Peter wrote:
Not to mention sub-ICAO papers pushed out by EASA (LAPL, BIR…).
Sure, but EASA also has the ICAO compliant PPL and IR. If you never intend to fly outside EASA-land then the LAPL and BIR are fine, but if you want to fly e.g. to the UK, they are not. 
What is there to stop a FAA CFII with European FI papers from flying and instructing in an N reg or any EASA reg in France?
Providing of course that:-
1/The N aircraft does not outstay the time which it is permitted to reside in France?
2/ The student has the appropriate Visa or whatever is needed to reside in France for the length of time it is necessary to reside in France for the course.
3/ The instructor has the appropriate work permit.
Nothing but I think you totally miss the point of the thread topic.
BTW
PPL FI without CPL theory is not ICAO compliant so such an FI could only train for the LAPL which is itself not an ICAO compliant license.
That never stopped Eric Sivel advertising this in a conference I was at 
Not to mention sub-ICAO papers pushed out by EASA (LAPL, BIR…). Ideologically there is no greater justification for ICAO-compliant-any-paper than for an ICAO-compliant PPL. As I say, the real reason for the CPL (later CPL theory) was controlling barriers to entry into the FI sphere, but it would look like blatent axe-grinding, so they had to use the “ICAO compliant” card
Peter wrote:
It was going to “a PPL can train a PPL” but there was heavy pushback under the table from various parties, so CPL theory it became.
There might well have been “heavy pushback”, but – as I have written previously several times – a PPL FI without CPL theory is not ICAO compliant so such an FI could only train for the LAPL which is itself not an ICAO compliant license.
Theoretically, other countries could refuse to accept EASA PPLs as valid if they were trained by an FI not having CPL theory.
But this is a long way from an anonymous Mr Big.
What is there to stop a FAA CFII with European FI papers from flying and instructing in an N reg or any EASA reg in France?
Providing of course that:-
1/The N aircraft does not outstay the time which it is permitted to reside in France?
2/ The student has the appropriate Visa or whatever is needed to reside in France for the length of time it is necessary to reside in France for the course.
3/ The instructor has the appropriate work permit.
Training in N-regs has been problematic too. It is country-dependent.
For example, in the UK, at one time, you needed a CPL (not just the theory) to train for money in any aircraft. This was used to bust one operation in 2005 (the guy got off because he had a letter from the CAA which accidentally authorised him, but they busted his operation because nobody there had a JAA CPL … according to an employee there I spoke to).
Later, under EASA, you needed just CPL theory passes. It was going to “a PPL can train a PPL” but there was heavy pushback under the table from various parties, so CPL theory it became. But in reality almost nobody doing training towards FAA papers (whether N-reg or any other reg) had Euro papers. Most were FAA CFII only. This situation facilitated the extraction of lots of cash from lots of people, by people operating under the radar.
It was never clarified whether the “CPL theory” concession covered training in Europe towards FAA papers (regardless of reg). It became even more interesting when you consider that – unlike Europe – the US accepts all training outside the US, towards all US papers (with some exceptions) so you could train in G-reg and then use those logbook entries towards an FAA IR etc.
Anyway, N-reg pilots will be familiar with the landscape
I just cannot think who on earth would have that sort of influence in France. Or even the position of such a person. Not even M Macron.
Unless it is EU law.
I didn’t post it so I am not going to post it now. If EuroGA gets sued, you can just sit back and enjoy it
Who is the " someone big who pushed some guy out" you are referring to?
Affirm.
As I often say, and others often deny, airfield politics is a huge factor in all this. It intersects with the ability to use a freelance mechanic, which is deeply unpopular in Europe (less €€€ made) but is easier to “swing” because FAA mechanics naturally work freelance.
On the topic, it is not clear to me whether FAA mechanic availability is worsening here. I’d say CFII availability has worsened – partly due to actual or contrived regs concerning legality of paid training without owning a Euro CPL, etc. Even in France, where you can do almost anything provided you don’t p1ss off somebody big, one guy got pushed out… But you don’t need a CFII unless you let the rolling currency lapse.
And if you are N-reg and VFR-only (as reportedly many in Germany are, but very few in the UK) then you need even less. Not even the transponder check!
Most of the difference is on topic for N-register operation in Europe, as described by Peter who IIRC also has an FAA A&P IA + CFI working with him in the UK.
