Menu Sign In Contact FAQ
Banner
Welcome to our forums

Lancair IVP-T Propjet D-EKMW - is the 1200nm+ range real, and can it fly IFR?

Peter wrote:

That is a flight crew licensing (FCL) rule which is within EASA jurisdiction.

Yes, and with this license you can fly an EASA LSA (amongst other) which is also within EASA jurstiction and exclusively so. There is no national LSA, the closest would be a 600 kg UL (which in many circumstances is identical to a EASA LSA, but that’s another matter). The point is, EASA do administer aircraft which have no national equivalent and which is not ICAO compliant. These aircraft can be flown in the entire “EASA-land”, or “EU”.

Peter wrote:

Unfortunately that is only a bit of how flight privileges work. You need all of the following to line up

license privileges (broadly speaking, license issued by the country of the aircraft registration → worldwide privileges, and note there is no “2 out of 3” rule )*
aircraft limitations (the CofA or Permit may have limitations e.g. no night, no IFR, along with obvious stuff like MTOW)
airspace “limitations” (for ICAO CofA, these are generally open in the 1st World; for Permit, these are closed by default and open on a per-country basis)
parking limitations (as above, with some oddball stuff like here for CofA and here for Permit)
If any of the above are a “no” then you can’t do it.

I am used to a more modular or functional approach:

  • Licence privileges. Any license is valid world wide with the privileges intact, but restrictions could apply when flying in a foreign airspace/territory/vehicle
  • Aircraft limitations. There are no limitations on a per aircraft basis other than POH. Limitations are set by equipment, airspace and operation.
  • Airspace limitations are also set by equipment and operation
  • Parking limitations is an oddball in the line up, and is 95% “pure bureaucracy” IMO

For instance, no Norwegian license has any limitations that I know of, other than the validity of the license itself (you need aerobatic rating to fly aerobatics, IFR rating to fly IFR etc). This is valid world wide. There are no aircraft limitations. Well, except for the EASA constructs VLA and LSA. An UL is not restricted by anything except restrictions in the POH. However an UL has operational restrictions (day VFR, MTOW). Some ULs are also built as homebuilt. Then all restrictions are gone, and the only deciding factors are equipment and pilot ratings (+ obvious things as VNE, max G etc)

An UL with no radio and no transponder is confined to G airspace. Install a transponder, radio and add RT license and English LP to the UL license, and you can fly in all airspaces. Build the aircraft yourself, install a GTN (+ the required instruments) and take PPL + IR, and fly all the IFR approaches you like. This is, for all intends and purposes, how it works here. EASA is very hierarchical, and it seems to be even more so in the UK. Restrictions and privileges is built into this hierarchy from the ground, maybe it’s based on/caused by social structures, I don’t know. Constructs such as VLA and LSA and LAPL are all concrete symptoms of this kind of “philosophy”. UL and experimental homebuilt is another philosophy altogether, and is probably also why these are rejected to live in Annex I, completely separated from the “good company”. Modular and functional resonate well with me, “classes and hierarchies” don’t.

Peter wrote:

I have an FAA CPL/IR and I could jump into an N-reg TBM and fly it, legally. So, let’s see, what happens if I fly to Norway:

Nothing whatsoever will happen, it happens all the time, but an N-reg can only stay here for 6 consecutive months.

The elephant is the circulation
ENVA ENOP ENMO, Norway

Mostly, wishful thinking.

Administrator
Shoreham EGKA, United Kingdom

LeSving wrote:

Licence privileges. Any license is valid world wide with the privileges intact, but restrictions could apply when flying in a foreign airspace/territory/vehicle

If you have an ICAO-compliant license, yes it is valid world wide with intact privileges. But if it’s not ICAO-compliant (such as UL licenses), it’s the other way around. It is basically not valid outside the state of issue, but other states may choose to accept it wholly or in part.

(And of course, this is assuming you’re flying an aircraft registered by the same state that issued the license.)

ESKC (Uppsala/Sundbro), Sweden

I am pretty sure this plane has a “VFR-only” permit, so all this is irrelevant since that overrides everything else.

Unless a German speaker can translate that PDF article above and something turns up in there. We have many German speakers here

Administrator
Shoreham EGKA, United Kingdom

The article doesn’t address the PtF – it does say however that the LBA decided the plane cannot be flown on a plain vanilla PPL but requires a type rating, and as nobody was qualified to give ratings on a non-certified type, the pilot had to get a test pilot rating.

T28
Switzerland

Airborne_Again wrote:

But if it’s not ICAO-compliant (such as UL licenses), it’s the other way around. It is basically not valid outside the state of issue, but other states may choose to accept it wholly or in part.

This is only logic. The state of issue has to make it valid everywhere, or it the validity stops at the border. A foreign country cannot re-validate a foreign license that is made invalid by the state of issue. This would be way outside their jurisdiction. The foreign country can only acknowledge or deny the the validity of the license, but it has to be valid from the state of issue to start with. If a license say it is only valid in the state of issue, than that’s that. You cannot use that privilege elsewhere, period.

In Norway this is written in the law. All aviation has to be done according to that law, and the law explicitly states it is valid in Norwegian territory, and world wide when using a Norwegian aircraft, but subjected to local laws and regulations.

ICAO compliant only means the license from a particular country is pre-acknowledged by all other countries assigning to ICAO. This is simply an agreement, it’s not law in any shape or form.

Peter wrote:

Mostly, wishful thinking.

What exactly?

Peter wrote:

I am pretty sure this plane has a “VFR-only” permit, so all this is irrelevant since that overrides everything else.

It is German registered. I’m very far from being fluent in German experimental aircraft laws and regulations 😎, but judging the way “Germany works” I would think the only thing that is needed is to either test the installation rigorously, or to have the installation done by professionals with all the papers in order. It probably has a perfectly valid CofA with no restrictions of any kind, except perhaps noise, and subjected to German national law for maintenance of aircraft. That’s my guess.

The elephant is the circulation
ENVA ENOP ENMO, Norway

ICAO compliant only means the license from a particular country is pre-acknowledged by all other countries assigning to ICAO. This is simply an agreement, it’s not law in any shape or form.

ICAO is an international convention and as such it is law in signatory countries as soon as the signature is ratified.

T28
Switzerland

T28 wrote:

ICAO is an international convention and as such it is law in signatory countries as soon as the signature is ratified.

I guess one can live a long and happy life believing that, but it’s still nonsense

The elephant is the circulation
ENVA ENOP ENMO, Norway

I guess one can live a long and happy life believing that, but it’s still nonsense.

Feel free to educate us on the principles of international law.

T28
Switzerland

T28 wrote:

Feel free to educate us on the principles of international law.

Education on this should be compulsory for any journalist who makes reference to ‘international law’ in their work.

International law is not, in fact, law. It is a term used for the generally accepted standards and norms in relations between nations, as well as treaties, international agreements, etc.

It isn’t written down in any one place as a comprehensive set of rules and as such is widely open to interpretation. There is no universally-accepted supra-national body to enforce it, and so it operates mainly by consent and custom. ‘Enforcement’ as such is limited to pressures countries can exert on each other, e.g. diplomatic, economic sanctions, military action.

So when some journalist whines that what some country is doing ‘breaks international law’ what they mean is that, according to someone’s opinion, the action runs counter to generally accepted norms. It doesn’t mean that some binding statute somewhere has been contravened, or that anything can/will be done about it.

As an example, The Guardian is much given to statements that the UK Government is ‘breaking international law’ in not properly implementing the Northern Ireland Protocol. To which I observe, without comment on whether the action is right or wrong, that this is the real world where a government not sticking to an agreement it made with another country (or group of countries) happens all the time. No body has jurisdiction over this agreement and its implementation.

Last Edited by Graham at 28 Jul 12:49
EGLM & EGTN
Sign in to add your message

Back to Top