They are regulating EU operators, which they are legally entitled to do.
421C The obvious would be an IOM with operating company based there in some form or other?
But regulating operators is very different to requiring pilots to hold licences that bear no relevance to the aircraft being flown and which the pilot is already fully licenced to fly.
All I know is this has been attempted many times before and has fallen flat on legalities I see no reason why this should be any different.
I am NO lawyer and I presume neither are you so we are all guessing to a certain extent.
I cannot see your comparisons quoted above as an EASA licence cannot in law be relevant to an FAA aircraft but hey ho I hope you are not correct as this would be another example of NON SENSE politics. Did I read that the UK government had earmarked 130 UK quangos for obliteration pity EASA was not got rid of as nearly happened for its equally stupid attempts before.
Addendum
I have a co pilot who holds FAA licences and an SIC who joined me from meeting up in these forums and is now a very good friend.
His concen is that he went the FAA way because he failed his JAA class 1 medical on his eyesight but passed the FAA medical does anyone know what his position would be if this rubbish hits the light of day.
Pace