Hmm, I am still not convinced that the pilot is the operator. If he is not then I suspect if the operator is an off shore trust or an off shore company then the pilots will be free to continue as they always have.
Of course the pilot isn't by definition the operator -if, for example, the airplane is owned by a company who use it for corporate transport and the pilot is paid to fly it under the direction of the decision-makers in the company who determine where and when it should fly.
If he is not then I suspect if the operator is an off shore trust or an off shore company then the pilots will be free to continue as they always have.
The operator is the person or entity having operational control - eg. where and when the aircraft flies.
The corporate aircraft and paid pilot is a perfect example where the owner is the operator and the pilot is not.
However, in any conventional private GA N-reg arrangement, where an individual is a US trust beneficiary for what is essentially his private airplane that he flies, he is the operator.
It seems far more likely to me EASA are after owner operator pilots who are resident in the EU
Exactly. THe ownership is not relevant, it is the residency of the operator is. The distinction is important because a US company (the operator) could hire a European pilot to fly their aircraft in Europe. No problem, since the Operator is not EU resident. Another example is a non-EU airline with crew resident in Europe. No problem.
I do however think that pilots who own their aircraft via a trust, are UK resident and have not ensured they are operating in accordance with SOPs liad down by their trustees could be vunerable.
I am sorry Fuji, this is just clutching at a rather delusional straw. The idea that if your Trust publishes some SOPs (does any Trust do this?) that somehow obviates you from being the Operator is silly.
In this sentence, replace the trustees with the insurers. They also lay down all sorts of requirements which can change. Does that mean the insurers are the operator? Of course not.
I dont see that is relevant. Lots of groups lay down operating conditions. the engine manufacturer lays down conditions on how the engine should be operated otherwise their warranty is void, the CAA lays down conditions which if not complied with would result in an offence having being commmitted etc, but no one would argue they are the operators. On the other hand I think the man on the number 7 omnibus would hazard that if the owners are laying down conditions that the pilot is required to comply with they are indeed the operators. Who does Joe think operates his flight to the Costas - the pilot or Sleezyjet? Who is he going after when it doesnt run on time, or the hostie spills coffee in his lap, or the pilot is rude to the passengers - not the pilot, but Sleezyjet, it is they that are perceived to be the aircraft operators
But that is exactly my point. You suggest since the Trust lays down operating conditions, it (and not the private pilot who is the beneficiary and who uses the plane at his discretion for his purposes) is the operator. The trust is no more the operator by virtue of the fact it may lay down some operating conditions than the insurers, the CAA or the engine/airframe manufacturers are. The operator is the one who decides where and when it flies.
If that decision is made by someone in Delaware, what exactly is the point of having "overcome" the EASA regulations by losing the ability to fly your airplane where you want?
Of course the airline is the operator in your Easyjet example. The pilots fly to a schedule assigned to them by the operator (the airline). So fine, if you have someone in Delaware tell you where to fly your airplane, they indeed will be the operator. But what is the point of that? OTOH, if that were a paper exercise, masking that the European pilot was really the one deciding, then such a sham wouldn't stand up 5mins in court. You know and I know.
brgds
421C