@Norman got it for France, IIRC. But in general this seems very hard for Europe.
In practice there is no enforcement…
Re the UK IMCR, nobody in the UK cares about you drilling holes in clouds on VFR flights so it is all irrelevant. An IFR approved homebuilt is “more legal” flying an IAP to some UK airport though, in actual IMC.
Peter wrote:
An IFR approved homebuilt is “more legal” flying an IAP to some UK airport though, in actual IMC.
Unless a pilot upgrades to full IR – then they could fly in the Class A (aka “airways”) in that homebuilt.
LeSving wrote:
What if we create our own list here? Bade it on hard references, AIP or actual correspondence ? Shouldn’t be too difficult.
Yes please! Happy to provide a Google Table for it – can be viewed publicly (for anyone who has the link), and edited by invitation.
Would propose the following columns: country, ECAC Implementation (Yes/No/Partly), VFR, IFR, Notes, Sources (law & link). Anything else?
juze wrote:
Would propose the following columns: country, ECAC Implementation (Yes/No/Partly), VFR, IFR, Notes, Sources (law & link). Anything else?
Allowed VFR, IFR, Night – Yes/No/Permission required?
Some countries allow IFR sometimes, but demand extra paperwork beforehand (Spain, I think).
Plus date of last update – so we see how current the information is
juze wrote:
ECAC Implementation (Yes/No/Partly)
If you look at the wording of that ECAC recommendation, there is no partial implementation possible. It is, or it isn’t implemented. Countries may allow foreign homebuilt flying nonetheless, but not according to the ECAC recommendation. If there’s some restrictions other than those found on the aircraft CoA or permit to fly, then it’s not according to ECAC.
I would start with the following, and only stick to the AIP:
Any mentions in the AIP about foreign homebuilt aircraft? (YES/NO and the ref if YES)
Then, is prior permission is required (YES/NO).
Then, according to the ECAC recommendation? (YES/NO)
Then restrictions. (too many possibilities to mention), but the main ones are probably:
Duration
Flight rules : (VFR day, VFR night, IFR)
Others
Then contact information. Very important if prior permission is required, but otherwise also.
In my little universe, if nothing is mentioned in the AIP, you are free to go obviously. But a go/no go is of course a PIC decision.
In my little universe, if nothing is mentioned in the AIP, you are free to go obviously
Not sure if that is true for non-certified ops. That stuff tends to be in national laws.
Peter wrote:
Not sure if that is true for non-certified ops. That stuff tends to be in national laws.
International flying is per def NOT national flying. That’s the only thing that matters here. The issue is international flying with homebuilt aircraft exclusively. Whatever regulations a country may or may not have about national flying with national (to that country) homebuilt aircraft is irrelevant in the context we are discussing here.
Now, if that is important to the PIC, his peace of mind and whatever other factors, is of course not irrelevant. But that is a personal matter entirely. I did actually originally write an item concerning this very issue. “Does the AIP refer to national regulations?”, but I deleted it. It would be redundant due to the second point in my list. I know Denmark has one reference to some obscure, and impossible for a normal foreign pilot to obtain, national regulation that also, according to the AIP, is a requirement for foreign pilots. In practice, this renders the the third item about prior permission almost useless (unless you can read Danish/Scandinavian and are a bit more interested in reading law documents than an average person 
). But again, entirely a PIC matter.
However, rather obviously the side effect of such a list will be to put a light on any and all “impossible for the PIC” factors for everyone to see. If such a list becomes popular and used, then this is the first step in changing those factors. Just point them out in plain light fore everyone to see, no judgements or comments.
The problem is that ignorance of the law is no excuse. So just because you can’t find it is of no help.
Some years ago I got a French pilot friend to look for some reg in this very area and he could not find it, too, despite it being referenced in various places.
What should be in the AIP is airspace regulations, at least. It is these which tend to block IFR in amateur built, etc.
Peter wrote:
The problem is that ignorance of the law is no excuse. So just because you can’t find it is of no help.
Very true. And this is a main reason we have AIP. A place where pilots can find the necessary information needed to fly to another country without breaking too many local laws and regulations, at least those concerning aviation.
This is also why the ECAC recommendation is so powerful. When this is referred to in the AIP, then any and all obscure and hidden local laws and regulations are rendered irrelevant for the PIC. In later years, time limits are increasingly being implemented. This should in principle enable the ECAC recommendation without phony “restrictions” also.
Common aviation sense, and good aviation practice, is to use the AIP (obviously). If that is not “enough” when flying across the border, then the problem is with the local authority, not with the pilot. Having to dig into obscure local laws in foreign languages, is a form of normalized deviance we should not accept or except from the aviation authorities.
