Peter wrote:
You know you cannot bad-mouth EuroGA, LeSving, without getting a reaction
Sometimes it’s too hard to resist 
Anyway. I think I read somewhere in the EASA jungle of documents that PPL(only) with IFR rating is less than 5%. Most pilots who do fly IFR in SEPs are professional pilots who also happens to fly as a hobby. Thinking about it, I don’t think I know of a single professional Norwegian pilot flying IFR privately in anything but an experimental aircraft, RV mostly. PPL (only) seems to prefer helicopters, rather than IFR for A to B kind of flying. Considerably more useful with a much larger flexibility of “B”.
boscomantico wrote:
In Europe, vintage aircraft are rare to start with, and then nobody will consider flying IFR in such things.
Well, at least some 10.000 of them, and that is only those who are no longer certified, according to this. In addition there are those who are no longer EASA, but still ICAO. In fact 2 of the aircraft (of 7) in my club are Annex I, but still ICAO; A Cub and a Safir. The Safir is fully IFR “rated”, but lacks any useful avionics, like GPS or VOR, DME. But, as AA said, there is nothing preventing anyone from flying IFR in it. I guess it’s a bit difficult though requires radar following or whatever. The Starfighter they restored a couple of years ago installed a GTN 750 to be able to fly IFR.
Looking through EASA CS, a VLA has the exact same specification for lightning protection as a CS-23. The EASA site say that CS-VLA was merged with CS-23 in 2017 (didn’t know that. Then what constitutes a VLA today? I mean, my club just bought one). CS-23 only say that lightning protection is necessary when “the exposure to lightning is likely”, and then only for “catastrophic effect”. A thunderstorm isn’t that hard to spot, and being struck by lightning is not the only danger, and probably not the worst.
Back to RV. The market for a certified RV is minuscule. No market in the US. No market in Europe except what? a couple of guys in Germany? I mean, the number one selling point for the RVs are, they are NOT certified. Equally true in Europe as in the US.
In Europe, private pilots with an IR are well below 5%, I am sure.
Look here and pick any set showing an EASA PPL(A) and move along to the IR column. The IR issues are of the order of 1-2%. There is some ambiguity because some of these are issued to people in the airline pilot sausage machine, which makes the genuinely private IR numbers even smaller. These numbers are for the UK but the UK has one of the biggest GA scenes in Europe. OTOH many UK IRs are FAA IRs which are not shown; much “research” has been done in years past to get numbers, mostly without any real success, but I think few people are doing the FAA route these days, especially since you have to go to the US to sit the written exams. Germany probably has a higher EASA IR compliance % (do similar license/rating issue stats exist for Germany? – maybe something here) but I still think 5% would be too high a figure for Europe.
But I don’t think many of them are airline pilots, because (a) they don’t get automatic SE IR privileges and (b) most airline pilots are sick of IFR and want to fly taildraggers (I know a number and most of them fly RVs and such, on just local flights) although there are notable exceptions on EuroGA.
I agree a market for certified RVs would be very small, unless the extra cost was say under 10k and then many would pay that, to be able to fly freely across borders.
But I don’t think many of them are airline pilots
In an RV, the only thing you need to do to fly IFR is to install a GTN. Two of my fellow microlight instructors are airline pilots. IME they either fly RVs (or some other experimental) or microlight or both. Certified SEP, not so much, unless they also are inspectors or something. But then they only “inspect”
About certifying an RV, see the price difference 
between a sling 2 and a Sonaca ! The sonaca is twice as expensive !
Well, only some thoughts from the real european uncertified VFR world. I fly an uncertified RV. I fly long distances. E.g. comparable to Berlin-Madrid. I fly VFR only. Do I need IFR? No. I need a good aviation weather platform for planning. Do I need a certification. No. I need flexibility. For long distances 1-3 days buffer cause the weather can be bad somewhere on the route. But the longer the distance the better are chances to fly around. Would that be a no brainer with IFR privileges? No. If a due date is important I would always prefer an airliner. But for holidays? Is airspace a problem? For IFR certainly not. For VFR? Ok, that is the biggest hassle. Meanwhile I have 4 routes to cross France from N to S, for example, for which I do not need any contact with ATC. Germany is a piece of cake in this respect as many other countries, Poland, Czech Rep., Spain e.g. The routes through France take you some hours to plan, but only once in many years. And then you can fly when you want, no delays by IFR flight plans. Of course I talk to ATC. It can make things a lot easier, especially in France and Italy. If the weather is not so good, as often, I need to fly low. Ok. But the RV is always good for 150 kts, higher up 160 kts with 65% power. I have a glass cockpit, auto pilot. Bottom line is that IFR and certification is nice and expensive but for me as a typical RV owner really unnecessary / useless.
Just read in another article the 912iS is due for CS-23 certification in the spring of 2020.
Arne wrote:
Just read in another article the 912iS is due for CS-23 certification in the spring of 2020.
Hmm, I wonder how the buttonology will be on a certified version.
A couple of things:
1. Engines are certified to CS-E not CS-23.
2. As far as I can see no-one has mentinoned stability, control or Handling Qualities. I don’t have the expertise to expound on this beyond saying that AIUI, acceptable HQ for VMC flight may not be acceptable for IMC flight.
Yes, control forces and handling etc were among the criteria in the UK LAA IFR programme, and some types did not pass. Some avionics were also rejected, with some criticism at the time.
Joe-fbs wrote:
As far as I can see no-one has mentinoned stability, control or Handling Qualities
When the Cirrus managed to get certified, then anything passes I’m sure I think that is one of the reasons you should not certify an experimental homebuilt, and they should not be mixed with certified planes (like the LAA seems to be doing). Certification “assures” that stability, control, handling fall within a frame of what a pilot should expect. There is no good reason for doing that in a non certified plane, because – it is not certified. Therefore there are good reasons why type ratings should exist for non certified planes, or at least a minimal set of “differences training” or whatever should be in place. You should not simply jump into a non certified plane and expect that you automatically will survive at the end of the flight, just because you have all the required licenses and 1000+ hours in your log book.
A different set of rules apply, and I mean a set of rules based on physics. A non certified aircraft will most probably (as per default) behave very different from what you are used to (depending on what exactly you are used to of course). For microlight (in Norway) you cannot “rate yourself” on an aircraft before you are an instructor class II (you start at class III). For experimental aircraft, anyone can in principle just jump into them and fly, and this has shown to be the largest reason for higher accident rates in the USA. This has been completely removed today after the FAA and EAA started campaigning about the “virtues” of getting training in one before flying off in one. The Norwegian CAA is now creating a “training program” for how to “rate yourself” in a new homebuilt aircraft (at least that is what they have said, haven’t seen anything so far).
To me it is simply incomprehensible why anyone would like a non certified plane behave like a certified plane. What is the logic? If you want a certified plane, then get a certified plane, end of story. Now, RVs fly and behave pretty well, as do all the popular kits. But do they fall into certified specs? who cares? they are not certified, and therefore there are no reason why they should.
