...or its agencies ??? Ha ! LOL here...
You are of course right that Article 70 can be amended. However, such an amendment would have to be made by a Regulation of the Council and the Parliament and would have to go through the full co-decision procedure, which is not normally a quick procedure.
The circumstances we are talking about here are these:
1. The transport committee of the EP is about to realise the full extent of what you have been up to lately
2. The CAA of your country is not overjoyed with happiness about the 7/8 december Comitology meeting
3. There is a large number of players in both the policital and the aviation community who want to do the right thing.
Assuming that you continue to drag your heels, potentially getting burnt forever in the civil service and assuming that the TC of the EP rejects the dogs breakfast;
Then some transport ministers' heads of cabinet would be on the phone with Kallas' cabinet telling them that they would appreciate the 3 page amendment (2 pages of preamble and 1 page for the article) to article 70 in double quick time.
Trust me, this one will not need 3 readings to pass codecision...
It will be interesting to see how this works eg: will the derogations be restricted to the Member states's airspace.
Some more FUD tactics by the heretic. Do you seriously think that some individual member states will not ask for derogation under the circumstances ? You really live in Cloud Cookoo land ! But it is also typical for bad civil servants like yourselves to fantasize about total chaos when they don't succeed is pushing a twisted agenda. You truly have become Humpfrey Appleby incarnate !
Nevertheless it is indisputable that the requirement for the pilots of EU based third country aircraft to have an EASA licence is contained in Regulation 216/2008 and that the European Parliament voted in favour of that requirement.
This is another typical comment for you lot :
It is becoming more and more indisputable that parliament was grossly misinformed about the issue at hand, which is why Philip Bradbourn, Peter Van Dalen, Gesine Meissner and others are pleading now not to fix something that isn't broken.
You then fall back on "hey but Parliament wanted Regulation 216/2008". I'm sure that if you had done your job properly, truly balancing the facts and acting in the best interest of the Citizens, regulation 216/2008 would not have contained this.
Parliament also wanted to facilitate General Aviation in its resolution of February 2009, by recognizing the need for proportionality of regulations and the avoidance of excessive costs. Do you think that your dogs breakfast takes those concerns of parliament into consideration ? Of course it doesn't.
Because when pushing your anti-aviation agenda, you cherry pick the bits and pieces of legislation that suit you. And when people point out the flaws to you, you invent difficulties and obstructions, even when the amendments to solve the problems are trivial (such as a rewrite of article 70 of Reg 216/2008)