Originally Posted by
this is my username
Pace, you missed my point - if the rules come in to play and you are required to have an EASA licence what you would need is to be transferred / grandfathered on to a "restricted CPL" not a "restricted ATP".
I'm just commenting on what is required in terms of licencing and what might be politically easier to achieve rather than on the rights and wrongs of the situation. You don't need an ATPL or an ATP for the type of flying you do so why suggest that it is the solution rather than a CPL?
Because then you would need to add a restricted IR to the restricted CPL wouldn't you and, also, to be a pilot in command (on the validation at least), they require not only an ATP from the ICAO nation....but ALSO, they want you to have 1500 hours multi crew and 500 hours on type (lmfao.....re the validation, because if you had done the EASA licence, that requirement doesn't exist??? One rule for one....etc etc)