Many homebuilt have certified engines for various reasons of the original builder, and in these cases an amateur cannot do yearly on the engine, ever.
This is not strictly true for FAA Experimental Amateur Built aircraft. The engine becomes effectively Experimental when it is mounted on the homebuilt, but could be reinstalled on a certified aircraft later. The A&P mechanic doing the installation on a certified aircraft would inspect it for compliance with the Type Certificate before installation. No repair station paperwork is required for certified engine inspection or overhaul under FAA rules, it can be handled at the A&P mechanic + logbook entry level. The engine can thereby move between FAA Experimental and Certified airframes without paperwork. It rarely happens because the number of Experimentals that might use the engine is growing, but it can happen.
I agree that the UK has a quite burdensome approach to homebuilt aircraft, with annual Permit renewal required and it involving stuff like flying the plane to Vne (which strikes me as a remnant from the 1920s!) In the U.S. the fundamental intent of the Experimental Amateur Built category is to allow individuals to build and maintain aircraft of their own design and construction, without design approval. Very different.
Airborne_Again wrote:
I respectfully disagree.
I know myself enough to say that if I had IFR rating, I would respectfully (or not so respectfully) disagree with myself also. But then it would be based on something else than pure practicalities. It’s like that barnstorming video. Some things you even only need to do once, and no real reason is needed
In my opinion IFR in anything less than a DA42 with full de-ice makes little sense in large parts of the year anyway, at least up here.
I respectfully disagree.
achimha wrote:
There are loads of N-reg experimentals based in Germany and they fly all over Europe.
There are thousands of microlights flying all over Europe as well. They also need special permission, except between some countries with agreements about this (UK-France?). The thing is, a homebuilt is no longer a clear cut definition as it once were. The “correct” meaning is an experimental amateur built aircraft registered as such. EASA regulations has no room for this, everything “odd” (non EASA) is simply regarded as Annex II, and it doesn’t matter if it is a bamboo and fabric home brew design or a F-104. How the ATC handles all these different aircraft in real situations there and then, I don’t know, it probably differ from case to case, but as long as it has a registration and a FP is filed what can they do except sticking to the FP? The ATC is no police.
In Norway an N-reg experimental has to file the same approval as any foreign microlight. A European experimental can enter with no prior permission. I have no experience entering Norway with any of the mentioned categories, but I would believe permissions are obtained within the hour for known aircraft and/or “easy” countries (for microlights).
Peter wrote:
On the various European registers, the subsequent owner can have reduced maintenance privileges – because the “homebuilding principle” is based on the assumption that the builder will be careful because he doesn’t want to kill himself. It is clearly difficult to find out what exactly these privileges are in some cases (or people do know but don’t want to discuss it, for obvious reasons). In the UK this is straightforward because the LAA inspects the aircraft at every Annual, so the subsequent owner gets the same privileges, but in countries that don’t operate some kind of “authority oversight” you can expect the subsequent owner’s privileges to be reduced.Another benefit would be the much wider range of both airframes and components which can be used. I think all European regimes will not accept the full range of US “experimentals”. The UK LAA will not accept a great deal of stuff.
I don’t know all that much about the UK LAA, but from what I have seen it has very little in common with experimentals elsewhere. The UK has no amateur built experimental category at all, they never receive a C of A. Most other places experimentals are registered as such and becomes like any other aircraft with a C of A. The “homebuilt principle” is simply to maintain the aircraft airworthy according to its C of A. Many homebuilt have certified engines for various reasons of the original builder, and in these cases an amateur cannot do yearly on the engine, ever. In other cases the original builder builds the engine. Anyway, the subsequent owner can do all maintenance and sign all papers in principle. All the CAA look for is some “proof” of competence. Building the aircraft and taking a weekend course is such a proof, the subsequent owner has to get the competence elsewhere. If you build for “hard” IFR, then certified GPS is a must, and a certified engine is also a good idea (the CAA could also demand it), and to maintain these things, a certified mechanic is needed according to the equipment (still, no EASA maintenance organisation is needed). This does not change if it is an N-reg, it just gets more complicated unless you live and fly in the US.
I don’t see any benefit of “N-regging” a homebuilt whatsoever, unless you use it in N-reg land
One benefit would be the clearly defined maintenance regime, for both the original builder and any subsequent owner – as Silvaire explains above.
On the various European registers, the subsequent owner can have reduced maintenance privileges – because the “homebuilding principle” is based on the assumption that the builder will be careful because he doesn’t want to kill himself. It is clearly difficult to find out what exactly these privileges are in some cases (or people do know but don’t want to discuss it, for obvious reasons). In the UK this is straightforward because the LAA inspects the aircraft at every Annual, so the subsequent owner gets the same privileges, but in countries that don’t operate some kind of “authority oversight” you can expect the subsequent owner’s privileges to be reduced.
Another benefit would be the much wider range of both airframes and components which can be used. I think all European regimes will not accept the full range of US “experimentals”. The UK LAA will not accept a great deal of stuff.
Another one is pilot licensing and medicals. The EASA FCL attack on foreign regs doesn’t affect homebuilts and if you had an N-reg homebuilt you could fly it on FAA pilot papers past April 2016. That’s probably another reason why N-reg homebuilts won’t be allowed long term residence in Europe, ever.
So if homebuilts had full European transit and residence privileges, especially IFR, then N-reg would be the way to go, for the same reasons that it is on the certified scene.
I have renamed the thread a little
I can officially be based in Germany. You need to renew your permission every year which is a simple formality. There are loads of N-reg experimentals based in Germany and they fly all over Europe. If they always have the appropriate permission, I don’t know but never heard about any problems.
That’s a really useful data point. All it now needs is for them to be able to fly IFR, all over Europe
Could you put the Lancair Evolution on D-reg? What are the German restrictions?
It’s going to get even more interesting if/when the USA does away with the Class 3 medical.
Peter wrote:
I don’t agree. An N-reg homebuilt cannot be based anywhere in Europe, unless you keep it well below the radar
I can officially be based in Germany. You need to renew your permission every year which is a simple formality. There are loads of N-reg experimentals based in Germany and they fly all over Europe. If they always have the appropriate permission, I don’t know but never heard about any problems.
I think it is mainly related to the way you talk and squawk. I was flying yday from biggin hill to germany, magdeburg. I had filed two plans, one ifr, one vfr. cancelled the ifr plan due to good weather on hand and the vfr route being shorter. already midchannel i got cleared by oostend straight to coa, from dutchmil straight to stadtlohn vrede, from langen info straight to my final destination. this was on an n-reg c182s. I flew a similar route months ago on g-reg microlight with similar clearance. I have not yet expirienced any discrimination due to reg or aircraft type, but may be I always have been lucky so far. summarizing, I think it is more the impression you create towards controllers in terms of location, intention etc which gets you the desired clearance, not the aircraft type.
Peter wrote:
Otherwise, most of the homebuilt scene would be N-reg.
I don’t get it. Most homebuilts are exactly that – homebuilts. That is why the homebuilt scene is a local thing everywhere with large variations in the rules from country to country. Regardless, I don’t see any benefit of “N-regging” a homebuilt whatsoever, unless you use it in N-reg land
achimha wrote:
Personally I’d go for N-reg if possible.
Not with an experimental aircraft. You would need special permission to cross any and all borders, since the USA is not an ECAC country. Keep it registered in one of the Nordic countries, and you can also fly IFR (if that’s a requirement, which it doesn’t seem to be by your post), probably also France and Italy.
In my opinion IFR in anything less than a DA42 with full de-ice makes little sense in large parts of the year anyway, at least up here. We even have snow storms in the middle of June now. When the weather is nice, VFR is no problem.
