Quite where this leaves someone with an FAA IR flying an N Reg Cirrus operated by someone resident in or established in the EU is a bit of a mystery. The situation is not uncommon.
That is the biggest chestnut, which EASA is doing best to bull**t over.
The intention is that validation will only be for a max of one year so:-
Pilot X can fly on his FAA ticket under the privileges of his FAA IR for up to a year.
Thereafter his FAA licence will not be valid to fly that particular a/c and he'll be required to have an EASA licence. If his FAA licence is not valid to fly the a/c then where does it leave his IR capability?
He won't have any.
Although his FAA licence is no longer valid to fly that a/c it would still be valid for flying an identical a/c in the EU that is operated by someone not resident in the EU.
Yes
Actually his FAA license/rating will
always be valid, and will be
required to fly the N-reg plane to comply with State of Registry requirements under ICAO. Only the FAA can invalidate your FAA papers. "All" that is happening is that EASA also requires an EASA license/rating while you are in EU airspace.
I don't think they've quite thought through the concept of an "operator". In the case of CAT it's not an issue, it's the holder of the AOC but in the case of a private flight what's the answer?
There are multiple answers according to circumstances.
In the CAT case, they will have to exempt them all anyway if they hold an AOC, otherwise a Continental 747 won't be allowed to land at Heathrow.
For non-AOC cases, it depends on whether you can establish a non-EU operator. Clearly, for some example of a syndicated / "fractional ownership" business, you can have a 100% straight operator which is a company in say Jersey. With a booking website, and the Jersey company having control of it, nobody will be able to challenge this, IMHO. Same if the Jersey company simply rented it out. It is more difficult for an ordinary private owner of a single aircraft, living in the EU. An operating company in that case will be obviously contrived. Which is not to say it won't stand up; loads of schemes which are merely avoidance schemes do stand up. Only in specific cases are they set aside (HMRC have established some of those).
I am convinced that this stuff was put together by amateur lawyers in some EASA committee, without proper legal advice from people who actually know aviation. The wording they use has no precedent in aviation, it would create havoc not just around the EU but internationally, it will make the EU a laughing stock of the world's richest people (who all fly in nice planes) and there is no framework for policing such a nebulous concept as an non EU resident operator.
EASA is not really an aviation organisation; it's a gravy train which employs a lot of clever people (because they get paid so much) but they are out of touch and are running private agendas which in this case is an envy-driven anti-American one.
Obviously if I have any good workaround ideas I won't be writing about them