I would want anybody to do it in an N-reg either because it gives the N-reg community a bad name…
hmm N-reg already has a bad name, and if not, it is not due to experimentals not flying IFR.
Scandinavia + Finland – Denmark IFR in experimentals is fully legal, also in good weather 
But I have never heard of a GA ramp check. That’s FAA speciality, and German too by the sound of it. Plus French of course.
The UK CAA are legally obliged to perform a certain number and type of checks. It’s part of the Part M regulation There must be some sort of program.
Regarding Eurocontrol and non IFR types: they have a performance database and the next revision of that database is going to get a performance model for the Cessna 162 (aka SkyCatcher). Now I wonder why Eurocontrol (strictly IFR only mandate) invest time in that unless to prepare to process IFR flight plans for Cessna 162… They have a lot of other aircraft that have neither a CofA nor IFR certification.
Coming back to this old topic…
How could one find out whether a particular country prohibits IFR in its airspace by specific classes of registrations of non-ICAO-CofA aircraft?
I would think the classes would be
Obviously if the permit itself (issued by the country of registry) prohibits IFR then you are stuffed. I believe G-reg and D-reg permits prohibit IFR.
I have also heard about some ECAC rules which limit ECAC-reg homebuilts to VFR also. Where can these be found? I am not referring to the 1980 proposal which we have discussed here many times; that was never converted into a regulation.
IFR in an experimental in Europe is just a matter of perspective. Living outside UK/Germany, the country “setting the agenda” is good old USA. What is going on elsewhere is very much irrelevant. There is nothing EASA or anyone can do to change that, because EASA regulations do not apply to these aircraft, not regarding design, not regarding maintenance, not regarding operations, nothing.
Another thing is that IFR is simply not an issue most places. It is a matter of instruments and avionics exclusively, according to part NCO or local regulations, and according to airspace requirements. It is the pilot’s responsibility to assure the aircraft has the appropriate instruments and avionics for each flight according to airspace requirements. The CAA has made it explicitly clear in at least one AIC that there is no such thing as an aircraft being “approved for IFR”. They did this because this is a common misconception among PPL pilots (one can only wonder why?) “IFR approvals” are for CAT exclusively and only if special procedures are to be used. For the same reason, the CAA do not “approve” IFR in experimentals, but they have a requirement that the avionics has to be installed by an approved maintenance organisation (for the time being at least, for some odd reason. Meaning, you can not simply install instruments yourself and fly). There exists no such thing as experimental IFR avionics for sale any place, how could it, when the design and performance requirements are embedded within the airspace requirements which has to be met regardless? You cannot fly IFR if you cannot show that the requirements of the avionics are met. This means that all IFR operations worldwide in experimentals are done according to ICAO, even in the USA.
There is only one category of aircraft that is not allowed to fly IFR, in IMC, NVFR or on-top, and that is microlight, regardless of equipment installed. That the current generation microlight comes with options for redundant glass (with gyros and accelerometers), triple redundant GPS, moving maps, traffic warning, synthetic vision and online connections and are perfectly capable of maneuvering at treetop level in thick fog is beside the point.
In Norway, the minimum for consistently being able to fly is a DA42 or some other twin with deice equipment. But for summer time / nice weather flying, I guess anything will do. There also seem to be a small, but growing? interest in IR/EIR, which for fast cruisers (Lancairs, RVs) may be a somewhat practical thing? According to the current AIP, the standing requirement for ADF, VOR and DME is gone (it has been gone for a year already according to an AIC, but I haven’t noticed). The only requirement today is “basic RNAV” (whatever that actually is), but only above 10k feet. Below 10k feet there are no airspace requirements, except those needed for landing/departure, which again is irrelevant for EIR. I have to look what part NCO say, but EIR might not be such a crazy thing after all, which I have to consider in my RV-4 (the Onex is VFR only).
What I don’t understand though is the legal/operational sides of this. I come flying in my brand new Exp Panthera. It has a C of A issued by CAA Norway, member of EASA and ECAC and the newest TSO’d Garmin glass avionics according to ICAO. I have a valid IFR FP for crossing Germany and heading to France (where IFR is perfectly legal in an experimental). I don’t need any explicit permission to fly experimentals in Germany or France. Under which international or EASA law can German ATC stop my flight?
Under which international or EASA law can German ATC stop my flight?
For Germany, there is this, so there must be some legal basis, because Germans are all about legal basis 
.
I have heard (possibly in a thread here) that the German entry permit does not include additional restrictions, so if your N-reg experimental, say, is good for IFR, you can fly IFR in Germany. But you are also limited to 180 days/year. And if you have to check the particulars for every country you intend to cross, you can imagine it gets tedious very quickly.
What I don’t understand though is the legal/operational sides of this
Indeed.
Another thing is that IFR is simply not an issue most places. It is a matter of instruments and avionics exclusively, according to part NCO or local regulations, and according to airspace requirements.
In certified aircraft.
There is nothing EASA or anyone can do to change that, because EASA regulations do not apply to these aircraft, not regarding design, not regarding maintenance, not regarding operations, nothing.
Correct, hence my question. The answers are in national regs.
so there must be some legal basis
Yes – homebuilts need permits even for VFR – except where concessions exist e.g. UK-France. We have done this here before. For the G-reg-to-other part of the matrix, there is that UK LAA document which is pretty clear. For the more general case there is this summary but that deals with VFR only. For G-reg ultralights (a different scenario) we have this and again most countries require to issue a permit.
My Q was about IFR. Some aspects of it are very simple e.g. if the permit (which is “owned” by the State of registry) says NO IFR then you have NO IFR worldwide. So if you want to fly IFR in a homebuilt you must not have such a restriction. Most permits in Europe do have that, however, so they are no good. For example the G-reg scenario. I believe D-regs have the same restriction.
N-regs obviously don’t because the FAA doesn’t impose such a limit.
That is unfortunately the only easy bit, because the rest is harder to find, and it concerns which airspaces ban IFR in non-CofA aircraft and for which registrations they ban it.
Peter, don’t beat around the bush and buy yourself that Lancair Evolution to top the weather and cruise IFR throughout Europe FL 270 @300 KTAS
I’ll join Peter in Bend Oregon and build my Evolution Turbine next to him. Until then, I’ll let him do the due diligence on the practicalities of this aircraft in Europe
If it made sense I would start tomorrow.
Indeed…I am very interested in this, and I have an FR24 alert on the two known examples in Europe, as well as other candidates.
Most of the time they are flying VFR, at a massive cost in fuel. It’s sad to see how homebuilts are having to keep below the radar, due to lack of IFR and some other aspects e.g. residence limits. It’s OK if you just bought one for say 50k (if you get busted you just flog it back to somebody living in the country of registration and do something else) but the Evolution is about $1.5M and one just cannot get value out of it flying VFR. There is also the insurance angle…
It’s also potentially dangerous to fly VFR because often you won’t get into CAS and will end up collecting ice, which is not good for this aircraft.
Even if VFR was economical it will still not be usable because getting the border crossing permits when needed just isn’t going to happen, and e.g. Spain reportedly never replies.
However, the drift of my Q further back was to see where it might work. In some countries (only one I know of right now) N-reg homebuilts, with no “VFR only” restriction on their permit, can be resident for a fair time (up to a year) and you can get repeated permits. You cannot do that in the UK… Then if all your flying was via airspaces where there is no regulation on this topic, you would be OK. But it would be a very limited utility value. I think I know of 2 or 3 countries where you could do it, but digging out a confirmation in their local law (basically checking that no applicable regulation exists anywhere) is going to be very hard.
Peter wrote:
In certified aircraft.
What exactly is a “certified” aircraft anyway? (and no, according to ICAO is not a definition). An aircraft receives a C of A, or it doesn’t – period. What you probably mean is a factory built aircraft where components and parts need to be traceable and built according to industry standards and/or as tested by the design organisation. This is, however not needed for an aircraft to receive a C of A, but it may be needed for an aircraft to be operated commercially, to be classified in the “normal” category as we call it here. It’s a main issue though, and the difference between a “permit to fly” and a C of A is like night an day. With a “permit” you may or may not be allowed to operate outside the day VFR regime depending how “developed” the “permit regime” is. With a C of A it’s not even a relevant question. But I meant in general. There is nothing special about IFR other than avionics and a minimum set of instruments and equipment, and that is how the authorities look at it, and how the regulations are written.
Another main issue is that a separate experimental class seem to be needed. A class with a different standard than for instance microlights, but with no need for certifications required for commercial operations. A class for which experimental built aircraft receives a certificate of airworthiness seems to be very, lets say practical, when it comes to operation of them.
By far, most countries (where people do homebuilts) have a separate experimental class for which the aircraft receives a CofA, similar to the US. This is the main reason IFR works, and also the main reason it doesn’t at other places.
Peter wrote:
For the more general case there is this summary but that deals with VFR only
VFR or IFR has nothing to do with this, but some notes are written in that document.
Peter wrote:
N-reg homebuilts
N-reg homebuilt in Europe seems like a dead end path. Better import it to Scandinavia, Italy or France. An Evolution would be a bit problematic some places in any case. It’s an experimental amateur built aircraft, and it’s heavy, MTOW 4550 lbs (2064 kg). In Norway the max for an experimental is 2000 kg, 1500 in Sweden I believe. Have no idea about Italy or France. Poland, Slovenia, maybe?
