Domestically in the US, and for a very long time internationally, one not acting as SIC had no requirement to hold a type rating for the aircraft
That would be a typo. It should have read "
Domestically in teh US, and for a very long time internationally, one not acting as PIC had no requirement to hold a type rating for the aircraft." I'm sure you could have probably figured that out though...and thus there's no disparity.
Oh no hang on a minute the CAA GROUNDED your countrymen's aircraft just all of a sudden cos they felt like it that day - but you've been doing it for YEARS.....
No, the CAA didn't ground them. The CAA requested a change of crew, specifically pointing to ICAO convention. The crew continued to enjoy a long and productive career, no doubt...but then you've been unable to point to the specific event or document it...so I think we can safely conclude your point is...without point. (You did cite a notice of proposed rule making--not a rule--which didn't address the event in question).
You've been doing it for ages - must be right then!!
No. Been doing it for ages because it was legal, and right. Presently the regulation is modified as a nod to the whining EASA and CAA...though in substance nothing has changed...and as stated before, the only difference between then and now is that the SIC type is printed on the certificate. No change in the crew training or testing...just the letters on the certificate. It was right then, and right now. Get over it.
dont think AA or Delta think lear25 charters inc. from buttf**k alabama with no training budget to speak off
How might you have phrased that if you intended to sound like an adult and a professional? One can only wonder.
Perhaps if you're done being wrong, and pontificating on irrelevant subjects, we can get back to the thread. Are you able?