"recently designed AeroTrekking vehicle pictured here"

It's actually called powered hang glider or an "ultralight trike" more commonly. It's not new at all with first such aircrafts having appeared in the 70s. Nor is it a rich man's sport. You can buy a trike for less than what you pay for a car.

The best thing about these aircraft is that they are exempt from regulation and do not require a license to fly. They can also be landed almost anywhere, in water (with floats), on snow (with skis), or any hard, plain surface. You don't need an airstrip, just 100m or so area to land or take off.

Are they green?

Yes, if they are used for travel from point A to point B which one would otherwise travel by road or by a commercial flight. Although their fuel consumption is comparable with a passenger car, its the fact that flying in a straight line to your destination reduces travel distance significantly.

It's not a good idea to use them just for recreation though. But still, compared to other forms of recreation based travel such as sailing, they are remarkably green.

Hmm, if it truly caught on, I can see where the author's going.

Nothing's more annoying than the constant buzz, as one tries to relax at a lake, of "personal watercraft". One guy having fun, at the expense of thousands of people listening to the insistent droning of their jetski's motor. Ugh.

Are they green? Yes, if they are used for travel from point A to point B which one would otherwise travel by road or by a commercial flight. Although their fuel consumption is comparable with a passenger car, its the fact that flying in a straight line to your destination reduces travel distance significantly.

Wha?? First of all, the emissions are going to be worse than a car or commercial airplane. Second, there's no way it uses less energy per passenger-mile than a commercial flight. It's also noisy as heck, which is NOT GREEN. Flying over natural areas that are free from motorized traffic is the complete antithesis of green.

It's not a good idea to use them just for recreation though. But still, compared to other forms of recreation based travel such as sailing, they are remarkably green.

How in the world is it more green than a form of travel that runs on pure wind?

Sounds like a lot of fun. I don't see why many of these sports, snowmobiling, jetsking, 4-wheeling...can't be made much more quiet and minimally polluting by making electric versions instead of using the internal combustion engines.

Very very dangerous, and if they crash, very hard to rescue people, who, being likely badly injured, will probably die.

They should charge them a big fee to support the rescue infrastructure. That will cut way down on the use.

These are actually light sport aircraft, not ultalights. You do have to have an FAA license to fly them (Sport Pilot classification). And these Kite Wings are a far cry from motorized hang gliders. These have dual surface wings, full instrumentation, four stroke dual ignition engines, high tech carbon fiber construction, cruise speeds approaching 100 mph, and glide rates close to a non-motorized glider.

most everything is available by foot ( it may take some effort), so usingthis as a "pro" argument is a laugh.
IT all boils down to how one defines "wilderness", it looks like our representatives lookat it as an amusent park,hoping that morevisitors means more revenue, roads ,etc.

My wife had an uncle that had one of these. I'm not sure if its exactly the same thing but she said he used the pasture she kept her horse in the test it out for the first time. it looked like a hang glider with a motor on the back, similar to this.

She is a major tree hugger but admits she has a fantasy of flying over the mountains in something like this. if you can ignore the buzz, maybe put an Ipod in your ear, its pretty amazing.

Prices never come down in aviation. It's a bummer for those of us who fly for fun.

Also, one of the big advantages of an aircraft as an off-road vehicle is that it is not in-contact with the ground. This thing isn't going to leave 50-mile long tracks through the woods -- it just needs a clear field or parking lot to fly out of. Much lower impact than a snowmobile or 4-wheeler, which are also not required to have a catalytic converter.

As someone else pointed out, it aircraft don't have emissions control systems. They add to the weight of the aircraft, and getting anything certified for aircraft is a royal pain -- general aviation aircraft are just now getting engine-computers, even though the atmosphere changes a lot more for them than it does for cars. In an airplane pilot manually adjusts the mixture whenever he climbs or descends with a knob -- my 1998 Ford truck gives itself a tuneup (timing and mixture -- a tuneup in the 1960s sense) several times a second. Fortunately, since this is an ultralight the owner could probably put a catalytic converter on it -- just so long as it doesn't put the machine overweight enough that certification is required. There are a lot of environmental and safety improvements that could be made to smaller aircraft if the laws were easier to comply with -- but, alas, that is not the era in which we live.

Even this ultralight will remain f'ing expensive, and avgas is about $4.50/gal at my local FBO these days -- and the fuel is a relatively small part of the cost of operating a general aviation aicraft.

Are they green?

87 octane with 10% ethanol automotive fuel in an aerotrekker compared with Jet A in commercial aircraft or 100 octane low lead in private aircraft, doesn’t come any cleaner in the motorized aviation industry. 64 db at 500 ft, doesn’t come any quieter in the aviation industry.

87 octane with 10% ethanol automotive fuel in an aerotrekker compared with Jet A in commercial aircraft or 100 octane low lead in private aircraft, doesn’t come any cleaner in the motorized aviation industry.

The only thing that matters is what comes out, and how much of it, not what goes in.

64 db at 500 ft, doesn’t come any quieter in the aviation industry.

Funny, I don't recall being able to hear a 747 flying 35,000 feet above the ground. I have heard these things, though, and I'd toss a rock at it if they flew over me on a wilderness hike.

Isn't it getting ridiculous when all we can say about a sport is that the vehicle used in the sport pollutes the air? Isn't that what it boils down to? It leaves no tracks. It touches the wilderness land at no point. A foot harms the forest floor more than an aerotrekker. Are we banning hikers? No. So if pollution is your hot button, then focus your attention on the 2.6 billion automobiles, diesel trucks, buses, trains, construction equipment, and other massive polluters in the world, rather than on the 500 aerotrekkers. The sum total of pollutants from aerotrekkers is meaningless compared to the mass of pollutants from areas where you should be focusing your energies.

I would ask if your own access to the wilderness is entirely by foot, or whether you at some point between your home and the wilderness used some device (car, bus, plane) which polluted the air. If you did, then why did you not stay home instead of adding to the pollution of the environment by your participation?

They should charge them a big fee to support the rescue infrastructure. That will cut way down on the use.

Responding to the afore mentioned comment...what is your response when the aircraft is the search and rescue team?

A foot harms the forest floor more than an aerotrekker. Are we banning hikers? No.

You clearly don't go hiking, and that makes me wonder why you would come to Treehugger if you don't actually get out in nature and enjoy its peace and quiet.

The reason people make an effort to get out into the wilderness is to get away from noise, not to be assaulted by it by some schmuck in a flying toy who's too lazy to strap on some hiking boots and/or paddle his or her way in.

Anonymous fallaciously argues: “The only thing that matters is what comes out, and how much of it, not what goes in.”

Since Aerotrekkers have not discovered alchemy nor are they fllying chemical processing plants but rather common internal combustion engines what comes out is a function of what goes in. Leaded aviation fuel is a hold over of the good old days and jet fuel is also fun stuff.

Anonymous fallaciously argues: “The only thing that matters is what comes out, and how much of it, not what goes in.”
Since Aerotrekkers have not discovered alchemy nor are they flying chemical processing plants but rather common internal combustion engines what comes out is a function of what goes in. Leaded aviation fuel is a hold over of the good old days and jet fuel is also fun stuff.

Yes, you're so logical. Emissions controls don't exist and fuel economy doesn't differ, ergo there is a direct relationship between fuel composition and quality and output no matter what.

Thanks for enlightening us with that reality-denying idea.
=== authors' response follows ===
I sense some truth in both your points of view. My own was more focused on the noise factor. Rich guy imitating house fly buzzing around my once in a lifetime wilderness experience - not a fun prospect.

Reminds me of those duck decoys that rich guys buy which have batter powered motors that make them swim and flap and quack.

The articles author states: “My own was more focused on the noise factor.”

Attempting to focus on the noise factor implies Aerotrekkers have a particularly high noise level relative to other aircraft. As noted above the manufacturers measured noise output is 64 db at 500 ft. This roughly translates to the noise levels between dinner conversation (60 db) and a dishwasher (70db).
http://www.tehamagp.com/documents/background_report/Sections/8.A%20Noise.pdf
http://www.asha.org/public/hearing/disorders/noise.htm

While the quality of the sound could be a source for objection the volume is minimal, the footprint small, and the time period short.

But not content to make his point on the merits the author concludes with a nice Ad Hominem: “Rich guy imitating house fly buzzing around my once in a lifetime wilderness experience - not a fun prospect.”

It does seem to be a matter of perception and not reality. Throwing stones and anything else handy is certainly a viable approach as advocated by Anonymous but when didn’t fantasy beat reality.

Attempting to focus on the noise factor implies Aerotrekkers have a particularly high noise level relative to other aircraft. As noted above the manufacturers measured noise output is 64 db at 500 ft. This roughly translates to the noise levels between dinner conversation (60 db) and a dishwasher (70db).

When I hike or canoe in the silent wilderness, the sound of a dishwasher would be extraordinarily annoying. Also, if you actually read the article and post, the guy proposes flying 15 feet off the ground, not 500 feet, so the noise will be considerably louder, as is obvious to anyone but yourself.

Throwing stones and anything else handy is certainly a viable approach as advocated by Anonymous but when didn’t fantasy beat reality.

Good that you speak of fantasy and reality, since you fantasize that this toy has clean tailpipe emissions and is quiet as a napping kitten.

When you demonstrate you've actually been in the silent wilderness once in your life (without being there to make a ruckus), then maybe your opinion would have an ounce of worth. Instead, it sounds exactly like the kind of anti-treehugger viewpoint which is inimical to the shared values here.

Again - what's the point of wilderness if no one respects what makes it a place that people go to get in touch with nature?

In good attack style Anonymous challenges: “When you demonstrate you've actually been in the silent wilderness once in your life (without being there to make a ruckus), then maybe your opinion would have an ounce of worth. Instead, it sounds exactly like the kind of anti-treehugger viewpoint which is inimical to the shared values here.”

When in doubt reduce the argument to us versus them, it is always safer and easier. When in doubt go on the attack, make your opponent prove their “green”. But I have noticed that frequently the final arbiters and defenders of the faith frequently fall short of the ideal they want to impose on others. The reality of the situation requires more than a passing news article and a quick judgment based on preconceived notions. The sport is really nothing new, it’s been going on in Europe for years. In fact all the best aircraft are built in Europe.

I think we're tilting at windmills. If these things travel at 45 miles per hour, then we will be disturbed from between 15 to 25 seconds before the noise level reaches an indiscernible level, assuming it happened to fly within hearing distance of us at all. I would prefer that to the incessant whine and sting of the ubiquitous mosquitos around my ears, for hours, as I sit by the lake and try to enjoy the stillness and silence.

If these things travel at 45 miles per hour, then we will be disturbed from between 15 to 25 seconds before the noise level reaches an indiscernible level, assuming it happened to fly within hearing distance of us at all. I would prefer that to the incessant whine and sting of the ubiquitous mosquitos around my ears, for hours, as I sit by the lake and try to enjoy the stillness and silence.

You prefer the sound of a loud air toy to the sound of nature and you think you're an environmentalist?

=====

When in doubt reduce the argument to us versus them, it is always safer and easier. When in doubt go on the attack, make your opponent prove their “green”. But I have noticed that frequently the final arbiters and defenders of the faith frequently fall short of the ideal they want to impose on others. The reality of the situation requires more than a passing news article and a quick judgment based on preconceived notions. The sport is really nothing new, it’s been going on in Europe for years. In fact all the best aircraft are built in Europe.

Nice attempt at a digression. I submitted a link to a video earlier and it hasn't posted yet, but it was a perfect demonstration of the deafening sound of these things, despite your absurd assertion that they are no louder than a dinner conversation.

I don't have preconceived notions about these things. I've had direct experience being around them, and know exactly how disquieting such noises are in the silent wilderness. I also would like to note that you didn't address my belief that you don't get out in silent wilderness. I can't think of anyone who does who would welcome these oys buzzing 15 feet above their heads, or 500 feet above their heads.

Nature is for nature, not noise machines.

You have a point James.

Anonymous continues his argument with: “I submitted a link to a video earlier and it hasn't posted yet, but it was a perfect demonstration of the deafening sound of these things, despite your absurd assertion that they are no louder than a dinner conversation.”

I found and posted the manufacturers specs. I found and posted comparable noise ratings. As I said you may find the quality of the sound objectionable but data is data and hand waving is hand waving.

The more people who experience nature without actually harming it, the more people there will be who want to protect it. Bring on the Aerotrekker. I have seen camping grounds frequented by so-called environmentalists that are disgustingly littered with their garbage. You can't walk more lightly on the ground than not to touch it at all. I consider myself to be a thinking conservationist and often wonder what the drivers of old, smoke belching gas guzzling vehicles full of save the planet stickers, are trying to say. I doubt that there will be thousands of these aircraft flying over every square foot of wilderness. There is no doubt that they are more fuel efficient than any 4WD or gas guzzling old crock when traveling from point to point. It is certainly a better alternative to snowmobiles and dirt bikes.

I found and posted the manufacturers specs. I found and posted comparable noise ratings. As I said you may find the quality of the sound objectionable but data is data and hand waving is hand waving.

Hey, not my fault it didn't get posted. Go to the most popular video site and search for "volando en trike". I could care less what the manufacturer (whose interest is to put a shine on the vehicle) says what they sound like way higher than this many says he'll be (15 feet off the ground). Watch the vid and listen for yourself.

You're the one "hand waving" with irrelevant data and denying the obvious.

===

I have seen camping grounds frequented by so-called environmentalists that are disgustingly littered with their garbage.

Baloney.

You can't walk more lightly on the ground than not to touch it at all.

And the air doesn't matter, huh. Just crank out the noise and the pollution. People should just wear ear plugs and gas masks when they go hiking, right?

I consider myself to be a thinking conservationist and often wonder what the drivers of old, smoke belching gas guzzling vehicles full of save the planet stickers, are trying to say.

You're a "thinking" conservationist who wonders about non-existent people?

I doubt that there will be thousands of these aircraft flying over every square foot of wilderness.

It only takes one to ruin the experience for many over a HUGE amount of area.

There is no doubt that they are more fuel efficient than any 4WD or gas guzzling old crock when traveling from point to point.

Is it more fuel efficient than a small car? No. Does that even matter? No. Quit constructing strawmen, Mr. "Thinking."

It is certainly a better alternative to snowmobiles and dirt bikes.

Those have no place in the wilderness, either.

Anonymous reminds: I also would like to note that you didn't address my belief that you don't get out in silent wilderness.(emphasis added)

The keyword here is belief, a non reality based word. Your beliefs are solely your responsibly, not mine, and it would not be appropriate for me to comment on your belief system.

I hate to say it. Anyone who objects to this type of discovery of the world around them is closed minded.

All those years 747's skimmed over the top of your house, and you could barley here the person sitting next to you on the patio! No complaints there...

Common people! It's a ROTAX engine for Christ sake! These engines are on ATVs, Jet Ski's and light weight aircraft. It's not like a Boeing Jet, or a helicopter waking you up in the morning. It's not a Hummer, shit it even gets better gas mileage than a Prius.

So all I can say is don't knock it until you fly it.........
After my first flight I was in tears, and was convinced that if everyone took a flight in an AirCreation we might have world peace. Everyone is so focused on the all the bad in the world. For once just sit back and appreciate God's creation.

With a cost of $20,000 to $90,000 these aircraft will never be an everyman's toy. I fly paramotors which can be purchased for less than $6000, yet there are still very few of us. Hanging thousands of feet in the air from a few strings is only for the few.

Aircraft have almost no physical impact on wilderness areas. Compared to trucks, atc's, motorcycle's, horses, and over hiked trials, aircraft have much less impact on the land. I fly over wilderness areas and often see the destruction from land vehicles.

I agree that rescue cost should be paid by pilots, just as rescue cost should be charges to hikers, climbers, cyclist, and anyone else who ventures into the wilderness.

Also, these trikes are some of the most fuel efficient airplanes getting over 30 MPG.