I still struggle with 421Cs concept that where a trust owns the aircraft, contracts for its maintenance, pays for its parking and insurance (and perhaps lays down conditions governing it use) EASA would argue that anyone piloting the aircraft becomes the operator
You miss an important nuance. I am not, as I have said before, saying that the pilot of an aircraft is automatically the operator under all and any circumstances. Obvioulsy not.
However, when the trust owns the aircraft BUT
1. the beneficiary owner is a EU resident pilot (or group)
2. the trust 'contracts for maintanance..blah blah' but, ultimately, the aircraft operation is paid for by that EU resident pilot or group
3. the EU resident pilot (or group) decide when and where to fly it (within whatever constraints they have put into the trust, plus the normal insurance and operational constraints)
...then the EU resident pilot or group are likely to be deemed the operators of the aircraft, irrespective of what administration is off-shored to a trust or shell company OR the trust/company will be deemed to be EU resident in practice with its off-shore status simply an avoidance mechanism. Either way, the pilots need EASA licences.
It seems an attempt at a clever bit of word crafting to leave out commercial operators that are based overseas
It's not a "clever bit of word crafting". It's EASA exercising its powers to regulate EU operators but not 3rd country ones. There is an obvious and legitimate difference, however much one disagrees with their intent.
brgds
421C