That link was well found, mm_flynn
When all this began, the threads I mean, the same protaginists were on the 'safety' route, i.e. N reg operators skirted at the edge of the envelope, operations and maintenance, and flying, were all done with a dodgy set of ownesrhips, licences, inferior gained FAA IR's, etc etc.......
That's a normal attitude, displayed by some who have been flying AOC ops and came across some cowboys, some of whom happened to be N-reg. The G-reg cowboys didn't draw attention; 10 points for sussing out why not
It doesn't matter where one goes, one meets people who trot out that old line.
Between EASA, the local country and USA it appears there are range of different entities who could simultaneous be operator for any given flight based on the differing perspectives offered (the pilot, the entity that keeps maintenance records and authorises flights, An entity registered as an operator, the Trustor Owner, the entity HMRC have in mind with their “Operator (not Pilot)” question on the GAR, etc.)
No, I didn't think EASA thought about the "operator" clause very much, either
It has increasing hallmarks of an internal private project driven by a few individuals.
And I am damn sure that a lot of people involved who did wonder about this useless clause kept their mouths shut because it would conveniently render the legislation unworkable. Had I been on that committee that's exactly what I would have done.