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?

Exactly.

The only “international police” was here

Administrator
Shoreham EGKA, United Kingdom

The only “international police” was here

Once a treaty is ratified its provisions can be enforced domestically by the national police and judiciary. A bit like French national police allowing UK drivers to use their driving license in France.

Or like local courts enforcing foreign arbitrations (New York Convention).

Or like United States vs. County of Arlington (Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations).

Or Marbury vs. Madison.

T28
Switzerland

Which international law was, in each of your examples, enforced, without it being enshrined in national legislation (law, executive order or otherwise)?

Biggin Hill

I just read this thread. I think it is rather obvious that

a) My Q was not precise.
b) My Q was intended as "can you fly this kind (as in “home-built, very high-performance”) (not type) of aircraft under IFR in most of the airspace of each of the different countries in the European Union" .

Such performance is not really usable if you are limited to VFR, and hence the question.

As a forumite one should wonder whether our posts help the wider audience or a wider cause with a useful purpose or just help prove that one is right and somebody else is wrong. I guess the same applies most elsewhere in life.

Clearly @Peter is trying to ensure contributions are useful. Thanks.

I think this forum is lacking a real bar with beers served to discuss some of these matters, then we would really know who’s right (as if that had any purpose…perhaps avoiding the bar bill?)

At least Tuesday evening’s get-togethers get us closer to that! .

Antonio
LESB, Spain

Antonio wrote:

As a forumite one should wonder whether our posts help the wider audience or a wider cause with a useful purpose or just help prove that one is right and somebody else is wrong. I guess the same applies most elsewhere in life.

The problem is, each country has their own separate rules and regulations for everything “Annex I”. That, combined with the reality where most GA in Europe, at least the one where anything at all happens, is well, Annex I. Gather some info about the history of AERO Friedrichshafen and you are on the right path

There is only a small handful of persons on this board that is actively involved in experimental homebuilt aircraft. They can be counted on one hand, I’m sure, and I’m one of them. Peter is definitely not (just a fact, no offense intended), and he has a rather UK-centric regarding laws and regulations. Homebuilding of aircraft has a long history in Europe, but that history is very different form country to country. Nevertheless, lots of people have worked to merge together operational rules between countries. Then there are different cultural and different “social” factors affecting how “stuff works” in each country, and how each individual interpret it. Things you cannot find in rules and regulations. For instance the principle that if a thing is not explicitly forbidden, then it is allowed per def.

The one aspect of Annex I that is fairly standard throughout Europe is UL. Again, look to Aero. UL is in essence an EASA construct, at least the requirements are described by EASA. If it can be called, built and flown as an UL is described by EASA, but nothing else is described. Nothing about operations, nothing about licenses, nothing about technical requirements. All this has kind of merged together into a fairly coherent thing. Thus, ULs can fly all over Europe, licenses and aircraft are accepted between countries.

UL is fairly new, nothing really happened before the 1980s. Experimental homebuilt is as old as aviation itself. Long before EASA even existed, there were ECAC. In 1980 ECAC incorporated experimental homebuilt aircraft. AFAIK it is still the only international entity on a political level that has done anything regarding homebuilt aircraft. Because of this, homebuilt aircraft in Europe can travel rather freely in Europe (at least the 40+ ECAC states), more freely in fact than ULs (in general, but not always in practice). In 2016 ECAC incorporated also historical aircraft.

This means that EASA (EU) and homebuilt are two different worlds. Seriously, they could be on different planets, there is nothing in common, no relations. EASA is 100% irrelevant. The only relevant entity is ECAC. And since regulations and culture between countries are different, it’s literally impossible to draw general lines, except ECAC and except people involved gathering and communicating across borders, made possible the last 40 years in large parts due to ECAC.

Stuff such as an homebuilt aircraft is “VFR restricted”. In UK that’s probably the case, I don’t know. Elsewhere it is usually purely a function of avionics, instruments, sometimes the engine. Nevertheless, things tends to be fairly similar all over, except the UK, which is fairly peculiar

I think what Peter intends, is to raise a warning flag saying that a homebuilt aircraft may have limitations, in the aircraft itself or with operational regulation, which prevents it from being a 1 to 1 comparison with a standard EASA/ICAO compatible aircraft. This is true, you cannot buy a turbine Lancair and expect to fly it as free as you can with a EASA compliant aircraft, not within the entire EU. You may have to ask for explicit permission at one place and there may be some operational restrictions elsewhere. But again, this has nothing to do with EU in any case, not a single rivet. My take on this is that if the words “experimental” and “homebuilt” doesn’t ring one or two bells saying “this is not the same as a certified aircraft produced at a factory” then you are too stupid to fly in any case 😎

OK. wider audience, wider cause? There is a difference between opinions and facts. People are often more opinionated on forums than in everyday life, but they are exactly as clueless, or full of information as could be the case, as in everyday life. Which is what? Very hard to separate before discussing the topic a bit.

Anyway, “homebuilt” and “Europe/EU” is a bit of a can of worms due to all the different regulations, one for each country. “Some like building, some like flying” is a saying in building circles. This means that the one who build the aircraft, isn’t necessarily the one who ends up really flying it. What’s up with that Lancair, I have no clue, but a turbine in just about ANY homebuilt would be a complete blast Would I want one, most definitely, and I don’t fly IFR.

Antonio wrote:

Such performance is not really usable if you are limited to VFR, and hence the question.

Again, with homebuilt aircraft in mind, which this Lancair definitely is, such a comment is utterly out of sync with reality :smile; I mean, there are some guys in Bodø who has a real F-104 Starfighter. It is on civilian register, as an experimental, just as any other homebuilt. Such performance is not really usable for anything except intercepting Russian bombers

The elephant is the circulation
ENVA ENOP ENMO, Norway

EuroGA is a community. It is the sum of peoples’ contributions. If somebody from (say) Germany contributes, then we have a contribution from Germany, otherwise we don’t have a contribution from Germany. If somebody thinks some material is missing, they just need to reach for their keyboard! We are not a €300/year newspaper where you moan to the editor.

Why do I bother to correct info which is incomplete or even disingenuous? I’ve met too many people who spent serious money (generally most of their savings) in this area and most of them got their fingers seriously burnt. The result is that they got poor value for the money, and the plane sits in the hangar and rarely comes out. And when it does, the transponder is either Mode C or is firmly turned OFF.

And a lot of the “amateur built” community is in denial. In denial about how long it takes to build something even half well. In denial about where you can fly it without permits. In denial about how many just send off the permit application and fly anyway (the usual operating mode). In denial about the “lower” maintenance cost being mostly due to freely offered (or favour-based) labour so if you don’t have access to that, you don’t save.

Those longer on here will know I seriously looked at the Evolution. No joke; I could have bought one. Well… what happened? It’s bloody brilliant, but, ahem, only if flown, ahem, discreetly. Which isn’t possible for someone who runs a forum from which a few (very few, c. 1/year) have been removed for posting offensive material Unless flown non-TXP, which you can’t do when IFR in the Eurocontrol system. Which makes the plane almost completely useless.

and he has a rather UK-centric regarding laws and regulations.

Nonsense. I mention “UK” if I talk about the UK. I don’t describe a UK situation while talking about e.g. Norway. Or describe a Norwegian situation and pretend it applies everywhere. But actually the UK is very significant, with one of the biggest non-certified communities in Europe: the LAA system. And it runs well, with few people being forced to hide, because it is not generally difficult to be legal.

Administrator
Shoreham EGKA, United Kingdom

Peter wrote:

with few people being forced to hide

Who are all these people hiding? I haven’t met a single one, and I have been doing this for a long time now. That could of course be because they are hiding Seriously, homebuilt communities are everywhere, and they are open and transparent, and in direct contact with authorities all the time. The latest example is probably the Belgium community which changed stuff for the better regarding foreign homebuilt aircraft a couple of years ago.

There could be some outliers of course. In particular there could be people with no interest in the homebuilt idea at all, but instead see it as some kind of loophole exclusively, and try to “bend” all other rules and regulations to their advantage. It’s not the sort of people we want in the communities anyway, and I see no reason to try to protect those people from themselves in any sort of way. That loophole could be performance or cost or whatever.

In many ways a homebuilt aircraft is such a loophole relative to a certified plane, especially regarding performance and running costs, but there are strings attached, and that has to be included as part of the game. There is no free lunch. In particularly in Europe with separate and vastly different regulations for each and every country, it’s literally impossible keep track of all the strings. Then we have EASA. People new to the game have a tendency believing EASA includes all kind of aircraft, that everything flying operates under the same sets of rules. This is very far from the truth.

In practice though there is no need to keep track of all the strings except the ones in your own country where you build/operate the aircraft. ECAC has since 1980 made flying around in Europe with a homebuilt aircraft easy. Most ECAC countries respect that without further fuzz. Some have a few additional strings. However, international agreements signed on the highest levels do carry weight. It’s more that most bureaucrats don’t know that crossing a border with a homemade aircraft is a “thing” at all Nevertheless, flying in accordance with rules and regulation is the sole responsibility of the PIC. Flying “under cover” and bending the rules is a deliberate act. It’s very different from doing a mistake in good faith.

Peter wrote:

And a lot of the “amateur built” community is in denial. In denial about how long it takes to build something even half well. In denial about where you can fly it without permits. In denial about how many just send off the permit application and fly anyway (the usual operating mode). In denial about the “lower” maintenance cost being mostly due to freely offered (or favour-based) labour so if you don’t have access to that, you don’t save.

Where do you get this from? From an overzealous Lancair sales person? It’s certainly not from the communities themselves.

The elephant is the circulation
ENVA ENOP ENMO, Norway

Peter wrote:

Lancair IVP-T Propjet – is the 1200nm+ range real

Assuming it really is 1200nm in 4 hours, then you can do 30 000 nm between engine overhaul.

Because the advert says that only after 100 hours of flight:

Turbine needs overhaul

According, again, to the advert, you would have to calculate between 1000 and 1500 Euros per engine hour only for the overhaul costs.

How very interesting. I thought PTs were more reliable?

(This is an ironic post!)

Last Edited by UdoR at 30 Jul 11:49
Germany

Antonio wrote:

Can this type of aircraft be flown IFR in EU?

It was not the exact same type but an Evolution. But look at this:
https://www.flightradar24.com/data/aircraft/n503al#288c1fc6

I was on the same frequency for a moment and unfortunately German ATC got really mad about this IFR approach which was not even close to the official IFR procedure to Straubing. Better keep a lower profile when flying IFR with such airframes.

www.ing-golze.de
EDAZ

Obviously not VFR, at FL280

The other Evo flying in Europe is N111XA. Also a frequent visitor to LDLO. A search here finds interesting discussions. Both owned by extremely wealthy people.

But these two are N-reg and their papers will not be VFR-only (so their only issue is with airspace restrictions) – unlike this Lancair IVP which being D-reg almost certainly is VFR-only.

Administrator
Shoreham EGKA, United Kingdom
Sign in to add your message

Back to Top