“No need to pay airway fees with an MTOW of 1999kg/4397Ibs (can be increased to 2310kg/5090Ibs).”
That is an STC which is a piece of paper reducing your MTOW. On German registration is is clearly visible who has got this STC as the callsign will change when going below 2000kg. Quite a lot of German Meridians have been downgraded. In real life there are no cases reported of anybody getting into trouble with this STC but in the end it is a matter of personal choice.
On a side note only the later Meridians have a MTOW of 2310kg. Earlier planes had less MTOW and as far as I know there is no way to retrofit the changes.
On a side note only the later Meridians have a MTOW of 2310kg. Earlier planes had less MTOW and as far as I know there is no way to retrofit the changes.
And the older Meridians are faster. The VGs knock some cruise speed off.
So is there any truth in the widespread rumour that EASA would not accept the 1999kg STC on the Meridian?
Or is it true today (under EASA) but wasn’t true at some time in the past, and the old papers got grandfathered when EASA took over?
A Meridian with full fuel is over 1999kg just sitting on the ground empty (see the thread I linked).
So is there any truth in the widespread rumour that EASA would not accept the 1999kg STC on the Meridian?
How so? There are many sub 2t Meridians and whether the STC could be obtained today is a bit of a moot point as it has already been obtained and is therefore valid and available.
I can imagine operating a sub 2t JetProp but not a Meridian… one would be overweight in almost all cases and I would not want to operate an aircraft where I have to fly with minimum fuel all the time.
Aeroplus, I believe Chad Menne at Malibu Aerospace holds that STC.
A Meridian with full fuel is over 1999kg just sitting on the ground empty
Yes, 2100kg.
@ Sebastian
But what we really need to worry about is the bad accident statistics of the PA46 we had lately. Many pilots spend much much money for a probably more reliable PT6 engine but in the end there seems to be no real safety advantage.
Did you hear of the " Thurman Munson Syndrome " – describing people whose wealth allow them to purchase equipment out of proportion to their skills ( formerly known as the Bonanza/Doctor Syndrome ) ? May be a reason for all those crashes …
Before people start jumping to conclusions, it’s worth stating that the PA46 fatal accident rate is in line with the GA fleet.
And JasonC, I stand by my stats, which come from the MMOPA convention you attended: surprising as it is, over the past decade, the rate of engine incidents in the piston PA46s has been no worse than the PT6-driven airframes.
Many pilots spend much much money for a probably more reliable PT6 engine but in the end there seems to be no real safety advantage.
That isn’t true Sebastian. It is a safer engine relatively speaking. But it doesn’t put a forcefield around the aircraft protecting pilots from themselves.
Probably buying a piston PA46, hiring a full time pro co pilot and paying for all his travel expenses would be cheaper than buying a PT6 plane and I guess the final safety record would be much better. Somehow we have to identify the real causes of those accidents and concentrate on pragmatic measures to counteract them.
Yes, flying two crew would be safer as there are very few engine-related accidents.
Did you hear of the " Thurman Munson Syndrome " – describing people whose wealth allow them to purchase equipment out of proportion to their skills ( formerly known as the Bonanza/Doctor Syndrome ) ? May be a reason for all those crashes …
It is interesting that when a cheaper plane crashes we don’t get comments about the owner not having enough money to maintain it or train properly. As a generality it would be equally silly. It is a fact that if an aircraft is more expensive, the owners typically have more money. In any group of pilots (wealthy, poor or in between), there are better and worse pilots.
And another fact, you know Munson was being trained by Flightsafety at the time of the crash and had an instructor with him?
And JasonC, I stand by my stats, which come from the MMOPA convention you attended: surprising as it is, over the past decade, the rate of engine incidents in the piston PA46s has been no worse than the PT6-driven airframes.
I wasn’t there. There have only been 8 accidents over that ten year period attributed to mechanical problems. Approx 13% of accidents.
