Peter wrote:
The term “experimental” is highly country specific. It of course exists in the USA but here in Europe there is no equivalent system.
There certainly is. France pioneered widespread experimental homebuilt long before USA. In the 1930’s it was in France everything happened. Norway and Sweden have adopted the American system, with some modifications, through separate EAA chapters. Today experimental aviation is very much an American thing, probably because the FAA developed very good regulations for it early on. The Norwegian system seems almost identical to the Canadian system, while the Swedish is more like a cross between US and UK by the looks of it.
The principles are the same all over for amateur built aircraft, whether you call it experimental or not. At least 51% has to be built by the builder. You can build from kit or plans or your own design. It has to be test flown with satisfactory results. Microlights have the same rules, only there is no 51% rule. The logic of the 51% rule is a bit hard to get, but is IMO what makes all the difference (in the event I have got it right 
) It enables, or requires, the builder/owner (a private person) to be the legal producer of the aircraft. Therefore all the legal complications with certification and factory products, factory processes etc disappears, and it becomes in all sense of the word an experimental aircraft. A one off with no ties to a factory mass produced aircraft. The word experimental is probably a bit misleading in most cases? the main point is that it is not mass produced according to some specifications and standards, or if it was mass produced and certified earlier on, then putting it on the experimental register will “release” it from certification. Too much intervention from the authorities (any authority, also EAA and LAA) is in fact counter productive. Trying to adhere to standard (CS or whatever) makes no sense legally, because all you do is to transfer responsibility from the “factory” (builder), and this is precisely what you do not want to do. The designer will of course benefit in designing his aircraft according to standards, and also the builder when building it (use AN hardware, TSO’d aviation and instruments, standard engine, aircraft quality materials in general, as much as possible). But the authorities should intervene as little as possible, and basically only control the 51% rule, and basic workmanship, and see that the testing really has occurred and done properly. In that sense, only the FAA has really understood what this is all about (in my opinion, which is not all too strong in this case )
Maybe if all the national authorities could agree to what an experimental amateur built aircraft is, then every other problem would vanish?
Peter,
That was for flying my RV-8 back to the UK from the US. There is no standard 28 day exemption. You need to apply individually for a non ECAC, non-CofA aircraft.
After the exemption expired I cancelled the US reg and got a UK reg and permit to fly. In principal I could have asked for an extension, but I would probably need a good reason e.g. I would be returning to the US in due course. There are some US military personnel in Europe who have made such arrangements.
@Mark_1 – the 28 days is here and elsewhere.
My feeling is that there isn’t a lack of consensus on that bit. There was an N-reg Lancair in “my” hangar some years ago, briefly, on this basis. What has proved difficult to locate is the various national laws which contain the 6 month limit for a homebuilt reg which is “ECAC” but “foreign” – e.g. here and here before that. It may sound like this is digressing but this “6 months” thing keeps coming up in obscure places. The general pattern is that ECAC-reg homebuilts can hang around (as foreign-regs) for a while but N-reg ones are much more limited (except in Germany where you get 365 days and can renew it afterwards).
Peter wrote:
The term “experimental” is highly country specific. It of course exists in the USA but here in Europe there is no equivalent system
I think the interesting thing with the FAA Experimental Amateur Built category is that as long as the workmanship is OK, the design is not significantly evaluated or questioned by FAA. The intent of the current category is to remove FAA responsibility for the quality of the design, and let individuals build what they believe individually is worthwhile to test. It’s certainly had a major affect on GA innovation.
The US homebuilt movement started in the mid-20s when the Heath Parasol could be built from plans and accepted by FAA. Then in about 1930 plans for the Corben Baby Ace and Pietenpol Aircamper were published, and became very popular in same way as the Mignet designs in France. Pietenpols are still being built, some of them still with the Ford Engine that was the original power plant for the design. There was a period from 1938 to 1948 in which homebuilts couldn’t be US licensed, and the modern EAA was active in removing the prohibition – it has been a political organization since the beginning, and people who knew EAA founder Paul Poberezny knew he was a master politician. I knew a homebuilder (he died a few years ago) who went to high school with Poberezny and said he’d always been an organizer and motivator.
Just heard that SE-regs have to go to Sweden once a year, for some signoff, FWIW.
Same AFAIK with PH-regs, as of sometime in 2015.
Peter wrote:
Just heard that SE-regs have to go to Sweden once a year, for some signoff, FWIW.
I think it is every fifth year actually. The EAA in Sweden has a similar function to LAA in the UK.
LeSving wrote:
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.
You could say the same thing about certified aircraft and yet one annex of Chicago Convention does specify a standard for airworthiness. If the process used for amateur-built aircraft isn’t compliant, then it doesn’t really matter whether that country is ICAO member state or not – the process is substandard, not good enough for ICAO, meaning other authorities are not bound to accept it. This is part of that compliance. And we’re talking about sovereign states, if they’re not bound to do it, they don’t have to, be their reasons academic or not (until EU changes mind and makes this its business).
So what does the ECAC agreement say about IFR for amateur-built aircraft? Have signatories made a commitment to allow it for amateur-built aircraft on their registers?
Peter wrote:
It of course exists in the USA but here in Europe there is no equivalent system.
You mean in the UK. E.g. Czech register does have an experimental category and “individually built” (including amateur-built) aircraft are registered in that category and get special CoA IIRC.
Martin wrote:
So what does the ECAC agreement say about IFR for amateur-built aircraft? Have signatories made a commitment to allow it for amateur-built aircraft on their registers?
Nothing. It only say “without other restrictions than those on the CofA/Permit”. Which should be crystal clear. The problem is perhaps the regulations of homebuilt in different countries. In some countries the VFR-only is no restriction, it is the default, while in others it is.
Martin wrote:
If the process used for amateur-built aircraft isn’t compliant
What I meant was that an amateur built experimental aircraft will never be compliant, and therefore any discussions about the details of non compliance is just nonsense. IMO, that’s why the ECAC recommendation is written as it is. Countries agree to accept other countries CofA/Permits as is, even though different regulations lies underneath.
that’s why the ECAC recommendation is written as it is. Countries agree to accept other countries CofA/Permits as is, even though different regulations lies underneath.
Except the ECAC recommendation was never implemented. All that happened was that different countries adopted different bits of it.
We have gone over this ground so many times in different threads already.
The key Q, in this thread, is IFR.
LeSving wrote:
It only say “without other restrictions than those on the CofA/Permit”.
I intentionally wrote about allowing it for their own. Nothing about accepting foreign. The acceptance seems to work (i.e. the permit itself doesn’t have additional restrictions), at least in a part of EU.
LeSving wrote:
What I meant was that an amateur built experimental aircraft will never be compliant, and therefore any discussions about the details of non compliance is just nonsense.
And I’m saying that because they’re not compliant, individual countries can do whatever they want. We might not like it, we might not like their reasoning, but they can do it.
I’m curious how differences work with airworthiness. Imagine an ICAO member state creating a regime for amateur-built aircraft, something acceptably light, documenting and publishing the differences for ICAO and then just issuing ICAO compliant CoAs. I have a feeling it can’t work this way (hopefully someone would have done it by now), but I don’t know.
