Hovercraft have always been defined as aircraft.
There#s a problem with that theory.
If you read the article, and look at the prescribed limit, it's the limit for a member of a ships crew, 35, not for an aircraft crew which is far lower, 9.
In law, things are not always the same under different acts. I would have gone for aircraft, it seems the CPS though didn't, hence my point.
The Hovercraft Act doesn't help matters either. Schedule 1 says this
Schedule
Modifications of enactments
1
In the following enactments, that is to say—
(a)
the definition of " vessel " in section 2 of the Dockyard Port Regulation Act 1865;
(b)
the Petroleum (Consolidation) Act 1928;
(c)
the Petroleum (Consolidation) Act (Northern Ireland) 1929;
(d)
section 32(5) of the British Nationality Act 1948;
(e)
section 2(1) of the Docking and Nicking of Horses Act 1949; and
(f)
the Commonwealth Immigrants Act 1962,
any reference to a ship shall include a reference to a hovercraft, and any reference to the master of a ship in the said Acts of 1928, 1929 and 1962 and section 5 of the Commonwealth Immigrants Act 1968 shall be construed accordingly; and in section 10 of the said Acts of 1928 and 1929 the references to aircraft shall include references to hovercraft.
In other words, different Acts define it as a Ship and Aircraft, and therefore they have not always been treated as Aircraft.
The legislation on drinking and using ships and aircraft, is the Railways and Transport Safety Act 2003, which does not define a hovercraft under either of the 2 relevant parts, Ship and Aircraft.
