General Aviation

Yes you are right Lars-Henrik as long as the owner of the aircarft is non-commercial DTO or Dry leased the aircraft from the private pilot-owner(s) and pilots are members of a non-commercial DTO, but they must comply with regulations regarding private-pilot(s) owner maintenance. In real life this can become quite complicated if they Dry lease the aircraft just for a short period of time. For such situations it is easier if the aircraft is in CAO.

The point in Costas question is wether the non-commercial DTO needs to own an aircraft for their training and the answer is no, as long as they have Dry lease agreemenet for the period in which they use the aircraft in their training and comply with all other regulations regarding non-commercial DTO and maintenance.

According to our experience, the best is, Short Term Dry lease agreement. This can be only for the time you really need the aircraft for training.

Dear friends,
thank you very much for your comments and opinions. I am very grateful to our community for quick response. Some answers are more detailed due to local differences of course.
For example, I don't expect to fly somebody to controlled airspace without Mode 3A/C transponder at least here in Slovakia. If yes, it will be very rare and special flight, probably some sort of historical vehicle flying with proper support. But this type of aircraft will definitely not use IFR procedures for any reason.
My question was about knowledge of any legal obstruction to perform flight according to published IFR procedures (STAR, SID, instrument approach) wit full respect of VFR (responsibility, separations etc.) and only in VMC obviously with suitable equipped aircraft capable to maintain required navigation performance.
Regarding the ATC, it looks that in this case very well known and expected flight trajectory could be an advance and simplification of situation awareness as you are not subject of separation and position is easy to be predicted.
Once more, thank you friends

I should have been more specific: I meant in GA-operations. Good to know that Slovakia allows mobile phone in general aviation.

I have a particular interest in this topic also.

Are there any agreements in place with the FAA to accept their STCs for the installation of digital instruments into certified aircraft, namely ELA1 and ELA2 by EASA?
The maintenance cost for glass cockpit plus the improved cockpit management of systems like Dynon Skyview really help improving safety and operational costs for GA.

Responding to a comment above, G1000 is an overkill for the weekend driver and not as user friendly for the occasional pilots, but there are other simpler instruments that give you the information at a glance and improve situational awareness and general navigation.
Steam gages… nothing wrong with that, but why limit options just because a legacy system is still working in the age of the internet? Kind of like sticking to a pencil when pens have also been invented.

I’m interested in finding out if Dynon Skyview could be installed on an old PA 32 that is being upgraded.

This would include night flying and IFR, coupled with an approved GPS system and ILS/VOR.

Also important to state that the EASA bureaucracy is not justifiable when compared to the well proven approach taken by the FAA for similar aircraft, so safety is not an excuse.
Also, consider this, how can a ICAO airplane land in EASAland with a foreign STC and be allowed to flyover safely as they should but similar EASA registered airplanes wouldn’t be deemed safe under the same circumstances?
Kind of like saying the same brand and model, when painted in red is safe and when painted in blue is unsafe.

There needs to be a level of coherence and logic applied to legislation, EASA should represent efficiency, standardization and safety, not complexity and problem finders.

Thanks in advance