Sure, but (many previous threads, as LeSving will remember 
) the 1980 ECAC “agreement” is not binding on anybody whatsoever.
Consequently it is not generally reflected in the various national laws which govern the airspace rules which govern privileges of uncertified aircraft.
It is a bit like this deal between the UK LAA (perhaps more likely the CAA actually) and the DGAC. It works for UK-FR traffic, only. But only explicitly-permissive deals like this actually work.
There is another side of this argument: if a country has no law prohibiting IFR then you can do it. We had another long thread on this (in the Evolution context) somewhere… But there will be at most only a few countries in Europe in that category. It looked like Croatia was one, but then somebody found it…
And another side of this argument is that nobody is going to be enforcing this anyway (nobody is, are they?) precisely because of the ambiguity, because if you did prosecute and lost, it will set a precedent. The UK CAA is particularly reluctant to get involved in prosecuting vague stuff because, in GA, FUD works so well and doesn’t cost anything. In any civilised country (by all means not all of Europe) ambiguity is construed against the party seeking to rely on it – if your lawyer charges more than CHF 10/hr
Interesting comments, Peter, but the reality is that over the past 12 months I’ve flown and landed my Slovenian registered PtF aircraft into airfields in Slovenia, UK, Belgium, Croatia, Netherlands, Czech Republic, Poland, Austria, France, Hungary and Switzerland, have even been thoroughly ramp checked by the LBA in Germany – all ok – except that the LBA whinged that my aircraft has 4 seats yet I only have insurance covering 2 occupants – I pointed out that the seats are for kids, I have no intention of having additional children, nor do I ever envisage taking any with me flying; the rear seats were used solely for storing enroute provisions and that the Slovenian CAA accepts this insurance as adequate.
Admittedly VFR but nowhere did any of these countries question my permit….
The German GEN1-17 covers the requirements for their territory. I also got ramp checked by a pretty aggressive inspector at EDXH Helgoland a couple of years ago, and have been carrying this doc in my SD since then…
If a country does not accept IFR in an experimental in its airspace, would an IFR FPL validate., even in an aircraft from a country where IFR in an experimental is permitted?
@gallois, yes it does.
The same as an IFR FPL is validated if its pilot has an expired IR, is drunk, or blind.
ATC, and the FPL authorities is not the CIA nor your local police, and they don’t have the interest nor powers to play this role. The only direct policing entity in aviation is the relevant NAA.
Slightly different though if a pilot is drunk or his licence out of date.there is not a space on the FPL for that. But there is space on the FPL for type of aircraft and equipment on board.
Eurocontrol also.knows about restricted airspace and notams so I woumd have thought it would also have national restrictions in its computer.
gallois wrote:
there is space on the FPL for type of aircraft and equipment on board
Yes, that is correct. But again, this does not guarantee that said aircraft fulfils what’s given on the FPL, or that the data is correctly entered on the FPL.
As an example, your ILS receiver does not work. Can you still file IFR, can you still fly IFR, does ATC know about it, does ATC want to know about it, is it of interest to Eurocontrol, does the pilot know about the limitations?
All this stuff is down to the pilot, and not ATC, nor Eurocontrol. Their job is precisely defined, and certainly does not contain checking upon every tailnumber, or pilot license, to see that those are current, qualified, properly equipped, etc.
Eurocontrol also.knows about restricted airspace and notams so I woumd have thought it would also have national restrictions in its computer.
It definitely does not
See here and there was a post about 10 years ago (can’t find it) referencing a Eurocontrol movements report over a year which contained a number of types which could not possibly be there That report should still be produced so somebody in the system can find it…
Admittedly VFR but nowhere did any of these countries question my permit….
That is how it should be.
@Dan what you say is true but they do have aircraft type and isn’t it an ICAO designation?
I was not talking of guarantees on functional equipment, just that everyone who receives the copy of a FPL knows the aircraft and if checked will know whether or not it is experimental or annexe1 or even a ULM.
In my experience some people just fly and if they are equipped to be able to fly in IMC and even under IFR they do so. Even if that is an infringement.
So there is illegality and practicallity.
It is for sure that no one knows what you are doing in practice but I did wonder about the aircraft type as the equipment on board does,as stated in the FPL has any effect on the route validation.
VFR is a totally different thing as the validation of a FPL doesn’t depend on equipment on board or type of aircraft. Most countries in Europe now accept (with certain formalities attached sometimes) experimental aircraft from other EU/ECAC countries.
So if you have a nicely IFR equipped RV6 my question was straightforward. If Dan was to file a I FPL from eg his base to Portugal,would it validate?
I have no doubt he could do it practically and fly an LPV or ILS approach at the other end.
The question is “is it legal”? and what would happen if the NAAs of any of the countries found out that that had been done?
