Frog,
I answered your question....how about answering mine?
Now, to continue the debate
As I understand you, you would be willing to accept an EASA IMCr which had similar flight training requirements to a JAA IR, but with significantly reduced ground school (it's already sounding like your FAA IR)
Now one significant requirement of a JAA IR is 50 hours training (SEP). Lets take that one for a minute. The FAA one has a lower number of hours....IO540 says it's only 15 hours dual training.
How about saying, to get an EASA IMCr (which is an EASA Private IR in all but name....we could even agree to call it an EASA Private IR if it would make you more agreeable ) you don't need any dual training....you just need to be able to fly to the standard required for the test. The examiner can, and should, throw everything and anything at you during the test to make sure that your flying is up to the benchmark.
Doesn't that make sense....after all, why should holder of a foreign IR who has thousands of hours flying IFR in IMC who could pass the flight test without any further training, have do do 50 hours training before taking the test? The test should be the standard, not the number of hours training.
Can we agree that much?
Also can you clarify the position with French residents being able to fly in France on a FAA IR? I read here sometime ago, that the Franch authorities has banned the use of an FAA IR by French residents in French airspace. Is that true?
dp