France
Arrêté du 15 mars 2005 relatif au certificat de navigabilité restreint d’aéronef (CNRA)
(…)
Article 12
Utilisation.
1. Un aéronef titulaire d’un CNRA ne peut pas effectuer :
(…)
e) Des vols autrement que selon les règles du vol à vue (VFR), de jour, sauf autorisation du ministre chargé de l’aviation civile lorsque le postulant répond de manière satisfaisante aux conditions techniques complémentaires qui lui sont notifiées à sa demande par le ministre chargé de l’aviation civile ;
Meaning VFR day only for homebuilt aircrafts, unless allowed to flight at night or IFR by the Minister in charge of Civil Aviation, under certain conditions, the list of which is available on request.
I could not find any official list of conditions but the unofficial list, which seems to be generally accepted is
Les propriétaires d’aéronefs utilisés en VFR de nuit ou en IFR devront disposer et appliquer les consignes de navigabilité moteur dans les délais prescrits, à condition que
le moteur soit d’un type certifié et entretenu selon les prescriptions définies pour un moteur monté sur un aéronef en CDN normal.
Meaning the engine must be of a certified type, maintained as it would be if the aircraft was flying under a normal C o A.
Thanks for the French translations. And really, that is the main issue with IFR for homebuilt, even in the US. The Norwegian regulation can be found here for the time being, until LT finishes their new regulations for all Annex II aircraft. The EAA has issued this recommendation for installing IFR equipment.
There are differences I guess, due to different regulations (in different countries), but the basic issue is the same, and it’s all explained in the EAA notice. This means, there are no differences in the requirements for an IFR equipped certified aircraft and an IFR equipped experimental aircraft. The same rules applies, the same TSO’s apply, the same maintenance requirements apply regarding the IFR equipment (and any other equipment according to local regulations). Even though there are no requirements for any equipment in an experimental aircraft to be certified, the requirement for IFR operations states that the IFR equipment must meet the TSO, and must also be maintained and tested as any other IFR equipment.
One has to wonder. What genius will allow VFR flight by homebuilt aircraft, but not IFR flight? A VFR equipped homebuilt has no requirements regarding instumentation. If it works, it is OK. An IFR equipped homebuilt must use equipment that satisfies the exact same requirements as any other IFR equipped aircraft for the intended airspace, and also is maintained according to the same rules.
To limit this thread drift I was going to move this to yet another “can homebuilts fly IFR” thread but it doesn’t look like there is any new information saying that you can build or buy a homebuilt and fly it IFR around Europe, is there?
Homebuilts (G-reg) can fly IFR in the UK too, if you get an individual permission! The restored Vulcan jet is the only known permanent-permission example, however. I don’t know if the Vulcan’s permission is limited to UK airspace but the CAA has discreetly issued non-UK-limited IFR temporary permissions to people doing record breaking flights from UK to South Africa and such, in non-CofA (Annex 2) aircraft (because VFR is not really a concept understood in most of the 3rd World) and these permissions are issued with an understanding of “don’t do this in Eurocontrol-land and if you do then keep a low profile”.
Homebuilts do fly IFR around Europe, on Eurocontrol IFR flight plans, but they aren’t doing it legally. They are able to do it because nobody enforces it. I have seen various homebuilts around the place that were “obviously” doing it but it was obvious only to somebody who knows a bit about aircraft and the regs. ATC aren’t likely to notice and those that do are going to be aviation enthusiasts who love aircraft and won’t report it. You have to be discreet about it. Travelling pilots can get away with it easily but you would not be able to do it constantly and overtly from your base airport for very long.
That 1980 agreement has been comprehensively disregarded in Europe – much discussed here already, too. But that covers only flight within Europe, not IFR.
I know the LAA are working on increasing the availability of IFR permits on the fleet they supervise.
I suspect the sting in the tail may well be that the equipment on board has to be the same as for CofA aircraft.
This would knock it on the head for most homebuilders, all the lovely EFIS and nav kit most are using (and it is superb and such good value) is not TSO’d so surely will not be usable in IFR.
Well Peter, Norway, Sweden, Finland, Switzerland and France are 100% for sure. Like it or not.
I suspect the sting in the tail may well be that the equipment on board has to be the same as for CofA aircraft.
Not all equipment. In Norway the regulation say nothing about the equipment as such (other than what kind of equipment is required), but the maintenance of it has to be done in maintenance class II, by a certified aircraft repair shop. But show me a non certified GNS or similar, they do not exist.
Equipment for NVFR also is in class II, but it’s a minor mod, so less strict regarding who can maintain it. An experimental aircraft is put in maintenance class III where major mods also do not need a certified shop.
So exactly how this is for different countries, will be different, but the principle is the same. IFR equipment in an experimental, will put a stricter maintenance regime on the aircraft, at least what the equipment is concerned.
Also. The ECAC recommendation is indeed implemented in almost all European nations. Therefore there are no legal gray zones here. How much it is “disregarded” is seen in how freely experimentals actually can operate. The ATCs aren’t completely brain dead. They know that RVs and Glasairs are experimental homebuilt aircraft.
I think a separate thread would be nice, but only if it involves facts, not myths.
Well Peter, Norway, Sweden, Finland, Switzerland and France are 100% for sure. Like it or not.
I know of exactly ONE homebuilt which was ever IFR certified in Switzerland and that one met a very sticky end. I do NOT know how they deal with planes like the Super Constellation here, which is also experimental if I am not mistaken but obviously not homebuilt, yet it appears to be able to fly IFR. Yet, I have not seen or heard of any HB registered experimental with an IFR certificate in it’s C of A since that unfortunate airplane which crashed on it’s first IFR flight (even though IFR had nothing to do with the crash, the CAA took a fierce beating by the politicians and press after this accident and the homebuilt scene has had a lot of damage to repair). So it would totally surprise me if Switzerland was one of the countries in which experimentals can obtain an IFR certificate. And yes, I am aware that Switzerland is one of the very few countries where IFR is written into the C of A.
That is regarding such airplanes getting an official IFR permit/certificate or what ever is needed to allow it to operate under IFR in the registration country.
However, it would be up to EASA to finally sort this once and for all and now may well be the time to tackle it. There is NO reason, other than the compulsive control freaks in a lot of European CAA’s, to disallow IFR in homebuilt airplanes in any EASA country. But knowing how concrete brained some of the folks in those CAA’s are, it will take EASA to speak a clear vote on this. France seems in any case to be at the top of things GA wise right now, so it may well be a chance with Patrick Ky at the top of EASA to get this anti experimental attitude addressed.
In my opinion, the registration country is the one which needs to issue the rules and regs under which an airplane may operate. Within EASA, or on a broader scale within ICAO, the other member states have to accept what ever one of their member states decides in terms of certification of airplanes under their own registry. In short, if Sweden, Norway and Finland (as well as France by the sound of it) explicitly allow their registered experimentals to fly IFR, then the remainder of EASA Land has to accept this and allow these planes to operate in their airspace. Which, as a sideline, should also take care of the renewable overflight permits for each country. Either EASA land is one unified airspace or it is not.
Outside EASA, it appears to me that the majority of ICAO memberstates act pretty much like that. If the registration country of an airplane issues a C of A to an airplane within its register, regardless of what nature, they accept it as long as it is flying in transit or in some cases even if it’s based there.
Peter has one very valid case however. Most homebuilts profit from non certified avionics. For IFR, that has been and always will be a no-go and I actually agree with that. For navigation, there is no difference if a plane is homebuilt or not, but either all light and private planes get the freedom the experimentals have or otherwise all should obey the same rules. In an environment, where a high degree of accuracy and navigational fidelity is necessary, I can understand a certain reluctance by regulators to accept avionics which do not fulfil the TSO or equivalent standards. At the same time, the necessity should not arise for anyone going a non-certified way in the first place in this cathegory of airplane.
My understanding is that the LAA is going to make a list of non-certified avionics that are considered to have equivalent reliability to certified avionics.
My understanding is that the LAA is going to make a list of non-certified avionics that are considered to have equivalent reliability to certified avionics.
That’s not going to be difficult 
But then we may as well dissolve ICAO, which might have undesirable side effects elsewhere…
The LAA could also make a rod for their own back because any examples of failures in homebuilts will be used against it (and there will be plenty of those).
I suspect the sting in the tail may well be that the equipment on board has to be the same as for CofA aircraft.
There won’t be much choice since there is no uncertified GPS that can fly GPS approaches (is there?). An IFR approval without GPS/LNAV and maybe GPS/LPV approaches is useless – anybody can fly IFR enroute, with a handheld GPS and it is totally unenforceable.
For some reason Dynon etc have decided to avoid the instrument approach market altogether. One reason may be that they don’t want to pay Jeppesen for the data, but it could also be that Jeppesen a refusing to license the data to run on a product that has not gone through the standard due diligence process.
So a GNS430 will be the minimum level for a usable IFR homebuilt.
For some reason Dynon etc have decided to avoid the instrument approach market altogether.
I think the reason is simple: US regulations mean there is no market for it. In the US experimental world you don’t need a certified display device, but you need a certified GPS if you want to fly IFR (not sure if that applies to enroute, but it certainly applies to approaches).
This is the same issue we have in Europe – airspace vs airworthiness requirements: airspace requires certain navigational equipment, but says nothing about displays etc.
Hopefully the LAA/CAA come to the same conclusion; A G3X combined with a GTN is an amazing system. it comes very close to the full G3000 experience, for a fraction of the cost, and I hear the autopilot is excellent…
So it would totally surprise me if Switzerland was one of the countries in which experimentals can obtain an IFR certificate. And yes, I am aware that Switzerland is one of the very few countries where IFR is written into the C of A.
I don’t know much about the rules for homebuilding in Switzerland (it is hard enough to keep up with the ever changing rules here ), but I could find this on the web page of EAS. (on page 3).
Für Flugzeuge, die für Instrumentenflug (IFR) zugelassen werden sollen, werden zusätzliche Anforderungen durch das BAZL festgelegt.
Certainly no carte blanch, but not necessarily a complete show stopper either (if my German is not fooling me).
One problem is that EASA has no interests in dealing with this. All Annex II aircraft are defined to be non-EASA, by EASA itself, and so it is up to each individual local authority to create the rules these aircraft has to follow. The aircraft this concerns are by now the majority of the fleet, and includes all “orphaned” (Piper Cub etc), all warbirds (experimental or ordinary CofA), all micro/ultralight and all experimental homebuilt.
Another thing is that IFR avionics are so expensive that it makes little sense instrumenting a homebuilt unless you have an aircraft and engine to match it. This means an IO360 in top condition and CS prop at minimum, autopilot, preferably redundant electrical system and so on. The added cost for IFR could very well end up twice as much as that of a basic VFR version, if not more. And you will have the added complexity of not being able to fix the systems yourself.
In an environment, where a high degree of accuracy and navigational fidelity is necessary, I can understand a certain reluctance by regulators to accept avionics which do not fulfil the TSO or equivalent standards.
Traditional IFR equipment are hardly precision instruments. It was not until GPS instrument came that local airlines along the coast dared to fly proper instrument approaches when the weather was bad. All GPS navigational IFR equipment needs to be certified in any case as explained in the EAA link. This will never change, because this is a requirement for the instrument itself, regardless of where it is put. So, this artificial need for navigational instruments (old school) to be certified is moot. A better way would simply be to say that GPS navigation is required, and the problem would be solved for all foreseeable future for all aircraft, certainly for all homebuilt. I can’t imagine anyone today building themselves an IFR capable aircraft without a G3X and a GNS/GTN as a minimum.
The reluctance against IFR in homebuilt is something I will never understand. When reading the hearings for the EIR proposal it is funny to read the comments from the Norwegian CAA. They saw no practical use for the EIR, and they didn’t think many PPL pilots would take that rating. They thought even less would take the CB-IR (they would rather go for the “full” IR). Still, they were positive, because they thought learning IFR would increase the safety for the few pilots that did take those ratings. It is hard to argument against that reasoning, but the point is, the exact same reasoning can be used for IFR capable aircraft, also homebuilt. I mean, if the only certified equipment in a homebuilt is a Garmin GTN, how will that GTN decrease safety for that airplane when flown by an IFR rated pilot? The statistics for homebuilt airplane also show that what kills people is VFR flight into IMC more than all other causes.
