N reg in Europe after April 2014

Nothing affects the aircraft. It is purely a licencing issue. N-reg can fly around Europe happily. Only issue is what licences must be held by pilots of aircraft based in the EU.

There are no proposals for long term parking limits on foreign reg planes (e.g. along the lines of what Denmark operates).

The current EASA proposal, which is now law and will come in April 2014, is that if the "operator" is EU based, the pilots needs EASA papers - in addition to the State of Registry papers.

The term "operator" is not defined, but it is reasonable to assume that in the case of the simple owner-pilot scenario, the operator is the owner-pilot. Also the other wording of the reg has not been defined or clarified. This has been the subject of much debate over the past few years but nobody is any the wiser. Every indication I see is that the national CAAs don't know what it means either.

Some notes here.

Assuming that the pilot has a stand alone FAA Licence and I/R together with a UK/EASA Licence and I/R and both current medicals is it possible that the N reg. aircraft will still be able to fly IFR and VFR in Europe?

Yes. That is what I did, adding a UK PPL/IR to my previous FAA CPL/IR, via the 15hr conversion route which is currently the only option. The proposed CBM IR (which IMHO will not arrive before April 2014, let alone be finishable before then) would offer a somewhat simplified route that eliminates the written exams.

There is some ambiguity regarding what exactly will be needed in terms of pilot papers if flying a plane which in FAA land does not need some Rating but in EASA land does e.g. a PA46, a TBM, or some others which are below 12500lb (5700kg) and don't need a TR under FAA. This is not my area but in one scenario a good route is to pass the FAA ATP written exam, doable at Farnborough. Some notes are here - look under Pilot Qualifications.

The regs say that the if the aircraft operator is established in a member state, the flight crew needs to have EASA licences in addition to the licences required by the state of registry.

As long as you are dual qualified, you are fine. VFR, IFR, the lot. Aircraft are only affected if they are "complex" (twin turboprop, jet, multi-pilot, or lots of seats); these need Part-M conforming maintenance.

The regulation helpfully defines that an operator is whoever operates the aircraft. Opinions vary widely who the operator is for privately operated aircraft. Some CAAs have gone on the record that this applies if the pilot is resident in the member state, which is wrong; but if you have day-to-day control of the aircraft it will be hard to argue that you are not the operator.

As long as you are dual qualified, you are fine. VFR, IFR, the lot. Aircraft are only affected if they are "complex" (twin turboprop, jet, multi-pilot, or lots of seats); these need Part-M conforming maintenance.

This is a curious one which I have not seen defined anywhere.

What about if the foreign reg plane has some mods, certified (as they normally would be) under the State of Registry rules. The Part M company has no authority ("competence" to use the politically correct term) to sign a release to service in such a case.

So this "Part M maintenance" is going to be a sham, where the owner just writes another cheque for some rubber stamp, on top of (presumably) paying out for some parts which have life limits under Part M.

The definition of "complex" is also carefully rigged (ME Turboprop) to benefit Socata and Pilatus over Beech

But aren't N registered aircraft owned by UK residents operated through a trust company, so isn't the trust the operator?

Generally speaking no. It is a complex issue but many trusts explicitly can't be operators.

But aren't N registered aircraft owned by UK residents operated through a trust company, so isn't the trust the operator?

It's a question many have asked.

One reasonable way to settle who the "operator" is is by asking who has control of where the plane flies.

In the case of the US trusts, the trustee does not have that control.

There are fairly obvious scenarios where e.g. a syndicate could set up a company in say the USA (non EU) which runs a booking website, and because that company can veto any particular flight, they would then be the operator.

A lot of good lawyers will be looking at this fairly soon

I don't think it will ever be enforced by the CAAs (due to the difficulty of proving who is the operator, except in the most obvious cases) but insurance could be the main issue. I know of one bizjet operator who has set up a suitable structure and got it approved by his insurer...

Trusts for N-reg aircraft have been created to get around one law only - the requirement for US ownership of N-reg aircraft.

You are still the beneficial owner, and for example for UK tax purposes that trust would be ignored unless very specific arrangements are made with regard to the set-up of the trust (i.e., the trustee has to have real discretion and authority over the asset). Not an issue since one rarely sells an aircraft at a profit...

Clever lawyers might be able to find other set-ups that can act as operator; these set-ups will probably have a more active involvement in the running (operation) of the aircraft; e.g. if they make sure it is insured and maintained and pay the Eurocontrol bills (if any) they might be the operator.

But I don't want to be anywhere near that aircraft when it gets tested in court the first time... there is no precedent since this this is the first time (to my knowledge) anything is attached to an operator in private ops, instead of the pilot.

I am always interested in these discussion as an N-reg owner, but am not over concerned as I have dual papers. However, it always concerns me that the term "operator" doesn't yet seem to be defined (though I wouldn't have a clue where to begin to look myself I don't think), when April 2014 isn't that far away now - especially if some are going to need to apply for EASA licenses and or ratings beforehand.