DA62: 1,999 KG vs 2,300 KG

SCUD wrote:

I´m a noob but i have never seen an airplane weight checked in the ramp or any where for that matter.

They don’t do a weight check. But they can ask for your flight preparation which must include some kind of mass and balance calculation.

what_next wrote:

They don’t do a weight check. But they can ask for your flight preparation which must include some kind of mass and balance calculation.

What he wrote We’re not talking about a couple kgs here.

nokicky wrote:

I think this is up to the buyer, the last row of seating is listed as an option whether you go 1.9 or 2.3.

Apparently not. I read it in several web pages… aopa and diamondaircrafts

I don´t know if today, 2017, they have already changed or modified their certification.

The fund manager case is very specific: the financial regulator in the U.K. requires someone to be “fit and proper” to do certain jobs. The CAA does not have such a requirement for pilots, and there aren’t many professions where this is applicable.

However if you’re a professional pilot and knowingly fly a plane overweight, I don’t see how you could pass the blame to your employer, you’re pilot in command.

He got prosecuted for this, and an employer is entitled to take action against an employee who gets a criminal conviction. The scope for this varies (if the action is not to result in an unfair dismissal action ) and being in a position of trust, representing a supposedly respectable company, can be bad enough to get fired. But the employer does in practice need to see a criminal conviction; acting on hearsay (or say an accident investigation report, which in the UK and I bet other places too is often watered down under protests from lawyers) is extremely dangerous.

It’s funny how he saved so much money – 42k It can be done if travelling between certain stations (unmanned etc) at certain times.

an employer is entitled to take action against an employee who gets a criminal conviction:

I think that the interesting point for us in that case is that the decision to fire or not the employee is not entirely with the employer. The FCA rules require that key employees and directors are fit and proper to perform their duties. I hope that the aforesaid director was prevented by the FCA to continue to manage other people’s money.

I would have thought that if you want a 3-4 seat Diamond twin under 2T you buy a DA42, and if you want a 6 seater you buy a DA62 and pay the charges…or is that too simplistic?

The argument for keeping the 2T relief on charges is pretty weak, in my view. It really would not stand review or scrutiny.

The common argument – that it would be more expensive to chase up the relatively few flights made by that class of aircraft – does not hold water…why not just say that every aircraft gets its first 20 sectors a year free, for example?

The safety argument – not wanting SEP owners to scud run to avoid charges – does not hold either, as there are more people to kill in an Aztec or Navajo than there are in a C182.

I would suggest that the least possible abuse of the system, fraud and general “rocking the boat” the better, because every abuse is another nail in the coffin.

Either fly a real sub 2T aircraft and suck up the limitations, or fly a capable twin and suck up the charges, but don’t try to cheat the rest of us by trying to get the best of both worlds. It’s fraud, and, like insurance fraud, the victims are your fellow aviators.

Timothy wrote:

Either fly a real sub 2T aircraft and suck up the limitations, or fly a capable twin and suck up the charges, but don’t try to cheat the rest of us

And what do you say about special lower prices of fuel and airport fees for AOC holders and CAT? Is this fair or it’s cheating the rest of us who fly privately and pay full price?

There are many, many inequalities and unfairnesses, and, as the owner of a big twin, I am at the receiving end of a disproportionate number of them of them. A lot of them are debatable.

However, I believe that we are talking about route charges at the moment.

You could try arguing to the EU that the system is unfair, but I think that the best result of that argument would be status quo. A much more likely result would be charges for all.