Just checked a sample AD 8050-1 (Aircraft registration document). It pretty clearly asks one to Certify (immediately below the 'you will be fined or imprisoned if you make a false statement' bit) that one is either a US Citizen, Resident Alien, or Non-Citizen corporation (and the aircraft is properly based in the US).

you have absolutely no reason to feel that way.

you are double licensed so you are just fine. it is only about licensing.. there is nothing to prevent a n-reg ac take of into the eu skies.

...

in the us the operator is the one who makes (decides to make) the plane do a flight.

this is not the pilot, and not necessarily the owner (for example a lease company does not decide .. the organisation/person that leases the plane).

part fcl has 0.0 to do with ownership and trusts..

Yes - your right, and it was ownership and trusts being discussed...

Being particularly sad, I had a read of the FAA Comments and it is quite interesting. There seems to be a strong support for the Trust Ownership structure and no desire to treat Trust Owners different than other types of owners. However, the FAA are clearly concerned to clarify that the Trust Owner needs to be a more active owner and keep track of who is operating the aircraft, where important records are based and clearly direct the Operator (i.e. the one who decides if the airplane flys are not) to enforce/enact emergency airworthiness directives, cease and desist orders, and to provide all information as to the nature of the operation and identities of pilots in the event of enforcement action (i.e. act like an owner). The FAA is also clearly concerned about 'side letters' that change the nataure of the trust relationship (which is filed with the registration).

Overall, I think it is positive. An affirmation from the FAA of the support of the principles of Non-Citizen Trust Ownership supported by a tidying up of the administrative details. It may be a PITA for some Trustees, in that they will probably have to change some agreements to impose additional restrictions and file (potentially redrafted) operating agreements, but overall it does seem quite reasonable for the FAA to be able to enforce its obligations equally on all of the ownership structures.

In reading, it also further confuses me in the 'Operator' discussion. 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.)

I agree entirely, and over a strong cup of cocoa, I read through it also. It IS positive, and entirely reasonable.

The hysteria whipped up by some on this forum, and I again comment with the appearence of an ''agenda'', is precisely that - misplaced hysteria.

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.......

Focus has now altered to the Trust Status, The Ownership Status, as all being dodgy, or underhand in some way. EARSA will sort them al out, seems to be the constant cry. The main issue for these guys is that in reality there is not much for the FAA ''TO SORT OUT"
Sorry, utter nonsense:8

So at present the FAA can quickly access the details such the pilots, operators trustors and details of where the aircraft has been used?

Come on Maxred, its a difficult one. You previously said you had an N-Reg aircraft in the UK - I would be extremely surprised if the operator could be contacted by the FAA easily. My understanding is that the trustee is actually breaking American law at present if they disclose the Trustors details without a Court order to disclose or the express consent of the trustee.

That link was well found, mm_flynn :ok:
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.

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.

I think they did put some effort in and its just not come up yet what the cunning plan is on that one.

I have a sneaky feeling it will be defined in some other transport regulation in the depths of some legislation on road haulage.

Come on Maxred, its a difficult one. You previously said you had an N-Reg aircraft in the UK - I would be extremely surprised if the operator could be contacted by the FAA easily. My understanding is that the trustee is actually breaking American law at present if they disclose the Trustors details without a Court order to disclose or the express consent of the trustee.

Well as fate would have it, our UK postal service, via a UK postman, delivered today, a Safety Communique, from my US manufacturer, via my US trust, a letter. Hardly James Bond is it?:\

Good one. :ugh: Road Haulage actually has a very clear definition of Operator. One needs an Operator's Licence to be an Operator. So, that isn't very likely to be the place the 'cunning planners' have buried their masterstroke.

Where did that come from????
I can imagine a Trust Structure which forbids the Trustee from disclosing the Trustor's details, but I certainly wouldn't expect that to be normal. In addition, I would expect the FAA to have objected to that in the Trust documents field with the registration. Nor would I expect there to be a general 'American Law' preventing the disclosure of trustor details in response to a lawful request from the US Government.

I suspect people who want to hid who they are to use several layers of indirection (e.g. a Trust holds the aircraft on behalf of a foreign holding company who then allows another party to operate the aircraft)

As a matter of interest whats the definition.

You only need a operators license to carry goods or burden connected with any trade or buisness when the plate weight is more than 3.5tons. Including renting in.

For example you can run a 7.5ton horse box without one. But you are still the operator of that vehicle.

And Article 257 of the ANO defines operator. But then doesn't define managment but does have a clause for 14 days hire.

Mind you there is nothing stopping them slipping in the definition which they want on the sly at some point in the future. As they don't need to redo everything to clarify a defintion, which could be what the plan is.

I suspect people who want to hid who they are to use several layers of indirection (e.g. a Trust holds the aircraft on behalf of a foreign holding company who then allows another party to operate the aircraft)

What like Tory party politicians, Directors of UK Footse 100 companies, and Bankers?

Figures.....:rolleyes:

Max there is a button two along from the right from the youtube button that when you highlight some text then press it makes it a it looks like a speech bubble

Thanks, I have often wondered how you guys got that effect!

Well I have now learnt something really usefull from this thread. Ta

Maxred - well done to your trustee!! Others are often not as good or prompt.

Mm: The reason that the FAA held the public meeting was simple - there was legal right to not make disclosure of trustors details.They are trying to ammend that on various grounds.

GEP- refer to MJ post no. 80

Thanks Maxred - I am presuming you are refering to the use of the quote tool?

Perhaps I should have used that to quote your earlier post in the context of my reply

My response:

There. We're all learning something....