Jason wrote:
That just isn’t true as a legal statement. In practice perhaps.
……………..
I am very curious about any sentence that would in fact qualify as a legal statement in theory?
Everything and anything is negotiable and debatable in front of a judge. Thus only practice is important in the end. Everything else is legal theory and that won’t get you anywhere in front of a judge if either you or your opponent have a decent lawyer.
For things I can find in a legal document I don’t need an expensive lawyer, only for all the things you won’t find written explicitly in a document there is an opportunity for your lawfirm to earn their money.
That is at least my take on certain realities and these may vary strongly from country to country.
There might very well be a special situation as far as compulsary third party liability is concerned.
As to your own a/c – agreement between two parties. You signed for a certain set of conditions, you dont meet them, high risk of not insured. Legislation protects you if it is unexpected, a hidden or interpretable fact.
As an example where a condition is not met: try landing outside an agreed area and claim damage from an accident during landing (which would be covered in an all risk). You being outside the insured region is not causal, but sufficient ;-)
And yes insurances go after you to claim back amounts they have to pay under legislation to third parties wbere the coverage conditions were not met.
I did a take off test with my TB20 at MTOW and I had no issues at all. I’ve checked the latest W&B sheet that was made after the TKS system was installed, and despite it being in German, I could clearly see the new empty weight, which was listed at 901 kg.
I’ve weighted everything inside the plane, filled up the tanks and measured the deicing fluid to be exactly at 1400 kg with passengers. I’ve double checked the listed MTOW for the TB20 pre GT model, which was 1400 kg.
Took of a little slower, but other than that I had no issues with the aircraft’s attitude or behavior while climbing, turning or descending.
I’ve parked the TB, and just out of curiosity, I’ve started looking through the paper archive of the TB20, specifically looking for the TKS install schematics. Since already buried in a pile of papers, I’ve started looking to various limitations listed in the original paper version of the POH.
I never used the paper version of the POH before, which seemed on the verge of disintegration at every touch, I always liked the convenience of the pdf files, that are easily available on a tablet or smartphone. POH, checklists, service manuals, everything easily portable and with the added bonus of the search function.
And, to my horror, just at the top of the limitations chapter, there it was: MTOW: 1335 kg! So, after all the debates on this forum about the illegality and the bad airmanship of such a reckless action, I’ve just flown 65 kg over the MTOW??
I quickly looked at the pdf version of the POH, which clearly said 1400 kg. A quick search on the Socata owners site, the same 1400 kg listed as MTOW. I thought there must be something wrong with my POH and started searching online for ‘Socata MTOW 1335 kg’. After 20 minutes, just one listing of a Socata TB20 for sale, at a MTOW 1335 kg.
So I wasn’t alone. After a couple of hours of frantically going through thousands of posts on various websites, long story short, here’s what happened:
The very first TB20s made by Socata were certified for a MTOW of 1335 kg, and around 1985 they decided to upgrade it to 1400 kg. They simply changed the flaps actuators to a speedier model and changed the POH listing of subsequent models to 1400 kg. For the next decades all their TB20s were certified like this, and early models like mine were offered a ‘service kit 9118’ to bring them up to date. The owners only had to change the flaps motors and modify the MTOW inside the POH. This was simply forgotten in the mist of history and nobody really knows there are some ‘special’ TB20s around there anymore.
Since yesterday, I am trying to determine if my TB20 was fitted with these new actuators or not. The previous owner gave me about 50 kilos of paperwork, logbooks, invoices, service logs, but most of them are in German a d it’s very hard for me to understand.
I may have very well flown 65 kilos over the maximum allowed take off weight. Good thing nothing bad happened and didn’t have to explain this to the insurance company.
Bad thing Urs will probably read this and will just start with me being disqualified as a PIC. Most probably, our Socata historian @Peter can shed some light on this and hopefully take my side.
From my point of view, it was a honest mistake. At least I had the guts to tell the truth. Maybe someone will read this and double check his paper version of the POH. And maybe this will save him thousands. Or a life.
I could clearly see the new empty weight, which was listed at 901 kg.
Impressive to have an empty weight of 901kg after full TKS 
I guess it was empty of fluid, which would be an extra item on the w&b. I think the pre-GTs, especially the early ones, may be lighter. Does yours have a slaved compass system (KCS55 i.e. the KI525 HSI)?
I’ve just flown 65 kg over the MTOW??
I am not surprised nothing was noticed
I know little about the model history but would be amazed if the need for the different actuators was rooted in solid engineering calculations. It is such a tiny % change in the MTOW…
Thank you for a great post
If you scan the paperwork and need some help with german I’m sure the native german collective on euroga can help you out!
Impressive to have an empty weight of 901kg after full TKS
My 2000 G1 TB20 was 912 kg empty weight with factory TKS.
Beside a MTOW of 1335 kg, the first versions of the TB20 also had a maximum landing weight of 1335 kg. They were later upgraded with a beefier landing gear to be able to land with 1400 kg but that added some extra empty weight.
It looks like the first iterations of TB20 G1, given they were later upgraded to 1400 kg MTOW (modification no 50 – service kit 9118), have the most useful load, with the drawback of not being able to land with more than 1335 kg.
Strangely enough the people performing the modification 50 a long time ago can swear they also had to change the tail cone along with the flaps actuators, part of the 9118 service kit. The price of upgrade was about $3,000 at the time, but I cannot find any information about this now…
AlexTB20 wrote:
ad thing Urs will probably read this and will just start with me being disqualified as a PIC. Most probably, our Socata historian @Peter can shed some light on this and hopefully take my side.
LOL, not likely! That is a mistake which is very easily made with the usual shape the on board paper AFM’s are in. First time I looked inside mine was to find whether it had unusable fuel mentioned or not, as the normal POH does not. The AFM did not either…
One question which might make your task of determining the current MTOW easier:
Look again on the weighing sheet you used to determine your plane was 901 kgs empty. Somewhere on that sheet should also be the maximum take off weight. If your plane has been updated, then the organisation doing the weighing should have known about it and put the new MTOW in. Also, where does the load and balance sheet you use come from? If it s from the former owners and sais 1400 kg, then chances are good it is 1400. Otherwise:
AlexTB20 wrote:
The owners only had to change the flaps motors and modify the MTOW inside the POH. This was simply forgotten in the mist of history and nobody really knows there are some ‘special’ TB20s around there anymore.
buy a new flaps motor with the correct part number and change the POH :). That should be easy work. Better than if you have to buy new wings or somewhat…
but before you do have a close look: I would not be surprised if you already have a new one. Check the part number of the one in the service kit and the one you have. Troyes should be able to help you there or I presume you now have a maintenance organisation who should be savvy as well.
Apart: I looked through the old threads and saw that your difference training was done in 46 minutes by someone the old owners got you? That explains a lot and is not your fault. A serious difference training would usually include at least 4-6 hours and most definitly a theoretical part which would force you to look up the MTOW amongst other things.
Isn’t your plane a N-reg? Don’t all N-regs have to have English documents? I’d not expect the FAA to accept anything in German…
tmo wrote:
Isn’t your plane a N-reg? Don’t all N-regs have to have English documents? I’d not expect the FAA to accept anything in German…
Not in my experience, says he looking (figuratively) at a maintenance manual for a German manufactured FAA-certified aircraft and happy that I have a translator nearby. It is rather amusing to ask for a translation for some very long technical compound word… which the nearby translator has never before heard.
(That said, FAA policy does sometimes change over 50 years… but not often )
