Do you think that an aircraft type training done under the Hong Kong or Singapore aviation requirements (just to make a couple of examples) is not at the same standard of that one referred in the EASA Part 66? Is it the EASA Part 147 Training Organisation really better than any other one in the world?

And if it is not, why then EASA requires demonstration of EASA Part 147 type training for Certifying Staff and Support Staff? Why does not EASA just accept my licensed engineers who have attended a full theoretical and practical training, an OJT and after so many years of experience?

Well, I think that those above written, are a bit naive questions, though I have heard similar comments so many times.

The answer may simply be like that if you apply for an EASA approval, you should expect to be required to comply with the relevant EASA regulatory framework, which does not automatically recognise, for example, a A/C type training done under different regulatory frameworks. This regardless of any safety equivalency that most likely does actually exist!!!

Therefore, unless a bilateral agreement between the EU and any other non-EU State exists (*), why should the the EASA commits to accept other countries standards?
Think about this: if the EASA accepted Training Certificates from other countries, what would be the usefulness to have an approved EASA Part 147 Maintenance Training Organisation outside Europe? Nobody would like to pay the expensive EASA fees and charges (which include auditor fees) if there is a chance to have the same result with a much cheaper local approval.

Furthermore, let me now quote an expert of problematics related to regulators:

There is a fundamental problem with regulators. If a regulator agrees to change a rule and something bad happens, they can easily lose their career. Whereas if they change a rule and something good happens, they don’t even get a reward. So, it’s very asymmetric. It’s then very easy to understand why regulators resist changing the rules. It’s because there’s a big punishment on one side and no reward on the other. How would any rational person behave in such a scenario?
(**)

Nevertheless, I do believe that soon or later even the strictest Regulator will surrender to the logic of safety, efficiency and optimisation of resources. And soon or later equivalent type trainings will be mutually recognised by the EASA among those countries with an actual similar standard (Even though the world of the Engineers is not yet the same world where Lawyers and Politicians live).

(*) Currently there are BASA (Bilateral Aviation Safety Agreement) with the USA, Canada and Brazil
(**) Elon Musk (SpaceX) after one of his quarrels with the FAA / see Elon Musk on Regulators