I fly the 2300kg flavour DA62. The 1999kg version is exactly the same, other than a bit of paper.
Much that it sticks in my throat, anyone who flies IFR should pay en-route charges, regardless of aircraft mass. There is no logic behind an arbitrary weight limit.
Peter wrote:
This is the main reason why 91UL has more or less died; the turbocharged engines can’t use it and never will be able to, and airports didn’t want to carry two fuels.
Then why is Hjelmco’s similar fuel 91/96UL sold at some 70-80 airports in Sweden…?
The so called 1999 kg STC’s are in principle a cheat too. And many of them fly to the full certified weight because it is safe to do so, if not legal. In many cases it reduces valid airplanes to 2 seaters which nobody will believe actually fly with their passenger cabin empty.
Then you have people who admit they fly VFR in IMC to avoid the charges.
In other words, the 2 ton limit drives people into illegality.
But as Timothy sais very correctly, tampering with this would simply remove the limit but not replace it with another one and that would mean the end of IFR for GA in Europe and a massive increase in VFR in IMC accidents before EASA would pull the plug on both.
If there has a criteria as to where people pay vs not then I wonder why it is a weight limit and not e.g. private vs commercial air transport. CAT can get the money back from the clients, as they do with airport charges e.t.c. and it would allow private GA to fly legal and without the load of additional tax. But rather the opposite might happen as it does with fuel tax.
The same btw goes for the slottery at certain airports. I wonder how many incidents and even accidents the desparate drive to catch a slot time has produced in the last few decades since this nonsense started. “We should really investigate this, but then we loose the slot and have to cancel the flight” anyone? At least one accident where this had a possible impact come to mind where a guy delivering passengers to ZRH crashed with an unairworthy airplane because he was in a hurry.
Arne wrote:
have never had to pay the charges in questions myself, but I will still do the thought experiment, with a few simplifications.
(…)
=> Charge = 57€=> fuel bill = 267€
Going through the same numbers for my plane, MTOW 1814kg, weight factor 0.19, would give an enroute charge of 51.13 EUR. Fuel bill for the same flight of 228nmi (homebase fuel price): 47.26 EUR
Adding enroute charges would significantly change my budget.
Always fly IFR if going any distance. Its easier, much easier, less stressful, much safer, higher and faster (if pressurised).
Used to pay the route charges when had a TBM 700. Yes it bothered me, not that it was a very significant cost compared with the true, full cost of the flight. Just the idea of yet another overblown European charge, on top of all the others.
I am convinced that there is no benefit to trying to change the reg, it will almost sweep up all IFR GA.
We all seem to be on much the same page.
But does anyone have a low-risk solution, or are we just going round in circles?
PPL/IR is a very effective lobbying organisation and this is slap bang in the middle of our remit, but we are sitting on our hands for all the reasons given above.
Anyone got a creative idea as to what we could/should lobby for?
Found on a hangar outside Pompeii
QUIETA NON MOVERE
Then why is Hjelmco’s similar fuel 91/96UL sold at some 70-80 airports in Sweden…?
Perhaps very few engines being used which can’t use it. IOW, a negligible size of the turbocharged community. Or, if 100LL is carried also, some sort of tax-subsidised scenario which makes it economic.
Also 91UL is not 96UL; AFAIK most of the 100LL-only turbo engines can actually use 96UL (even if not certified for it) so there may be an element of that.
Anyone got a creative idea as to what we could/should lobby for?
IMHO the best option is to do nothing in this case, and be happy that most of the IFR community is SEP 
If you lost their support, you would have to start recruiting from the NPPL (with self medical declaration) and ultralight communities 
The IMC Rating debacle from a decade ago is still reverberating…
Timothy wrote:
Anyone got a creative idea as to what we could/should lobby for?
How about commercial vs non commercial.
Looking at the way EASA paved some significant leeway for non commercial ops with part NCO.
Non commercial traffic CAT A and B is exempt from Eurocontrol charges. An alternative would be to limit the number of seats to <10.
This would include most GA airplanes which are usually run on tight budgets but at the same time prevent larger aircraft going the “private” route.
lionel wrote:
Adding enroute charges would significantly change my budget.Yeah I realized I had read Peter’s post #9 backwards, more in the context of the accident in the background. I don’t disagree with your statement.
Timothy wrote:
Anyone got a creative idea as to what we could/should lobby for?My angle of attack would be the weight factor. Even if the square root in the formula reduces the cost at lower weights, it does not drop off fast enough near the very lower end: per available seat a PA28 is 5-6x more expensive that a 747. I don’t think I would cost 5x more to the system, and I have much lower opportunity to pass on this cost.
Mooney_Driver wrote:
non commercial ops with part NCO.While that would be an easy one, I’d be worried of illegal NCO ops, but I don’t know how the enforcement looks like.
Non commercial traffic CAT A and B is exempt from Eurocontrol charges.
