[Shoestring Flyer]

I think you can count the number of aircraft that so far have got through the LAA IFR process on your fingers and the majority I think are RV's.
It would be an extremely slow process getting an aircraft through the LAA treacle and even once done the the Annual checks are a lot greater and a lot more onerous to maintain the IFR Permit compared to the normal LAA permit.
The LAA will not accept the Sportcruiser for this process. As others have said the wing loading is way below their acceptable level of 60kg/m².

[GolfHotel]

If you have your RV-7 cleared by the LAA for flight in IMC, I don't think that clearance is valid outside the UK though, is it?

As I understand it and have been told, on here so it must be right. Yes it is valid outside the UK. I suppose they could restrict you to VMC if they so choose.

[GolfHotel]

but the uptake on Permit/IFR has been very low indeed

Last I heard there was a backlog of aircraft wanting to go through the process, but that the process (and who can do it) was still being fully defined?

I know of at least one inspector who has been signed off to sign off the paperwork recently. Fortunately he is my inspector so that will help when I come to do it.

[Lefty]

Have I slept through some new certification rules?

I freely admit I don’t fly a PtF a/c, but last time I read the LAA’s proposed requirements for PtF a/c to gain IFR approval, there was a mandatory requirement that they must be fitted with certified avionics - more specifically avionics which have been certified for IFR flight in Group A / similar certified a/c.

My understanding was that there was no intention to approve PtF a/c to fly IFR using the uncertified low cost avionics currently popular with PtF owners. Is this still the case?

[bogopper]

No, uncertified avionics are fine.

https://www.lightaircraftassociation.co.uk/2017/Magazine/Jan/IFR.pdf

[Paul_Sengupta]

Lefty - I think "approved" is approved by the LAA, not the same approval as for certified aircraft.

Former CofA types now on permits might be the way ahead - Bulldogs are lovely to fly.

Bulldogs are also a bit difficult in IMC, not because of their wing loading and turbulence, but because of the "responsive" handling. Personally I find something like a 172, PA28 or TB20 much more relaxing to fly with no external visual reference.

And if the name of the game is cost saving, you may want to look elsewhere! ]

I don't see why aircraft which were previously allowed to fly in IMC on a C of A aren't just rubber stamped.

[Genghis the Engineer]

That is probably all true.

Rubber stamping is not an unreasonable approach, so long as the association is allowed to do enough work to just make sure that they fully understanding the capability and limitations of the aeroplane in IMC, which does mean a bit of approval work.

On the other hand, a Tiger Moth was probably approved for IMC once - do you really want to go back to that? Some cut off isn't entirely unreasonable.

G

[GolfHotel]

ex certified aircraft aren't exactly rubber stamped.

Depends what has been done to them since. The only exception is some who were certified for IMC without a Pitot heat can still be flown IMC without. I hasten to add, thats as I understand it.

[GrahamB]

If you have your RV-7 cleared by the LAA for flight in IMC, I don't think that clearance is valid outside the UK though, is it?

As I understand it and have been told, on here so it must be right. Yes it is valid outside the UK. I suppose they could restrict you to VMC if they so choose.

There are a lot of pitfalls here, putting aside whether the aircraft itself is legal to fly abroad - something I just do not believe as a blanket statement without further qualification.

1) if you are operating it abroad on a UK National PPL - i.e. not converted to, or issued alongside, an EASA PPL - you will need a current full UK IR attached to it.

2) If you are operating it abroad on an EASA PPL, you will need to have a full IR attached to that.

3) The UK is almost unique in having its casual approach to IFR - unless you are under an ATC clearance, VFR/IFR status is a matter of being in your head and making sure you comply with IFR when under IFR. Things are not so straightforward (or actually more straightforward, depending on how you view things) in other states i.e.:

- you will almost certainly have to file an IFR flight plan. You might get lucky and be able to request a pop-up clearance for a quick IFR transit of CAS, but the default assumption will be that you want to be 'in the system'. This means you could get vectored anywhere. Filing the plan will require validation through Eurocontrol, which means declaring your equipment. Some of this HAS to be certified, as PBN operations are predicated on total system performance in all categories. PilotAware driving your own Android EFIS app on a £50 Hudl will not cut the mustard - Flight Manual Supplements against an STC or other equipment approval are required.

- if you are operating under an EASA licence you must have the IR to fly under IFR at all, VMC/IMC doesn't come into it. This in the UK is easily achieved with the IR(R), but not elsewhere. There is no opportunity to 'restrict you to VMC' - ATC won't know, and in some states you -will- be in CAS, and expected to remain so or cancel IFR.

- Under the CAA's attempts to align the ANO with SERA and EASA, the above point might also apply to UK National PPLs as well.

Don't get me wrong - the more IFR capable aircraft there are the better whatever their CoA/Permit status - but there is a lot to consider if you operate on the margins of the norm.

[GrahamB]

No, uncertified avionics are fine.

https://www.lightaircraftassociation.co.uk/2017/Magazine/Jan/IFR.pdf

That doesn't sit well with TL2.28

The ANO mandates various communication and navigation systems for different classes of airspace – see ANO Schedule 5, see also ANO article 39.
Note that where the ANO mandates radio carriage, the radio must be one that has an ETSO, an FAA TSO or a CAA ‘LA1’ approval (not a CAA ‘LA3’ approval).

So in the context of a bit of semi formal IFR OCAS that requirement doesn't apply, but if you want to fly the LNAV approach into East Midlands, check the airspace requirements and your equipment approval, and be even more anal about it overseas. Once obvious permit types start rocking up and shooting ILS's into regional airports, its an obvious target for ramp checks.

[GolfHotel]

well I hope Graham isn't suggesting that I said you could ignore the rules. Obviously you have to be licenced and follow the rules.

Hope fully he will have noticed my reference to the Flyer Forum as a source. Hopefully he will have realised that will need checking.

For my self I'm currently doing the TK to upgrade my IR(R) to a full IR. My friend who is applying any day for his RV to be approved for IFR has had his IR for 20 odd years. I expect he knows the rules as well.

Edit to add: BTW I've several times shot ILS into a regional airport in an RV. Never had a problem. I've even done it with an instructor on board as part of my hour with an instructor. All legal BTW. Just to keep current.

[GolfHotel]

from 2.8

Within this Technical Leaflet, the terms ‘un-certified’ or ‘un-approved’ refer to commercially
produced equipment that is neither formally certified by the manufacturer nor approved by an
NAA for aeronautical use. The term ‘un-approved’ is used in preference to ‘un-certified’, as this
avoids ambiguity in respect of equipment which is ‘certified’ by a manufacturer but ‘unapproved’
by an NAA. Certified and approved equipment will be supplied with an EASA Form 1,
or an equivalent such as an FAA 8130-3. If no Form 1 (or equivalent) accompanies the part
then it is un-approved.
Once assessed and accepted by the LAA, the instrument and equipment fit becomes ‘approved’,
as required by the 2016 issue of the ANO.

[GrahamB]

well I hope Graham isn't suggesting that I said you could ignore the rules. Obviously you have to be licenced and follow the rules.

Hope fully he will have noticed my reference to the Flyer Forum as a source. Hopefully he will have realised that will need checking.

For my self I'm currently doing the TK to upgrade my IR(R) to a full IR. My friend who is applying any day for his RV to be approved for IFR has had his IR for 20 odd years. I expect he knows the rules as well.

Edit to add: BTW I've several times shot ILS into a regional airport in an RV. Never had a problem. I've even done it with an instructor on board as part of my hour with an instructor. All legal BTW. Just to keep current.

GH, you have always come over on the Forum as a stickler for the rules, so your integrity was beyond question.

However there are plenty of skim readers on here who grab at the one liner they want to see and it goes on from there.

Re your post above : if the particular class of airspace requires TSO, LA1 etc kit then it’s an additional requirement to LAA approval. The LAA can’t magic TSO-146C approval onto any old bit of kit just ‘cos you want it to be so.

[hatzflyer]

Having been up to my neck in Sportcruisers recently doing test flights etc for imported a/c I would say that as a combination of the handling of the type it would be one of the worst combinations with a low time IMC pilot.
I would go as far as to say in true IMC / turbulent conditions / low experience you might as well book your own funeral.

The LAA quite rightly ( IMHO ) endorse things like strict timing of the flap motion in order to avoid upsets in VMC let alone IMC. Under test conditions I also found it extremely easy to accidently exceed VNE . Not a good trait in IMC.

It is a very good aircraft in many ways But IMC ? No way. This is the sort of thing that explains why the LAA are so careful and are not rushing to make everything approved for IMC willy nilly and quite rightly so.

[Dave W]

If you have your RV-7 cleared by the LAA for flight in IMC, I don't think that clearance is valid outside the UK though, is it?

As I understand it and have been told, on here so it must be right. Yes it is valid outside the UK. I suppose they could restrict you to VMC if they so choose.

I'm not sure about this, having a memory that (being an LAA dispensation from the CAA, not EASA) it is only a UK validity.

It is only a half-memory though. Do you have a reference from previous posts on here?