Ibra wrote:
but good luck finding an IRI/IRE who log and sign dual IFR time while taxiing under IFR with & without ATS in “VFR airfields” or “IFR airfields”
Here is one – you seem to be lucky today… 
Airborne_Again wrote:
It’s no different for EASA, is it? Well, actually, you’re talking about two different things. It is clear from the AMC to FCL.050 that IFR time is block time. But for training it isn’t IFR time that counts but “instrument time (under instruction)” and EASA defines instrument time is essentially in the same way as the FAA does.
You are right! Many people confuse
IFR time for the purposes of conversion to EASA IR and
IMC time (could be IMC training time) for other goals/reasons…
Same really in France, even after FCL/SERA have replaced the RCA1992, most IR pilots don’t log IFR time when not in radio contact with ATS and usually file Y/Z-FPL and the majority are clueless about how to log and fly IFR in Golf? as they “think they are” flying VFR bellow 3kft
It’s not the same at all in France. You have an IFR flight plan, you call for start up for an IFR flight destination LFxx and then as soon a you begin to taxi with the intent of departing to the moment you apply the brakes on the apron at the end of the flight is logged as IFR time.
Some instructors are very kind and if there is a long taxi way might round up or down to the nearest 5 minutes. 5 minutes saving on each flight can save you a lot of money over the training course.
At LFRB with Delta CTR, Cat2 ILS and ATC maybe?
Elsewhere in France, I never understood why some pilots file Z/Y-FPL in France (including instrument instructors), then log VFR departures & arrivals?
I file I-FPL (works for all French AD except 7 of them), then call by phone or radio for startup, again to close flight plan, every minute of my block time goes as IFR time 
Mine does too anf I have never had an instructor suggest otherwise, except as I explained to save me money which is a handy saving at €8 a minute.
I read some interesting stuff on another site. It relates to this and this but those didn’t lead to any useful aircraft types. Somebody got this reply from the LBA, regarding the EPIC1000 (google translate):
I had clarified this with the LBA using the example of an EPIC1000, for which there is no suitable license entry, as there will probably be no EASA type certification in the next few years. So it will not be included in the EASA type rating list either. The LBA referred to FCL.700 (b) and that they would then issue a special authorization provided that reasonable prerequisites were met.
So aircraft with an ICAO TC but without an EASA TC are quite useful! As pointed out in the links above. Having an ICAO TC avoids the various permits that apply to Annex 1 etc, avoids the long term parking bans on foreign regs (except these) and avoids the general ban on IFR in most airspaces, while getting around the EASA FCL attack on N-regs. And you can fly them on licenses which are valid only for Annex 1 (the UK NPPL has been probably the only example in Europe, although currently it is again valid for CofA types also).
Another is a turbine Bonanza i.e. BE36TCSET .
So aircraft with an ICAO TC but without an EASA TC are quite useful!
On unrelated note, I know someone who posted online how he struggled with UK CAA to get his SF50 which is Part21 (EASA aircraft) flown on CAA papers, he has FAA papers & FAA IR + SF50 TR, the issue was not the lack of TC for CAA but the lack of CAA & EASA examiners on the type
You need 500h? 1000h? to get TR on ICAO conversion without any hassle but on new 3 years aircraft, good luck finding someone who has done that much on Cirrus Jet
He has some CAA letter to keep flying SF50 with UK PPL without TR as long as he keeps his FAA IR and FAA TR going even after Dec21
Peter wrote:
So aircraft with an ICAO TC but without an EASA TC are quite useful! As pointed out in the links above. Having an ICAO TC avoids the various permits that apply to Annex 1 etc
There are no general permits applying to Annex 1. It depends on why the aircraft is in Annex 1 – there are nine categories. If the aircraft has an ICAO-compliant CofA, there should be no restrictions or permits required whatsoever. (Except for what additional requirements the state of registry may impose.)
avoids the long term parking bans on foreign regs
What has that to do with Annex 1?
avoids the general ban on IFR in most airspaces
Again, this has nothing to do with Annex 1, but with not having an ICAO-compliant CofA.
And you can fly them on licenses which are valid only for Annex 1 (the UK NPPL has been probably the only example in Europe, although currently it is again valid for CofA types also).
Do you know why the UK decided to keep its national licenses? As you say other EASA member states did not. Or did France also keep its national license?
Do you know why the UK decided to keep its national licenses?
I don’t know.
Given the cross-concessions (e.g. the NPPL now being valid for more or less anything, in UK airspace, plus – debated previously – France, and the PMD being similarly usable UK only) it makes no sense to have the full PPL, the national PPL, the NPPL, the LAPL, and reports have emerged that the UK CAA started a project to merge all these “private flying” papers into one. I also heard that this collapsed because the only person who knew PHP and MySQL had left because he went mad after not being able to fit UK’s 20k pilots in the 64k RAM of his Sinclair Spectrum, and then they ran out of fax paper.
