I have seen this before. 90% of the “old” western Europe are signatures to the agreement, and at least 99.9% of countries where homebuilding is done. The agreement is from 1980. In 1980 there was a cold war going on, and Eastern Europe was off limit for all GA.
But, this is irrelevant versus what has actually happened since the early/mid 90s. Microlights from former Warsaw pact countries are flooding the “scene”, and people are travelling across borders with microlights despite the requirement for permission. Permission is a nuisance of course, but it’s no show stopper for microlights. Microlights are not included in the 1980 ECAC agreement.
What is transforming the scene is not some border-crossing agreement. Homebuilt aircraft will never transform the scene, because there will never be enough of them to do so in any case. What is transforming the scene is exclusively the availability of cheap factory made aircraft that are used in a regime void of bureaucracy, and maintained freely without the need for maintenance organisations – microlights.
Isn’t that just moving the goalposts of the discussion from homebuilts to microlights?
Microlights can travel around Europe. Obviously VFR only…. and with severe payload/power/etc restrictions because, ahem, they are microlights!
I’m not sure what this “discussion” actually is all about. Seems to me someone just want to mix it all for some off reason. To my knowledge no microlight can travel freely across any border. They all have to have special permission crossing any and all borders. No microlight can fly IFR. Still people zoom all over Europe with microlights despite the political, technical (weight limits) and operational (VFR day only) limitations. These are the aircraft that has transformed recreational aviation in Europe, seemingly against all odds (but not really)
For homebuilt aircraft, the ECAC 11-1 is valid which say:
__ – that Member States accept home-built aircraft with a certificate of airworthiness or a “permit to fly” issued by another Member State, to fly in their country without any restrictions other than those stated in the certificate of airworthiness or “permit to fly”.__
For those countries who have not signed the agreement (former Warsaw pact mostly), prior permission is needed. Either way, ECAC or no ECAC, the question of IFR is irrelevant since any eventual restrictions are written in the C of A or the “permit”.
An aircraft backed by ICAO certainly is more practical in a “political” manner, but that only applies if all you do is fly to Romania or Cyprus etc. But – the fact that UK and a few other countries restrict their homebuilts to day VFR only, has no relevance to any of this whatsoever.
I was doing a bit of idle googling and found a reference to a UK CAA document called AWN52. It was said to contain a reference to the 30 day limit on basing a non-G-reg homebuilt in the UK. But it doesn’t seem to exist online. Does anybody know anything about this?
I am sure every other country in Europe has a similar restriction. It’s a long term parking limit, basically, though obviously enforceable only if you actually fly the plane. But they exist in the national regs only, national language only, and are very hard to dig out.
This is also interesting – the LAA rules for accepting (or more likely not accepting) some imported aircraft. One para in particular caught my eye
and it shows just how different things are from the USA and probably some other European homebuilt regimes, where ADs can be ignored.
As I understand it there are no ADs for experimental aircraft, but if certified equipment is used (and engine for instance), then ADs will apply for the engine. Kit manufacturers do however issue SBs (Security Bulletins). In Norway it is up to the owner to evaluate if these ADs and SBs are to be implemented, but he is required to be up to date about all of them.
