Menu Sign In Contact FAQ
Banner
Welcome to our forums

DA62: 1,999 KG vs 2,300 KG

The DA62 comes in two ‘versions’, 1,999kg and 2,300 kg MTW. (Both aircrafts are physically identical, only the paper work is different).

That’s a big difference in useful load, and a big difference in on-route fees. Clearly there are many people flying aircraft with 1,999 kg STCs (Seneca, etc.) that are loading them closer to their original MTW, from what I’ve read it seems this is a grey area. It’s obviously not dangerous, so what are the concerns for a private pilot here? Is insurance an issue? Ramp checks?

EGTR

I am sure the insurance would use the overweight card to avoid making a payment. And strictly speaking, they would be right.

I would not be surprised if the aircraft types which are known to have a 1999 kg limit for avoiding route charges would be under special scrutiny for weight during ramp checks.

LFPT, LFPN

nokicky wrote:

Is insurance an issue? Ramp checks?

Both. If your plane has a 1999kg STC that is what your MTOW is regardless of what the airplane can do. Otherwise you take your higher structural MTOW and pay up. Not much in between.

Clearly, from a safety point of view you will not violate anything if you fly at full structural weight rather than “political” weight to save money, but in effect it is fraud to accept a restriction foregoing ATC charges which you then ignore.

I’ve seen accident reports where people have done this. Usually it would be mentioned that the paper-MTOW has been exceeded but the structural one was not. However, the result of a report like that would definitly be that the Insurance will open a bottle and hand the cost to you as well as that the CAA might think of fining you or worse. In which case, the fact that the TSB did not really think it had to do with the accident will be a minor blessing if any.

LSZH(work) LSZF (GA base), Switzerland

Might be far fetched, but you could also lose your job if you do that to “cheat” on route charges, just like the fund manager who was cheating on train tickets:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-30475232

Noe wrote:

Might be far fetched, but you could also lose your job if you do that to “cheat” on route charges, …

I can’t imagine that. When I fly such an aeroplane for work it was my employer who decided to put it on the register as “below 1999kg MTOW”, most probably because he wants to save airway fees. So how could he possibly make me lose my job as pilot about that issue? Some time ago I regularly flew a Seneca V that was registered like that. With two people on board (in this hypothetical case the pilot and the employer) one would have had to put less than 100 litres of fuel in the tanks which would have gotten you nowhere… Full tanks actually left 45kg for a tiny little midget pilot. After some time i refused to fly that plane because of unclear insurance issues and the realistic chance to get in trouble on a ramp check. I repeat myself once again: People who can afford to spend a million on such a plane should also be able to pay for their airway charges. I really don’t see why I as a taxpayer who can not afford such a plane should pay for ATC services instead.

EDDS - Stuttgart

what_next wrote:

So how could he possibly make me lose my job as pilot about that issue?

This case wasn’t in the course of employment.
This was about a fund manager that deliberate and repeateadly cheated on train tickets (personal expenses) for his personal gain. It hadn’t been requested by the employer.
I don’t actually see that it would be THAT different if he cheated on route charges.

Noe wrote:

I don’t actually see that it would be THAT different if he cheated on route charges.

Could be of course. But this is a very special case of someone who is entrusted mountains of other people’s money, so his own reputation with respect to finances must be beyond any doubt. The question is, whether or not any ATC authority (not only Eurocontrol has airway charges, but many others as well!) has ever sued a pilot of an overweight below-1999kg-aircraft for fraud. And if they succeeded. Otherwise there would be no case for making someone lose his job.

EDDS - Stuttgart

It is a remote case. But the interesting part (I forgot to mention earlier) is that the regulator issue a life ban on the industry.
If you were to be prosecuted (and I think that’s the remote case), then it’s possible that they would google you and inform whatever regulator were they found you of cheating.
Your employer might even want to keep you but you wouldn’t be able to do the same function.

It’s funny… normally I am the one arguing that your insurance is invalid if you do such and such, but I have never heard (which doesn’t mean it has not happened; most people don’t advertise their disasters no matter how many would learn from them) of an insurer not paying out (in GA) because the flight was over MTOW.

I think a big reason is some combination of

  • if the wreckage is burnt out, you can’t weigh the bodies usefully, and for most people there won’t be good evidence of their weight
  • many people lie about their weight so the pilot may be genuinely unaware (not sure if that helps with insurance though!)
  • if there was a successful-ish landing, and no flight plan, passengers may not get declared on the claim
Administrator
Shoreham EGKA, United Kingdom

Ramp checks? Highly improbable… I´m a noob but i have never seen an airplane weight checked in the ramp or any where for that matter. I have not heard that from anybody either.
Insurance? I really don´t know. But… is it posible to insure the aircraft as 2.300Kg, when posesing the 1.999 STC?

Anyhow, apparently the 1.999Kg version is a 5 seater, and the 2.300Kg version a 7 seater. IMO this is another limitation for the da-62, because some people may be OK with going over the 1.999Kg limit, but nobody is going to fly with, let say, 6 souls onboard in a certified 5 seater.

34 Posts
Sign in to add your message

Back to Top