A while ago I read somewhere (Flyer forum?) that EASA are changing the rules and that the MTOW is the one that the aircraft manufacturer entered into the POH and that any STC reducing it will not be recognised.
Ben wrote:
A while ago I read somewhere (Flyer forum?) that EASA are changing the rules and that the MTOW
What does EASA have to do with route charges?
Presumably Ben meant Eurocontrol, who collect the route charges on behalf of countries who use Eurocontrol to collect route charges (which include e.g. Egypt too).
changing the rules and that the MTOW is the one that the aircraft manufacturer entered into the POH and that any STC reducing it will not be recognised.
Firstly, I have never heard of this rumour.
Secondly, if you get the 1999kg STC, the MTOW in your POH will be 1999kg. I can’t see the legal basis for prohibiting the use of an ICAO compliant STC.
AnthonyQ wrote:
If you have an STC with the reduced MTOW then surely that is “the highest MTOW the state of registration allows” for that particular aircraft….so what’s the concern?
I interpreted it as implying that multiple aircraft were considered (e.g. all of the same type or something like that). The highest authorized weight of multiple certified MTOW just didn’t sound to me like they could possibly be talking about a single aircraft. It would imply that a single aircraft can be certified for multiple MTOW and also authorized for multiple weights. Why do they mix it together if they’re interested in the highest authorized? Does that mean that you can have authorization for multiple weights with a single certified MTOW but something other than the highest authorized weight is used? And for what reason would an operator have authorization for multiple weights? In my simplistic world an aircraft has a MTOW and that’s that (well, actually, at least some aerobatic aircraft don’t). So this confused me.
The interpretation was also supported by my feeling that they might want to eliminate this practice since some people then fly overweight not respecting the MTOW reduction.
Hello Michael
could u pls help me with paper work to reduce the MTOW from 4700 lbs to 4400 Lbs for P337 ;H model i have bought,
its N. reg
Regards
Dennis
0048 500 387 900
[email protected]
Eurocontrol charges – will be based on actual distance flown
For those of us that are subject to Eurocontrol charges the charging system is being modified as from 1st January 2020. The charges that are applied will now be based on the actual route flown as recorded by the Network Manager not the route filed which is the current system.
So if ATC change your route and make it longer you get charged more and are inconvenienced! We will need to ask for more shortcuts.
Winner of the „how to make it as complicated as possible“ contest? Why not simply charge flat rates on great circle distance (and a base fee for local ops)?
JohnR wrote:
For those of us that are subject to Eurocontrol charges the charging system is being modified as from 1st January 2020. The charges that are applied will now be based on the actual route flown as recorded by the Network Manager not the route filed which is the current system.So if ATC change your route and make it longer you get charged more and are inconvenienced! We will need to ask for more shortcuts.
However, given it is almost always shorter ie a stupidly long route to get through the computer and then a shortcut this is probably a saving for owners.
Yes agreed. It will make no difference now to try and manipulate a short route in RR to file with a low overhead if you aren’t going to fly it anyway unless you can persuade the controller to let you fly it. I did have a flight earlier this year though from EGBW to EDLN which was virtually a straight line when planned at F090 with a very low overhead. But on transfer to Amsterdam from London Control got a much longer routing north of Amsterdam which had no relation to my flight plan and required a climb to F130. Fortunately (depends how you view it!)I managed to get a short cut back to my original plan due fuel icing problems at that level! I don’t think the controller really believed that I had a problem but the Aztec does suffer from this in one tank when the OAT drops below about -20C unless I have added IPA which since I didn’t expect to be at that level I hadn’t in this case.
Snoopy wrote:
Why not simply charge flat rates on great circle distance (and a base fee for local ops)?
My guess is: for the repartition of the fees between the FIRs/countries overflown. IIRC, the current system charges based on the great circle distance between the entry point and the exit point of each FIR in the filed route, independently of the routing within the FIR. Which also means that if you had a route from UK through France to Germany, but get a reroute/shortcut across Belgium, Belgium didn’t get any fee.
I’m not sure if the new system is “actual route flown down the nmi” or if it is “GC distance between entry and exit point of FIRs actually flown into”?
