Most permits for homebuilts in Europe are issued with a VFR-only restriction.
Maybe Norwegian ones are not. Swedish ones are not according to the first few posts in this thread which also cover the Evolution.
Yet, nobody has done it, presumably because they realised that one could not fly IFR past the borders of Sweden or, presumably Norway, and that most airspaces prohibit IFR in homebuilts. I know someone tried to get permission from Germany for his UK LAA IFR approved RV, and failed.
The advantages of an N-reg homebuilt are
and the big disadvantage is that you cannot legally long-term-base it anywhere in Europe except in Germany (or former soviet bloc countries where you can “swing things”, possibly for money) as described above and e.g. here. And that is really hard because you would have to keep it away from prying eyes and definitely plane spotters. It would have to live in a hangar.
As I said, it’s all been chewed over before, years ago.
LeSving wrote:
The elephant in the room here is obviously that the Evolution is a silly plane to start with. As silly as it gets. There is nothing it can do that a certified plane cannot do better, and usually at a lower cost, and with much less trouble. It’s a toy.
@LeSving, I’m sorry, could you name a few new certified Single Engine Turboprop models cheaper than the current Evolution price ($1.2M)?
And in the US it is NOT a toy, but a good method of transportation.
LeSving wrote:
AIP and NOTAMs are both defined by ICAO. Nothing more to discuss. That France tries to isolate themselves from the rest of Europe (legally-hardly or illegally-probably), is disappointing, but it’s nothing new. And France is not alone in doing so. The UK has done the same, only to a much larger extent. This doesn’t change the legal importance of ICAO in relation to pilots and operations. But this is also an important point here. We live where we live, and fly accordingly. The whole of Nordics, Baltics, Poland, Germany ++ are great places to fly. France and UK are both seemingly too much grief to bother with at the moment. That those two places have a sketchy relationship with international agreements, doesn’t mean the rest of Europe has.
Germany as well is bad then? I still remember that story about a pilot who was forced to pay a VAT on crossing the German-Swiss border, after reading an incorrectly written AIP.
AIP should contain all required information, accurate and up to date, but not every country (to put it mildly) does that.
This thread must win the prize for moving goalposts and ignoratio elenchi.
Peter wrote:
Norway has about 4 N-regs based there
What has N-reg got to do with it? Nothing at all is the answer. I can start building an Evolution today if I wanted to (and had the money 
), or import one from the US and put it on LN. There are no strings attached, there are no restrictions, there are no “VFR-only” written in any aircraft document. Could you please stop spreading unrelated and wrong information? It’s getting annoying. There’s no Evolution in Norway flying IFR at 20k, but there is one Mach 2 capable F-104 Starfighter (experimental) flying IFR at what 40-50k ? The only one in Europe.
The elephant in the room here is obviously that the Evolution is a silly plane to start with. As silly as it gets. There is nothing it can do that a certified plane cannot do better, and usually at a lower cost, and with much less trouble. It’s a toy.
Peter wrote:
The idea behind an AIP and NOTAMs is that these deliver a legal briefing, but Europe has driven a plough through that. See e.g. this. Times have changed. And they continue to change; I am sitting at Annecy on our meet-up and the airport does not accept flights even from another schengen country unless you send in a police form, with a 24hr PN. See the thread on unusual airport briefings required.
AIP and NOTAMs are both defined by ICAO. Nothing more to discuss. That France tries to isolate themselves from the rest of Europe (legally-hardly or illegally-probably), is disappointing, but it’s nothing new. And France is not alone in doing so. The UK has done the same, only to a much larger extent. This doesn’t change the legal importance of ICAO in relation to pilots and operations. But this is also an important point here. We live where we live, and fly accordingly. The whole of Nordics, Baltics, Poland, Germany ++ are great places to fly. France and UK are both seemingly too much grief to bother with at the moment. That those two places have a sketchy relationship with international agreements, doesn’t mean the rest of Europe has.
This is wishful thinking, all done before many times.
There are lots of places where this Evolution can be operated exactly as any other similar certified aircraft
“Operated” means what? Flown, yes, and one can play with words. Check previous movements over past few years. Nobody doing it there. According to locals, Norway has only about 4 N-regs (of all types) based there, and anyway they are banned from being based in Norway Sweden and Denmark so why is this being dug out again; it is disingenuous. About the only country in W Europe where the Evo (or any N-reg homebuilt) could be based long term would be Germany, which enables a re-application every 180 days (previous threads) but bans IFR in homebuilts. You would have to register an Evolution locally but nobody has managed to do that anywhere in Europe; probably for a reason. The movements with type EVOT, Mode S (necessary for IFR in this type) have been within Lithuania (low level sightseeing flights), and then CZ to Croatia (Eurocontrol IFR, the famous N111XA), crossing a few countries which do not allow it (all posted before). Then one sitting in a hangar in Bulgaria – see the thread on that (never flew in those days; maybe somebody bought it). That kit was sold by Lancair to a customer in Russia, IIRC, and this (Eastern Europe, where regs are “somewhat variable” or nonexistent, especially if you are well connected) is a pattern with this aircraft and for a good reason. All discussed previously, including the legality in airspaces crossed.
The idea behind an AIP and NOTAMs is that these deliver a legal briefing, but Europe has driven a plough through that. See e.g. this. Times have changed. And they continue to change; I am sitting at Annecy on our meet-up and the airport does not accept flights even from another schengen country unless you send in a police form, with a 24hr PN. See the thread on unusual airport briefings required.
ECAC is worthless except where locally implemented.
ICAO is worthless except where locally implemented.
If the Evolution was certified, then everything would change. But this is hard work and few have done it with this type of aircraft. The Epic is about the last one, and the spec had changed a lot on the way there. Lancair has very obviously been hovering right on the edge of financial viability for many years and they don’t have the resources to do it – whatever form the company takes.
Peter wrote:
Not many people are willing to argue this topic yet again, because digging up the reg is usually very hard and in some cases almost impossible; they are deep in national laws.
That is true, but there is the ICAO and ICAO has defined the AIP. The definition is:
intended primarily to satisfy international requirements for the exchange of aeronautical information of a lasting character essential to air navigation
Further the scope is pretty clear regarding this (annex 15):
Obviously it’s all (or most) in relation to international flights. Also, although the ICAO has a bunch of stuff on the aircraft themselves and what constitutes an airworthy aircraft “according to ICAO”, regarding international flights/operation of GA aircraft, ICAO does not differentiate between various “classes” of aircraft (certified, experimental or UL for instance). The definitions of aeroplane and aircraft are the same as used elsewhere.
ICAO does have a note about “reasonable means” concerning the PIC and the assessment of information for a flight.
We can safely conclude that having to dig deep into national laws in foreign languages regarding international operations of GA aircraft, is well beyond what ICAO defines as reasonable means in this context.
Either a country is a member of ICAO or it isn’t. If it is, then all aspects about international operations of (any) aircraft must be written in the AIP. This is also what most countries do. Information is found In the AIP or readily obtainable from other sources. This must also include various national regulations or restrictions on non-ICAO certified aircraft, which is also what most countries do. If nothing is written anywhere that a PIC can obtain with reasonable means, then this can only mean there are no applicable rules/restrictions.
You use terms as “look through the fingers”, “flying below the radar” and so on. This is very misleading and in most cases blatantly false. This doesn’t mean that some people don’t want to attract attention, but this can be due to lots of other (legitimate) reasons. Not all people have YouTube genes
There are lots of places where this Evolution can be operated exactly as any other similar certified aircraft. The entire Nordic for instance, an area larger than UK, Germany and France combined. The Evolution is what it is however. As an homebuilt it super complex, super expensive, and the utility value is limited to high and fast. All in all it is hard to find a reason to operate an Evolution instead of a much more sensible similarly priced certified aircraft. It has none of the usual benefits of a homebuilt vs certified, mostly because certified aircraft in that price range are very good at what they do in comparison (in contrast to most SEPs).
The ECAC recommendation is definitely a thing. It has served people well for the last 40 years.
The two basic issues are
For N reg the permit is usually not restricted.
Most European airspaces ban IFR in uncertified. However there is zero enforcement which leads to a lot of denial and wishful thinking. This will continue.
TXR wrote:
Yes, I’m here to talk about the Evolution. I’m afraid “useless in Europe” is another blanket statement. (A) Apart from the UK (which as made things even more difficult by leaving EASA), Germany, and Austria, I still haven’t seen evidence that IFR can’t be done in an Evolution from an ECAC country.
@TXR, I think the question here is what can you get if you apply for a permission to fly IFR. Hence it doesn’t really matter what the blanket rules are – in the end, the foreign-reg aircraft that are still at the design stage (prototype testing) are getting the permits to fly IFR (yes, I know those are the EASA ones), so if you REALLY want to know, then you need to find the Evolution owners in Europe and ask them. Plus, as you’ve mentioned, nothing stops you from filing IFR in any aircraft, other than a threat of a ramp check and/or insurance problems (some countries might say that you’ve flown uninsured, which is a no-no).
Not many people are willing to argue this topic yet again, because digging up the reg is usually very hard and in some cases almost impossible; they are deep in national laws.
@ Peter:
See e.g. here. ECAC is just some body which has no legal authority. Each country’s CAA does its own thing. And most European countries prohibit IFR in Annex 1 planes. The Evolution is Annex 1.
I’ve read that thread and it hasn’t really clarified the issue at all. The legal status of ECAC is also not really the point. The table I linked to is not the agreement / recommendation itself. It’s a summary of how that recommendation has been implemented across the various countries to date, which I find rather useful. I’ll take that summary over a blanket statement that “most European countries prohibit IFR in Annex 1 planes”. Personally, I’m more interested in solutions than in “can’t be done”.
That agreement is worthless legally.
Again, it’s not about the agreement; it’s about how it’s been adopted.
That is why the Evolution (this thread topic) is nearly useless in Europe. It’s a plane which is for high altitude long distance flying, which in Europe requires IFR, mostly in CAS i.e. on Eurocontrol flight plans, etc.
Yes, I’m here to talk about the Evolution. I’m afraid “useless in Europe” is another blanket statement. (A) Apart from the UK (which as made things even more difficult by leaving EASA), Germany, and Austria, I still haven’t seen evidence that IFR can’t be done in an Evolution from an ECAC country. Not to mention an N-reg one. (B) It’s not true that high-altitude flying necessarily requires IFR. In Germany, FL100+ is airspace Charlie; in Switzerland it’s FL130/150, depending on military operating hours. VFR is not excluded from Charlie. You just need clearance. And Germany, as far as I can tell, routinely gives clearance for VFR flights above FL100 to high-and-fast machines – Turbo Mooneys and TTXs, for instance – you just have to ask for it. 300 KTAS will get you there, although it may not be FL280 for separation issues.
Nothing stops you from filing a flight plan with Eurocontrol for an Evolution… I don’t understand why that’s a concern.
There have always been flight support services which file flight plans (working out Eurocontrol routes), arrange PPRs etc, and even book hotels. Jeppesen is one of the best known ones, charging $xxx/month, and there are cheaper ones which produce a routepack for some €40 and these are used by low-end bizjet ops.
Nowadays, with Rocketroute (popular with TP and jet users) and the Autorouter (popular with lower end GA), and booking.com etc, these is less of a need for these support services, but bizjet pilots are often crazy-busy and working at short notice and they still use them, especially if going outside Europe.
That wasn’t my question. I can book a hotel myself, thanks. I was asking if anyone had experience using dispatch services to obtain Permits to Fly.
In the link I posted above you can find summaries of the permit matrix and the contact details for applying for permits so you can do it yourself. So what she was saying is meaningless; you won’t get the permit any faster (for Europe).
Thanks for the link, much appreciated. But again, I don’t know why you call what she said “meaningless”. If I can engage a service, a single point of contact, to work out which permits I need where and when, and to get them for me, then that’s a significant value-add over me using my own time. I’m sure that anyone who contemplates shelling out seven figures for an airplane will understand the economics of their own time.
Which brings us back to the Evolution. It’s obvious that flying one in Europe is a lot more complex than doing the same in the US, and that’s unfortunate. But I wouldn’t call it impossible. It comes down to the balance of it all. If you want something of similar performance, hassle-free and certified, you’re looking at a price tag of three to four million – in whatever major currency you fancy. With an Evolution, you’re looking at a million and a half, or thereabouts. So – how much hassle are you willing to endure for roughly two million in savings? In fact, for that money, I could afford a good, “pre-loved” Bonanza as a second plane for those “short hops” over to Germany or Austria in IMC (and still have over a million left), and save the Evolution for the longer hauls to less anally-retentive countries.
Depends on the individual, I would think. Which is why “useless” is a little too broad of a judgement, IMHO.
