If homebuilts can fly IFR across those national frontiers, it would be dynamite.
They can fly across more borders than that, as seen in the document, but not without filing special applications each time.
The link to the page for download: Here
Time to buy your turbine lancair Peter :)
If you have the PDF, please email it to me and I will put it up and start a thread on this in the right thread (not here). If homebuilts can fly IFR across those national frontiers, it would be dynamite.
A simple non-EASA regulatory system for so-called Annex II aircraft in Europe and surrounding areas does seem like a natural way forward.
Yes, but the real problem is countries like UK and Germany, not EASA in particular. Countries with fully implemented ECAC recommendations with no or only minor restrictions are (experimental can fly according to CofA and or Permit) including IFR :
(Austria with minor limitations), Croatia, Cyprus, (Denmark with minor limitations), Finland, France, Greece, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Malta, Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Romania, Slovak republic, Slovenia, Sweden, Switzerland, Macedonia.
Countries with day VFR only: Germany, UK
It is found here
Where things are happening for most people (recreational pilots) is Annex II.
That certainly seems to be the case.
Is is possible for European countries, and others who might want to join, to create a separate agreement (outside of EASA regulations) allowing all ‘non-EASA’ regulated aircraft to fly unfettered between all signatory countries? If that were done it would be a big step towards making EASA irrelevant for light aircraft, and as such would be a big step forward in eliminating over regulation in Europe.
And of course the same thing for international use of non-EASA European pilot qualifications (I am not and never will be part of a ‘flight crew’)
A simple non-EASA regulatory system for so-called Annex II aircraft in Europe and surrounding areas does seem like a natural way forward.
Regardless of whether the UK leaves the EU (and I don’t think it will; I think at the last moment the public will back off from jumping off what will be presented to them as the cliff) I don’t see the UK CAA undoing the mass of EASA regs which they have implemented. Look at Norway and Switzerland, who have taken EASA FCL on board enthusiastically.
EASA is not an “EU-thing”, at least not only. There are other treaties; EFTA, Schengen and EEA that goes into effect with EASA (only don’t ask me how and which 
)
So far, regarding pilot license, EASA has been irrelevant. The changes has really only been what I would call changes in semantics. The LAPL system is more of a real change, but I don’t know. It will make it easier to fly a Cessna, still I feel this fine graining of a license to fly is a bureaucratic construct for bureaucratic reasons, but it has some positive effects. Also the CS-LSA, CS-VLA, ELA1, ELA2 division of small aircraft is completely out of proportion with reality, the reality is not this complex at all.
Where things are happening for most people (recreational pilots) is Annex II. Experimental and Ultralights. This “air space” is chemically void of EASA. This is where all the cool aircraft are, this is where all R&D is happening, this is where things are happening. EASA will render itself irrelevant for anything but pilot licensing and schools.
the rest of the UK can get some daylight back
That sounds like folly to me. As things stand now, I am supposed to set my clocks two hours apart from Greenwich time, though I am barely 16 minutes off. Your idea seems to be extending this ridicule into the UK. Why? What’s wrong with “noon” i.e. 12:00 corresponding to “midday” i.e. the sun at its highest?
If you want more daylight it suffices to get out of bed earlier.
“Germany is the third largest exporting country in the world (after China and the US), but 70% of those exports are within Europe, to countries which have increasingly shifted to German products since the elimination of trade barriers. Only 8% goes to the US.”
Actually the correct way to put it is 56% to the EU (by far not 70%) and 44% to the rest of the world. The proportion going to the US is not necessarily relevant except for a supposed contrast between what is exported to the US and what is exported to the EU. That figure per se doesn’t mean anything. It’s like saying 19% of the US exports go to Canada… so what.
If you really wanted to point out something you’d rather point out that Germany exports +/- the same amount in c.i.f. terms as the US does despite a rather smaller GDP…
“Finally, Germany loaned money to European export market governments, lightening the load on their tax payers, making them less price sensitive and therefore more likely to buy upmarket German products. With that sustained long enough, the investment pays off: local competition diminishes and buyers come your way for the long term.”
Actually it doesn’t really work that way. Diminish local competition therefore local jobs and the potential customer base will also diminish.
Which European export market governments did Germany lend money to?
They have petrol exports instead – for the time they last.
