A search term like
homebuilt AND IFR
finds various past threads. However, you knew that 
Did you even read what I wrote?
look696 wrote:
afaik the US FAA is the only one allowing this.
Sweden as well. As long as you have the right equipment you are good to go.
The UK LAA approve Permit aircraft for both Night and IFR, on an individual aircraft basis.
Fly310 wrote:
Sweden as well. As long as you have the right equipment you are good to go.
I stand corrected. Thank you.
So we are as far from standardization away, than ever. European airspace is and will be cluttered forever, it seems.
look696 wrote:
So we are as far from standardization away, than ever. European airspace is and will be cluttered forever, it seems.
Well… the “airspace” is pretty standardised. Non-EASA aircraft not so and on purpose.
Hm .. at least it should be possible to have more or the less the same possibilities, don’t you think so?
The restrictions imposed on aircraft which don’t have an ICAO CofA are a quid pro quo for their advantages e.g. much better owned maintenance options.
The place where these types get closest to what one can do with certified types is the US, but of course that is just one country.
Peter wrote:
The place where these types get closest to what one can do with certified types is the US, but of course that is just one country.
Within the US you can typically do more with an Experimental C of A homebuilt than with a certified plane, so ‘closest to a certified type’ isn’t how I would describe it. There are no private operating or airspace restrictions in the US. Canada has no restrictions on US-registered homebuilts, the issue was resolved some years ago. The only restriction I can think of is in flying to Mexico, but as in Europe that particular and isolated issue is often ignored without consequence.
I’ve mentioned before that my primary motivation to fly a certified plane in the US for local operation was to save money on the purchase price, although someday I might make a trip around Mexico and will then feel smug in being able to do it without issue. Meanwhile an RV-7 owning friend has just finished installing the most incredible IFR avionics, coupled Trio autopilot etc in his plane, all done himself and with discounted avionics hardware, no installation approvals and so on. So within his greater (IFR) goals and requirements, he’s saving money with a homebuilt.
Airborne_Again wrote:
and on purpose
I would rather say by randomness, although “on purpose” from an EASA point of view.
look696 wrote:
Hm .. at least it should be possible to have more or the less the same possibilities, don’t you think so?
We have the same possibilities – more or less, and that will be the situation for all foreseeable future. As far as EASA regulations go the possibilities are exactly the same. It’s not EASA’s fault that some local CAAs put all their pride and effort into restricting and confining GA as much as possible, while others have a more natural and constructive attitude. It’s a cultural thing I guess.
