I don’t think I am making myself clear
IFR for “homebuilts” will deliver very little value in Europe unless huge exemptions are made on equipment requirements.
Already, you need a BRNAV approved IFR GPS installation to fly IFR in any CAS.
IFR for experimental aircraft is at least today only of interest to a very few. Mainly commercial and military pilots who also happens to be interesting in building their own airplanes, often they are retired or very close to retirement. VFR Night is of interest to a whole lot more, and the new en route IFR (or whatever it is called) may also attract some. But I don’t see why equipment requirements should be more prohibiting for experimental aircraft than traditional GA.
Obviously the whole point of Experimental Amateur Built under FAA rules is to promote experimentation by amateurs, a concept which does not find a universal audience in Europe 
However time has proved its value and I think it’s essential to rapid light aircraft R&D, most definitely including avionics and every other system in the aircraft, and all types of operations.
My local Lancair IV (and Tailwind) owning friend is busy as we speak upgrading the avionics in the plane to the latest and greatest from Garmin, integrated into the plane as he chooses and designs. The (also new) autopilot is uncertified, a Trio I believe. The plane is really a going places machine and flown mostly IFR for that reason. He’s got other planes to use for other kinds of flying.
Obviously the whole point of Experimental Amateur Built under FAA rules is to promote experimentation by amateurs, a concept which does not find a universal audience in Europe
Tell me about it. It hardly finds audience at all. The explosion in ultralights have opened some eyes, but mostly only the eyes of Italians and the Czech’s and a few other previous east block countries. That is where every 99 out of 100 ultralights are made, and also the airplanes derived from them, the LSA and now CS-LSA (if the CS-LSA ever will be any success remains to be seen though). And they are all Rotax powered, talk about having the right product at the right time. Experimental airplanes, that is all American with a very few notable exceptions.
This has been posted in another thread
However, I recall this came up before in various places, and that 1980 recommendation didn’t go anywhere in so far as the individual countries ignored most of it.
However, I recall this came up before in various places, and that 1980 recommendation didn’t go anywhere in so far as the individual countries ignored most of it.
Now you are just spreading FUD again. There is nothing to “ignore” about the recommendation. All it say is:
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”.
That’s it. It is a carte blance to enter the airspace without having to file further applications. But some countries, UK and Germany in particular, categorically refuse experimental aircraft to fly IFR. That list is a (reasonable, couple of years old maybe) up to date survey that ECAC has done showing more in detail what each member state need in terms of documents and what restrictions one should expect.
What was the approval or non-approval procedure by which G-registered homebuilts flew to Friedrchshafen last month? it was great to see them!
Germany accepts experimentals or homebuilds flying IFR.
On my current overflight permit (for whole year 2014), there is even this section:
7. The aircraft must be equiped with a VHF receiver / transmitter (two VHF receivers / transmitters in case of IFR operations) covering at least the required frequency range of 118.000 to 136.975Mhz, with a frequency separation of 25 Khz (8.33 Khz if aircraft operated above FL245).
I have a N registered experimental, so not falling under ECAC regulation and so I need to receive an overflight permit for every EU country. But that’s really not an issue for any country except the 94EUR for Belgium.
Germany accepts experimentals or homebuilds flying IFR.
On my current overflight permit (for whole year 2014), there is even this section:
7. The aircraft must be equiped with a VHF receiver / transmitter (two VHF receivers / transmitters in case of IFR operations) covering at least the required frequency range of 118.000 to 136.975Mhz, with a frequency separation of 25 Khz (8.33 Khz if aircraft operated above FL245).
I have a N registered experimental, so not falling under ECAC regulation and so I need to receive an overflight permit for every EU country. But that’s really not an issue for any country except the 94EUR for Belgium.
This has been my understanding too. But I don’t fly IFR, so I have no experience with it.
LeSving – you may like to study this 2013 document and report back when you have digested it.
Note especially the 2nd para on page 1.
What’s so special with that paragraph?
The ECAC agreement:
The Conference recommends 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”.
The important part is without any restrictions other than those stated in the certificate of airworthiness or “permit to fly”
and “accept Home-Built Aircraft”
Clearly a light aircraft built according to the 51% rule is a home-built aircraft for which this agreement was meant. A Spitfire replica/restoration done by a factory could also be a home-built in some sense, it certainly is an Annex II aircraft. A ultralight could also be a home-built. There are issues with this agreement that is unclear in some cases, but for a traditional home-built with a special CofA in the experimental category or a permit to fly, this agreement leaves no doubt.
