not withstanding that the flight would be 100% legal anywhere else in the world). We will need to wait for a case to be decided where the insurer elects not to pay and is then litigated to know the answer.
MM
That would be very interesting ? Having to hold licences which are themselves illegal on the aircraft in question?
Those licences have about as much relevance as holding a train drivers licence alongside your flying licences and then having an insurance company refusing to pay out on the fact that you dont hold train drivers licences.
These are state requirements not aircraft requirements or safety based requirements.
As for legal? The avarage car driver breaks the law every time he sets foot in a car but car insurers pay out.
There has to be a seperation between state requirements which are technical infringements and licences and qualifications required to safely fly an aircraft and meet insurance requirements.
But really it just shows how ludicrous the whole EASA thing is and what a complete NON SENSE it is.
A supposed safety mandated organisation (joke) which has constructed regulations using devious loopholes and ridiculous non safety based manipulations to achieve a totally political end.
The whole organisation makes me sick.
Pace