No, it was asserted that the simulated instrument time I have already logged is "IFR". I do not believe that it was. I have no doubt that I could conduct future flights as IFR if I wished but that's not appropriate for the type of flying I do now.

Correct it’s not, unless it was on an IFR flightplan.
That was mistake in replying.

Umm... because they might want to be IFR.
The 'R' in IFR stands for Rules. Every time you fly you elect to fly VFR or IFR. Flight Rules are not the same as Meteorological Conditions. You absolutely can fly IFR in VMC (but not VFR in IMC). An IFR flight plan is only required for controlled airspace.
But yes, I suppose you could choose to fly VFR under the hood.

Probably me. I should have been more specific and said your 'Actual' could only legally have been IFR, your hood time would likely be IFR (It didn't cross my mind that people practicing IMC flying would do so VFR. It's kind of like flying at midnight but not logging night.)
It's your logbook, and if you were outside of controlled airspace only YOU can decide if it was VFR or IFR wink wink.
If you were to go for an EASA licence and you have a logbook full of approaches flown under the hood but you want to insist to them that it wasn't IFR and that none of it should count, go for it.

EASA = log time on an Instrument Flight plan
FAA = log time in actual Instrument Meteorological Conditions

Now under FAA to legally log ‘actual IMC’ the flight or a portion thereof would have had to be on an IFR flight plan.

Well there is an exception to that. Flight in IMC is legal in class G airspace with no IFR flight plan or ATC contact. Many not be wise but it's not illegal.

Would you bother keeping a logbook if you did that?

There used to be large areas of Arizona in which class G extended well above the surface. I refreshed my memory of that by looking at a late 2005 Phoenix sectional. E.g. SW of Prescott class G used to top out at 9,500 MSL. All those class G areas that would have been suitable for cloud climbs in gliders have now gone away. There are still some class G areas that extend above 1,200 ft off the coast of Southern California.

Had I flown my glider on instruments in that airspace I would have logged it. However, most of my cross country glider flying was in contests and contest rules prohibited any instruments that enabled flight in IMC. It's quite different in UK where cloud flying in gliders is, or at least was, legal whether in a contest or not.

If I remember correctly the 'standard' is for class G uncontrolled up to 14,500msl unless otherwise annotated on the chart. I had a very tense CFI initial with the FAA when I stuck to my guns and said that class E started at 1200agl over southern florida, whilst the inspector said that it was 14,500msl. I was convinced that I'd failed for about 20 minutes whilst he went off to clarify. It turned out that there is a small corner of the Jacksonville chart showing that class E did indeed start at 1200agl, and the annotated area was so big that it included the entire Miami sectional!

I don't have any recent paper charts in the house but the 2005 Phoenix sectional says "Class E Airspace exists at 1200 ft AGL unless otherwise designated as shown above". The "above" refers to the blue staggered line used to differentiate the floors of class E greater than 700 ft above surface. All these blue staggered lines that existed in 2005 have been wiped off the current chart. I haven't found any regulatory reference for the change.

There is a lot of misconception here, but it is possible to meet both FAA & EASA requirements at the same time.

As an FAA IR holder, you should fly an IFR cross-country under the hood, with a safety pilot, with you acting as PIC. You can then log IFR, Instrument & PIC.

The safety pilot can also log SIC, as a required crew member, under 91.109(c) & 61.51(f).

I dont think EASA is concerned what the safety pilot or instructor write in their logs under FAA lol, I am not being sarcastic but from my comms with Czech CAA, the only thing they seem to care about are two things
1-Rules the flight is conducted under
2-Who is the sole manipulator of the flight control.

The only exception to the rule if you are logging PIC as a CFI instrument, because then although the student is flying, you are in control of what the student is inputting which makes you the PIC of the flight, that is also thrown in my initial post which is an excerpt from Czech CAA, and I am btw very content for their correspondence, I haven't seen such diligence and professionalism from any other EASA member who always throw me back to the ATO.

Also Czech informed me that I will not be converting my IR under CBIR but under EASA FAA TIP-L bilateral agreement, so I believe this makes the process slightly easier ?

While technically a different route, the process is virtually identical. TIP-L allows you to take the Skill test with no training and without the 50 hours IFRPIC if you have demonstrated the TK via exams. If you haven't done the TK exams, you need 50 hours IFRPIC exactly like CBIR.

Also, annoyingly it's an EU-FAA agreement, so not all EASA licences are eligible for conversion.

Yeh I dont think the IR or CPL theoretical exams are gonna be required for me since I intend to pass the mighty ATPL 13 subjects before I initiate the process.
Also the TIP agreement state that converting an MEP IR, gives you the privileges of both SEP IR and MEP IR, more than one ATO are quoting me two different conversion processes. so its going to be interesting shopping around for an ATO that will not to try retrain me. I am planning to start my conversion after I have already had 500 hours hoping most of which will be IR cross country, planning to take my multi at the end so I can take it back to back with the conversion so I dont get rusty on the Multi Engine stuff.

That's the thing about ATOs, they need to make money. I would suggest you find an ATO with an airplane you're familiar with and lay it out to them: You want to rent a plane for a familiarisation flight and an IR test. You don't need their sign off or permission, just the plane. Take it or leave it.

Good advise, thank you.
They make it sound like they have to refer me to an examiner, which makes me wonder if I could search for an examiner like we do in the US, I had to shop for my own DPEs.

As happy owner of both FAA and EASA IRs, can I inject a note of common sense.

1 - what you can log is different in the two regimes. You have to pass air law in each, so there's no excuse for not knowing both rules.

2 - if your logbook doesn't allow for different logging, modify it. If it hasn't got enough columns, buy another logbook.

3 - electronic logbooks help a lot. But, make sure that you use one that'll accommodate multiple authority logging requirements.

4 - for EASA you need two columns: flight by sole reference to instruments, and flight under IFR. THEY ARE NOT THE SAME.

5 - for FAA also log number of approaches, what approach, and where. EASA do not require this, but there is clearly no disbenefit in having that information.

G

Technically under FAA you differentiate also between:

• Simulated instrument conditions (sole ref.to instruments w/view limiting device)
• Actual IMC (sole ref.to instruments but for realz)

Really? Do you have a reference?

G