Germany accepts experimentals or homebuilds flying IFR.
This is not correct. Germany limits experimentals to VFR. It’s in the AIP. What you quoted just paraphrases the German equipment regulation.
LeSving – please read that PDF. It contradicts most of what you post on this topic.
It doesn’t contradict anything. What has happened is that some bureaucrats has put limitations and restrictions regarding operation of experimental registered aircraft in the AIP and similar. What they should have done is to put these restrictions in the CofA or the Permit.
Anyway, this is only relevant for a few countries, Germany and UK notably and Denmark and possibly Austria.
What they should have done is to put these restrictions in the CofA or the Permit.
If Germany (for whatever reason) does not want other countries’ experimentals to fly IFR in its airspace, then Germany cannot change the CofA/permit of that aircraft. The ECAC agreement allows for experimentals of all member states to fly in the whole region. Therefore the restriction is in the AIP. Is it being enforced? Not that I ever heard…
I don’t really understand what you are trying to say. The legal situation is crystal clear.
Morning chaps – here courtesy of a nudge by Peter. Sorry I’ve not been in much.
A thought or three:-
(1) The ECAC agreement, such as it is, is not binding on anybody and in reality adopted differently by each state.
(2) We’re talking about sub-ICAO aeroplanes here. ICAO aeroplanes have a clear mechanism for IMC/IFR flight, and because of that most countries just use that as the IFR baseline. There is no rule I’ve ever seen that prevents sub-ICAO aircraft flying night or IMC. The problem is the reverse, that most countries have never implemented a rule PERMITTING it – and generally air law is written on the basis of “you may not fly, unless….”
(3) USA permits sub-ICAO aircraft to fly IFR, subject to local rules and an ICAO compliant IR. UK is looking at this at the moment for LAA, and already permits it for the Vulcan. It’ll probably happen in due course – I hope so.
(4) UK is arguably the opposite of the USA right now. It requires an ICAO CofA for IFR, but permits a local sub-ICAO instrument flying qualification, the IMCR/IR to be held by the pilot. Both are ultimately pragmatic local decisions.
(5) Nothing that I can see stops the USA accepting the IMCR [maybe it has, it’s hard to tell], or the UK allowing PtF aeroplanes to fly IFR. Both would be local decisions that they have every right to make IN THEIR OWN AIRSPACE.
(6) The USA however only really has a reason to make life easy for Americans, and the UK for Brits. Similarly I can’t see any country permitting sub-ICAO IFR flight in their airspace, by foreign certified aeroplanes or foreign qualified pilots. ICAO standards, after-all exist for exactly this reason, to avoid having to create all sorts of local re-approvals for all sorts of foreign rules.
G
The ECAC agreement, such as it is, is not binding on anybody and in reality adopted differently by each state.
It’s not an agreement, it’s a recommendation. A recommendation for implementation in (local) laws and regulation. There is nothing to implement “differently”, but some states have certain conditions.
The problem is the reverse, that most countries have never implemented a rule PERMITTING it – and generally air law is written on the basis of “you may not fly, unless….”
This is not true. Maybe in the UK the laws are like that, I don’t know. But in Norway and in most of Europe the laws are written on the basis of status. “you may fly if…” Here I don’t see the relevance in any case (or I don’t understand the problem). I may fly IFR if I have a rating and if my aircraft is equipped for it, period.
USA permits sub-ICAO aircraft to fly IFR, subject to local rules and an ICAO compliant IR.
This is wrong. USA does not permit homebuilts to fly IFR. There are no restrictions for flying IFR (other than equipment and pilot rating). It’s the same in Norway and Sweden and many other countries. Up until 2 months ago and since 2008, IFR was forbidden in experimentals (homebuilts). The reason was experimentals were not issued a CofA, but only a permit. With a permit you could only fly day VFR, according to the law. Then, through a lengthy legal dispute, it was made 100% clear that experimentals were to be issued a Special CofA. Now, with a Special CofA there is no laws preventing IFR. So today we can fly IFR in our hombuilts if we have IFR equipment and if we have the rating. If I don’t have IFR equipment in my aircraft, then this will be written in my CofA as a restriction, and my aircraft will not be IFR approved.
…Both would be local decisions that they have every right to make IN THEIR OWN AIRSPACE.
Absolutely. But then they should NOT implement a recommendation that say they [We] will 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”.
Similarly I can’t see any country permitting sub-ICAO IFR flight in their airspace, by foreign certified aeroplanes or foreign qualified pilots. ICAO standards, after-all exist for exactly this reason, to avoid having to create all sorts of local re-approvals for all sorts of foreign rules.
Again, you got it turned upside down. The recommendation that the UK has implemented says that the UK has to permit this.
I don’t know why I am engaging myself in this discussion. I have no plans to fly IFR (even though my RV-4 certainly will be equipped for it). But if what you are saying is the representative attitude for the average UK pilot, I am really shocked. We, the pilots are the one operating our aircraft, not bureaucrats sitting on the ground.
LeSving, prepare to remain shocked 
Once you afflict somebody with a command and control mindset towards any activity, they have a great deal of trouble shaking it off. Its the same whether you’re talking about governments that want to license and charge for all human activity or academia that would like to license the distribution of knowledge. Self interest is a powerful thing, and ruling classes in any number of places have for many years learned to distribute just a little power and self interest to those they need to motivate as enforcers. It works, and it self perpetuates for centuries!
Sounds to me like ECAC needs to reconvene and strike a little fear in the hearts of EASA’s GA bureaucrats.
Are we arguing semantics here somewhat?
There is no difference between “you may not fly unless”, and “you may fly, if” apart from wording.
The USA: “there are no restrictions for flying IFR (other than equipment and pilot rating)” is an identical statement to “the USA permits flying IFR (subject to the right equipment and pilot rating)”.
A recommendation from a conference of the governments of European countries, is pretty much the same as an agreement between those countries. (It’s certainly always been worded as an agreement in UK documents).
But there is nothing I can see in the ECAC recommendation / agreement about permitting, prohibiting, or anything else IFR flight by sub-ICAO aeroplanes.
Me? Pilot, ex-beaureaucrat, professional aviation researcher. And somebody with no desire to lose my licence, or get slung into gaol in any country.
I would fully support IFR in sub-ICAO aeroplanes, subject to proper equipment and training and would take full advantage of that. That doesn’t stop me recognising what I am not legally allowed to do at present.
G
There could very well be some semantics here. English is not my native language, so I may possibly interpret this the wrong way. But to me there is a difference. If something is permitted, then it is forbidden by default (or else there would be no reason permitting it), which is clearly not the case here. In Norway IFR was forbidden, and there was no practical way to permit it (on a semi permanent basis) when the experimentals only had a to fly on a “permit to fly”. Now they are all issued a “Special CofA”, and there is nothing restricting IFR other than lack of equipment.
Those two cases are fundamentally different. With the “permit to fly” case, IFR was forbidden due to limitations, restrictions and practicalities in the “permit to fly” licensing, totally disregarding the status of the actual aircraft. With the “Special CofA” the ONLY thing of importance is the status of the actual aircraft (the equipment mostly when it comes to IFR). If experimentals somehow should be “permitted” to fly IFR or not, has never been a subject by anyone. Why the CAA from 2008 started issuing “permit to fly” instead of CofA, I don’t know, but it’s sorted out now.
I hope you find a way in the UK.
I agree, but what keeps happening in this business is that GA rep X meets with Y (where Y is a new broom at the CAA) and Y spins a good yarn. And a year later it’s business as usual, with no changes.
This time it is happening though, it’s already been done for XH558 (which is probably one of the hardest aircraft to do it with given its complexity). The LAA already have a list of light homebuilts and antiques which will be suitable for the first wave of approvals. (Unfortunately mine’s not one of them…)
