Respectfully, you've just misunderstood it, by assuming "operators based in Europe will be subject to EASA regulation regardless of flag" does not apply to EASA FCL regulations. It does. It's reasonably clear in loads of EASA docs they keep publishing and EU laws are already on the statute book (but not implemented yet).

I don't know. Who cares? It's written plainly and consistently throughout the EASA regulations. I can't really make a clearer point on this.


I imagine that few pilots are going to lose their jobs, hence the lack of interest in the subject. Don't you think a professional pilot for an EU operator who happens not to have EU licences won't just go out an do the ATPL writtens and the relatively quick conversion courses for CPL and IR?
Remember, people with no flying background and little hope of getting flying jobs borrow £100k to get these quals. Surely someone with a pilot job already is going to do the conversion at a fraction of the cost of an ab inito candidate? Call it £1500 for the writtens all in, £2000 for the CPL, £5000k for the IR, give or take £1k. So that's £10k. Compared to what? £60k modular, £100k integrated?

£10k must be a just a day's work for a professional pilot.

I am in the wrong business.

I don't understand that reply. My point was a simple one: if people without pilot jobs find or borrow £50k-£100k for the (perhaps remote) chance of one day getting one, I think it unlikely that many pilots with jobs will be forced out of aviation by the cost of covnerting FAA qualifications to JAA ones. I didn't say or imply in the slightest that £10k was a trivial sum. Pilots go to great lengths and make a lot of sacrifices to pursue their careers.

What is the total conversion process for an FAA ATP who has zero EU-reg-aircraft time, to a JAA ATPL, for a multi crew jet like say a Lear 45?

IO,
I'm no expert in conversion for experienced pro pilots, see LASORS for detail. IIRC, there is no way to avoid the full set of JAA ATPL exams in order to get a full JAA ATPL.

The rest is down to hours. Worst case, a CPL skills test (training as reqd) and an IR skills test (15hrs min). Under EASA FCL, the LJ45 TR can be carried over. More typical/better JAA case, a TR checkride on the LJ45 and that's it.

brgds
421C

421C

It must then be easy to set up an "operator" in say Jersey, who leases the a/c out. Can I come back on this aspect of the proposed legisaltion please 421C or Bookworm. Within the GA community it is usual for N reg aircraft to be owned by an off shore trust to meet the FAA requirements. There is no doubt under trust law the trustees are the owner of the aircraft. Also it is usual under the terms of the trust agreement for the trustees to authorise certain pilots to operate the aircraft, but I am interested whether this constitutes "operational control". It seems to me there is a raft of issues connected with the operational control of an aircraft. The operator (in this case the trustees) may (and often do) lay down a whole series of requirements which must be met before a pilot can operate their aircraft; moreover these requirements will and do change. I dont entirely follow the fact that the pilot decides the destination of the aircraft in itself constitutes "operational control". After all where ever the pilot may or may not decide to go is irrelevant if he has not complied with the operational requirments of the trustees. If ever tested in Court could the Court so simply conclude the requirements of the trustees were a "sham" when clearly the trustees (as owners of the aircraft) are legally entitled to enforce their SOPs and ban a pilot from flying the aircraft at any point in time. In other words can you so simply argue that the "operational controller" is the monkey that manipulates the stick.

Agreed

I believe it does. That's exactly what trust agreements do. They retain legal ownership within the trust and a 3rd party (ie. the trust beneficiary) operates the aircraft.

In this sentence, replace the trustees with the insurers. They also lay down all sorts of requirements which can change. Does that mean the insurers are the operator? Of course not.

It's not about the requirements of the trustees or showing them to be a "sham". It's about who exercises practical, day-to-day operational control of the aircraft (within the bounds permitted by the owner and insurers etc).

Of course it's relevant, if the normal understanding of what constitutes operational control is deciding where and when the aircraft flies, again, within the constraints that may be imposed by the owner and insurers.



brgds
421C

As a further point, on the GAR form they seek to know who the 'Owner/Operator' is and they specifically reference this as Not the Pilot. In the case of a trust or corporate aircraft what is the actual legal definition of 'The Operator' and is it consistent for various elements of the European Governments?

How does renting from a flying club (where I am pretty sure the flying club is the operator) differ from renting from a Jersey based small flying club (serving only 3 or 4 individuals).


I find this subject 'amusing' (in a shaking head in amazement way).

We are going to have a situation where European Residents will be required to have a licence which doesn't legally allow them to operate the aircraft (the EASA licence) , along with the licence which does (the FAA licence) inorder to legally operate in Europe (but not outside Europe). However, non-European Residents will only require one document to legally operate (The FAA licence).

(The above assumes the NAAs continue to exist and are the agents that issue the EASA licences and hence the long standing FAA position that, for example, a Dutch issued licence is only valid for an N-reg in the Netherlands will continue to be true)

That's the most brilliant observation to date :ok:

As a follow on, the UK ANO definition of Operator is
And I don't quite understand why an aircraft management company located in IOM is not the operator of an aircraft.

On the other hand, I suspect 421C is right that it will just be easier for most of us to just sit the exams get a bit of extra flight training (which can be good value) and be done with it.

I have changed some words to show how prejudiced such a move would be and would be shot to bits in the European courts on discrimination! changed bits in red.
and we havent even started on the civil liberty laws.

Nice try Pace!!! I can see where you are coming from but it's not the same.

However if you want to launch the test case I am right behind you!

It's an interesting one. I wonder if any lawyers here can input?

Curiously the 2005 DfT proposal would have been solidly covered by Crown Immunity.

The EASA proposals are drawn up by amateurs, occassionally with legal support, but it seems evident that nobody takes the wider legal view at that stage. For example, ICAO compliance would have required the use of "national" while EASA has used "resident" which is a completely different concept and is in breach of ICAO provisions giving members states jurisdiction within their own airspace.

If I hold an FAA ATP and fly a business jet from which I earn my income and have legally done so for years I am protected in Law.

My Licence is the same as a US citizen. If discriminatory (which they are) laws are put into place which unfairly prejudice my ability to carry out my means of employment those laws can be challenged on a number of counts especially in the Eurpean Courts of human rights.

To say an American can fly in European airspace in a N reg aircraft on an FAA ATP But as a resident of Europe I am barred from doing so in the same aircraft with the same licences is without doubt PREJUDICE.

The fact that to convert that licence would cost me an awful lot of money and time is another issue.

The fact that the time required would take between 6 months and 2 years would mean that I would be unemployable for that period, would loose my job and legal livelyhood doing something which has been legal for decades and through no fault of my own.

If there are NO issues to answer in the European courts then what are ?

Pace

I dont see that is relevant. Lots of groups lay down operating conditions. the engine manufacturer lays down conditions on how the engine should be operated otherwise their warranty is void, the CAA lays down conditions which if not complied with would result in an offence having being commmitted etc, but no one would argue they are the operators. On the other hand I think the man on the number 7 omnibus would hazard that if the owners are laying down conditions that the pilot is required to comply with they are indeed the operators. Who does Joe think operates his flight to the Costas - the pilot or Sleezyjet? Who is he going after when it doesnt run on time, or the hostie spills coffee in his lap, or the pilot is rude to the passengers - not the pilot, but Sleezyjet, it is they that are perceived to be the aircraft operators.

I know I am playing devils advocate but Courts rarely consider one factor in determing a matter such as this. Are you an employee? HMRC might like to have you believe that if you work in someone's office from 9 to 5 then you are; the Courts see the matter quite differently and consider a raft of factors. I find it very hard top believe that simply because it is the pilot that determines the flight will go from Blackbushe to Southend that makes him the oeprator.

Who is the operator if the trustees inform four of the authorised pilots the shop has completed the service - would one of them please go fetch the aircraft back to its base?

If EASA intended that the pilot was for the purposes of the legislation the operator then why not use the word the "commander" shall hold an EASA FCL regardless of the state of origin of the aircraft for flights within the community unless .. .. .. Simple.

I just cant help thinking there is more to this or we are dealing with a complete bunch of amateurs.

As to FAA pilots converting their licences while it doesnt matter to me I cant help thinking those that say this are the very ones who dont need to do so - so their is an element of smugness. Stop being smug for a moment and ask yourself if you had been happily operating in Europe for the past ten years on your FAA IR would you really want to sit x exams and take another flight test, which even the most skilled of us recognise can be a bit of a lottery?

Actually I have some symphathy for EASA wanting their residents to fall directly under their authority. However if this is really what they wished to achieve then they should have proposed a reasonable method for existing pilots to convert their licences and addressed the dreadful state of affairs in Europe where pilots feel compelled to follow to the FAA route in order to obtain an IR.

Which is why they have allowed a validation of your FAA ATP for a year and then a further extension should it be required in order to allow enough time for you to continue to work and convert to an EASA licence.

So how is that discriminatory?

Bose what is required to validate the FAA ATP :rolleyes: Can I nip into central london and get it done this afternoon at some office?

On the discriminatory bit why dont Non EEC residents have to validate their licences too? same licence same plane?

Pace

Pace, no offence but you really should make an effort to and read this stuff as it clearly effects you.

When EASA take over there is a process whereby non EASA licence holders will be able to seek a 1 year validation. This validation can be further extended by the NAA to allow further opportunity to complete conversion training.

Non EEC residents don't have to validate as they are not resident!! If you choose to become an EEC resident then like it or not you become subject to the applicable rules and they have rightly or wrongly decided that those they have jurisdiction over will abide by a set of standards.

Apparently this is how democracy works....... I don't like it any better than you, just playing devils advocate.

Dont want to waste time reading stuff which will never happen and will have to be re written :) Have to ration my mental energy ;)
Bose being serious as I do on rare occasions like to add a touch of humour into my posts.

The whole lot although eloquently written stinks of discrimination. How can you require pilots flying aircraft on another states licences and reg to comply with European regs.
If an American pilot flies in European airspace and is not required to comply then no matter how you wrap it up its discriminating against Eurpean pilots flying on the same FAA licences. Those EASA licences have no basis on an N reg aircraft.

Put it another way if an American pilot is legally qualified to fly and is FAA approved type rated on the said N reg aircraft and then legally flies into European airspace you are saying that purely on his race the European pilot has to hold licences which are irrelevant to the aircraft he is flying? That is back door discrimination with no basis to the aircraft or licences held. What will they do next require EASA approved type ratings EASA approved avionic fits etc the whole thing is ridiculous.

Wish we had some legal expert in this forum.


Pace

Pace, the relevance is not around the aircraft it is around a set of standards that the Europeans have decided that their citizens will meet when operating any aircraft. You live in Europe, you abide by their rules. You live in the US you abide by theirs. They have been clever enough to ensure that they don't penalise visitors to the great country of europe by honouring ICAO agreements but those agreements don't have to extend to it's residents.

Thats not discrimination it is politics. Stinks I know.

To be honest, as a someone who just seeks a JAR PPL/IR I'm not going to get too worked up about this. Spoke to GTS at Bournemouth recently about doing the ground school and they said that since I already hold an ICAO IR then I wouldn't even have to attend any of the consolidation days provided I completed the distance learning to the required standard, I could then just go and pass the exams at Gatwick without ever having sat in a classroom. I think I'll probably do the exams in two sessions and since we still have a bit of time before EASA FCL comes in there's no rush.

15hrs conversion is a bit of drag but in reality I could do that in a week or two sometime next summer when I have the time...not really a bit deal.

PS I'm sorry if anyone else is upset at me playing this down...;)

Hmm, I am still not convinced that the pilot is the operator. If he is not then I suspect if the operator is an off shore trust or an off shore company then the pilots will be free to continue as they always have.

FWIW I was chatting to a barrister mate of mine today who has a passing interest. I emailed him the relevant proposed regulations and he was of the same opinion.

It seems far more likely to me EASA are after owner operator pilots who are resident in the EU.

I do however think that pilots who own their aircraft via a trust, are UK resident and have not ensured they are operating in accordance with SOPs laid down by their trustees could be vunerable.

I am not a legal expert, but there is an extensive and legislatively supported tradition of discrimination based on residence and citizenship.

For example,

• people who are not citizen of the EU do not have an absolute right to live here as compared to European citizen who do.
• generally residents are taxed but visitors are not (I know this one is much more complicated)
• visitors to the EU are generally not allowed to get a job but citizens are allowed to work.
• Citizens go through the short queue at immigration and visitors go through the long one
• the duty free allowances are different for residents and visitors

The list goes on.

It is somewhat unusual for a democracy to treat its citizens and residents adversely to visitors, but this is Europe.


Fuji,

The question of who is or is not an operator and does the structure mean the pilot does or does not need an EASA licence could provide weeks of entertainment during a ramp check or an insurance renewal.

I can easily imagine the regulators noticing and providing detail extra regs, equally, it would be typical for them to totally blow it and open a gapping whole (as they so often do in tax and other matters).


Related to the general thread, does anyone know when the FCL.008 output surfaces from the EASA process?

Of course the pilot isn't by definition the operator -if, for example, the airplane is owned by a company who use it for corporate transport and the pilot is paid to fly it under the direction of the decision-makers in the company who determine where and when it should fly.

The operator is the person or entity having operational control - eg. where and when the aircraft flies.
The corporate aircraft and paid pilot is a perfect example where the owner is the operator and the pilot is not.

However, in any conventional private GA N-reg arrangement, where an individual is a US trust beneficiary for what is essentially his private airplane that he flies, he is the operator.

Exactly. THe ownership is not relevant, it is the residency of the operator is. The distinction is important because a US company (the operator) could hire a European pilot to fly their aircraft in Europe. No problem, since the Operator is not EU resident. Another example is a non-EU airline with crew resident in Europe. No problem.

I am sorry Fuji, this is just clutching at a rather delusional straw. The idea that if your Trust publishes some SOPs (does any Trust do this?) that somehow obviates you from being the Operator is silly.

But that is exactly my point. You suggest since the Trust lays down operating conditions, it (and not the private pilot who is the beneficiary and who uses the plane at his discretion for his purposes) is the operator. The trust is no more the operator by virtue of the fact it may lay down some operating conditions than the insurers, the CAA or the engine/airframe manufacturers are. The operator is the one who decides where and when it flies.

If that decision is made by someone in Delaware, what exactly is the point of having "overcome" the EASA regulations by losing the ability to fly your airplane where you want?

Of course the airline is the operator in your Easyjet example. The pilots fly to a schedule assigned to them by the operator (the airline). So fine, if you have someone in Delaware tell you where to fly your airplane, they indeed will be the operator. But what is the point of that? OTOH, if that were a paper exercise, masking that the European pilot was really the one deciding, then such a sham wouldn't stand up 5mins in court. You know and I know.

brgds
421C

421C - I think you have muddled up your quotes - not that it matters.

Fair enough, but I think for the time being we will have to disagree on this one. I have spent a lot of my professional time involved with trusts as have the legislators!

Distinguishing one trust from another (given both conduct themselves properly) because you dont like the way one trust is operating over another will find very little favour with the Courts, would be perverse and more importantly, it would be very difficult to draft legislation to have this effect.

There is a good analogy. A UK limited company may comprise effectively one person or a thousand. It would be a great idea to tax the individual the same as any other individual but the company with 20 shareholders differently. Good luck.

However, as interesting as the debate, the problem will be whether anyone wants to take a chance on their interpretation of the legisaltion as you say over the ramp checker's interpretation.

It doesnt matter to me as I have said but it will be interesting to see exactly what is intended.

421C - as ever your posts are very interesting and informative, dont misunderstand me, you could well be correct, I am playing devil's advocate.

Fuji

This is nothing to do with Trusts and trust law. It is nothing to do with tax law. The issue is not arcane. It is a simple question of who is the Operator of the aircraft (who is making the decisions about where and when it flies)?

The US entity doesn't have to be a Trust or a Company, it could be your Aunt Betty who lives in Tampa.

The point is if Aunt Betty (or the Trust) is the operator, then they tell you when to fly the plane and where. What is the point of that?

If you decide, you are the operator.

If you attempt to mask the latter with the former, any such sham, however elaborate, would be totally vulnerable. Why not just forge your EASA paperwork?

brgds
421C

I absolutely take this discussion in that spirit. If I am being emphatic, it's because I feely strongly that other readers shouldn't be deluded by this "potential loophole". I think it's a very dead end.

Bearing in mind that this proposal is driven wholly by politics of envy, I think that a lot of "target" operators (where the operator does genuinely decide where the plane flies next) will escape this proposal.

A lot of corporate jet operators will meet the non EU resident operator requirement.

These are the most emotionally targetted people. They have the biggest N-reg jets. And they will escape all this.

We have been around this block in 2005. Those operators who had fleets big enough to rotate them (through another country, or through a leasing company) so no single airframe spent > 90 days parked in the UK each year, would have escaped the reg, while the little N-reg people would have been caught up. This would have been completely hopeless in the politics of envy scenario where it is the big shiny stuff you want to target. (Plus you would have needed to keep a "parked hours" logbook, in addition to the usual "flying hours" logbook(s) :ugh: ).

And the permanent number of "genuine" non-EU visitors flying into the EU in N-reg planes will make detection very hard, because a lot of them will be speaking normal English, etc. There is no "proof of residence" piece of paper you can wave at the ramp inspector. That's not how aviation works.

Is "who decides where and when the aircraft flies" a significant defining feature of an operator? Sure, with an airline, the airline is the operator, it decides where and when the aircraft flies and the pilot flies the aircraft from A to B. Much the same with a corporate flight department. But with a flying school the operator is the flying school, not the instructor. But the flying school doesn't decide specifically where and when the instructor and pupil will be flying. Within broad guidelines that's left to the discretion of the instructor.

When I used to be in a group, I always considered the group the operator of the aircraft. In a similar manner to a flying school's booking procedure, the group decided who had the plane when and the specifics of the flight were left to the pilot. The operator didn't suddenly change each time the brakes came off. If there is anyone who could validly claim to have separate pilots and operator, it must be group-owners.

Having said that, this operator / pilot thing is a very weak loophole, if it exists at all. It seems a lot of effort just to avoid having to put in a little effort studying something which is mostly fun and interesting. It would take a brave person to risk using it rather than simply getting the proper paperwork.

Where does this "operator" thing come from? My understanding is the requirement fir the crews to have EASA licences, nothing to do with the operator?

It comes from Article 4 of the Basic Regulation. This defines the applicability of the EASA regulations, including FCL. They are applicable to an aircraft "registered in a third country and used .... by an operator established or residing in the Community".

The residency of the operator is the key point. If the Operator is outside the EU, then clearly there can not be a requirement for complying with EASA FCL (eg. a foreign airline or corporate jet flying into the EU), nor can they apply to a foreign operater even if the crew are EU residents (for example, a non-EU airline with crews based in the EU).

So, someone resident in the US can fly their N-reg airplane into Europe. They can even pay an EU resident with FAA certificates only to fly it. But if the operator is resident in the EU, the crew must have EASA FCL licenses. The debate is whether you could consider the US Trust to be the operator of an EU resident's aircraft. If so, the EU resident wouldn't need to comply with EASA FCL. My point is that in the conventional way EU private pilots fly their N-reg airplanes, they (not the Trust legal owner) are the Operator.

brgds
421C

That begs the question what sort of EASA Licence? I hold an FAA ATP and fly Citations on private jets. What is the minimum required to fly a citation? a basic PPL IR. The fact that I am being paid to fly an N reg is nothing to do with EASA. So at worst all i need to convert isnt my ATP to an ATP but for EASA purposes a PPL IR.

Payments or money earnt are on the FAA ATP.

The whole stupid and sad thing is that EASA are trying to add their own licences whatever they are supposed to be to a foreign reg aircraft and foreign licences that dont require EASA to be legal.

What is the point? There is no sensible point to this whole charade.

Frankly I would be happy to flout EASA and say take me to court with your rubbish so we can ridicule the complete NON SENSE.

You can paint or package this all you want but it is still DISCRIMINATION You almost sound as if you are mouthpiecing the glorification of EASA. Bose the whole thing is a nonsense and if you really believe in protecting pilots interests you wouldnt write stuff as above.

421C
I think it would be simple to legally make the operator whoever you want and based wherever you want.

Pace

So the Ramp Inspector asks to see your EASA licences. You say "no, I am not an EU resident, I don't need one". Fine, he asks you to sign a declaration to that effect. How much of a Sherlock Holmes will he have to be to question the veracity of someone with a European accent and passport in a light piston airplane claiming to be a non-EU operator or the pilot of a US corporate flight dept? He forwards this to the NAA enforcement team. There will be thousands of NAA officials in Euriope with less work to do after EASA take over, so you can be sure there will be scope for this sort of thing. They decide who they want to chase up. Aviation regs of this sort are trivially easy to enforce, because the administrative paper traill is so easy to follow up - it's not like a dispute over low flying or did you bust the minima. It's a matter of factual record.

...so what happens then when the letter reaches the sensible Trust administrators. You think they will conspire to establish false claims about residency or about who the operators is? No, so then you get the letter from the NAA legal team....

Sorry, I am not writing this because I enjoy it. I just don't think that anyone has anything to gain (except perhaps some false comfort) by deluding themselves that
- EASA's rules on FRA will get not get enacted
- and if even if they do, there will be a big loophole
- and even if there isn't, the regulations will be unenforceable

brgds
421C

Article 4.1(b) states that the Regulation applies to personnel involved in the operation of aircraft "registered in a third country, or registered in a Member State which has delegated their regulatory safety oversight to a third country, and used by a third-country operator into, within or out of the Community"
But, to add a MPA type rating to an EASA PPL, you will need to have passed the ATPL exams, so what's the advantage?

421C,

I am struggling a bit on this operator stuff. HMRC on the GAR specifically require details on the operator and not the pilot (so the club, school, owner, is listed).

The ANO has a large number of technical requirements on the operator that are unlikely to be met by the average group pilot.

If I let someone fly my airplane I wouldn't expect to give them access to my aircraft logs for example. I accept that for a single beneficial owner, they are the operator, owner and pilot. However, in groups just because someone is flying the plane doesn't appear to make them the operator.

It would be even less logical if a corporate entity with directors handling separate aspects would be deemed to have each director be personally an operator rather than the corporate entity as the operator.

For someone like Pace (I assume flying some company's N-reg jet) it must either truly be an American controlled company or owned by an entity which could easily establish it's operating essence as a non EU based US Person.

I have struggled to find a very firm definition of what constitutes an operator (other than in The absence of an entity that acts as the manage, it is the pilot)



----------
On your example, I don't think anyone has suggested saying one is not a EU resident/citizen. However, they are saying the operator is not located in the EU (the operator being the owner, policy setter, etc who has rented the aircraft to the pilot).

So what EASA are proposing is that you hold a type rating as well as licences that are not valid or legal or hold any relevance on the aircraft you will be flying?

NON SENSE Roll on the courts ;)

Pace

From Article 7.4 of the latest FCL Draft

I interpret this as meaning that whilst someone in Pace's position will need an EASA licence and IR, the Type Rating may be added purely on the basis of the 3rd country TR.

However, the Basic Regulation says you have to comply with all the EASA regs, it doesn't say you just have to get a PPL. If you want to get paid in an operation requiring compliance with EASA FCL, you will need an EASA CPL. In practice, this means the ATPL exams, since the sum of the CPL and IR exams is probably a bit more work.

brgds
421C

421C but this is my arguemnt! An EASA CPL is not recognised on an FAA aircraft which is under the jurisdiction of the FAA.
Money recieved is legally done so under the jurisdiction of the FAA.
Holding licences or ratings which are not legally valid which EASA ones would not be are a non sense
REQUIREMENTS which are made by EASA in a discriminatory way are flawed in two ways.
Firstly the licences hold no validity on the aircraft they are being used on and are not under the jurisdiction of EASA regarding that aircraft.
Secondly discriminating against one group of people against others is itself illegal.
The lawyers would have a field day

Pace

421C

I think you have convinced yourself what the word "operator" means. If it means "pilot" or "crew" (much as Bose suggests) why didnt the draughtsman use those words?

When you are ramp checked with your European passport and level 6 Cockney you simply point out you are not the operator - the operator is the owner, Jersey Turboprops, who, if you care to check the FAA register, you will also discover is the recorded owner. It is indeed quite possible that you as pilot might not have any financial interest in the aircraft what so ever - I know of a number of N reg groups that operate in exactly this way. You will also discover Jersey Turboprops is the insured party, that all the invoices for the aircraft, its maintenance, parking, landing fees, etc are made out to and paid by Jersey Turboprops. You will discover that in the event of a third party claim against the operator, the claim will be brought against the trust and it will be the trusts insurers who will settle the claim. I know of no owner that would place themselves in this situation unless they had operational control of the aircraft. The insurance company would not accept invoices for parking. A hire purchase company would not pay invoices for maintenance.

In the event the NAA brings a prosecution, the prosecution would have to be processed in Court against the pilot who would claim he was not the operator of the aircraft and would doubtless draw comparison with other aircraft operated by American companies in European airspace crewed by non EASA bearing pilots.

I would rather be acting for the pilot at the moment than the NAA. I think a Court would take a lot of convincing that our hapless pilot who rented the aircraft from a Jersey trust, who was not responsible for any of the costs associated with the aircraft and was required to comply with the trusts operating procedures was the owner and not a mere pilot.

For those reasons I dont believe the question is as simple as you make out. I would be asking the Court if the legislation was intended to refer to the pilot / crew / commander why those simple words were not used, and I would ask the Court to consider in the absence of a clear definition to whom the term operator would commonly refer.

I can think of one particular jet where the owner is a Swiss corporation. They purchased the aircraft, pay all the bills, contract the maintenance company etc. The aircraft is based in the UK. A company in the UK(unconnected with the Swiss corporation) solicits business and arranges charters. They tell the crew when and where to take the aircraft. So - who is the operator - the crew, the UK charter company or the Swiss corporation?

It is actually a very good point that the licenses EASA is apparently requiring would not be legal by State of Registry rules (e.g. FAA 61.3) to fly the same aircraft. So on what basis will EASA determine what EASA licenses are required?

It is a bit like proposing maintenance oversight. A Part M company, with no FAA approvals or FAA qualified individuals, has to legal way to generate a release to service (or actually perform any task whatsoever) on the airframe or maintenance documents relating to it. So what exactly will they be doing??? Apart from merely asking for a cheque. In this I am referring to the latest proposal for oversight of ME TPs and jets.

With ICAO, you can't have it both ways.

EASA is entitled to require EU citizens (not residents) to wear pink underpants in EU airspace, but they have not published such a clear proposal.

No, I wrote earier "of course the pilot isn't by definition the operator". It's just that in the case most of us on this private forum are concerned with, that of European private pilots operating FRA, the operator is often also the pilot. That's certainly the case with all the piston N-regs I know - the operator is an EU resident individual (or group of individuals).

First - the comparison with the US company. The US company is a bona fide business, which incidentally flies an aircraft for business transport. The aircraft costs are funded by the operating activities of the business. The crew are directed where and when to fly by the appropriate chain of management and decision-making.

Jersey Turboprops is what? A shell company which administers an airplane. Some EU residents fly that airplane. Who funds Jersey Turboprops? Oh, that same group of pilots. Now that's a bit different from the US corporate example you raised in court (I presume the US corporate pilots are paid to fly rather than the other way around). Who controls, as ulitmate beneficiary, Jersey Turboprops? Oh, the same group of EU pilots. Again, probably not a cast-iron analogy with the US corporate example. "So Mr Fuji", the court asks, "your client is amongst a group of individuals who are the legal beneficiary owners of the aircraft and the trust. They fund it. Jersey Turboprops has no evident purpose other than to act as an offshore shell for the administration of this aircraft on behalf of EU residents who are collectively its operators".....good luck in court.....

Easy. Whoever has the AOC. Your example isn't specific enough. The Operator could be the UK business wet leasing from the Swiss, or it could be the Swiss using the UK business as an agent. What does it matter? We are talking about Joe Pilot and his UK based N-reg Cirrus or whatever.

Interesting debate which, as is occassionally the case, I must stop participating in before my wife smashes my laptop over my head.

No-one will really know I guess until this is tested in case law. Good luck to anyone who thinks the "operator loophole" is a safe and robust construct.....