FlightGlobal.com
Home
Premium
Archive
Video
Images
Forum
Atlas
Blogs
Jobs
Shop
RSS
Email Newsletters
You are in:
Home
Aviation History
1964
1964 - 0825.PDF
Air-Cushion Vehicle* FUGHT (nternotionol supplement, 26 March 1964 HOVERCRAFT LEGISLATION On March 18 a lecture on "The Development of Legislation for Hover- craft" was to be presented to the Air Law Group of the Royal Aeronautical Society, by Mr A. R. Barrowclough, Barrister-at-Law. A synopsis follows:— There are well developed bodies of law regulating the conduct of sea, air and land transport, but these bodies of law have developed in separate directions and present marked differences from each other. Some of these differences arise as a result of the physical differ- ences between the respective forms of transport, but others are less natural and less readily referable to the particular circumstances of the type of transport in question. When a new form of transport emerges there are inevitably difficulties in deciding which (if any) of the existing bodies of law is to be applied to the new- comer. Thus the Hovercraft lies some- where between air and surface transport, and at some stage or other decisions must be made whether it should be governed by the rules applicable to sur- face transport, by those applicable to air transport or by a new set of rules—a combination perhaps of some surface transport rules, some air transport rules and some rules specific to Hovercraft. In the absence of legislation it would fall to the courts to decide these matters, but the courts' decisions would neces- sarily be made piecemeal, and quite possibly by reference to more or less accidental considerations, such as the width of the definition of "ship" or "aircraft" in a particular statute. To leave the issue to the courts would not therefore, it is suggested, be a satis- factory way of resolving the problems presented by the advent of the Hover- craft. A first step in legislation has already been taken, for the Road Traffic Act of 1962 provides that a vehicle designed to be supported on a cushion of air (called "a hover vehicle") is to be a motor vehicle for the purposes of the Road Traffic Act 1960. In general terms the effect of this is to apply road traffic laws to hover vehicles when used on roads. Among the points requiring consider- ation in connection with this piece of legislation is whether it may not, in certain instances, have the effect of applying road traffic rules to Hovercraft even when not used on roads; and it is also important to consider the effect of the absence of any provision that when used on roads hover vehicles are not to be regarded as aircraft. At least for the present, however, the main use of Hovercraft is over water rather than over land, and in this sphere no legislative action has so far been taken. It is therefore appropriate to consider what form the necessary legislation should take. No one is likely to dispute that some aspects of Hover- craft operation on water must be governed by maritime rules; the Regu- lations for Preventing Collisions at Sea, for example, are more appropriate than the Rules of the Air. In other fields, however, the choice is not so clear. In some, such as construction and safety regulations, an amalgam of air and sea requirements may be found necessary. In others, and particularly those fields where the divergences between sea and air legislation are not readily referable to physical considerations, an almost political decision may be required. Thus in relation to liability for the death of or injury to passengers the aviation rules are much more favourable to the passen- gers than are the maritime rules, while in other spheres, such as liability for nuisance by noise, the interests of the public receive far greater consideration in maritime law than in aviation law. In these fields a choice between maritime and aviation rules may prove conten- tious. LETTERSTO THE EDITOR The Editor of "Air-CushionVehicles" is not necessarily in agreement with the views express-ed by correspondents in these columns. Names and addressesof writers, not for publication in detail, must in alt cases accom-pany letters. Sailing ACV's? SIR,—There were two items in your December issue which particularly im- pressed me; firstly, Mr Cockerell's reference to the method of propelling an ACV, and, secondly, the article "The Light Hovercraft." It occurred to me that if the two hulls of the cata- maran were supported above the water by air cushions the wind would propel the vessel at a very fair speed. It seemed to me that quite a small engine would suffice for lift and thrust would be free. I did not think much more about this until a few days ago when I read an article in Time (February 21) on ice- boating. I quote from the article: "An iceboat travels fastest across the wind— on what sailors call 'a reach.' Its speed results from the sail's efficiency as an airfoil. Sailing directly down wind, an iceboat cannot exceed the wind's speed. On a reach, the wind produces a vacuum on the lee of the slightly slanting sail. This results in a strong forward force. As the sail pushes forward trying to eliminate the vacuum, the iceboat can attain fantastic speeds—up to five times the actual wind velocity." Apparently as long ago as 1908 the iceyacht Clarel travelled at 140 m.p.h. Not being an engineer or scientist— there is no fear of my going down the brain drain—I cannot say whether my idea is a practical proposition. However some of your readers may think the matter is worthy of further investiga- tion. Port Dickson, Malaya p. HALL ACV Nomenclature SIR,—In the middle of 1962, a lengthy correspondence took place in your pages on the origins and nomenclature of, and responsibility for, Ground Effect Vehicles. The correspondence was, 1 believe, sparked off by a letter over my name in the issue of June 21 and I cannot' help feeling that Cockerell's article in the last Air-Cushion Vehicles justifies much of what I said nearly two years ago. London Wl F. H. SMITH [Mr Smith remarked in his earlier letter: "I really do not think we can do better than the Americans" with the gift for initialese, GEM. It is, at least, more easy to use in conversation than VTOL, which gives one the impression that one is conversing in Polish."—Ed] No Relative SIR,—The article "The Classification of Hovercraft" (Air-Cushion Vehicles, February) was most interesting indeed, I wonder if it is remembered or known that when the first four Sikorsky hel*- copters arrived in this country m 1943-44 they were labelled by the Ministry of Aircraft Production "Hover- fly Aircraft." London Wl L. s. ARMANDIAS 44
Sign up to
Flight Digital Magazine
Flight Print Magazine
Airline Business Magazine
E-newsletters
RSS
Events
