EASA has indeed made a mess of the simple concept of acceptance of flight time in Annex 1 aircraft. Although flight time in Annex 1(a)-(e) aircraft is permitted towards the revalidation of Class Ratings by experience, dual refresher flight training using Annex 1 aircraft is only permitted in those Annex 1(a)-(d) (NOT 1(e) 'microlight / ultralight') aircraft which the NAA has accepted for flight training.

What is even more absurd is that the instructor conducting such flight training may count the PIC time towards his/her own rating revalidation but not, it seems, towards FI certificate revalidation!

IAOPA (Europe) did suggest a simpler, more flexible acceptance of Annex 1 flight time, but the EASA lawyers told us that it was 'too late' to amend what has turned out to be an utter dog's breakfast of a simple concept.

Dear Jürgen,

perhaps I am guilty of a "poor and careless" reading of the rules, but as far as I can see, the recent addition of point (4) to FCL.035(a) merely lifts the existing AMC1 to FCL.140.A; FCL.140.S and FCL.740.A(b)(1)(ii) from AMC status to binding implementing rule. This complies with the wish of many GA stakeholders to ensure that everyone is treated the same way and all authorities are obliged to credit such hours fully.

I also find it difficult to understand why for example a Piper Cub could not fulfil the requirements of AMC3 DTO.GEN.240 or AMC2 ORA.ATO.135 and be accepted as part of a DTO's or ATO's fleet.

Of course, if you feel the old system was simpler, we can also go back to making the crediting of these hours voluntary... ;-)

Jyrki

something´s moving ... :-)

Dear Jyrki,
thanks for your response on this issue. After me having leafed through several rules and AMC, just me jump to your 2nd paragraph:
It´s not the problem to fulfill technical requirements asked from those Annex-I aircraft as all of them have an ICAO or EASA CoA (except letter e)). The point is, that all such aircraft (letter a) through d)), which are in private ownership now suddenly must be registered in some ATO or DTO, with only reason given, is owner may perform the 1h refresher training flight from FCL.140 or FCL:740 on his own aircraft. ... As was done for decades.
Such aircraft will never be used for Initial or advanced pilots education. We talk about aircraft which we trust to take part in EASA aviation without (almost) any restriction. Of course they must be equipped with dual controls, all handles reachable from both seats, ...
But is it really wanted, them to be registered? Isn´t it sufficient to establish a taylored list of requirements which must be proven for the individual aircraft towards some authority or its deputy and this documents is added to the aircrafts document. ... That would be straight forward and usable and would fulfill requirements from Annex-II of 2018/1139.

Please understand:
I don´t want the old system back when Annex-II (old BR) aircraft were kind of outlaws. Maybe JAR migh be clearer and more practical at this point. ... But let´s look ahead and let´s make things better.
Jürgen

Perhaps I can offer this reply from the EASA-side, hopefully that helps the discussion a little at least.

While the goal of the GA Roadmap is to simplify rules as much as possible, the text of point FCL.035(a)(4) was carefully drafted as published following considerable discussion and consultation with the GA Community. The intention of this rule was to ensure that Annex I BR aircraft are only used for Part-FCL training if they provide for a safety standard that is equivalent to EASA airworthiness.

Jurgen,
There is a typo/unclear way of writing that rule. It should say or, not and. We have informed EASA about it, and it should be corrected. Annex I a-d aircraft must approved for the use in ATO´ training, but all Annex I or opt-out flight experience can be counted towards SEP-recency, provided that the Annex I aircraft matches the definition of a SEP aircraft (heavier that air, fixed wing piston, etc.).

Here's the simplification proposed by IAOPA(Europe):

"IAOPA (Europe) requests support for a simplification of Annex 1 and Article 2(8) flight time recognition as follows:

Flight time on Annex 1(a)-(d) aircraft may be recognised without limitation.

Flight time on Annex 1(e) & (g) aircraft may be recognised for rating revalidation or LAPL privilege extension purposes only.

Flight time on aircraft defined in Article 2 (8) of Regulation (EU) 2018/1139 may be recognised for rating revalidation or LAPL privilege extension purposes only."

The use of Annex 1 (a)-(d) for training is regulated elsewhere in the Aircrew Regulation - we are only talking about flight time in such aircraft.

In the UK, now that we are no longer part of EASA, we are able to take a more pragmatic and simple stance towards flight time in 'non Part 21' aircraft.