Originally Posted by
englishal
I don't see how one's insurance would be invalid if one were say flying an N reg using an FAA ticket which is a perfectly legal combo....as per United 935 from LHR to LAX.
What happens if United employed a Brit? I have quite often heard foreign nationals piloting their 777's....
You are missing the point re United. This is a US based company, with the majority of its business in the US, regulated as an AOC (so by definition 'the operator') by the US. It can not possibly be viewed as a shame construct to avoid a residency issue. As 421 has pointed out, it is much less clear the closer one is to a sole beneficial owner situation that a court wouldn't deem the structure as a shame to avoid this particular set of regulations.
The insurance side could be critical. Insurance companies will either be happy to underwrite EU based pilots flying Deleware Trust Company aircraft based in the EU with FAA licences or the will not be happy. It is only when one tries to get insurance that one will know the answer.
Equally, one would need some advice as to the insurer's ability to walk away from a claim even though they were in posession of all material facts based on a post accident view that you should have had an EASA licence. For an insurer that is not based in the EU I would have thought they wouldn't care, one based in the EU could well be made to care. [Note the opinion expressed is worth what you have paid for it]