The vast majority of Rotax powered planes are UL craft, most larger homebuilt types are powered by the same engines that CoA planes are… These larger homebuilts are probably also closer to the utility of a CoA plane than the UL ones (as much as I like them, especially the ones that are UL by name only – but they still seem oh so fragile).
tmo wrote:
I have a vague impression (not supported by any real data) that the new EASA regs (e.g. ELA1/ELA2, CS-STAN, Part-M-Light) and a supportive registry would bring down the cost of ownership of a CoA plane much closer to properly maintaining a decent homebuilt.
If that turns out to be true then it will be VERY interesting. The only main difference is that the majority of SEPs from the CofA tend to have Lycosaurauses, and therefore you are stuck to relatively high fuel consumptions compared to the Rotax; even with swapping fuel to MOGAS.
The foreign based problem for non international certified types would probably be easier as well..
tmo wrote:
Can painless (and legal) border crossing be had? Can cross-border IFR flight?
Peter wrote:
the countless threads on EuroGA which discuss the border crossing privilege matrix
Essentially my experience is, that border crossing isn’t an issue in many/most european countries with a european registration. It is legal as well and nobody asks 
As for IFR – I don’t know but have heard that also nobody asks 
Which I guess leads to the first thread of the new “non certified” forum Peter promised – what is the best EU-reg for kits/homebuilts? ;-)
Can painless (and legal) border crossing be had? Can cross-border IFR flight? Is it still relatively affordable (e.g. as opposed to an older CoA plane)?
I have a vague impression (not supported by any real data) that the new EASA regs (e.g. ELA1/ELA2, CS-STAN, Part-M-Light) and a supportive registry would bring down the cost of ownership of a CoA plane much closer to properly maintaining a decent homebuilt.
Interesting times (or so they seem to a newbie, perhaps they always were…).
Limited to 600kg MTOM? Even a Europa (like the majority of the kits) wouldn’t fit in then. Leave it on another register – Poland is an ECAC member so I guess operation wouldn’t be a problem. As for the Evo it might be best kept on an N-Reg (?)
I am still researching this, but it appears that in Poland the “experimental” category would work, albeit it might be limited to 600kg MTOW making it better than UL but useless for getting an Evo.
Jacko wrote:
I wonder which European countries have an “Experimental Amateur Built” category similar to that of the USA?
Only microlight (MTOW 450 kg) can enjoy similar “freedom” to my knowledge. That is you can build and fly “whatever” you like. In Norway experimental homebuilt (MTOW 2000 kg) is also “free”, but you have to convince the CAA that large modifications and new designs are OK, and this means standard engineering work for the CAA to have something to relate to and approve.
Isn’t that already in. It allows me to fly my G-Reg around Europe
Has there been a recent change, which invalidates this, as well as the countless threads on EuroGA which discuss the border crossing privilege matrix?
Annex II is not the same as LAA so maybe wires are crossed?
What I took away from it is that there will be this E-Category, by which the CAA will delegate responsability of authorisation to “approved people”. In the presentation, the speaker said that the list has been reduced so far to just the LAA, or a Fellow of the Royal Aeronautical Society; and that further reductions may follow
The ‘Fellow of the Royal Aeronautical Society’ bit is not inspiring as a qualification for an airworthiness inspector, particularly as it can’t be revoked by CAA in case of abuse, but otherwise that is not conceptually different than the FAA system in which the appointed individuals are termed Designated Airworthiness Representatives. They operate as a direct representative of FAA authority as individuals and issue the airworthiness certificate and operating limitations prior to the first flight. The issue I could see is the self impressed RAeS stuffed shirt type might decide to do a pre-flight design review versus a basic inspection of workmanship, and thereby negate the basic purpose for the Experimental Category. FAA DARs are not authorized to do that and are are at risk of losing their DAR appointment if they exceed their authority.
Peter wrote:
I wonder why the UK CAA would have set up the LAA and then undermine its authority by setting up a more relaxed regime in parallel?
As far as I know the LAA came out of the Popular Flying Association, which obtained its powers by negotiation. The CAA didn’t set them up.
Peter wrote:
Does anyone have a reference for any proposal to allow European transits for homebuilts?
Isn’t that already in. It allows me to fly my G-Reg around Europe… and Europa XS his PH-Reg for example
Peter wrote:
Currently the IFR approval process (slowly working its way through the under-resourced LAA) is going to be partly moot because of the other stuff.
What other stuff?
The EASA Permit are for only some orphaned stuff that doesn’t fit under national regulations. An EASA permit to fly would be a great idea in principle, but with everything that comes out of EASA, it will be probably be grossly over regulating.
