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

Sorry that I can’t answer the Swedish question, but I can tell you that AustroControl allows IFR certification of homebuilts.
There’s a catch though, the builder has to take it through the IFR certification process, which is not cheap.

However, if it is possible to register an IFR homebuilt here, it must be possible to fly them here.
Looking into the regs, it says Day VFR only for overflights of non-certified aircraft, but realistically… I can’t imagine anyone looking or denying entry into the airspace.

As you said, it is all fun and games until someone calls the insurance company…

This was my exemption from the CAA. Again no explicit Day/VFR limitation:

Stickandrudderman wrote:

are they likely to question the aircrafts IFR credentials?

How do you imagine it would work? They can check the permit/ CoA and the limitations section of the manual. But we’re talking about a scenario where they accepted the aircraft as it was without imposing further restrictions. An if it’s registered in Sweden and Swedish authorities decide that this is acceptable, then that is that. If they don’t like it, they should have issued the permit with the appropriate restriction. I think that is the strongest tool they have. As I wrote, I’m not sure what more they can do given the EU regulations we have these days. But I’m not a lawyer.

Different authorities can have different requirements when it comes to oversight and flight testing of homebuilts and experimentals before issuing CoA/ PtF. That would go for IFR as well. You might have a country that won’t allow it at all. Another one might choose to follow relevant bits of CS-23. Third one might come up with some simplified requirements, perhaps working with LAA. And fourth might decide to leave it up to you – for example to stay away from areas with electrical activity if your aircraft doesn’t have proper lightning protection, perhaps to properly install a stormscope (you don’t need lightning protection for the lightest of IFR; just because CS-23 requires it doesn’t mean homebuilts should need it too – coincidentally there was a proposal to allow IFR for VLAs, even without proper lightning protection as a lot of them are composite and they weren’t designed with this in mind). I can see both sides of the argument.

Peter wrote:

all that leaves is compliance via equipment carriage.

But how would you do it? You can easily do it with aircraft in your jurisdiction – i.e. German authorities can mandate equipment for homebuilts/ experimentals registered in Germany. If the “operator” isn’t based in that country, ops regulations are also useless. And IMHO SERA doesn’t allow for creative requirements in the airspace department. They should still be able to limit your overflight permit. But we’re discussing a scenario where that isn’t the case (it seems it’s possible to get those permits without such restriction, although perhaps not in the entire EU).

Peter wrote:

Yours is an N-reg so it looks like that is a CAA permit for an N-reg Experimental to be based in the UK? How long was it valid for? The UK allows only 28 days, and after that you need to do “something”.

Just look at it. It’s valid from 25.4.2013 to 22.5.2013 unless revoked. I don’t see how that is permit to base it there, more like visit.

Peter wrote:

If SERA really ends any possible IFR flying ban on homebuilts

SERA is in effect for all flying “creatures”. Part NCO however, is only valid for EASA types. Non-EASA types must therefore have an equivalent “Part-NCO”, as well as technical regulations. Besides, the AIP also comes into effect. The concept that an aircraft is to be operated according to it’s CoA, is probably the most basic and fundamental of all concepts in aviation regulations. IMO the problem is that not even this basic concept is taken seriously by local regulators (when reading all the arbitrary exceptions and restrictions).

LeSving wrote:

IMO the problem is that not even this basic concept is taken seriously by local regulators (when reading all the arbitrary exceptions and restrictions).

One angle is that authorities of one country don’t have to trust authorities of another country (or share the same opinion). And if you don’t have an ICAO compliant CoA, Chicago Convention won’t help you.

Martin wrote:

One angle is that authorities of one country don’t have to trust authorities of another country (or share the same opinion). And if you don’t have an ICAO compliant CoA, Chicago Convention won’t help you.

Yes, but ICAO is not relevant for experimental aircraft in any case. The point is that the authority in each country is very much compliant with ICAO, and the differences in how experimental aircraft are regulated/operated are purely academic exercises in difference in opinion for something that is not. We have the ECAC agreement, and it works in most cases, so these opinions aren’t really all that strong.

All experimental aircraft must have a placard visible by all on board. That placard must say something like “It is not verified that this aircraft fulfill the airworthy requirements for normal/EASA/ICAO category”. The natural way would be EASA set the standard, just like LAPL, EIR, VLA, LSA and so on. That will never happen, but what they could do is to somehow “approve” or something each individual CoA/permit. It could be very simple, just a verification that the aircraft IS built according to 51% rule, and a verification that the aircraft IS tested for a certain amount of hours, and that the build standard is OK. That will probably also never happen, but to adhere to some CS is not the right thing, the point is not to build a ICAO compliant aircraft. The test flying and the build quality should be sufficient for an authority to put a CoA stamp on it.