AFAIK the word Operator has not been defined by EASA so the interpretation would be iaw national case law, or newly created precedent.
However national Caas don’t like to go to court in case they lose. They really don’t want to create precedents.
So it really leaves the insurance scenario. Whatever you do, make a full disclosure.
Peter wrote:
AFAIK the word Operator has not been defined by EASA
A definition has been cited above ( #13) but is vague enough to be implied in a variety of ways.
Nothing that I’ve read so far would keep my from registering a plane in Belgium, flying it on a Belgian/EASA pilot’s license, but have the flights operated by a company from, let us say, Azerbaidjan. Or Malta, or wherever.
Exactly.
There are many definitions in use eg taxation.
I still think it is pretty far fetched to think that a PPL holder will manage to justify that he acts as PIC on a flight for an operator who is not himself. I do not believe that argument will fly for two seconds.
You might be right, Aviathor, I am not claiming any expertise. If there is a strong link between the aircraft owner and the pilot (hint!), your position becomes even stronger. Still I think a lot depends on precedents, i.e. earlier jurisprudence, and there is notoriously little of that.
Come to think of that, your wording may not perfectly reflect your thinking: any PPL’er renting from her/his club is not the operator, or so I understand: the club member is the PIC, but the club is the operator.
EASA could have avoided all this uncertainty if they had simply put “pilot in command” instead of “operator”.
You got me there, Jan 
. But sometimes, when you interpret legislation, you need to understand the spirit of the law. And sadly, the spirit of the law is to force pilots that reside in the EU to get EASA papers. A clear indication of that is that the entry into force of these parts of the basic regulation has been postponed time and over pending the advent of the BASA which provides a simplified means of obtaining EASA papers based on FAA license/ratings.
alioth wrote:
EASA could have avoided all this uncertainty if they had simply put “pilot in command” instead of “operator”.
But then they would also have prevented EU-resident commercial pilots to fly for third-country operators in/out of the community…
Another argument is that the term “Operator” refers to AOC holders, i.e. Commercial operations….meaning it arguably does not apply to private operations (small “o”)….
I repeat ‘Operator’ definition is below,
Definitions
For the purposes of this Regulation:
(h) ‘operator’ shall mean any legal or natural person, or company operating or proposing to operate one or more aircraft;
There will be no court cases if your Operator is based outside of Europe, it is perfectly legal to do so. You would have to drag the likes of the FedEx based EU pilots through court otherwise. Precedent and right to work already has been set for many years, so fill your boots trying to prove otherwise.
