Menu Sign In Contact FAQ
Banner
Welcome to our forums

IFR in homebuilts - UK LAA programme (merged)

meaning we don’t care what you do

That’s how it works, indeed, which is evident on FR24, among the several people who do it

The problem is that your insurance is probably void. The fact that the national regs on this can be impossible to find is of no help, because if you do enough damage somewhere you can be sure the insurance guy will know where to look for them.

If they allow IFR over UK with a foreign homebuilt, are they going to let the LAA “inspect” every aircraft, every instrument and so on? Only those with “LAA approved” aicraft and instruments are allowed to enter or something? The LAA is no competent authority, they are not even authorized mechanics or maintenance facilities. The LAA is just a gang of enthusiasts.

That, however, is how it works, because you need the annual LAA inspector inspection, flight test, and a signoff. Without that, your G-reg homebuilt is nothing. I know a crowd of homebuilders where I am based. A lot of owners use a “good mate” who does it for a beer, but others have bigger issues especially if based abroad

That level of oversight is also why on the G-reg the non-builder owner has the same privileges as the original builder. That is rare in the homebuilt world. Even on the N-reg, the non builder owner needs an annual A&P signoff.

In the UK, very few homebuilts (which are nearly all G-reg, due to the various residence issues) fly overt IFR. You can do it enroute in Class G but almost nobody does it in CAS (most such cases show up on FR24 because you can’t do it without mode S) and you can’t fly approaches because you really draw attention to yourself then. So this new change is very welcome.

Administrator
Shoreham EGKA, United Kingdom

Peter wrote:

That, however, is how it works

That is OK. Microlights in Norway work the same way, and I think just about everywhere. The same is also true for some homebuilt communities (like in the UK), but it is more usual that the CAAs handle this, at least the “legal” side of it (issue C of A essentially, and taking care of basic regulations). The glider community has taken it a step further, they have become an EASA competent authority (which is essentially what they always have been, only not in EASA terminology). The same has happened to the Austrian glider community.

What I was thinking about was non UK homebuilt visiting the UK. The PDF-page from the UK CAA is crystal clear. With the changes of IFR regulations in the LAA, are there any words changing that PDF-page? It should change IMO. The UK CAA cannot talk with two tongues (they probably can, but from the outside it looks very messy and “ad hoc”)

Peter wrote:

The problem is that your insurance is probably void. The fact that the national regs on this can be impossible to find is of no help, because if you do enough damage somewhere you can be sure the insurance guy will know where to look for them.

These aircraft have a C of A issued by the CAAs. It is all official and very legal and open for anybody. With a C of A with no restrictions on IFR, there is nothing the insurance companies can do, except perhaps in cases where the country you fly in has an explicit statement, like the UK CAA has. Germany (for instance) has no such thing anywhere in their AIP, all the references end in decades old AIP pages that do not exist anymore, not officially as far as I know. It is FUD pure and simple.

The elephant is the circulation
ENVA ENOP ENMO, Norway

What I was thinking about was non UK homebuilt visiting the UK. The PDF-page from the UK CAA is crystal clear. With the changes of IFR regulations in the LAA, are there any words changing that PDF-page? It should change IMO. The UK CAA cannot talk with two tongues (they probably can, but from the outside it looks very messy and “ad hoc”)

Homebuilt privileges are done nationally. You can have one set of rules for G-reg ones within the UK and a different set for non G-reg ones within the UK. Every country does that – except for the few which don’t appear to have written any regs (see previous threads).

With a C of A with no restrictions on IFR, there is nothing the insurance companies can do,

You seem to be living in a dream land. I don’t think you understand the basic principle that if a flight is not legal technically (before it got off the ground) e.g. contravenes the CofA, insurance is void.

So if say a G-reg homebuilt which is VFR-only on its LAA permit files an IFR flight plan and crashes on it, it is really obvious that it wasn’t legal. That is why this change is welcome. Maybe in Norway an insurer covers illegal activities, in which case that is great

Similarly if someone flies an N-reg homebuilt on an IFR flight plan into an airspace which prohibits homebuilts flying IFR, and crashes, his insurer isn’t going to pay out (unless the loss adjuster is stupid, which is fairly rare).

In between you get grey areas like the said G-reg homebuilt flying VFR through some cloud and into a rock, and the insurer will pay out since nobody can be sure he was in cloud at the time. Also insurance does cover negligence, so almost anything happening in the air is covered.

Most pilots prefer to be legal, and the validity of their insurance is the main driving factor. 3rd party damage is rare in GA but if you kill or cripple some passenger(s) and your insurance doesn’t pay out because the flight was obviously illegal, all it takes is a finding of negligence under the UK Civil Aviation Act and your family is going to be moving out to a (very) small place to live. Do a google on Graham Hill, for one of many examples.

all the references end in decades old AIP pages that do not exist anymore

Funnily enough most of the regs are easily found if you get a local language speaker to do it. I think it was France which was difficult, for the 6 month residence limit of all non-F-regs.

Administrator
Shoreham EGKA, United Kingdom

Peter wrote:

Homebuilt privileges are done nationally. You can have one set of rules for G-reg ones within the UK and a different set for non G-reg ones within the UK. Every country does that – except for the few which don’t appear to have written any regs (see previous threads).

Well, Europe wide IFR in homebuilt will never become a fact unless the UK change the wording in that PDF. Unless, of course, we change the meaning of things so that UK is not a part of Europe (not very serious maybe, but still, that may be the way this turn out). It is stuff like that PDF that prevent this to happen, and the UK is one of very few countries with such an explicit regulation. The LAA approving IFR in certain homebuilds means nothing looking at this from a “European” perspective. IFR (or not) in a homebuilt, is exclusively a matter of having instruments and equipment according to airspace requirements in most of Europe. Today this means in most cases, having certified GPS’s, certified transponder and radios, just like any other certified aircraft. The only thing you can change, is the display technology, but certain CAAs may be restrictive also to that. Even for VFR-only, there are no options today other than to mount EASA certified radio and transponder. I know, I have been in contact with manufacturers and authorities about that very question. (Luckily there is a UK company called Trig )

Peter wrote:

You seem to be living in a dream land. I don’t think you understand the basic principle that if a flight is not legal technically (before it got off the ground) e.g. contravenes the CofA, insurance is void.

I understand that. That is not the question. The “issue” wrt Germany for instance, is that some believe it is illegal, yet nothing in the AIP states so, only references to decades old (literally) AIP pages. The insurance companies does not relate to FUD, they only relate to the real world, the current regulations, the current restrictions. I think I know enough German to get along just fine in Germany, but legal documents and regulations are hard to read, no matter the language, but even harder to find. That UK CAA PDF is impossible to find without Google for instance (Google finds it in an instant though).

Besides, I would think you of all people, would work towards making IFR in all of Europe in homebuilds a reality, not be so against it.

The elephant is the circulation
ENVA ENOP ENMO, Norway

Obviously I am not against it. I am against statements on our forum which may lead someone to spend €xx,xxx of their hard earned money on a plane which they can’t legally fly after 6 months, or can’t fly IFR when the seller told them they could.

It’s also not good enough to post on a forum (it has happened on others – somebody emailed me a French one recently which I referenced here) that it is illegal but “if you PM me I can tell you how to work around that” because all that probably is is advice on how to fly below the “radar”. And sure enough plenty of people do fly below the radar, but it cripples mission capability and devalues what they paid all that money for. Homebuilts are already limited enough… there is the need to get a permit from much of Europe, the €80 Belgian overflight fee, etc. You don’t want to be limited on your home turf as well!

I have long lost count of how many chocolate teapots people bought. I get plenty of emails about these. A few people post about them; most don’t. There is a fair # of these sitting in hangars… going nowhere.

Back to the topic, this should allow a G-reg to fly IFR in the UK, including the Eurocontrol system, and it should work in countries where IFR in homebuilts is not prohibited.

Administrator
Shoreham EGKA, United Kingdom

Peter wrote:

I have long lost count of how many chocolate teapots people bought

These “teapots” come in all different colors and shapes I would think. An RV is no Cirrus (the -10 is as close as it gets though, still very different), and a Cirrus is no Bearhawk and so on. It’s up to everyone to pick their toy any way they chose. People are free to make bad choices also.

All that is beside the point. The point is that what restricts us are restrictions set out by EASA and the CAAs. They are the only restrictions. If there are no restrictions, then this is true no matter what some people believe based on local to them regulations, practice and “common sense”.

The UK is the oddball regarding such restrictions and practices. That UK CAA restriction is such an oddball restriction.

It is very nice that the LAA has completed this project. And I’m happy for all builders and owners, they can make more capable aircraft (with fancy avionics and systems, not least ) But without rewording of the restrictions on foreign homebuilts, this means nothing in a Europe wide sense.

Norway, Sweden, France, Poland, Italy, Portugal, to name a few, have no such restrictions, and never have (they may have requirements, airspace typically, but that is something entirely different, and the same requirements also applies to certified aircraft) It’s about time the UK remove such nonsense also.

My question was simply if someone (at the LAA preferably) have heard anything about such a change.

The elephant is the circulation
ENVA ENOP ENMO, Norway

Permit to fly can now be IFR / Night approved.
I am not that familiar with the LAA scene, but are there any interesting proposals in the loop? Anything to watch for?

Not trying to start a non certified / homebuilt vs certified, but I imagine we might see some interesting proposals. The main reason I never looked at that category was the lack of IFR.

I would like to think that there will be an improvement in facilities. With things like PCL becoming more widespread.

The UK programme might give other countries a push to eliminate the complicated matrix of permits required for overflight or landing. That would be a big plus. Without that, IFR is of minimal value to the vast majority of homebuilders – from what they tell me.

PCL is already legal at unlicensed airfields, and has been for many years but most people were unaware of it.

Administrator
Shoreham EGKA, United Kingdom

I agree that instrument flying is of little value to most home builders, because most don’t have an instrument rating. However, most private pilots of certified aircraft don’t have an instrument rating either, so it’s not really the point. Now that IMC is allowed in (approved) home built aircraft in the UK, there is another option for the minority of private pilots who do wish to fly in IMC. These are the pilot’s for whom this change is relevant, not home builders (or PPLs) in general.

In the past, if the owner of a permit aircraft wanted to stay instrument current they had to either fly simulated IMC in VMC regularly (with someone in the right seat) or else also fly a certified aircraft. In my case, that was enough to keep me out of the permit aircraft world. I preferred to retain instrument currency in the aircraft that I normally flew. I think it’s safer and I didn’t have to worry about finding myself in “marginal VFR” in an aircraft that was not approved for IMC.

I appreciate that the access to foreign airspace is limited for PtF aircraft (especially in IMC). But, through being current, you always have the safety net of the skill and aircraft capability, so long distance touring is more feasible. This is especially true for IR(R) holders, who don’t have the IMC privileges outside of the UK anyway.

Most of the instrument capable pilots that I know avoid IMC most of the time. They bust a cloud layer or fly in marginal visibility or wait for a better day – it’s a hobby. For those pilots, this change provides another option – an alternative to sharing, renting or buying a certified aircraft. I don’t think it will be massive but it will be good option for this section of the pilot population.

Top Farm, Cambridgeshire, United Kingdom
Sign in to add your message

Back to Top