This took me 30 seconds to find on google
Sounds like you wasted thirty seconds...because this is the content of the article you linked:
Some first officers flying US-registered business jets in Europe under
US Federal Aviation Administration licensing regulations have been contravening International Civil Aviation Organisation standards, an ICAO safety audit spot-check has revealed. The UK Civil Aviation Authority says it has advised the FAA to notify US pilots and operators about crew qualification requirements of which they might not have been aware.
During a spot-check carried out under the ICAO international aviation safety audit system, some pilots flying as co-pilots in N-registered business jets at London Luton airport were found not to have type ratings, although the pilots in command did. This is permitted in the USA under regulation FAR 61.55, but under European and ICAO rules both pilots must have full type ratings to fly commercial transport aircraft or any aircraft with a maximum take-off weight of more than 5,700kg (12,5001b), according to the CAA.
It is understood that a US-based Dassault Falcon crew was spotchecked
and that the co-pilot was found not to have a type rating on his licence. The operations manager of the London Luton airport fixed based operation affected says he is aware of the incident. The manager understands that other crews had been found to be operating the same way under FAR 61. The CAA says it has contacted the FAA, which is to disseminate the information to pilots and operators who may have not been aware of the rule.
Find anything in there about flight engineers with private pilot certificates and a few hours flying "heavy iron?" I surely didn't. Nor did the article discuss the grounding of those mythical engineers. The CAA's action in this article? To contact the FAA and request that they disseminate the information. Not quite the same as your description, is it?
it was a CAA FlightOps inspector who told me the guy in the RHS of the BBJ was the a/c A&P and PPL.
Oh. That was your authoritative source. Couldn't link that conversation of course, so you linked an article that didn't support you at all. Good thinking.
The article is in error, of course, because both crewmembers are
not required to have "full type ratings," and under present regulation, SIC's continue to operate legally with an SIC type rating.
Well dodged - cleverly avoided the point I was making - full marks, because every little operator in the USA adheres to the rules just like legacy carriers dont they - or are you dellusional?
I'm not delusional at all. Having flown for a number of the small operators, I know exactly what the score is. Having a fair knowledge of the regulation on this side of the pond (and when I say "this," I say it in a relative term, as I'm abroad, and working internationally...but I do keep up to date on US regulation as that's the basis of my certification), I also know that small operators do work with in the regulations that apply to them. This includes 14 CFR 61.55...which still does NOT require a SIC type if flying domestically...and you can bet the same operators do obtain it presently if flying internationally. Then again, most small operators have no need.
Errr ok then the CAA wouldnt let them depart...... = grounded
Delayed, pending a crew change.
I can fully imagine you telling Ernest Gann he was doing it all wrong
Well, when you see me doing so...then you can talk. Thus far you've spent an inordinate amount of time putting words in my mouth, misquoting me and others, citing things someone told you as evidence of your inaccuracies, and now you're going to indict me on what you imagine I might say to a dead person? You're truly amazing.
Anything to keep from addressing the topic of conversation.
As we're seen clearly laid out, your own home-grown regulations which govern the logging of time clearly state that it's IFR conditions to be logged, and go on to define them as conditions less than VFR, and give special guidance in wording nearly identical to the same regulation in the US...establishing that instrument time specifically refers to flight by sole reference to instruments. Quite relevant to the topic at hand...unlike the issue of US regulation on seconds in command...which you've introduced and thoroughly (and inaccurately) beat to death.
Having been discredited, you've elected to pursue personal attacks, and not content with that, have dredged up personal attacks based on what you imagine might be said to a dead person. In most quarters, this might seem a little strange, but it's perfectly in concert with all your other comments, so nothing to see here.