From europe's point of view like it or not i guess it would be impossible to impose the need to pass an air law exam for each member state and i also guess easa would say thats why they intend even greater harmonisation.
Of course. My point is that EASA, when arguing the need to impose an air law exam on non-EASA ICAO rated pilots for safety reasons is a bit hypocritical, in the sense that air law in different member states is very different and most of these things you just learn on a need to know basis in your preparation and by experience.
The intention at harmonisation is nothing but lip service. Have a look at Italian semicircular regulation and you quickly get the message. And the EASA proposals on harmonisation of transition levels are downright farcical.
So unlike Australia, Europe doesn't have a unified air law and hence requiring knowledge of it through an air law exam is a bogus argument: the common denominator of air law in Europe is amply covered by what they teach you in an ICAO country, be that in Belize, Brazil or Bolivia
We all know you can just go fly in america under a 61.75 but you do need to pass a flight test
You don't : you need to have a BFR, which is quite different from (and a lot less expensive than) a flight test. All the questions you get on air law from an instructor are going to be relevant ones, unlike the air law exams in Europe. I must say the question Peter came up with made me smile. It is so typical for that twisted JAA attitude.
On the other hand we give faa pilots (at least at the moment) complete freedom without having to demonstrate any knowledge what so ever of our air law.
You're obviously only talking about the UK, I presume, which allows flying G-reg on an FAA PPL VFR only ? Because if you fly into the US with a JAA license on a G-reg, you have complete freedom too, without ever having demonstrated knowledge of "their" air law. That is the whole point of ICAO and the Chicago convention: establish a common standard with minimum requirements for safe operation worldwide. Thats why ICAO regularly audits countries, so that licenses can't be "bought" from some corrupt official in Ulan Baatar or Gatwick.
And the rest of Europe isn't that generous at all : To convert, even at PPL VFR level, requires a wrist of exams (you got to love those questions on inner ear anatomy or the number of rods in the eye !) and a flight test, even for competent pilots with 100 hours of PIC time.
I guess it forces everyone to at least review local procedures sufficiently to pass whereas without while the vast majority will have the common sense to do so its surprising how stupid a small minority can be.
Everyone, that is, except the UK EASA pilot flying in France, or the ICAO EP level 0 Air Bulgaria pilot flying to Amsterdam. But seriously, I don't buy that as an argument to need an air law exam.
You can reasonably assume that someone who has sat through an up to ICAO standard airman certification process will have been taught to prepare for a flight. The FAA certificate holders for instance are taught to familiarize themselves with all elements relevant for the flight.
And if you are a foreign pilot renting some local equipment, you can be sure that the operator will have the renter pilot checked out, not only in the aircraft but also in pertinent local procedures. That is actually the point of the BFR in the 61.75 conversion.