The design standards for ‘homebuilds’ can be rigorous. For example, in the UK the standard for microlights (ultralights) is the BCAR (British Civil Airworthiness Regulations) Section S. This gives a voluminous set of standards any new UK design must meet before being given type acceptance as a microlight. It’s no longer a question of putting a lawnmower engine on a kite and hoping for the best
That’s changed with the new SSDR (single seat deregulated) regime. The basic précis is (lifted from some website about them):
An SSDR is a Microlight aircraft not requiring a permit to fly, any associated design investigation, or formal flight testing, the onus is entirely on the owner/pilot to establish the aircraft is in a fit state to fly. Single seat. Empty weight not exceeding 115kgs. Max gross weight not to exceed 300kgs. Empty weight wing loading no more than 10kg per square metre. Stall speed less than 35 knots
I don’t think the Vulcan XH558 can actually fly freely on Eurocontrol routes like you could in a TB20 or a Citation, etc.
I recall reading about this. I think what they did was they basically acknowledged the accepted necessity of flying in IMC. Pretending that it was flying in VMC was always a complete charade.
I recall a date (which I won’t post but it was some years ago) when I landed off an ILS, OVC005, at a certain southern UK airport, taxied up, got out, and heard a rumble overhead, obviously in solid IMC. It was a WW2 bomber coming back from a display. He would have flown a good 200nm in solid IMC. VFR-only, of course. I heard him on the radio. I think it had a Garmin 296. I think he was flying at something like 700ft AGL, so he could pretend to be VFR for any radar unit seeing his Mode C. Everybody would have known the metars were OVC005 over a huge area but you cannot be sure somebody is in IMC at 700ft…
The Vulcan does not have a CofA so it can’t even do what I did today which is to fly IFR UK to Le Touquet…
My original post remains unanswered and I am not sure if anybody got my drift. This is not like the USA, where the equipment requirements for IFR are very simple. What IFR for homebuilts will give you is the ability to fly IFR in Class G, and bits of Class D, essentially, but they can already do that, admittedly illegally but completely undetectably. The only new thing will be the ability to overtly fly an IAP at some UK airport, which is a good thing. Eurocontrol routings, no, unless you spend a packet on avionics. And no IFR rights abroad because there is no CofA. I don’t think people realise this, but it is a rather special-interest area.
My original post remains unanswered and I am not sure if anybody got my drift.
What exactly is your drift?
EASA has said (so I am told by people involved in this), that EASA has zero interest in engaging anything whatsoever that has anything to do with experimental aviation (homebuilt). Ultralight is another matter, but the various ultralight organisations will have no involvement from EASA. That is the situation. Ultralight and experimental aviation is definitely a matter decided entirely by each member state. So it will remain for all foreseeable future. Regarding other Annex II aircraft, historical/military types mainly, the situation is a bit different.
The certification including restrictions and operation of experimental aircraft is 100% governed by the member state. EASA just recently acknowledged that flight time on experimental counts in the same manner as EASA aircraft. Flight time on ultralights will not count in general, but will count when getting a PPL.
What this mean is of course that whatever restrictions we have on experimental aviation is up to the local CAA to decide. The UK has decided to restrict every Annex II aircraft or class to VFR day. And so it is, and there is nothing EASA or anyone can do about it. Well, EASA could in principle, but they won’t. However, the situation in the UK is clearly an exception. IFR or no IFR, it is not an issue in most states, it is irrelevant, and why shouldn’t it be? IFR is decided by two things: pilot rating and aircraft equipment. The only common denominator between states is that ECAC recommendation.
The design standards for ‘homebuilds’ can be rigorous. For example, in the UK the standard for microlights (ultralights) is the BCAR (British Civil Airworthiness Regulations) Section S. This gives a voluminous set of standards any new UK design must meet before being given type acceptance as a microlight. It’s no longer a question of putting a lawnmower engine on a kite and hoping for the best.
Most kits (from the US) are designed according to FAR-23, which is more or less equivalent to EASA CS-23. This is no requirement in the US, but kit manufacturers won’t last long if aircraft start falling down from the skies. Is there no difference between ultralight and experimental in the UK?
Most kits (from the US) are designed according to FAR-23, which is more or less equivalent to EASA CS-23. This is no requirement in the US, but kit manufacturers won’t last long if aircraft start falling down from the skies. Is there no difference between ultralight and experimental in the UK?
Negative.
I used to have a job which required me on a regular basis to assess against UK airworthiness standards (which in reality meant variations upon JAR, which is now EASA, standards) kit aircraft from around the world. There are a few notable exceptions such as Vans who are superb, but my experience was that most US manufacturers had no idea about the airworthiness standard of most of the aircraft in that market, and were completely incapable of demonstrating even the main points of structure and handling qualities from part 23, let alone the fine detail which tends to be a lot of the division between a good and bad aircraft. I was accountable to the CAA, and knew what I was doing.
As for accident statistics – generally there is so little real oversight, that anything the US manufacturers give you is pure fiction.
Doesn’t mean that there aren’t some superb kitplanes coming out of the USA, but certainly not the majority.
I would treat the vast majority of US originated kits as being highly suspect and probably dangerous until proven otherwise: generally through it being in a mod standard approved in either the UK or Germany. Yes, Vans I’d make an exception for
Different countries treat sub-ICAO in different ways. The USA basically calls anything sub-ICAO either ultralight or experimental, with increasing inroads into the new LSA category, which is basically a re-invention of the European microlight category.
The UK puts everything sub-ICAO either into B-conditions (which is pure flight test), deregulation (sub-115kg microlights , powered parachutes, hang gliders…) or a Permit to Fly. PtF is by far the biggest category. A PtF does what it says on the tin – instead of an aircraft being “Certified as Airworthy”, it is “Permitted to Fly”. There are numerous flavours of PtF, including:-
- Amateur built (LAA)
- Amateur built (BMAA)
- Amateur built (CAA)
- Type accepted (these are old pre-regulation microlights with grandfather rights)
- Type approved (many microlights and some gyroplanes that are approved for instruction and hire)
+ Various subtle variations for ex-military and vintage aeroplanes, many of which are basically one-offs (the Vulcan is an excellent example) written around the capabilities and needs of the individual aircraft.
Believe it or not, this is a massive simplification of where we were a decade or so ago, as they was a major project to simplify it all, but it’s an inevitable fact that aeroplanes are complicated and very variable things, and so you need a wide range of flavours of paperwork to reflect that.
EASA puts everything sub-ICAO that it manages into one category: “Permit to fly”, but in reality there are as many variations on EASA PtF as there are aeroplanes on EASA PtF – just about every one is a one-off.
Flight time on ultralights will not count in general, but will count when getting a PPL.
Really? To the best of my knowledge EASA and before it JAA declined to accept any microlight time as significant validity towards issue or currency of any ICAO compliant licence. The rule last I saw was 10% of PiC hours in 3-axis microlights, up to a maximum of 10 hours counted towards a PPL, but that was basically all you got.
G
Possibly the nicest thing I saw all day yesterday was a friend taking off in his modified CAP 231 as I taxied out, carried upward at 3500 fpm by his completely owner manufactured +20/-13 G carbon fiber wing, pulled along by 330 HP of modified angle valve IO-540 and owner manufactured carbon fiber CS prop. The plane is about 120 lbs lighter than the standard aircraft as a result of those things, plus the cowling and every fairing being made from carbon fiber, lighter landing gear, and lighter, better experimental category wheels and brakes. The tail wheel is better too, designed by the owner in CAD and CNC milled out of solid (because the standard, certified item was barely adequate and discarded). The builder now flies the aircraft to +12 G and -5 G regularly in unlimited competition.
No, there were no airworthiness standards whatsoever applied except the standards of the exceptionally talented people who were involved. They don’t need design standards or paid spectator regulators who couldn’t even begin to do what they do, and who would spend a lot of effort telling them why they shouldn’t. In fact there were ZERO government and organizational approvals from that aircraft being bought as a wreck, through military production style composite tooling (built by the owner), to fabrication to test flying. A&P logbook entries were the only paperwork, because it was and still is Experimental Category. Thank goodness Poberezny, Wittman and their EAA ilk of the 50’s, together with the wisdom of the FAA at that time, took paid spectator regulators out of the loop for people to pursue their own excellence and live with the consequences like adults. Without that opportunity and the resulting reservoir of human experience you’d have a moribund aircraft engineering scene, as in the UK.
Best of all the CAP wing spar won’t break like it so often does on the original certified wing in similar service 
As for accident statistics – generally there is so little real oversight, that anything the US manufacturers give you is pure fiction.
Doesn’t mean that there aren’t some superb kitplanes coming out of the USA, but certainly not the majority.
I would treat the vast majority of US originated kits as being highly suspect and probably dangerous until proven otherwise: generally through it being in a mod standard approved in either the UK or Germany. Yes, Vans I’d make an exception for
I’m sorry to burst your bubble here, but what you are saying is pure fiction with not a shred of evidence from real life. I am also an engineer. I even got a PhD diploma somewhere on the wall, where I made a FEM analysis program for FSI (Fluid Structure Interaction) some decades ago. I’m very used to engineering codes and so on, but I work in the Energy sector, not Aviation. I was an aircraft mechanic in the Air Force though, working on F-16s, but that is centuries ago
I am building a RV-4 from Vans and a Onex from Sonex Aircraft. Where the RV-4 is better engineered, more detailed and refined, the Onex is designed for homebuilders to produce a strong and safe airplane with simple tools and no jigs. The -4 is difficult to built, it requires jigs and precise measurements and even small builder errors can have serious consequences. With the Onex you have to deliberately do something stupid for it to have a serious consequence. These are the most important factor when building, not if it adhere to some code. Newer generations of kits from vans are much easier though.
As an engineer I obviously “believe” in engineering. A well engineered piece of machinery is always better than something put together by gut feeling. However, a light aircraft is not rocket science, and down to earth experience, trial and error, is more important than solving differential equations and reading codes or standards when it comes to being able to actually design a strong, safe and well behaved light aircraft. This doesn’t mean though, if you apply some “rocket science” (translated to glider aerodynamic, CFD and FEM anaysis), that you won’t get an excellent aircraft with performance and behavior way above average. The new glider tow aircraft we have, the WT9 Dynamic, is such an aircraft. It’s simply unbelievable how good that little aircraft is. But it’s also expensive, about 150k € for this ultralight.
Anyway, the error you do is by implication. Standards and codes such as FAR-23, CS-23, CS-22 and so on specify sets of parameters. By following these standards you are reasonably sure that the aircraft is safe, strong and well behaved. However, this does not imply that by not following these standards, the aircraft is automatically unsafe.
The NTSB did a very detailed study a couple of ears ago concerning safety and experimental aircraft. The reason being:
Experimental amateur-built (E-AB) aircraft represent nearly 10 percent of the U.S. general aviation fleet, but these aircraft accounted for approximately 15 percent of the total and 21 percent of the fatal U.S. general aviation (GA) accidents in 2011. Experimental amateur-built aircraft represent a growing segment of the United States‘ general aviation fleet a segment that now numbers nearly 33,000 aircraft.
Their key findings:
The pattern of study results identifies several safety-critical issues that, if addressed,
could improve the E-AB aircraft accident record and better prepare pilots to operate E-AB
aircraft. Study results indicate:
The largest proportion of E-AB aircraft accidents involved loss of control in flight
and powerplant failures, and loss of control in flight has been the greatest contributor
to fatal E-AB aircraft accidents.
More than one-half of the E-AB aircraft accidents investigated in 2011 were aircraft
that had been purchased used, rather than built by the current owner.
A large proportion of accidents occurs early in the operating life of a new E-AB
aircraft, or shortly after being purchased by a new owner.
During 2011, more E-AB aircraft accidents occurred during the first flight by a new
owner of a used E-AB aircraft than during the first flight of a newly-built aircraft.
The most common accident occurrence for first flights of both newly-built and newly
purchased aircraft was loss of control in flight.
As a group, the E-AB accident aircraft did not experience a large number of structural
failures or problems related to the strength of a particular aircraft‘s structure.
The report from the study can be found here
Very well put. I’ve run engineering R&D work for 25 years or so, with the relevant education, now happily with a staff of clever fellows to help. Obviously young, well educated guys in the field become a lot more valuable when they figure out what experience in successfully DOING the work brings to the table. One of my jobs is extracting the value from both in the form of hardware, and I make a point of being intolerant of arrogance from all sides.
The CAP 231 guy mentioned above built his first aircraft (a Vari-Eze) when he was a teenager, and did his first original design (looks a bit like a Glasair) in his early twenties – I think he finished and flew it when he was 23. Both are still flying safely 30 years later. Like Al Mooney Link, Ed Heinemann Link and any number of others before him, he has no relevant qualifications whatsoever other than really, really understanding the problems at hand, and how to solve them. That’s actually the best qualification there is. People with more analytical background contribute to his work as needed, but I think all of them would acknowledge that he’s the better designer. Dick Vangrunsven of Vans Aircraft is another example – if you read his resume they say he studied engineering but it was in a completely unrelated field. Burt Rutan is obviously a clever, well educated guy, and was originally hired by Jim Bede to help with stability and control on the BD5… but Rutan’s designs are actually not as good for the real world as an RV, and accordingly were not as successful an underpinning for a business.
Its easier to non-productively analyze, categorize and create fee-paying roadblocks than it is to create. 
Merged posts from another thread which went off-topic
Very few people are going to have the skills
This is not true. A common saying about homebuilding is: it isn’t tools or skill that complete projects, it’s the will to do so.
For some, to build itself is the hobby. They build and sell and manage to have a hobby that pay for itself. Some of these aircraft are more like hand crafted pieces of jewelry, way above manufacturing standards. Others (most people, myself included), simply build because it is fun, but have absolutely no intentions or hopes or the skills to make a show stopping piece. The standard an aircraft should be built after is found here. This is all that is needed (wood, steel and fabric, aluminium, composites), unless you want to design the aircraft yourself. Not everything will look 100% because we do mistakes from time to time, and they need to be attended and possibly fixed. An aircraft does not need to be “100 %” (which is only a subjective and meaningless term), it only need to be structurally sound (which is not a subjective term, and is found in that book). WWII aircraft were build by girls and women with no formal education, and those aircraft were 10 times more complex than the average homebuilt aircraft. When they could, so can you.
But of course, if you want nothing less than a hand crafted Rolls Royce in every detail and you have 10 thumbs, then you better let someone else build it for you. Still, the problem is not lack of skills, the problem is your personal requirements.
If planes like the Lancairs could be flown IFR all over Europe (legally ) the “going places” part of the scene would grow massively. I would buy the Evolution TP very quickly.
Well, so far Norway, Sweden, Finland, Switzerland and France are unproblematic in that respect, 100% (fully legal, whatever that may mean). Have not heard of anyone having any problem with this flying over Germany either, not that flying VFR is a problem there.
Not that it is a concern of mine, I don’t fly IFR, but what exactly is the reason for forbidding IFR in homebuilts in the UK? Besides, how large percentage of PPL (only) pilots have IFR rating? 5 % ? A Lancair Evolution TP is not exactly common in the US either, relatively speaking. A pressurized TP is a very complex and expensive piece of machinery, homebuilt or not. It is far more complex and expensive to operate and maintain than the average homebuilder would have any desire to get involved with – at all. It is not like the European skies will be crowded with such machines. A basic RV is as good as any factory IFR capable aircraft in any case, faster than most also.
Well, so far Norway, Sweden, Finland, Switzerland and France are unproblematic in that respect, 100% (fully legal, whatever that may mean). Have not heard of anyone having any problem with this flying over Germany either, not that flying VFR is a problem there.
You keep posting this but now I really must ask you for a reference here, LeSving…. especially for Switzerland and France and Germany! What is the exact process for getting a homebuilt aircraft certified for IFR in these countries? I am sure many people will be very interested.
In Germany you cannot apparently, but I have never heard anyone having problems flying there. In Switzerland it is no issue as far as I know, the same with France. I don’t know how IFR equipment is approved there, I only know how it is done here in Norway, and I would guess it is a similar process. The only requirement is that IFR equipment has to follow certain minimum standard. To my knowledge non certified IFR equipment is not even available. You can use a G3X or Dynon or similar for display, but you still need a radio and GPS (GNS typically), and other requirements such as redundancy and a minimum set of other equipment also applies. In Norway equipment for NVFR can be installed and tested by the builder, but since IFR equipment need to be TSO’d, it also has to be tested and approved by a certified shop. Besides, it’s not like “everyone” in the US fly their homebuilts IFR, it’s only a small percentage.
Anyway, I am not the only one who posts stuff without references. Where is your reference that IFR in homebuilt is not allowed in “Europe” ? After a Google search I did manage to find some info about Switzerland.
Furthermore, in application of ECAC Recommendation INT S/11-1 dated June 1980, no approval is required for issuing a permit for entry into Switzerland for home-built light aircraft that have been registered in ECAC states. However, this principle does not automatically apply to every type of operation. For example, in Switzerland foreign home-built light aircraft are not permitted to carry out flights in accordance with VFR Night and IFR unless they meet the respective Swiss requirements.
