Does anyone know which member states have applied for derogations?
Also, does ICAO define precisely what the term "operator" means? I've seen the term defined in some ICAO publications, but I presume the definition only applies in respect of the context of those documents.
It is interesting that EASA chose to use the term "operator" rather than owner, or beneficial owner, or other such term. I can only conclude that they had reason to be a little vague, and perhaps they may have been afraid to contradict ICAO principles in some way.
In the private corporate world I think that the term operator would adequately describe the individual or company who is contracted to ensure that the aircraft is crewed, flown, maintained and operated in accordance with applicable legislation, that all bills are taken care of and that the aircraft is made available to the owner (or beneficial owner) in line with his flight schedule. In my language, those functions are taken care of by "Aircraft Managers." Whether EASA would care to argue otherwise is a matter of speculation, but I hope they pick on an airplane "operator" who has the balls for a legal challenge!