@Shorrick..
Under FAA the operator is not persé a company. It is he/it who (decides) to make the aircraft fly.
This can be a pilot/renter, a pilot/owner or a company or organisation… in the last case the pilot (if paid .. cpl/atp required) is not the operator. In the first cases he is.
There is a fairly well agreed point of view that the “operator” is whoever decides where the aircraft is (or – crucially – is not, i.e. a power of veto even if rarely or never actually used) going to fly.
That leads to two conclusions:
The first one won’t be resolved (beyond the FUD effect, which EASA is probably happy with) without some test cases which may (or may not) determine whether “residence” is tax residence (which itself is a hugely complex area, creating employment for large numbers of highly paid lawyers and accountants, especially in the foreign domicile sphere) or some other measure. In the distant past, in the UK, one could establish a foreign residence partly by purchasing a grave (cemetery) plot for yourself in the chosen foreign land 
In practice I reckon if you pull out a non-EU passport when having a ramp check at some EU airport, there is very little the policeman will be able to argue about. Or, given there is no requirement for the operator to be a pilot, if you have a wife with a Russian passport (rather trendy these days, I am told) it is going to be jolly obvious who is in charge That is the biggest bit I don’t get about this EASA measure. What were they thinking? Is anybody going to create a suitably briefed airport police force? In the UK, and probably everywhere, the police (who like most “enforcement” or military professions recruit from a rather narrow character profile) only just manage to know the law on the maximum allowed rear overhang of a windsurf mast on a roof rack (3 feet I think) and even for that he needs to call the station for opinions. The cynical conclusion is that their intention was pure-FUD.
The second one leads to pretty obvious solutions where you have say a syndicate, in which the plane is clearly not available to any given pilot, just like that. That is simple reality. So you need an operating company (non EU obviously) with a booking website. For added robustness, the company also manages the maintenance etc. and thus gains an additional veto over flights (no flying when in maintenance). Setting that up is really easy.
The bottom line will be whether your insurer is happy with it. I have had some private feedback that insurers are indeed happy with various schemes.
Non EU and non-EASA operating company. Otherwise Switzerland would be heaven.
Why non-EASA? It only is related to an operator based in the Community meaning EU no?
Apparently the Swiss CAA is hell-bent on translating EU 245/2014 into Swiss legislation as well. So the pilot flying for that operator would likely then be required to have a Swiss (i.e. EASA) license. Otherwise as i said I think it’d be a great loophole.
We had a referendum on minarets, but lamentably not enough pilots to launch a referendum against this…
I think if you are going to construct some non EU based operator structure, it doesn’t matter where it is physically located provided that (IMHO, IANAL) it has the power to control where the aircraft goes or doesn’t go on a given day. It could be in the USA, the Channel Islands, etc.
If the UK left the EU, there would definitely be no need for me to keep my EASA IR running.
I suspect if the UK left the EU we’d end up with the worst of both worlds with all the bad EASA regulation being kept and at the same time losing the benefits of freedom of trade/freedom of movement within the EU.
This debate could go on for ever 
and really belongs into one of the other threads on this topic, but prob99 the UK would do a free trade deal like Switzerland and Norway (my biggest customers in Europe). The bottom line is that if we send something to the EU, we just stick on an address label, and to non-EU we need
No big deal and any company with more than 1 employee is likely exporting to the USA etc anyway (3 invoices in a pouch, etc) so the process is in place already.
The biggest markets in the EU (Germany and France) are utterly impenetrable for a small company unless one has a very good local agent, who will skim at least 25% off your selling price, which is a huge cost. International trade is done with much smaller margins than domestic trade, as a result.
So personally, as a “manufacturing businessman”, I would not lose any sleep over this going one way or the other. Big business will always want the EU and the Euro but big business will lease out its mother to a brothel to make an extra 1 Euro
@achimha:
Hello.
The swiss and french law have the same principes.
We are lawyers and were aware of that.
That’s why the created companies will really act as operators, preparing the flights (NOTAM, MET reports, PPR/slots) and effectively paying all the expenses (landing/parking taxes, handling, fuel, etc.). The foreign operator wil even manage the aircraft’s maintenance.
Under those conditions, it has been officially validated, by lawyers, specialists and national authorities, that these companies will be considered as valid operators.
It has also been validated that since the are based in Morocco (out-EASA), the EU law will not be applicable.
As Peter said, the definition of “operator” is… not defined. We set out on our website this legal question, and our – very carfully thought – answer.
By the way, don’t forget that the creation of US Trust was precisely invented in order to bypass the US rules prohibiting a foreigner to be owner of an US aircraft… There have been some noise in the beginning, but it finally became an usual situation.
Kind regards.
Greg
Greg, that makes sense. Can you elaborate on why Morocco? It’s not known as a safe haven for foreign valuable assets… It’s not known for its efficient administration or legal system either.
For private pilots, I think it will be reasonably easy to convert FAA licenses to EASA licenses and maintain both. This will be less hassle and less expensive than becoming a Moroccan operator. For CPL/ATPL the situation is probably very different. Maybe another case exists for pilots that meet FAA medical requirements but not EASA although that is surely a small group.
