Menu Sign In Contact FAQ
Banner
Welcome to our forums

ECAC Status for homebuilt / experimental (flight privileges within Europe)

The vast majority of US homebuilts are built at home, with support from industry. Of the hundreds to which I’ve been exposed, I can think of two that were built at a factory assist facility, both Glastar Sportsman 2+2s. Meanwhile a friend just completed his fourth homebuilt, all four of them being RVs, the latest being an RV-3, for which the kit is very basic, completed and flown a couple of weeks ago. He’s getting pretty good at it, and like most other builders builds because he likes it, as well as flying the results.

Certainly In the U.S. there is no sense that homebuilts are somehow less preferred than factory built aircraft, a circumnavigation of regulations, or in any sense wrong in principle. The FAA regulations that have created large numbers of homebuilts since 1953 are quite properly considered an FAA success, allowing large numbers of normal people to get a new, high performance, practical plane at reasonable cost by accepting individual responsibility for the plane’s design and construction. That is an FAA regulatory concept that originated over 60 years ago which has since then been proved viable.

Last Edited by Silvaire at 02 Sep 23:45

Silvaire wrote:

Certainly In the U.S. there is no sense that homebuilts are somehow … a circumnavigation of regulations

In his presentation given at Aero 2013, Bill Shinstock (Regulations and Policy Section Manager, Small Airplane Directorate, FAA) claimed that much of the appeal of experimental aircraft was the onerousness of the FAR 23 regulatinos. Hence the FAR 23 rewrite program.

LSZK, Switzerland

Obviously the popularity of FAA Experimental Amateur Built aircraft can’t be explained by “circumnavigating regulation” when the category was created by FAA regulators as an approved way for aircraft to be manufactured and flown by individuals. Equally obviously the objective of the FAA regulators who created the category 62 years ago was for it to be successful! Beyond that, I don’t think Mr Shinstock has been around the FAA for most of the last 62 years during which individuals have worked within the regulations for FAA homebuilts, or that he represents thousands of individuals who are actually building planes today. But I am pretty sure he’d use whatever data he finds useful in supporting a different point about another parallel regulation for factory built aircraft, a point that in itself may well be correct in relation to that different area of FAA regulation.

I’d agree that certification standards for factory built aircraft have become a bit ridiculous (some prewar aircraft were FAA certified in a few weeks and still fly safely today, I own one of them) but I think the long enduring appeal of FAA Experimental Amateur Built is that it allows individuals to do what they want within FAA regulations that encourage it, and to save money they don’t have, without any particular downside. I don’t know anybody who thinks that’s a bad thing or in any way illegitimate, quite the opposite.

Last Edited by Silvaire at 03 Sep 02:56

Most things in life are driven by money and IMHO the reason the FAA has established such a good non-CofA climate is because they don’t get licensing fees from maintenance organisations.

In Europe, and probably most other places, any maintenance company has to pay a hefty annual fee to their national CAA. This creates an incentive within the CAA (which employs a lot of ex-maintenance people) to prevent the creation of any regime which is too favourable for owner maintenance.

And of course it is easily justified using the “safety” argument – which is valid too because the homebuilt safety record is less good. That argument itself is however dubious because the State has no right to dictate the individual’s attitude to risk, so long as 3rd party risks remain low (which they are in GA).

Europe has a problem in that GA activity is much lower than in the USA so most (non-145) maintenance companies are struggling to make a living, and one can understand the CAAs’ desire to protect them.

Administrator
Shoreham EGKA, United Kingdom
Probably not once you are not the original builder.

On a G-reg there is no difference, due to the “regulatory oversight” every year which is in some ways stricter than on a certified G-reg (annual perf flight tests have been abolished on the latter). On an N-reg the difference is trivial (A&P signoff) and this would make N-reg homebuilts very attractive in the UK.

@Peter, hang on a second, you are comparing apples and oranges. Firstly it doesn’t necessarily follow in every situation that you have reduced privileges if you are not the original builder. Therefore a sweeping statement like that can’t be made, because all you need to do is transfer the registration to one that allows an lighter touch regulation, and puts the responsibility on to the owner, and tha this no longer a problem. Those national AAs are easy to find with a pot of tea, Google, and a couple of hours to read the Internet.

I was expressing that there are lighter regulation frameworks, around Europe, than the UK and without the 28 day rule in place the UK may be flooded with the lighter touch registrations. However that said the UK system is really only a ball-ache if you are trying to base a G-Reg abroad. Which the LAA say clearly that they don’t like. If you are inside the UK it’s actually quite a good system, and probably as close to the N-Reg as you can get. Granted you can’t fly IFR, but homebuilts are more for joy and pleasure flying which could open a whole IFR debate, but that is off topic.

Have you spoken to the LAA about importing a Lancair? It might be an expensive road because you would need to fund the type approval, however remember that under the UK system the inspector carries a lot of responsability for his signature, it isn’t simply a case of “well it was ok when I looked yesterday”, so therefore the LAA want to collect enough data to effectively manage that within the remit of responsability. Under the Czech system how does that work? Does the national permit authority have the same level of responsability, or is that on the owner? In a sort of, stupid is as stupid does type way…

EDHS, Germany

Mooney_Driver wrote:

The result is exactly how it is, tens of thousands of experimentals, very few of which are actually homebuilt, are popular simply for the reason that they circumnavigate the law.

I really see no circumnavigation of the law. I only know the law in Norway in detail (as much as that is possible for a non-lawyer ) and the US somewhat along with Canada, Sweden. The US is a bit different, while Canada, Norway, Sweden and Finland are very similar (it seems to me).

The regulations are clearly stated, and the first § states that the purpose is to assure that homebuilt (or rather self-produced) aircraft are airworthy. That’s it. The regulations don’t care about the hows and whys and whos. The only thing they care about is airworthiness in the eyes of the CAA. It shall be one build leader (usually the builder) and one inspector (who is approved by the CAA). Nowhere does it say the build leader actually has to build, and this is on purpose. I can get personnel from Boeing if I want to (or China) and build a whole squadron of airplanes. The inspector approves and signs things all along.

Since nothing needs to be certified the aircraft needs to be test-flown for at least 25 hours. Since it is a homebuilt it cannot be used commercially and not be used for basic flight training, but in all other respects it is as good an aircraft as any certified aircraft. There is nothing preventing the CAA to put the aircraft in the “Normal” category (not experimental), it’s just that it would require much more testing, and such a process will make the (one off) aircraft insanely expensive. An experimental aircraft is airworthy, but it is not verified that the aircraft fulfills all the requirements for an aircraft in the “Normal” category, hence the restrictions. This has nothing to do with who build it or where it is build, it is only testing and verification.

It seems to me this misunderstanding about circumnavigation of the law has something to do with a rather fundamental misunderstanding of what a certified aircraft is. A certified aircraft is certified for one reason only, and that is because it is mass produced in a industrial setting. There are no other reasons for certification. It’s just a process of producing clones from a couple of tested prototypes, and do it efficiently and according to aviation specifications. Theoretically one could make a couple of protorypes, test them the same way experimentals are tested, and mass produce them. This is basically how the US LSA class is, and to some extent the VLA class in Europe. As with all other materialistic stuff we like to gather, there is no reason to only mass produce the stuff.

The elephant is the circulation
ENVA ENOP ENMO, Norway

From this thread, this site has appeared

How is the “You can only fly in UK airspace under one of these exemptions for a maximum of 28 consecutive days” defined? If it said e.g. “for a maximum of on 28 consecutive days within one year, with the year starting on the first day of operation” that would be clear.

In practice nobody will fly on 28 consecutive days so interpreting that literally is an obvious permanent permission.

Administrator
Shoreham EGKA, United Kingdom

My reading is that the aircraft can be inside the UK for 28 days at most. On the 28 day it must have left the UK. It can came back the next day if it wishes to start another 28 days. It doesn’t matter how many of those 28 days it flies or is parked up.

That CAA page doesn’t provide much information to confirm that. So I Googled a bit on the ECAC exemption to see if it referred to the 28 days.

I came across this AN from the IAA dealing with the same issue. It seems to confirm that above understanding.
IA AAN [ local copy ]

Conditions of Exemption
(a) The aircraft shall not be flown for the purposes of commercial air transport, commercial operations or aerial work.
(b) The aircraft shall be flown only in accordance with daytime Visual Flight Rules.
(c) The conditions, limitations and restrictions applicable under the Flight Permit, or equivalent, issued by the State of Registry shall be observed.
(d) The pilot flying must hold a current licence, valid for use in Ireland or validated for use in Ireland by the IAA.
(e) The aircraft shall not remain in the Republic of Ireland pursuant to this exemption for a period of more than 28 days in any one visit without prior permission from the IAA, with the exception of UK registered aircraft registered to an address in Northern Ireland.
(f) The owner shall ensure that the all required documents are available for inspection when the aircraft is in the Republic of Ireland.
(g) The aircraft shall have valid and adequate insurance cover meeting the requirements of EC Regulation 785/2004.

EIWT Weston, Ireland

The problem I have with the proposition that the 28 days includes a limitation on parking is that if the aircraft requires maintenance (for whatever reason) and e.g. has to wait for parts to arrive, after 28 days they will have to take the wings off and put it on a trailer and drive it over the border to Northern Ireland (the UK), spend 1 night there, and drive it back the next morning

Or apply for an extension every 28 days…

This is like the Italian luxury tax on GA, which imposed a massive tax on planes parked there past X days. It went through several iterations; I am not sure what the latest is. That regulation included the obviously needed exemption for the AOG scenario, whereby you didn’t get hit with the tax if undergoing maintenance.

But I can’t find such an exemption in the IA PDF, or the UK regs.

It is also not practically enforceable against a plane sitting inside a private hangar. Especially one which is unairworthy, which by definition is not an aircraft but could be a pile of scrap. Where do you draw the line? Would it be OK if it was deregistered, etc?

Actually, rendering the plane unairworthy would have been one of the workarounds for the “90 days every year” N-reg parking limit proposed by the French in 2004 and the British in 2005 The key to that scheme was how one could make a plane unairworthy within exceeding pilot maintenance privileges!

Obviously I agree that “My reading is that the aircraft can be inside the UK for 28 days at most.” is the intention but it’s badly worded.

Administrator
Shoreham EGKA, United Kingdom

It is badly worded, I agree.

The AOG is probably a non-issue in this case. All you need after 28 days is a specific permission, rather than relying on the exemption. It would be very surprising if it were denied.

Biggin Hill
Sign in to add your message

Back to Top