Apart from the fact that this is stretching the truth [the Basic Regulation actually says no such thing] the real issue - that Baldwin and others appear not to grasp (deliberately or otherwise) - is that there is no safety or other reason to target N-reg pilots, therefore why is he and others so keen on pursuing law that works on a clearly mistaken assumption, particularly when the results will be so detrimental?
I am pretty sure the informed do grasp that! Sadly we presume wrongly that our industry is at the mercy of some big bad wolf.
sections of our industry wrongly see N reg as competition and have been lobbying for its removal instead of lobbying for less regulation which has created their high cost situations in the first place.
EASA is a safety body so people like Baldwin will spout that mandate whether its true or not.
They cannot spout on demonstrated threat (ie the stats) so they spout on percieved threat. ie no demonstrable threat but a broader picture of safety being achieved by control and intervention which we all know is not the case.
IE more regulations more intervention more oversight has to equal better safety. The reality is that a major reason for Europes imminent collapse has been on the mass of non productive government created positions in the UK alone amounting to 25 % of all employment.
Without regulating and then creating more jobs in sub organisations to implement those regulations all those millions of jobs in Europe would not be sustainable hence the expensive and strangled situation Europe is in now.
http://www.pprune.org/biz-jets-ag-fl...sled-lfpb.html
Have a look at the above link to see how stupid things are going
Pace