Menu Sign In Contact FAQ
Banner
Welcome to our forums

IFR in homebuilts - UK LAA programme (merged)

kwlf wrote:

That would be plain silly, but the LAA has engineers (in the proper sense of the word) on its staff.

The point is, the “method” I descried has been used by the rest of the world for decades on thousands of aircraft, since the very invention of homebuilt, with no known adverse effects. Not even LAA engineers can outsmart reality. “Gold plating” is not engineering, never has been, and never will be. No technical university teaches the “science” of Gold Plating AFAIK

The elephant is the circulation
ENVA ENOP ENMO, Norway

LeSving wrote:

No technical university teaches the “science” of Gold Plating AFAIK

Really? :-)

ESKC (Uppsala/Sundbro), Sweden

Airborne_Again wrote:

Really? :-)

I guess technically they do Funny, I had never heard of “gold plating” as a (non technical) concept before finding this site.

The elephant is the circulation
ENVA ENOP ENMO, Norway

I am told the LAA requires you to be flying the plane for 1 year before you can apply for the IFR approval.

Administrator
Shoreham EGKA, United Kingdom

Yes that’s correct. I just applied last month on the first birthday of my RV10. It also must have 50 hours Flying time

EGKL, United Kingdom

I have no desire to be critical of the LAA but who thought up this 1 year requirement?

It’s contrary to all common sense in flight training, currency, whatever.

The only reason I can think of for doing it is to frustrate the flow of applicants who are new to the LAA system i.e. to block a route for normal IR/IMCR holders who have lost their medical and would otherwise move to the NPPL + medical self declaration + IMC Rating, for which a homebuilt plane is the only option regardless of how much money you have. Currently this route is available for VFR immediately, subject only to being signed off by your GP to drive a car.

So you wait a year and then still cannot do anything more than fly IFR in UK airspace, even with a Class 2 medical.

Administrator
Shoreham EGKA, United Kingdom

I actually think it makes quite a lot of sense.

Remember these are homebuilt aircraft, not certified, and each one is very much individual in terms of its instrumentation, and sometimes engine management.

The LAA are making sure that an owner doesn’t bite off more than they can chew, trying to do initial testing on an aircraft (to work out the kinks) and also to get IFR approval at the same time.

There are a few sad cases of Americans doing this and killing themselves, an RV-10 with a Subaru engine Fatality springs to mind.

Perhaps a year is a bit arbitrary, but for the first tranche of applicants, it seems as valid as any other assumption. In short – after a year, kinks worked out, ready to go to the next level.

EGKL, United Kingdom

It doesn’t speak a lot for the quality of the homebuilding process which the LAA is expecting, or seeing

And if a builder cannot get the avionics to work after a year, he is not likely to get them working later on. Modern avionics is no rocket science. You just copy the wiring diagrams from the IMs and use a bit of common sense. Configuring and using them is something else…

You could have bought a really well constructed plane from somebody else, and you could be familiar with the type and familiar with the avionics… but you have to sit for a year anyway.

A lot of people flying e.g. RVs are ex airline pilots.

Administrator
Shoreham EGKA, United Kingdom

The 1 year is from Manufacture – so if you bought a really well constructed plane from someone else, presumably the year would have expired already and you can apply immediately.

The LAA expect a high standard, but there are always some kinks – I guess the same in the certified world.

Once a year of two has passed it wouldn’t surprise me if the LAA relax the rules a bit. It makes sense to be more strict to select the first batch.

In my aircraft’s first year, it passed it’s permit inspection with flying colours. The only niggles I had were a couple of very early on minor issues that were 5 minute fixes… so for my aircraft a 30 days/10 hours might have been a suitable rule rather than 365 days/50 hours. Or perhaps hours since last snag… errr…. hard to police that one.

EGKL, United Kingdom

OK; that’s better You probably spent several years building it anyway – if you built it.

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

Back to Top