EASA are trying to make it mandatory that crews have EASA equivalent licences to operate though, maybe that's what you'd heard?
M-ONGO,
Not "what I have heard", but what I have had some involvement, never underestimate the ability of the Brussels bureaucracy to stuff things up.
As I have already mentioned, a major part of the problem is FAA private operations are not necessarily recognised as private in EASA land, but public transport.
Recently I had a peripheral involvement with a Belgium based GA organisation that was a registered company in Delaware USA and operated an N-reg charter GA fleet using a french based FAA licensed maintenance organisation.
EASA might not like it, but I would have guessed the Chicago convention entrenches the right to do that.
Old Akro,
Re. maintenance, that is the equivalent of using an FAA approved facility anywhere. As you probably know, the "Delaware Corporation" is for US domestic tax purposes.
The Chicago Convention covers international air transport, any sovereign nation chooses to observe ICAO SOPs for domestic operations at the political policy discretion of the country. The situation you describe is rather interesting, I wonder how they manage that, most EASA countries in western Europe are very stick about other than the occasional "foreign" (non-EASA) registered aircraft being used on a local AOC (by whatever name)
Sadly, just like Australia, there is a lot of "we know best" in the EEC approach to US aviation. That US private (as we understand it) FAR 91 executive jet operations actually have better safety records than any European equivalent operations under a public transport AOC ( and FAR 135, for that matter) does not make the slightest difference to the local "thinking".
mnuts,
Indeed an interesting situation. My replies to you were based on the fact that I spend too much time with permits to fly for foreign (usually N) registered aircraft that do NOT have a standard/normal cat. C.of A.
In my experience, the aircraft involved are in Australia for a specific purpose, as I mentioned. Then, and only then, CASA may or may not cooperate, in the case of some specific scientific research, heavy political pressure had to be visited on CASA, for the research flights to go ahead.
I would think your situation is virtually unique, best of luck.
There are a number of cases of "flying and unregistered aircraft" and "flying an aircraft without a valid C.of A", where the aircraft was an import in the FAA Experimental Amateur Built cat., and the aircraft flew before the paperwork was complete, it was a very expensive exercise, in each case. In each case, of which I am aware, the owners thought it "would be OK" because the FAA paperwork was still valid.
Tootle pip!!