Homebuilt / ultralight / permit (non ICAO CofA) and IFR - how?

We all want to be loved😍

gallois wrote:

why not do away with the instrument rating and leave it to the PIC to decide whether the equipment on board is suitable to fly where s/he wants to fly and whether s/he is capable of doing it?

What a welcome breath of fresh air here on EuroGA, @gallois, I love you (is that too personal?)

gallois wrote:

So why not do away with the instrument rating and leave it to the PIC to decide whether the equipment on board is suitable to fly where s/he wants to fly and whether s/he is capable of doing it?

Because experience tells us it won’t work. (This is also backed up by comments about IFR flying that have been made e.g. on this forum over the years)

This is not to say I consider the current situation ideal.

gallois wrote:

So why not do away with the instrument rating and leave it to the PIC to decide whether the equipment on board is suitable to fly where s/he wants to fly and whether s/he is capable of doing it?

gallois, that would be WAY too sensible for a regulator! :)

With the proviso that you have some training to fly in IMC or better still IFR in IMC.
So why not do away with the instrument rating and leave it to the PIC to decide whether the equipment on board is suitable to fly where s/he wants to fly and whether s/he is capable of doing it?
It’s what was done in the 1930’s and 40’s.🙂

Silvaire wrote:

We are discussing EuroGA, and in European airspace it is the opposite (except for very few countries).

Obviously so – in this instance it’s a mess that encourages reckless flying. Step one is correcting it would be to allow IFR in any equipped aircraft, something that costs nothing.

If only some gods in great marble understood that…

Silvaire wrote:

“Impossible to prove” will regardless not work in any country with properly functioning ATC and mostly Class E airspace. In this case they will investigate and the result will be worse for the pilot than maintaining proper VFR cloud clearance.

Of course, if one is flying in the thick overcast layer for hours, it is a different story. :)
For a quick transition from under to over, I think it would be a challenge to prove (and not many would bother).
But you are right – if you are equipped, most likely you will be just able to fly IFR and not bother.

We are discussing EuroGA, and in European airspace it is the opposite (except for very few countries).

Obviously so – in this instance it’s a mess that encourages reckless flying. Step one in correcting it would be to allow IFR in any equipped aircraft, something that costs nothing.

“Impossible to prove” will regardless not work in any country with properly functioning ATC and mostly Class E airspace. In this case they will investigate and the result will be worse for the pilot than maintaining proper VFR cloud clearance.

Silvaire wrote:

They’d see you climb or descend through the overcast. This is something both pilots and ATC take very seriously in the US and ATC has traffic info (potentially including your tail number), weather data and other pilot’s flight condition reports. You might get away with flagrantly violating VFR cloud clearance requirements in a very remote area, but not elsewhere and not for long. Or maybe in Alaska.

Impossible to prove, right? “There was a hole in the clouds that I have used” Innocent until prove guilty (at least I hope it still is).

Silvaire wrote:

General aviation IFR in the US is easy to achieve, regardless of aircraft certification category, and if you are flying in clouds it is universally expected that you use the system provided to do it.

We are discussing EuroGA, and in European airspace it is the opposite (except for very few countries).

how do they know what’s the actual weather where you are? According to European regulations , VMC on top is VFR , not IFR flight..

They’d see you climb or descend through the overcast. This is something both pilots and ATC take very seriously in the US and ATC has traffic info (potentially including your tail number), weather data and other pilot’s flight condition reports. You might get away with flagrantly violating VFR cloud clearance requirements in a very remote area, but not elsewhere and not for long. Or maybe in Alaska.

General aviation IFR in the US is easy to achieve, regardless of aircraft certification category, and if you are flying in clouds it is universally expected that you use the system provided to do it.

Emir wrote:

Don’t confuse weather conditions (IMC/VMC) with type of flight (IFR/VFR) – those are two different things.

no, I’m not- I just took the original sentence " the pilots of IFR-equipped a/c just fly VFR in IMC, and that is it." and can’t understand what unwanted attention they might catch in US class E.. I mean it is usally quite difficult for the controller to know whether I’m actually flying VFR in IMC (illegal) or VFR on top of clouds or between clouds in VMC (legal).