My understanding is that the LAA is going to make a list of non-certified avionics that are considered to have equivalent reliability to certified avionics.
This is not the case. The LAA has stated, as part of its project to gain night/IFR approval for certain permit types, it is in the process of identifying brands and models of non-certified flight instrumentation where satisfactory evidence exists of accuracy and reliability. The guidance so far from the LAA for owners considering night/IFR approval, as published in the September issue of Light Aviation, is:
The majority of builders/owners of permit types that seriously wish to fly IFR (e.g. Vans RV’s or Lancair’s) will most likely be fitting a recognised EFIS systems (e.g. from Garmin, Dynon etc. all of which are likely to be approved by the LAA if properly installed and have backup power systems) along with certified radios and GPS’s.
The level of sophistication, capability and standard of avionics and instrumentation fitted in most modern permit aircraft far exceeds that found in most certified aircraft that I have come across. This really is the way forward for GA, in my opinion. We will see night/IFR approval for certain types of permit aircraft within the UK very soon and hopefully this will be extended across Europe in the future.
A problem is not a problem unless it is defined as a problem. IFR or no IFR in homebuilt is not an issue unless it is defined as an issue. In some parts of the world (USA, Canada, Norway, Sweden, France, Finland, Switzerland) and probably many others, IFR is solely a matter of appropriate navigational equipment and pilot rating (for homebuilt experimental aircraft). IFR or no IFR is simply not an issue, just business as usual. In other parts IFR is tied to the particular classification of aircraft. If homebuilt happened to be in a classification that forbid IFR, then IFR will be forbidden. Therefore great confusion occurs. And that is basically it.
In Europe we have the the ECAC Recommendation. It reads:
ECAC Recommendation INT.S/11-1 (dated 1980) reads as follows:
that Member States accept home-built aircraft with a certificate of airworthiness or a “permit to fly” issued by another Member State, to fly in their country without any restrictions other than those stated in the certificate of airworthiness or “permit to fly”.
It is one single sentence with one very specific meaning. For IFR the part including and after “without…” is important. Most European nations have implemented this recommendation.
In the USA, the mother of homebuilding, EAA has released this note about IFR. It says one very important thing, the only practical way to install IFR approved GPS and Transponder is to use certified equipment. As far as I know, this is global, this requirement is tied to international IFR operations and air spaces.
The legal document and process for installing IFR and NVFR equipment in Norwegian homebuilt is here. The Swiss document and process is here (although some uncertainty exist).
In the UK things looks to be just around the corner, but time will tell.
Peter would like an example of a straight forward and practical process for installation. In the experimental world, such things seldom exists, as is evident in the EAA link above. As with all other equipment for aircraft, there exist only a set of minimum standards which has to be fulfilled, and then approved. The only (most) practical way to do that is to become a member of the local national homebuilt association, and start from there.
-) wouldn’t the plane need to be registered to an owner/operator with a local address?
Within the EU, not anymore – an EU person or entity can own or operate an aircraft registered in any EU country. I avoided a huge paperwork exercise by virtue of that.
I don’t think that’s true for “non-EASA aircraft” i.e. homebuilts/exp/whatever you want to call the ones without an ICAO CofA.
Do you have examples / references showing this is possible, LeSving?
Lots of examples of old certified aircraft being restored, Cubs, Cessna, Saab etc. With the TB 20/21 I’m rather sure it will not be possible tough. The general rule is the aircraft is not certifiable (meaning non-EASA) and it is not certified/airworthy at the moment, or more than 30 years old. You cannot take an airworthy and registered EASA or Annex II aircraft and just put it in the experimental category. A new homebuilt, and the 51% rule start working.
It was a joke, but depending on how old your aircraft is (made before 1985), it will not be a joke anymore.
Within the EU, not anymore – an EU person or entity can own or operate an aircraft registered in any EU country. I avoided a huge paperwork exercise by virtue of that.
I wonder how this is legally actually. It seems this is straight forward now for EASA aircraft. But the law does not do any differentiation, as far as I know, between EASA and non EASA aircraft.
It was a joke, but depending on how old your aircraft is (made before 1985), it will not be a joke anymore.
You should use a smiley with jokes 
This subject is far too important
If you could buy a homebuilt registered in one country and base it in another one, lots of things would become possible because some countries have much less restrictive policies on homebuilts.
AFAIK every national CAA in Europe, and most of the world (the USA is the only exception I know of) operates on the principle that if an aircraft is capable of having a CofA then it must have a CofA.
Some borderline cases have slipped through AFAIK (a given aircraft type has some examples in one category and others in the other) but in general there is no way to declare a PA28, C182, TB20, SR22, etc, of ANY age, as “homebuilt”. If you could do that, the financing food chain which supports the maintenance business and in turn supports the national CAAs would be almost destroyed. They will never allow it.
The USA can allow it because the FAA is funded from general taxpayer funds so they don’t need to screw aircraft owners with procedures that exist solely to generate and support FAA income.
I wonder how this is legally actually. It seems this is straight forward now for EASA aircraft. But the law does not do any differentiation, as far as I know, between EASA and non EASA aircraft.
I am sure it is legal. Non-EASA aircraft, and policies on them, remain under national control.
It’s a bit like the Danish anti-N-reg policy. AFAICT this remains in place under EASA, despite N-regs being “EASA aircraft”.
I am sure it is legal. Non-EASA aircraft, and policies on them, remain under national control.
However, EU law prohibits its member states from discriminating citizens. If a Danish/Swedish aircraft registration offers a benefit, then I am as much eligible to have it as a Danish/Swedish national/resident is.
I am sure you are right Achim but as always with these things… do you have the stomach to fight it?
There must be a massive queue somewhere in Brussels, of people with plenty of time and money, wanting to assert some right like being allowed to take a dog over 200kg on a train (because Lithuania doesn’t ban it).
The more interesting question is whether the national CAA knows they would lose, so they don’t enforce it, because the FUD factor alone keeps things ticking along nicely, and if they enforced it and lost, everybody would know they can do it. There is believed to be a list of interesting activities along the lines of doing “AOC stuff without an AOC” which the UK CAA avoids getting into, preferring to settle on the court steps.
AFAIK every national CAA in Europe, and most of the world (the USA is the only exception I know of) operates on the principle that if an aircraft is capable of having a CofA then it must have a CofA.
In the USA what you say is true true, but the aircraft does not end up being Experimental Amateur Built and unless it is a warbird, aerobatic or a couple of other categories I can’t recall momentarily, operating restrictions will be applied with intent of preventing an end-run around the regs. Similarly, importing a non-FAA certified ‘touring’ aircraft is problematic which is why you see stuff like Yaks and Chipmunks etc in the US but not experimental category Robins. The upside is that its easy to maintain an FAA registered, FAA certified plane that has no ‘support’ (that issue being unrecognized) and it can be used commercially if wanted.
I do know of factory built aircraft that have been converted to FAA Experimental Amateur Built aircraft (not some other Experimental sub-category) – Bückers and a US manufactured and certified Culver Cadet. In these cases the rebuilding work included building whole new structures and was extensive enough that the DAR could justify calling it a whole new homebuilt plane.
I know of a specific case where somebody put a Bonanza onto the Exp regime (in the USA) so he could install two of the pre-certification (i.e. non TSO etc) IFD540 boxes.
I don’t know of any operating penalties but he was able to fly LPV approaches with them, etc. And he wrote about his experiences openly.
