you touch down at high speed, with high friction, it's going to be bad (particularly with no seat belt).

I quite agree - as an ex hovercraft pilot (I actually managed to place 3rd in my formula in the 1991 world championships), engine failure in this could be pretty horiffic. In a normal single engined light hovercraft which produces both your thrust and lift, as an engine failure can produce something known as a 'plough-in' on water where the front end drops and digs in and stops you pretty quickly for which i also have first hand experience, lol. I wouldn't want to fly one of these more than a few feet up :)