This has never been the case. Operating commercially requires a commercial pilot certificate at a minimum (it's common to have pilots with only a few hundred hours flying "heavy iron" in europe, remember...whereas the same jobs in the US typically required pilots to have 5,000 hours or more).
Who said commercially - I didn't! Im on about (fairly obviously) Pt 91. Regarding the Jibe about guys with a few hundred hours flying 737's in Eu I agree with you totally no argument here
As for a pilot with a few hours and a flight engineer or mechanic with a private pilot certificate flying a Gulfstream IV...show me where that happens in the US.
Again never said it happens in the USA just saying that IT DID happen in the UK. again Pt91 operators of heavy jets. The NPRM from the FAA website link is here if you dont believe me. I understand transport category aircraft need to be operated under 121 which if this is the case showed a desperate lack of oversight by the FAA - somebody probably got fired unless the BBJ specifically comes under Pt 91
FAA 61.55 NPRM
The CAA grounded a BBJ and two Gulfstreams at Luton on the basis that the Pilots licenses had no mention of the aircraft on them whatsoever, all that could be produced was some logbook evidence that takeoffs and landings had been performed in the aircraft including OEI ops, ground training was not recorded as there was no requirement to. All fairly "loose" if you ask me, totally irrelevant to the thread so I'll leave it there. PS It was also reported upon in Flight International got it somewhere under a bed;
As for the last few pages being relevant, clearly you didn't bother to read it, else you'd find it most certainly has been...and educational for those who participated.
I actually read it through from page 1 thru page 5, sugest you have a re-read as what struck me quite clearly was your bullying (educational 
) , I know best attitude and how you are much more interested in being right as opposed to whats right.
The FARs/JARs are NOT watertight trying to prove your point by pretending to be some part time lawyer and reading into the legalese is pointless. Our own published material in LASORS quite often conflicts with what the written law says, thats just part and parcel of trying to bring together 10 or more aviation authorities under one roof - it'll get sorted in 25 years maybe more.
The guy came on wanting a bit of guidance and had his post hijacked, WE DO THINGS DIFFERENTLY OVER HERE, its not a problem and invariably the CAA who we have to deal with for crew licensing just will accept his time paradropping and issue him with a IRI (CFII) rating which is the only real reason for logging it anyway.
They quite often have to revert to the CAA "Policy" department for rulings, maybe you could offer to come over and help being as you're the expert
