DA42 TwinStar crashes at Lands End, (Merged) [Archive]

Pace

20th Jan 2009, 22:31

Pace - what is it about "troubled diesel engines" I have a pair of Thielert engines and they have performed flawlessly for 626 hours.

There have been many problems with the engine and bankruptcy by the engine company. see below

A small flying school at Rochester Airport is suing a giant Austrian aircraft manufacturer for around £100,000 over the ineffectiveness of two aircraft.
This David versus Goliath case could take between three and five years before Millen Aviation Services know whether its action against Diamond Aircraft Industries has been successful.
Meanwhile, Millen Aviation Services’ boss, Mike Millen, says he is lumbered with two DA40, four-seater diesel turbo aircraft which are "unfit for purpose".
"We also operate several non-Diamond aircraft," he said.
The aircraft, each costing £185,000 new, were leased by Millen Aviation Services in June and August 2004, since when they have been available for just 76% of the time, costing the Millen family nearly £100,000 in lost revenue due to unplanned downtime. The operational availability for commercial aircraft is expected at 97% plus and Airbus guarantee an operational availability of 99% for the first two years on their A380.
Mike Millen and his son, Russell, have had little success in getting satisfaction from Diamond in Austria and through its subsidiary in Nottinghamshire.
"Initially they said we may have teething troubles, but, we still get many of the same problems after three and a half years. The problems have never stopped and the unreliability of these two aircraft is having a serious effect on our business," said Mike.
The volume and variety of occurrences have been extremely considerable
They include, but are not limited to: Engine sensor failures, nose leg fractures, Engine Management System (ECU) failures and seven engines in total by the time that both aircraft had reached 1000 hours.
"The engines are actually warranted for 2,400 hours so they are not proving to be anywhere close to as reliable as we were led to believe before we leased them," said Mike.
Representing the Millens is lawyer, David Brown, a partner at Gullands solicitors in Maidstone, who said: "We have instructed lawyers in Austria to act for us in the Austrian courts, and this process could take between three and five years.
"The case has now been lodged at the Austrian court. On 15th January 2008 the lawyers acting for the manufacturer filed an answer to the Millens’ action, which contained a general denial to each claim. The first step in the legal procedure will deal with evidence and then liability."
The two aircraft, subject of the action, are used for hiring and for flying lessons.
"We maintain that there was insufficient research, development and testing of the aircraft and their Thielert Diesel 1.7 engines before they went into production. Their current unreliability makes them unfit for purpose.
"Our claim is for the lost income due to excessive downtime, and for the lease to be terminated without financial penalties, which we would have to pay if we just handed the aircraft back to the leasing company. We had, prior to this action, asked for them to be replaced with new aircraft but this was not accepted.
"Diamond is a big corporation and we feel we are being bullied. We look forward to our day in court, because after all this time, the amount of evidence is overwhelming. The information collected includes maintenance records, for our aircraft, produced by Diamond UK and statements from other Diamond aircraft operators, both of which identify a number of the issues concerned. We are hoping they will see sense before that and settle our claim," said Mike.

Pace

20th Jan 2009, 22:55

Three yellows

From Diamonds web site explaining the new replacement engine.

Diamond Aircraft (http://www.diamondaircraft.com/news/news-article.php?id=1)

matt_hooks

20th Jan 2009, 23:34

Ok, throwing some ideas out here. And this is from memory so I could be wrong. Is that airfield not a grass strip? And if so, then would I be correct in saying that the DA42 isn't cleared for grass strips?

I'm afraid it does look rather like some kind of miscalculation on the part of the pilot, whether it was a perf calculation, or whether he reacted incorrectly to an emergency is a moot point, but the fact is the 42 shouldn't be going off the end of the runway!

Pace

20th Jan 2009, 23:54

“It was taxiing down the runway and the engine wasn’t sounding right. The next thing I know there’s a big cloud of dust or water come out of it and spray into the air and the plane just flipped completely over and went totally out of sight.

Witness reports are vague. The big cloud of dust or water could indicate either smoke from an engine or the small tyres running into waterlogged ground.

Both would have the same effect of veering the aircraft and stopping it accelerating.

I have only ever flown a DA42 once and did not like its ground handling

Pace

Pilot DAR

21st Jan 2009, 00:55

Is that airfield not a grass strip? And if so, then would I be correct in saying that the DA42 isn't cleared for grass strips?

Question?

If the aircraft "is not cleared" for grass strips, is that the absence of an approval, or a prohibition? Please don't take my question as patronizing, I'm honestly curious about the difference if any in interpretation between operations which are either "not approved" or for which no statement whatever is made, as compared to operations which are specifically prohibited.

In our (well North American anyway) society, you can do whatever you want, unless that act is prohibited by law. If the law does not say you must not, you may. Is flying any different?

I see prohibitions in the DA42 flight manual, but runway surface is not among them. I see a reference to takeoff performance for hard surfaces, but is is silent on other surfaces. By comparison, Cessna does provide a statement about takeoff performace on grass.

Pilot DAR

Stretchwell

21st Jan 2009, 05:55

Apologies for having posted the original thread in Rumours....

I'm not a regular on this forum but thought the accident would be of interest.

Doh!

Lurking123

21st Jan 2009, 06:08

Some facts:

A DA42 can use grass.

The amount of yaw after one engine out is massive on those Ducks.

Rubbish. No more than many twins and a lot less than some. Regardless, less than 150lbs of foot pressure required.

A DA42 can be operated like a Perf A aircraft. In other words, as someone else has said, it shouldn't be seen off the end of a runway.

Three Yellows

21st Jan 2009, 06:18

Pace

21st Jan 2009, 07:39

PACE (who has only ever flown the DA42 once - and other armchair experts)
Comments posted on this thread just show how full of **** most (not all) posters on here are. PACE by your own admission you have only flown the DA42 but you don't like the ground handling - there is nothing wrong with it, maybe you just couldn't cope after your C150 or whatever it is you fly on flight sim.

Three Yellows

Do you have to be so defensive? Just for your information I have an ATP over 2500 hrs in most light twins and am type rated and fly corporate business jets as a Captain as well as flying around the world with ferry work.
That out of the way NO I did not like the feel of the aircraft on the ground just an impression I had on the one flight so am quite happy to bow to those who fly them on a regular basis.

The engine has been unreliable in that aircraft that is documented. The engine manufacturer went bust and Diamond are replacing the unit on new aircraft with a 170 hp unit instead of the 135 hp units.

Hopefully this will give the aircraft the reliability and the performance which Diamond originally claimed and which was miles off.

I do not know where that leaves owners with existing twin Stars?

But before you make purile comments check who you are talking to and dont be so defensive as I am sure you are very lucky to own a reliable unit. I hope that continues as I dont know where you will get the support from if it doesnt.

Pace

tingtang

21st Jan 2009, 08:47

The a/c is G-SUEA, a privately owned DA42. I've flown it a couple of times and it is a very well maintained and relatively new a/c.

It has the new 2l engines and is regularly operated on grass although if you do the performance it does need atleast 1000m of runway if the grass is wet and Lands End is no where near that long... We'll have to wait for the AAIB report.

Fuji Abound

21st Jan 2009, 09:28

FWIW with a quite a few hours in the 42:

1. Ground handling is fine, in fact I would go as far as to say really rather pleasant with no surprises at all. I judge ground handling on the basis that if I can get in the aircraft and handle it first time out it cant be too bad - and that was true of the 42,

2. One look at the tyres will tell you they are relatively small and operate at high pressure, clearly not the best design for wet grass. The aircraft is fine on grass, but I would want to be very cautious if it were wet or rutted or the strip was short.

3. The engine issues are well rehearsed.

4. On the bright side whatever the circumstances the pilot probably did well to realise this was either not a problem to take into the air or that in any event he wasnt going to get into the air so was better off stopping in a errrm "controlled" fashion.

your C150 or whatever it is you fly on flight sim.

Pace, are you a flight sim man? :)

matt_hooks

21st Jan 2009, 11:10

OK, I stand corrected. That may well be a "company" decision as to whether the aircraft can be operated on grass that I have confused with a manufacturer condition.

If the perf figures say that, on wet grass, 1000 metres are required, then there is no way a takeoff should have been attempted. The longest strip at Lands End is somewhat less than 800 metres.

http://www.islesofscilly-travel.co.uk/leq/leq_airfield.pdf

vanHorck

21st Jan 2009, 12:05

Although the outcome thankfully was that al 3 survived, spare a thought for the daddy at the controls. Although grateful it must be horrible to have to put your kids through it.

My ex wife never "allowed" me to take my young kids in my own airplane, and although I always felt it was my decision when they were under my control, to date my children have not flown with me, simply because I still want to get better until I do take them.

I ll start another thread on this issue so as not to soil this one.

moggiee

21st Jan 2009, 13:13

In our (well North American anyway) society, you can do whatever you want, unless that act is prohibited by law. If the law does not say you must not, you may. Is flying any different?

I see prohibitions in the DA42 flight manual, but runway surface is not among them. I see a reference to takeoff performance for hard surfaces, but is is silent on other surfaces. By comparison, Cessna does provide a statement about takeoff performace on grass.

Pilot DAR
There is a difference between something that is legal and something that is smart.

Drinking 5 bottles of whisky in one night is legal (if you could stay conscious long enough) - but is it a smart thing to do?

Flap40

21st Jan 2009, 14:07

If you compare that video the opening shots show some apapi units. The airfield plan only shows apapi units on 34. It also shows us that there is only one windsock. Putting these together puts the wreckage in the field just to the south of the windsock.

It would need to be a very strange over-run to end up where it did.

matt_hooks

21st Jan 2009, 17:21

Latest info is that the aircraft initially attempted to take off but aborted and over ran, needing to be towed out of the mud. The pictures are the result of a second attempt at taking off.

The reason for the aborted t/o is not known as yet.

I hate to jump on pilots in cases such as this, but this one really does sound like a serious error of judgement. I hope I'm wrong, but a lot of local knowledge is pointing that way.

Nashers

22nd Jan 2009, 06:40

the aircraft does look like G-SUEA. if it is, it is the one that is owned privately and has quite a few people rent it direct through the owner. stapleford do use the aircraft to teach but very unlikely to take it all the way there.

pitty as it was a nice aircraft to fly. good to hear from the reports that the pilots and pax walked away.

Lurking123

22nd Jan 2009, 06:44

I would be a little careful with the 1000m figure. I think that is worst case (MTOM etc).

PilotDAR, I suggest you look a little more closely at the AFM

CAUTION

The figures in the following NOTE are typical values. On wet ground or wet soft grass covered runways the take-off roll may become significantly longer than stated below. In any case the pilot must allow for the condition of the runway to ensure a safe take-off.

NOTE

For take-off from dry, short-cut grass covered runways, the following corrections must be taken into account, compared to paved runways (typical values, see CAUTION above):
- grass up to 5 cm (2 in) long: 10 % increase in take-off roll.
- grass 5 to 10 cm (2 to 4 in) long: 15 % increase in take off roll.
- grass longer than 10 cm (4 in): at least 25 % increase in take-off roll.
- on grass longer than 25 cm (10 in), a take-off should not be attempted.

NOTE

For wet grass, an additional 10 % increase in take-off roll must be expected.

NOTE

An uphill slope of 2 % (2 m per 100 m or 2 ft per 100 ft) results in an increase in the take-off distance of approximately 10 %. The effect on the take-off roll can be greater.

Superpilot

22nd Jan 2009, 07:54

Agreed, the pilot would've needed about 600m for a safe takeoff in those conditions but that's assuming use of full length and correctly applied takeoff power.

S-Works

22nd Jan 2009, 08:03

It would be pretty easy not to do the performance calculations and to get half along the runway and not accelerating very well and assume they were not going to make it and retard the power. You then find your self doing 50kts on a skid pan in an aircraft with very skinny wheels......

The departure runway was 25 as I understand it which is 695m. Not a room for margin and someone fairly inexperienced on type who has not done the calculations could easily make the mistake.

Superpilot

22nd Jan 2009, 08:26

Anyone know if there's an an upslope on 25? (and if so what is it), nothing on the AIP mentioned.

We were always taught to step reasonably lightly on the brakes and apply in dabs but then we were taught our IR on this plane, unlike the pilot in question.

Lurking123

22nd Jan 2009, 08:45

Bose, if you are correct with a 695m grass runway being the one used, then I would suggest the chap was a little optimistic with his perf calcs.

S-Works

22nd Jan 2009, 08:57

Bose, if you are correct with a 695m grass runway being the one used, then I would suggest the chap was a little optimistic with his perf calcs.

At the risk of being cynical, what performance calcs.......

The runway slopes up from the 25 threshold and the slopes down at the western end.

Fuji Abound

22nd Jan 2009, 11:26

I know nothing about the current condition of the runway or the weight he had on board (so I am not criticising the decision the pilot made) but I have to say from the conditions I would expect at this time of year he has braver than me :) - I just dont think I would have liked the look of it in the first place, never mind getting out the book.

There is certainly no kick in the back when you open up the Theilerts. :) :) In fact there is even time to check you really did advance both throttles.

Lurking123

22nd Jan 2009, 11:40

Bose, I am equally cynical. My very rough rule of thumb with a 42 is a minimum of 700m tarmac.

Pace

22nd Jan 2009, 12:01

There is certainly no kick in the back when you open up the Theilerts. In fact there is even time to check you really did advance both throttles.

Fuji when I made comments about an impression I had on the only flight I have done in the DA42 the sluggish performance and acceleration was one aspect. The aircraft felt underpowered but hopefully with the new 170 hp units this will change.

The tyres felt too small yet the aircraft had long glider type wings. I also felt that the main wheels needed to be wider apart for the aircraft span.

One takeoff only but not one that impressed me. The aircraft felt more like a jet in the sense that there was no desire for it to leap skywards but more an impression of sitting there waiting for the speed to increase to rotation.

Compare that to a Seneca off grass which tries to get airbourne on every bump and before it should do and the DA42 feels very dead.

I would be interested in your comments as someone who has time on the aircraft.

Pace

Superpilot

22nd Jan 2009, 12:14

Certainly rotation takes some effort compared to most aircraft in that category.

Fuji Abound

22nd Jan 2009, 15:59

I also felt that the main wheels needed to be wider apart for the aircraft span.

I think the u/c width is fine. I havent discovered any skittish manners on the ground and have landed with a 30 knot crosswind and over 45 knots on the nose.

I have only operated on and off of grass on a few occasions. The grass was dry and very well kept. I would agree with you that I would be cautious about operating off short, wet and/or poorly maintained grass strips. My reasons would be the narrow tyres and the poor(ish) performance on the ground.

The aircraft felt underpowered but hopefully with the new 170 hp units this will change.

Everything is relative I guess. The diesel powered Diamonds are inevitably a compromise of a low powered engine and an aerodynamic airframe. This is even more noticeable in the 40s which seem lack lustre and "boring" whilst clearly being very efficeint and offering a reasonable cruise for a single. The 42 on the other hand is slow for a twin but feels more nimble than many other twins I have flown.

I dont think it offers the best ride when the going gets rough - so you certainly need to prepare your passengers for the worst if the conditions are bumpy. I hit my hand on the plexiglass on one occasion very hard! - but my only fault for not ensuring the belt was really tight. Mind you I definitely prefer shoulder straps.

I think its huge advantage over almost every other twin on the market is two fold - the diesels feel wonderfully smooth and quite - everyone comments on how little vibration and noise there is compared with other twins. Of course if you like glass the G1000 suite is a joy to behold for VFR or IFR ops.

Having had an in flight engine failure I can confirm that single engine ops and landing are not a problem. Fortunately I have never had a failure after take off in the 42 but have done some simulated failures at max. all up. In this configuration the climb is lack lustre until the aircraft has been cleaned up and I personally suspect that a pilot not up to speed faced with a failure immediately after rotation could well have his hands full.

All in all I think with better power plants assuming you can make do with four seats (and not the best load carrying for a twin, unless they increase the all up with more pwerful engines) its a fine aircraft. Diamond would do well to concentrate on the build quality in some areas (corrosion for example) and whilst these are largely superficial they are issues that would disappoint an owner for what after all requires only a little more attention to detail on the part of Diamond.

In fact I am sufficiently impressed that I got as close as you do to buying one (the deposit cheque was drawn!) but with the beneift of hind sight I am very glad I didnt simply because the engine issue must be resolved. I know that some people have not had any issues at all, BUT leaving that debate aside, any owner is going to want certainty over the supply of parts and longevity of such a critical component! I think the problem Diamond now have will be to convince the market that their new and untried engine will not have similiar issues once it is out in the field and, if it does, with the global recession the after market support is safe given that for a while the engine will be specific to one aircraft type and at that manufactured by the same company that makes the aircraft.

PS I would love to have a go in the Lycoming version if anyone would like to offer in time. :)

Pace

22nd Jan 2009, 16:47

I dont think it offers the best ride when the going gets rough - so you certainly need to prepare your passengers for the worst if the conditions are bumpy. I hit my hand on the plexiglass on one occasion very hard! - but my only fault for not ensuring the belt was really tight. Mind you I definitely prefer shoulder straps.

Fuji

I have a very good friend who is an elderly ferry pilot. He was ferrying one across the north atlantic 200 miles out to sea and claims the Canopy came open. Knowing him its possible as he probably didnt close it properly :)
He further claimed that because of the air rush at cruise speed he could not close it.

He then stalled the aircraft and while in the stall closed it properly :)

I do not think the aircraft is aerodynamic as the intial tests indicated a TAS of around 200 kts at 12000 feet.

With all the bits and cooling that came to a reality of around 130 kts indicated and 155 tas which was a big downer on initial expectations.

I too would love to know how the 180 hp avgas versions perform as to me that would still be an economical but more reliable bet.

The 170 hp diesels sound far more interesting but as you said how much more reliable?

Pace

Lurking123

22nd Jan 2009, 17:32

Pace, I've had 150 TAS at 95% power, 1500ft PA out of one. I agree that 200 kts is, unfortunately, a complete work of fiction. However, a true 160kts is easily achievable at 7000-10000ft with about 85%. That said, any increase in power beyond this just ups the fuel burn rate to a hideously large 45+l/hr for little payback.

PS. Never had an engine failure but spent quite a bit of time waiting for spares. :eek:

englishal

22nd Jan 2009, 17:42

Another testament to the strength of these new gen composite aircraft.

I have been to Lands End and have a number of hours in the DA42. My gut feeling is that I wouldn't like to take one out of there on a good day without a decent headwind and being very light (there is no Short Field procedure for DA42).

There was an issue with the rear door on some of them. Some friends of mine were flying one when the rear door flew off. I think the initial 200+kt tests were on a model fitted with twin 180HP Avgas burners. In my experience 150-155kts TAS is a realistic cruise at about 80% power.

Fuji Abound

23rd Jan 2009, 12:44

In my experience 150-155kts TAS is a realistic cruise at about 80% power.

Yes, exactly what you should expect.

I do not think the aircraft is aerodynamic as the intial tests indicated a TAS of around 200 kts at 12000 feet.

Not on the Theilerts they didnt. It is more aerodynamic that every other light twin.

My 22 is appreciably faster, and carries weight as well, it is probably more comfortable inside and gives a marginally better ride but the 42 is a lot less noisy and the extra engine is nice.

B2N2

23rd Jan 2009, 13:57

Latest info is that the aircraft initially attempted to take off but aborted and over ran, needing to be towed out of the mud. The pictures are the result of a second attempt at taking off

If the above is correct....it wouldn't have anything to do with the fact that is was a DA-42.
That would have been bad in any plane.

Pace

23rd Jan 2009, 14:07

Not on the Theilerts they didnt. It is more aerodynamic that every other light twin.

Fuji

I will have to beg to differ with you on that one. The initial claims were for over 200 kts at 12000 feet on the diesel units.

Speed has never been a forte for any Diamond aircraft which would not suggest that they are aerodynamic.

I do remember reading something about cooling problems and the need for draggy air intakes ? I have pasted some of the initial claims below

Diamond Aircraft has flown its DA42 Twinstar for the first time with the landing gear retracted, as it prepares the diesel twin for certification in the fourth quarter of this year.

"This programme milestone has expanded significantly the flight envelope of the first retractable gear aircraft in our fleet," says Michael Feinig, managing director at Vienna, Austria-based Diamond. He adds: "With the landing gear retracted and at approximately 15% below maximum gross weight, the climb performance exceeded 2,000ft/min [10m/s] at 90kt [167km/h]. Cruise climb at 110kt yielded a climb performance of 1,700ft/min. At 12,000ft, under ISA conditions a maximum speed of 200kt was achieved," says Feinig.

European certification of the DA42 powered by a Thielert Aircraft Engines 99kW (135hp) Centurion 1.7 diesel is set for year-end, with first deliveries to follow in the first quarter of next year, coinciding with US certification. Feinig says: "We have 95 orders now and by the time we start production we anticipate this number to be close to 200." North American deliveries of the c360,000 ($389,000) aircraft are projected for mid-2004. Feinig says: "We expect the DA42 will be popular in the USA as there is no comparable piston twin available."

Pace

IO540

23rd Jan 2009, 14:40

The DA42 is reasonably aerodynamic but nothing outstanding.

For a combined fuel flow of 11GPG (US) it does exactly the same speed (140kt) as my TB20 does at 11GPH (LOP).

Both are retractable but the TB20 is covered in pop rivets.

Same with the Columbia 400; again 140kt at 11GPH (LOP).

Physics is physics...

The "210kt" advertised figure for the DA42 was in its very early days, and was probably a combination of 2 x IO-360 engine, flat out, plus just one VHF aerial, plus the usual airplane marketing trick of quoting a TAS at a high altitude.

With 400HP (sea level engine performance, non-turbo) a DA42 could well do 210kt TAS, at say FL120. The TB20 can do a TAS of about 160-170kt, and that is with a 250HP (sea level) engine, and with about 10 aerials sticking out which are worth about 0.5-1kt each.

Pace

23rd Jan 2009, 15:05

10540

I googled that snippet but there were plenty more at the time. Nowhere are there any indication that those figures were achieved in a conventional avgas powered version. Not in the above release or subsequent articles.

Infact I am pretty sure and i stand to be corrected that the 180 hp avgas version came later?

Many people placed orders based on those claims and many cancelled when the production version never came close to the claimed performance.

It was all too good to be true as rarely do you get ought for nought.

To me the aircraft felt like an underpowered toy. Lets hope that the 170 hp new diesels transform the aircraft more towards the initial claims and give the reliability that the owners deserve

Pace

englishal

23rd Jan 2009, 15:32

The DA42 has some advantages over a fast single - not least the second engine, the TKS, Jet-A etc. I'd rather lose 20 kts but have a twin which is affordable to run, economic and a good stable IFR platform for IFR touring. It is a shame that Diamond has had the problems with the DA42 because it is a revolutionary aeroplane which is what the aviation industry needs. As far as I'm concerned it is my favorite aeroplane to fly - it handles well (I prefer the stick), flies well, stable, great avionics, FADEC (of which I am a fan) and when you are flying through a front with the rain beating down so hard on the airframe that it sounds like a train and the clouds are turbulent as hell and it is night, it feels very safe (despite watching the props wobble on their mounts!).

The 170HP version should cruise at 194 kts TAS I believe - or so I heard from a Diamond training centre in the USA.

The DA40 XL will also cruise at 150kt TAS, which is a lycoming 180HP which must mean it is pretty good aerodynamically.

Pilot DAR

23rd Jan 2009, 15:40

I concur that the really good performance information quoted a few posts back is probably applicable to the Lycoming powered version. I do not speak on behalf Diamond, and thus cannot say for certain, but it just looks like that is the way is should read. Those who are interested, might want to pay close attention to the development of the DA42L ("L" is for Lycoming). Diamond is very enthusiastic about this project, and advancing well.

The DA42L will be a little "range challenged" compared to the diesel version, but I suppose you'd rather be going part way (and with quite an improvement in other performance) than not going at all!

Pilot DAR

vanHorck

23rd Jan 2009, 16:56

There may be a lot of benefits to the DA42 but there are a lot of drawbacks too, not least the engines but also the build quality in some areas.

When I refer to the engines I mean both the old Thielerts and the new ones.

I understand in fact quite a few of the old Thielerts were not delivering the advertised power and the ones used for testing were overpowered (to provide good performance figures)! Talk about pulling the wool over client's eyes.....

As for the new ones, who wants another risk on a new engine!? Thielert have been making the engines for a long time and made many of them and those engines proved unreliable. Only time will prove that Diamond can better them in one swoop. I doubt it. Our industry evolves by evolution and not revolution.

IO540

23rd Jan 2009, 17:07

IMHO, it will be years before anybody will trust Diamond again.

This is because Diamond must have known about the problems at Thielert for ages before they became public. And for a curious reason they became public in Europe a very long time before they became known in the UK. But Diamond's business is shifting airframes, not scaring customers. To their credit, they probably started developing the alternative the moment they discovered that Thielert will probably go down.

The new engine will certainly help Diamond's cash flow because it should enable them to enforce purchase orders placed ages ago, which cannot be fulfilled because of no engines. Now they can deliver those planes, and sue any customer who still doesn't want it, for the balance.

But that will take care of only those who placed orders. 100-200?

New customers are IMHO going to be few and far between.

The one interesting difference with a Diamond-supplied engine is that the customer's contract will probably be with just one supplier: Diamond. I am advised that while this was true (under European consumer laws) for private buyers, anybody who bought as a business got two contracts: one with Diamond and one with Thielert. This prevented the many commercial users (schools, mostly) who - unlike private users - had a real economic loss to show, suing Diamond for loss of profits, which would have sunk Diamond, as well as its entire dealer network. And private users almost never have any economic loss to show.

All very sad.

Pilot DAR

23rd Jan 2009, 17:12

I won't speak to the risk of a new engine, that's not a topic I should delve into.

But sometimes it's the devil you know vs the devil you don't. The Lycoming IO-360 has it's challenges, but they are very well understood all over the world, both operationally, and for maintenance, and very repairable, should the need arise. The installation in the DA42L is very appropriate, and most certainly destined to be a success. As it will keep otherwise grounded aircraft flying, that's got to be good!

For those who use the DA42 for training, the DA42L will allow continuation of the program for the students. Most instructors will be very familiar with the Lycomings, so that's one less distraction for good flight training!

Oh, and the DA42L, will have more oomf for those shorter grass strips! The added thrust while "stuck" in a softer surface is noticable.

Pilot DAR

vanHorck

23rd Jan 2009, 18:35

soay

23rd Jan 2009, 19:31

Question is Pilot Dar, for those who bought a DA42 with diesels and who like their airframe (or are stuck with it), will they too be allowed legally to change to the Lycomings when the engines are due for overhaul?
Even if it's permitted, it will be very expensive. Aside from the engine, the wiring loom and fuel system will need to be modified/replaced, the G1000 engine module updated, and space found internally for all the extra levers.

Pilot DAR

23rd Jan 2009, 20:59

I do not speak for Diamond. However, to answer the question from my own knowledge of what Diamond intends; It is planned that the Lycoming engines may be retrofitted by STC to existing airframes. The modification kit is being designed with as little change to the underlying airframe and systems as possible. I don't know where the STC installation work would be done, I'm sure that Diamond has plans, of which I am not aware.

It is my opinion that the new throttle quadrant is excellent, verging on "art", as so much of the cabin is. The original fuel system is well suited to either engine's requirements, and wiring and G1000 software easy to change. The two right hand turning engines originally installed in Austria have been replaced with a left and right hand turning, to offer the most favourable handling. As for expensive, I suppose everything is relative. I feel for those who have aircraft with troubled engines, soon there will be a choice for them. Choice is better than no choice!

It is my understanding from Diamond that the DA42 was originally planned to have the two Lycoming IO 360's. The preference for diesel engines and Jet fuel use in Europe shifted the emphsis away from the Lycomings to the Thielerts. As the original work was done in Austria with Lycomings, the performance figures which were mentioned earlier would be the result of the Lycoming aircraft flight testing. I suspect that information is from very early in the DA42 program, and not a part of Diamond's current product descripton.

Due to poor weather (it's winter!) on each of the occasions I have gone to fly the DA42L this past fall, I still await my opportunity to fly, which I expect soon. The ground running and taxiing I have done in the DA42L have been very pleasing. I got the diesel stuck in the slush on the taxiway a little, needing full power to get out, the DA42L had lots of thrust to pull me through it, when I returned to the same spot for a comparison.

I anticipate a delightful aircraft, testing continues...

Pilot DAR

Pace

23rd Jan 2009, 21:46

It is my understanding from Diamond that the DA42 was originally planned to have the two Lycoming IO 360's.

Pilot Dar

I would imagine the Lycoming 10 360s would make the aircraft an excellent performer and economical too.

The 135 hp Diesels were too underpowered to make sense to me from day one.

I still look forward to seeing how the 170 hp Diesels turn out as the original concept of Diesels burning Jet A1 with the performance figures first implied would make the aircraft very desirable.

Pace

Fuji Abound

23rd Jan 2009, 21:53

Pilot DAR

Yes, all correct. Diamond are indeed claiming a reasonably straight forward retrofit and specially developed contra rotating Lycomings should indeed be a bonus.

Pace

One of the very first 42s was indeed Lycoming fitted. Whether the performance figures were based on this I do not know. There is no excuse for optomistic performance figures but everyone does it. I dont think a single Air Bus has yet made its initial performance claims without a fair bit of design reworking. I gather exactly this issue is still causing issues with the A380.

Would you purchase an aircraft on the strength on the manufacturers performance claims?

englishal

23rd Jan 2009, 22:37

Originally I believe the IO360 Avgas burner was destined for the USA market but they withdrew it in favour of the Diesel world wide.

I have heard it said that the 42L throttle quadrant is a bit "Wierd" - why couldn't they mate a FAdec with an IO360? This is the way to go IMHO, with all new Avgas burners - get rid of the prop / mixture controls as to be honest a computer can do the task far better than a human. Setting RPM, manifold pressure and mixture is almost as old skool as flying NDB approaches!

Pace

23rd Jan 2009, 22:51

Would you purchase an aircraft on the strength on the manufacturers performance claims?

Fuji

You are defending the undefendable :) Normally manufacturers are close to or exceed the projected performance figures and yes many do purchase positions on projected performance figures.

The DA42 was way off to such an extent that many prospective purchasers cancelled and I bet with hindsight they are glad they did.

There is a difference between giving performance expectations which are fairly close and misleading prospective purchasers.

This was disgusting to say the least but that is water under the bridge now.

The aircraft and its claims were a mouth watering prospect. I can only hope that the 170 hp diesels deliver with performance and reliability as we do need modern ground breaking and new generation light twins like the DA42.

Pace

Pilot DAR

23rd Jan 2009, 23:58

I have heard it said that the 42L throttle quadrant is a bit "Wierd" - why couldn't they mate a FAdec with an IO360? This is the way to go IMHO, with all new Avgas burners - get rid of the prop / mixture controls as to be honest a computer can do the task far better than a human

The throttle quadrant is delightful, and I will certainly be reporting it's design as meeting the design requirments for certification. It is entirely appropriate for the aircraft, and will be familiar to twin pilots. The mixture controls are particualarly well designed, ice to use, and effective in preventing leaning in error. I certainly prefer it to the arrangement of the power levers of the standard DA42.

I cannot speak in favour of Fadec for Lycomings on the DA42L. I'm sure it will come one day, but I'm in no hurry for it. It is complicated and expensive, diminishes the pilot's control over what the engines are doing, and is dependant upon electriciy. Electrical failure equals engine failure - Oops, did I write that here? Many times I've used engine controls in unusual ways, to get the desired outcome, and would not easily give up that last means of mantaining safe flight. I agree computers can do a lot, but both the computer and it's programmer would have to be wiser, faster and more experienced with uncommon circumstances of flight, than a very experienced pilot, before they will make the plane safer. As for the aid to the inexperienced pilot? It's simple: Just gently push all the knobs forward, then pull the black round ones back until the plane flies the way you want it to. When you have time, and it's safe, fiddle with the other ones! For all the griping I read about the cost of maintaining airplanes, I'm still surprised that pilots are so eager to have more expensive, new technology powerplant systems which may have a short operational life, be expensive to maintain, or impossible to get parts for, and end up grounding the plane. Oops, did I write that here?

I'll be doing my part to test for design compliance for the DA42L, with just regular old dependable Lycoming engines, to get the DA42's of the world back in the air. I'll leave the advanced systems as upgrades, once people are bored with the regular way all those DA42L's are flying around!

Pilot DAR

vanHorck

24th Jan 2009, 08:03

Fuji

Yes of course purchasers want to be able to rely at least broadly to manufacturers specification. Just think of take off performances.

All the figures are expected to be realistic, at least for a perfectly balanced out ideal unit.

I find it stupid short term marketing to being almost 25% out of speed performance. It says to me not only Thielert are a mickey mouse company, but Diamond too. It is just inconceivable that Diamond were not aware of the real speeds.

Pace

I'm glad you call it disgusting. I totally agree!

englishal

24th Jan 2009, 08:06

Well, being of the breed I am.....I would NOT buy a "conventional" DA42. One of the things I liked about the aeroplane was the way it was 10 steps ahead of the everything else out there. Now you may as well buy a decent used Seneca which will give you more power, turbos, more speed and more seating for half the cost (or much less).

Regarding performance, I'm surprised they don't "chip" the 2L diesel engines as they were down rated to 135HP but clearly could supply more power.

Pace

24th Jan 2009, 09:10

I'll be doing my part to test for design compliance for the DA42L, with just regular old dependable Lycoming engines, to get the DA42's of the world back in the air. I'll leave the advanced systems as upgrades, once people are bored with the regular way all those DA42L's are flying around!

Pilot DAR

I can remember when the whole diesel thing came out the promise of low cost flying for light GA was exciting.

The use of relatively cheap Jet A1 compared to the extortionally expensive and limited availability of Avgas and the fantastic range potential of the Diesels looked like the way ahead for light GA especially here in Europe.

Fly a twin like a Seneca which is fairly economical and £100 per hour is gone in just fuel alone. Bigger piston twins even more.

The Diesels promised almost car like economy for going places.

I can remember talking to a respected engineer at the time and he was not impressed with the use of Diesels in aviation.

He felt that the way ahead had to be with baby low cost turbines.

I noted not long ago that one of the Large American engine manufacturers was building such a turbine for I think Mooney?

Now such an engine, a baby low cost prop turbine for light GA would really be exciting.

Pace

S-Works

24th Jan 2009, 09:34

And of course when the Diesels came out fuel was not taxed. Now the cost differential in the fuel versus the cost of the engine does not make sense at all.

As someone one who sits behind turbines for work and now what I would prefer!!

Anyone for a turbine 172?
:p

SergeD

24th Jan 2009, 10:14

It is very sad that the avtur is now taxed. Very bad for Diamonds business!!

Are you an airline pilot bose-x? What do you pilot?

Fuji Abound

24th Jan 2009, 10:22

Now such an engine, a baby low cost prop turbine for light GA would really be exciting.

Pace

True. However not realistic, unless the cost of a pair of turbines significantly falls - not likely any time soon even with Rolls now in the fray.

I do agree with your comments if Diamond mislead customers to the extent you suggest. I dont know for sure which aircraft their figures were based on and I dont know what assurances were given to their earlier customers. For that reason only (not having the facts) I am loathe to pass judgement.

And of course when the Diesels came out fuel was not taxed. Now the cost differential in the fuel versus the cost of the engine does not make sense at all.

As has been pointed out the 42 burns about the same amount of diesel as a Cirrus or TB20 for a similiar performance but running two engines - if you want another engine that cant be a bad thing, although I agree until the cost of a diesel (including its lifetime maintenace) is comparable with a Lycoming the cost of fuel is but one element in the puzzle.

S-Works

24th Jan 2009, 11:05

It is very sad that the avtur is now taxed. Very bad for Diamonds business!!

Are you an airline pilot bose-x? What do you pilot?

No I am not an airline pilot. Not smart enough for that.

SMG92 Finist & DO28G-92 and start a new job in a couple of weeks on a BE200.

Pace

24th Jan 2009, 11:20

Fuji
This is engine that Rolls Royce are developing. You quote the cost but remember the diamond diesel appears to be going for 700 hrs and a turbine should go well beyond 3000 hrs. I am not talking about turbines as fitted to the TBM or Meridian but much smaller throw away units. Yes they may initially be slightly more expensive but taking into consideration engine life and reliability the units should work out far cheaper.

Fuji are you connected to Diamond in some way ?

Pace

Making predictions is hard work, and stating opinions is always risky. There is a French proverb that says “Il n’y a que les imbéciles qui ne changent pas d’avis” - only idiots don’t change their minds…

Not sooner than three days ago, I wrote here that the pressurized version of the DA50 would be my aircraft of choice, if I were in position to buy an aircraft now. Shortly said the advantages of pressurization are higher altitudes without oxygen, and less ear problems. On the same day, Mooney anounced a common engineering work with Rolls-Royce to fit a RR550 turbine engine on their airframe.

Yes, a turbine engine, not a turbo engine. If the project is sucessful, it will result in a new four seater turboprop aircraft. Turboprops have many advantages over piston aircraft:

Simpler engine handling
HUGE power reserve
Runing on Jet-A1 (”cheap” airline kerosene)
Possible use of reverse to shorten landing distance
The power reserve can be used for systems like bleed (hot) air de-icing and anti-icing, and… cabin pressurization ! There is already a market for single engine turboprop aircraft, but it addresses larger aircrafts, like the Piper Meridian (6 seater), the TBM 700 / 850 (6 seater), or the Pilatus PC-12 (up 9 passengers). Using such an aircraft as a “personal transporter” is hardly viable.

Turboprob is a synomym of reliability and nearly all weather operations, thanks to de-icing and pressurization. If I had to choose between a DA50 and a Mooney Ovation2 GX with G1000 and a turbine engine… I’m no longer sure that the Diamond would get my voice (seen that ? I’m learning how to be more nuanced…

Mooney and Rolls-Royce Sign Agreement for Joint Engineering Project

New Rolls-Royce Turbine Offers Fuel Alternative for GA

KERRVILLE, TX -- Mooney Airplane Company announced today at AirVenture that the company has entered into a joint engineering project with Rolls-Royce. The scope of the project will include exploration of using the RR500 as an alternative fuel (Jet A) power plant to complement the current Mooney product line. Mooney’s participation in the General Aviation Manufacturers Association’s Future Avgas Strategy and Transition (FAST) Plan and Mooney’s experience in building high-performance airframes make the two companies logical partners for the new project.

The benefits of developing the RR500 to power a four place aircraft include improved global fuel availability in emerging markets where 100LL is scarce to non-existent.

“The RR500 turbine introduced this week by Rolls-Royce represents the next step in our exploration of alternative fuel power for personal aircraft,” explained Dennis Ferguson, CEO/president of Mooney Airplane Company. “The rugged Mooney airframe is uniquely suited to accept the power of the Rolls-Royce engine and we’re very excited about working with Rolls-Royce to examine to the possibility of bringing a Jet-A powered Mooney turboprop to the market in the future.”

Mooney believes that an affordable turbine-powered four-place aircraft is an important segment of the market that is being overlooked. Such an aircraft configuration fills two growing voids in the market. First, a four-place turboprop represents a logical step for the tens of thousands of pilots now flying high-performance piston aircraft because the transition to flying a small turboprop will require no special type rating or unusual insurance requirements. Second, a Jet-A powered turbine provides the basis of a product that has global appeal. More details will follow in the coming months as Mooney and Rolls-Royce work together to expand the scope of the engineering project and refine what the configuration of such an aircraft will be.

matt_hooks

24th Jan 2009, 11:54

All this discussion of the merits, or otherwise, of the 42 are very interesting, but I have a feeling they are irrelevant to this particular incident. I normally hate it when people automatically blame "pilot error" when an aircraft crashes, but in this case I don't think there's any doubt that there was some pretty apalling decision making going on!

There were several agravating factors, but even the basic takeoff, if the ground was good and firm, would have been optimistic. Given the wet grass and several other factors about the location, I think the pilot of this one will be hung out to dry, and rightly so!

englishal

24th Jan 2009, 12:28

172 turbines do exist, I've seen some in the USA.

Who's King Airs are you flying Bose?

Pace

24th Jan 2009, 12:38

Matt

Pilot Error most probable unless there was a loss of power or some other factor we dont know of.

Having said that how much does lack of performance play in these accidents.
Power is a big safety factor lack of it and that doesnt leave many options in any aircraft.

And in many ways thats what this thread is about a twin with minimal performance an accident waiting to happen

Pace

englishal

24th Jan 2009, 12:46

No, it is about someone landing on a runway which is too short to take off from again.

DA42 performance is fine for a 4 seat twin engine aeroplane. It climbs well, has a ceiling of over 20,000' - SE probably over 10,000' - and will cruise at 150kts tas at 80% power with a fuel flow of under 12 USG per hour total. I call that pretty good and if taking off from Bournemouth then you have plenty of runway spare. If you decide to fly to the Isles of Scilly, well you haven't done your homework or preflight very well.

(in otherwords, even if this DA42 had a power loss, it was pretty clear that the aeroplane was unlikely to get airborne from Lands End without some pretty strong headwinds and low fuel load).

youngskywalker

24th Jan 2009, 12:52

Bose, that must be one heck of a genorous King Air employer you have found as you told us all here recently you wouldnt get out of bed to work for less than 250k per year or some such figure?! :E

Good luck with it, I miss the King Air.

Pace

24th Jan 2009, 13:36

DA42 performance is fine for a 4 seat twin engine aeroplane. It climbs well, has a ceiling of over 20,000' - SE probably over 10,000' - and will cruise at 150kts tas at 80% power with a fuel flow of under 12 USG per hour total. I call that pretty good

But 1000 metres of grass is a lot for a light GA? I Remember the one takeoff I did on tarmac the acceleration felt very poor and dead.

While I fully accept that the pilot should fly to the performance capability of the aircraft and only he is to blame it comes down to expectations and what you have the aircraft for.

Pilots have light GA because they like flying for pleasure and expect to fly into grass strips short tarmac runways etc.

That is where the miss match occurs. They expect to fly a light GA plane but dont expect it to NOT go where you would expect a light GA to go :) if you get my gist.

I have flown many twins in my time and have operated Barons and C303s and Senecas in 600 metre landing strips. The DA42 maybe great once its up in the air but not so great until it gets there.

Pilots fault but ???

Pace

vanHorck

24th Jan 2009, 14:03

Is there any news about the pilots and the two kids?

Fuji Abound

24th Jan 2009, 14:33

That is where the miss match occurs. They expect to fly a light GA plane but dont expect it to NOT go where you would expect a light GA to go if you get my gist.

Pace

Oh dear, this is getting a bit far fetched now.

No, I dont work for Diamond, and yes, the 42 is not perfect. I have tried to give my balanced assessment. Some may agree, some may not.

However, it is what it is, and at least now does what it says on the can.

You dont expect most GA aircraft to go from the UK to the south of Spain with refueling. With the extended tanks I have done CIs, Rouen, Paris, Lille and home without refueling. There is a lot of places I would happily take a Cub but wouldnt take a PA28.

Yes, it hasnt got the shortest take off run, and yes, it would be good to have more peformance on the ground and in the air, but it is what it is.

If you take off on a grass runway and it is too short and too wet dont blame the aircraft (not saying this pilot did).

Bose

Congrats to, hope you enjoy it.

matt_hooks

24th Jan 2009, 16:40

Pace. There was no loss of power, or at least none reported by the pilot. This was a classic case of the holes in the cheese all lining up, and there were several points in the buildup to the incident that should have given any half sensible pilot plenty of cause to abort.

Forunately, due to the build quality and the soft ground where the aircraft came to rest, no-one was seriously injured. However this accident was absolutely preventable!

Mikehotel152

24th Jan 2009, 18:51

For what it's worth, I think the DA42 accelerates fairly promptly on the take-off roll! I can only compare it with various Cessnas, a wheezy Seneca, and a few manic Arrows. :E

As for take-off performance, it'll take off with 3 decent size men and 40 USG on board, up Stapleford's 22L, which is a 2% upslope, within 600 metres. Admittedly, that's a tarmac runway.

The reported 695 metres of wet grass available at Lands End would encourage me to check my performance figures pretty carefully!

Lurking123

24th Jan 2009, 19:01

The reported 695 metres of wet grass available at Lands End would encourage me to check my performance figures pretty carefully!

Agreed. As I said, personally anything less than 700m of tarmac warrants a very long look at the AFM.

west lakes

24th Jan 2009, 19:47

The reported 695 metres of wet grass available at Lands End

I know I'm not a pilot but if you look at the video in post #2 and compare it to the AIP map or Google earth, that windsock is nowhere near that runway (or as far as I can see any other) According to the caption it was shot from a layby which appears to be north of the buildings on the east side of the field

soay

25th Jan 2009, 07:54

The reported 695 metres of wet grass available at Lands End would encourage me to check my performance figures pretty carefully!
Runway 16 is 792m and 34 is 778m, according to the AIP entry for Lands End (http://www.nats-uk.ead-it.com/aip/current/ad/EGHC/EG_AD_2_EGHC_en.pdf). According to the AFM, the ground roll of the DA42 at max take off weight and perfect conditions is 427m, and I don't remember any 50ft obstacles there, so it may have been long enough, on a good day.

Superpilot

25th Jan 2009, 09:48

427m (Runway length required for takeoff at MTOW)
x 1.1 (for wet)
x 1.2 (for worst case grass)
x 1.1 (for upslope, if there is one)

= 620m (close, but legal)

x 1.33 (Safety margin as we were tought. Not a mandatory requirement)

= 825m

My belief is any investigation will reveal that the 695m runway used for takeoff would've been long enough for a takeoff in those conditions. Investigation will focus more on whether or not full length was used and how the takeoff was conducted. I remember my first few lessons in the plane, I thought I was steering with the rudders where as in fact I was applying differential braking, which would at least in theory increase the takeoff roll.

BRL

25th Jan 2009, 10:27

No more of the Bose bashing guys. Go elsewhere if you want to discuss all that.

Instant ban to whoever brings it all up again and I am not just talking Bose here, it can be about anyone of you, I just don't want it here.

If you think there is a problem about any pilot and his ratings/licence then the CAA have a pretty good reporting procedure for things like that.

vanHorck

25th Jan 2009, 10:45

BRL check your pm's

tried to close the other thread but i couldn t

Live and let live and keep the threads to a single subject

Fuji Abound

25th Jan 2009, 12:37

I wonder whether the factors we use for grass and wet are always realistic?

As I mentioned earlier the tyres on the 42 are narrow and operate at high pressure. Compare their profile with, for example, the Aztruck.

Is the extra amount we factor in sufficient to cover every type?

matt_hooks

25th Jan 2009, 12:40

If we allow the factor for short grass, that assumes we actually manage to make the takeoff run down the runway, rather than the long grass alongside it!

Pilot DAR

25th Jan 2009, 14:04

Oh good, we're talking about DA42 performance again!

The reference to a "grass" runway can be interpreted more generally to mean not paved, or otherwise hard surfaced. The grass foliage itself is only one of several important factors which may affect rolling resistance. The smoothness of the undrelying earth, and it's firmness are of equal or greater importance, and sometimes more difficult to judge.

The tires of the DA42 are not particularly narrow compared to many, though they are of a comparitively small diameter for their width, and the weight of the aircraft. The smaller diameter will have very little affect on performance on hard surface, but can be very noticable on a rough or soft earth surface. High pressure in a smaller tire adds to the increase in roll resistance.

When aircraft are intended for operations on other than hard surface, larger, or "tundra tires" are often fitted. The DA42 would not be an aircraft type eligible for larger tires.

Conversly, the large tires can be unpleasent for operations on a dry, hard surface runway, as they grip too well, and any slight off axis operation of the aircraft (touching down slightly crabbed) becomes a big lurching, rather than the slight chirp we are used to. On a tail dragger, this added traction can be a major contributing factor in a ground loop.

Not many retractable aircraft are designed with tire sizes intended for use on softer surfaces. Obvioulsy the undercarriage bays will not accomodate tires larger than intended. There are a few retractable twins which come to mind, like the DC-3 and in particular, the DHC-4 Caribou, and DHC-5 Buffalo, which were specifically intended for soft surface operation. These aircraft also had the thrust to pull through "the muck". There are a few cases of locking the gear down, and putting large tires on, but this is rare, because often single engine climb requirements can no longer be met.

It is obvious that the DA42 was designed with operation on hard surface runways as the primary objective. Though "grass" operation may be considered by a pilot, as previously discussed, the pilot takes on quite a burdon of responsibility for allowing for all of the factors which could affect preformance. I'm sure that the AAIB will consider these factors...

Pilot DAR

Fuji Abound

25th Jan 2009, 14:36

Conversly, the large tires can be unpleasent for operations on a dry, hard surface runway, as they grip too well, and any slight off axis operation of the aircraft (touching down slightly crabbed) becomes a big lurching, rather than the slight chirp we are used to. On a tail dragger, this added traction can be a major contributing factor in a ground loop.

A Husky with Tundra tyres comes to mind. :)

Lurking123

25th Jan 2009, 15:29

Fuji, I think the variables are well catered for:

WARNING
Poor maintenance condition of the airplane, deviation from the given procedures, uneven runway, as well as unfavorable external factors (high temperature, rain, unfavorable wind conditions, including cross-wind) will increase the take-off distance.
CAUTION
The figures in the following NOTE are typical values. On wet ground or wet soft grass covered runways the take-off roll may become significantly longer than stated below. In anycase the pilot must allow for the condition of the runway to ensure a safe take-off.

Hence the imminently sensible advice to use the 1.33 factor. That takes us nicely to 825m which, if I'm not mistaken, is a bigger number that 695. :eek:

All said in a rather tongue-in-cheek fashion.

welkyboy

25th Jan 2009, 16:11

Having been based at Lands End and operated out of there during the wet winter months, there is usually restricted lengths of runway available due to waterlogging.
I have no idea which runway the DA42 was attempting to take off from but from its final position it appears to be 25 or 20 Runway 20 is not normally used for commercial operations but from AIP the TORA for 20 is 574M
There is a current NOTAM in force no. L0035 issued 05/01/09 that gives reduced TORA's for 25 of 574M, 34 640M and 16 654m.

Johnny Smith

25th Jan 2009, 19:11

Hello, I've flown in G-SUEA and with the pilot several times....
I think we should leave the analysis up to the AAIB.

Back in silly-ground-bound-land many expert folk seem to have their own ideas what went on....:=
And that is why some are a bunch of grumpy old Fokkers with nuthin' better to do than slag us off sending vicious rumours across our paths like a squirley bad X-wind.

Was enny one listening to Elstree Info last Saturday? When all the pilots wished a FISO who shall remain (Mick) a very good night and a pleasant weekend for his sterling efforts in ATC that day...
As he signed off, one pilot wished him a good night, and another and another until everyone wished him a pleasant weekend and sweet dreams....
In his inimitable style the FISO replied.....
"What is this the f****cking Waltons?":ugh:

And that dear friends, is that, we all commit aviation and all of us at some time have to pay the price for it. Just some times the price, like a given flight level is higher than others....
G'day and God Bless:D
J xxx

vanHorck

25th Jan 2009, 20:12

Johnny

Did you have a glass too much, darlin'?

Pace

25th Jan 2009, 22:42

And that dear friends, is that, we all commit aviation and all of us at some time have to pay the price for it. Just some times the price, like a given flight level is higher than others....
G'day and God Bless
J xxx

J and thank God this one ended up ok for the pilot and passengers. The plane is expendable the people are not.

You may have flown in the aircraft you may know the pilot well but the cause is pretty well a no brainer, Power loss aircraft failure on the takeoff roll or the pilot screwed up.

Sorry but there have been some really interesting discussions in this thread. Feel free to wait for the AAIB reports, thats your perogative as its ours to discuss what we have now.

Pace

Pilot DAR

26th Jan 2009, 01:33

Well said, Pace,

Though I have spoken in the past against the inappropriate slagging of fatally injured pilots, I agree that an educational discussion of the events when there are not grieving families to consider, can have some merit. Those who don't want to participate, can stay off to the side. If it ends up that a reader feels personally offended by a post, they still have the choice to stay in the shadows, or, step forward to defend themselves, or their friend, as appropriate. Such a defense, however, is a part of the discussion, not the end of it....

Though most of the posters here would have no more information than is publically available, it does not mean that they can't form and express an opinion which has some importance. I can certainly attest that the AAIB, NTSB, and Canadian TSB are not the be all and end all of investigation either!

Pilot DAR

Pace

26th Jan 2009, 09:42

Though I have spoken in the past against the inappropriate slagging of fatally injured pilots, I agree that an educational discussion of the events when there are not grieving families to consider, can have some merit.

Every time there is an accident there is the usual bleating about curtailing freedom of speech and discussion amongst pilots as to possible causes.

Where there are tragic circumstances there is an arguement for sensitivity.

In this case thankfully No one was seriously hurt the end result was a happy one other than maybe a bruised ego for the pilot.

Yet here we go again. Wait for the AAIB reports. Do not discuss. I am sure in this case the AAIB accident investigation will involve no more than a simple chat on the phone with the pilot in question and hopefully a few lessons learnt.

Pace

Fuji Abound

26th Jan 2009, 11:31

Pace

I agree - in this case we have a reasonable idea about what happened and what the conditions were like. Of course there is the usual conjecture about the strip being too short, but some of us have taken the trouble to look up the performance figures in the POH so the discussion has continued on a reasonably factual basis.

It would seem even the 42 should have got airborne - it will be interesting to learn what persuaded the pilot to abort first time around, and what caused the take off run to end in disaster the second time around. I have flown a number of types, and one in particular, that I reckon I could land on a handkerchief if I really had to, but I have also had this morbid fear about getting in somewhere in consequence and not being able to get out again. I mean, what do you do!

If things didn’t work out the first time, sometimes that is an omen that they will not work any better the second time - flying to minima and not seeing the runway also comes to mind.

It reminds us than flying off short strips is a commitment to the performance figures. Whilst all the theory about speeds and distances into the take off run make sound sense, if you don’t like what you see, stopping a 42 on muddy grass half way down the strip is always going to be a very interesting experience and if you do like what you see, but are operating on the margin of the book, then nothing short of complete commitment to getting airborne will do.

Mind you, if I had to guess, which I hate doing, perhaps this was just a simply case of the pilot deciding he was not going to make it - if his judgement was correct he had the sense to stop the take off run but misjudged the consequences of stopping a reasonably heavy aircraft on slippery grass - perhaps because he aborted the take off later than the first time around. All in all a bit like Sir A - it is easily done Sir, how many times has a pilot landed a bit long and run off the end?

Pilot DAR

26th Jan 2009, 11:44

Yes.

An saying that a particular runway is not long enough, is rather like saying that a road is not wide enough. The runway is the runway, and the road is the road. They were already there. It's the attemped operation which may be too long (or wide), and just not realized until it's too late. It's the judgement of realizing, in harmony with performance charts of course, which is what we spend our time learning as pilots. If the plane would assuredly takeoff and land every time, we'd need less training!

As for the judgement, a pilot can be lulled into a false securlity landing on a grass runway, not realizing that it's a bit soft. "Gee, the plane got in here great! It's performing very well!". Yeah it stopped really well, going is a completely different matter!

I have had a few off airport operations where I waited for the wind to come up. Three days once...

Pilot DAR

west lakes

11th Jun 2009, 08:03

For completeness

http://www.aaib.gov.uk/cms_resources/DA%2042%20Twin%20Star,%20G-SUEA%2006-09.pdf

Pace

11th Jun 2009, 08:34

What a complete and utter wally :(

Pace

Fuji Abound

11th Jun 2009, 09:36

Saints preserve us.

All I can say is there are some people a great deal braver than me! :)

ShyTorque

11th Jun 2009, 09:50

Some folk just don't know when to call it a day. Thankfully only the aircraft got bent.

Say again s l o w l y

11th Jun 2009, 10:30

Oh. My. God.

I read that entire report through my fingers, wincing constantly at the sheer muppetry that was displayed.
In fact, even Kermit would be embarrassed to be associated with this chap.

There's no point ripping it apart too much, I have a feeling this bloke is beyond help.

So when are they performing the ritual "tearing up of the licence"?

LH2

11th Jun 2009, 10:30

From the report cited above:

"[...] the pilot stated that it was the wrong decision to attempt a takeoff"

Hindsight is a wonderful thing indeed :ooh:

Hello, I've flown in G-SUEA and with the pilot several times....
I think we should leave the analysis up to the AAIB.

Well... so now what? :ouch:

In the interest of closing this with a positive remark, I think it's beyond any doubt that the pilot has shown great determination in this event :E

vanHorck

11th Jun 2009, 10:48

i can't wait for IO540's analysis!
:ok::ok::ok::ok:

Mine would be that no only should he loose his license, but I bet his wife will have a few things to say as well

Fuji Abound

11th Jun 2009, 10:55

i can't wait for IO540's analysis

I wonder why?

Pace

11th Jun 2009, 11:01

The more you read this report the more unbelievable the chain of events.

Talking about "chain" I feel sorry for the insurance company who I presume will caugh up for this? he might as well have taken a "chain saw" to the aircraft so obvious was the result of this attempted takeoff.

Sorry I have no sympathy for this excuse of a pilot as he could have killed all on board who relied on his expertice :rolleyes:

His last comment about never taking off on wet grass again maybe should have read ! never takeoff again full stop:D

Pace

Vick Van Guard

11th Jun 2009, 11:35

There doesn't seem to be any explanation as to why he went off road, going across three of the runways, rather than use the one where there was a reasonably healthy headwind. :confused:

BRL

11th Jun 2009, 11:43

I shouldn't comment really being a mod and that but wtf was this guy thinking! Everything was against him that day, I would love to know what was behind this flight. Why was it so important for him to get off the ground?

Pilot DAR

11th Jun 2009, 11:55

Well, that was interesting, and filled in detail, but really did not tell us anything we did not suspect already!

Yeah, I'm very pleased that the passengers did not receive injuries. I hope the pilot retains a stinging recallection of this foolishness for a very long time - let's call it an injury.

I watch these aircraft being built, and see the huge effort and care which goes into creating each as a great plane. Okay, not a really great STOL soft field plane, but it can't do everything well! When I think of all of the hours of people's time that goes into one of these, or any aircraft, the fact that a "muppet" can wreck it in moments is an injustice. Yes, only the aircraft got bent, but we're all paying for this in our insurance premiums. Perhaps when insurance companies refuse to pay out for sheer stupidity, our premiums will reflect the actual risk of responsible aviation! I learned a long time ago that the fact that a pilot can afford to fly a flashy plane, does not necessarily mean that there is a skill level appropriate to the aircraft.

Pilot DAR

flybymike

11th Jun 2009, 12:09

There are too many vigilantes on this forum. He won't be making the same mistakes again for sure. The incident will have cost him a lot in terms of embarrassent, public flogging on pprune, possible legal ramifications and undoubted financial ones. Pulling his licence will serve no useful purpose. Passengers on private flights weigh up their pilot to the best of their layman's ability and take their chances. That's life.

Ok, the sanctimonious among you, shoot me down.

Donalk

11th Jun 2009, 12:12

By any measure a 1300 hour PPL is an experienced pilot. However it would appear that in this case, experience was completely negated by a spectacular failure of judgement. I for one am chilled by the circumstances surrounding this accident and the pilots decision to attempt a take off in such conditions.

I sympathise with the passengers and hope they are not unduly traumatised by this event. At the very least the pilot should be compelled to undertake some re training in addition to an assessment of his decision making abilities. It frightens me to think we share the sky with such people.

Say again s l o w l y

11th Jun 2009, 12:24

flybymike, I take it you weren't at lands end airport the other week then? There was an Incident. Guess who.................?

Katamarino

11th Jun 2009, 12:26

It frightens me to think we share the sky with such people.

You think that's bad? Have you seen some of the people we share the *road* with!?! :eek:

Fly-by-Wife

11th Jun 2009, 13:00

I wonder if Diamond will be sued, just like Cirrus.

Muppet 25%, Diamond 75% negligent - because there's no placard in the aircraft stating "Don't be a daft tw@t".

FBW

Donalk

11th Jun 2009, 13:02

Say Again - surely you're not suggesting...............................Ah no!!!!!!!

1800ed

11th Jun 2009, 13:05

Dear lord, that was a good read :oh:

Mikehotel152

11th Jun 2009, 14:20

Wind 250/14. Runway 25 chosen. Take off roll tracks 200 degrees into a field.

Nevermind the take off calculations, something sounds amiss here!? :hmm:

dont overfil

11th Jun 2009, 14:33

MH152
I think out of control both physically and mentally. "It's dragging left. What the hell. The grass looks OK."
DO.

IO540

11th Jun 2009, 16:25

Not sure why I should have a particular view on this incident. I have very little time in a DA42.

The whole business of operating from grass is slightly dodgy. The actual takeoff performance can be dramatically different from anything that might have been documented in the POH.

Try and do a "soft-field" departure and the figures are something else again, due to the massive elevator drag in the early part of the takeoff roll.

I once took off, at MTOW, from perfect smooth grass, and was airborne at a verified 340m; not bad.

On another occassion I took off from a "1200m" strip where I only just got out and it took about 1000m. The surface was rough as hell, the grass was about 6" tall. I was light, too - some 20% below MTOW. Yet the same plane gets off tarmac in c. 300m at MTOW.

I don't think most pilots realise what a trap grass can be, especially if the surface is wet or better still boggy. PPL training is very poor when it comes to the bits of aircraft performance which one actually needs to know.

On the Thielert engine, I suspect a lot of pilots ignore the engine warnings. I know a few owners and these engines don't seem to make a week without some flashing light somewhere. It's very different from my IO540 which I would never fly with if I saw an abnormal oil temp/pressure/CHT etc. It could be a duff probe but I would change the probe (I carry spare probes). I suspect the Diamonds are hell for pilots who actually want to go somewhere because "stuff happens" on them so often.

Cows getting bigger

11th Jun 2009, 17:23

There's a difference between operating off grass vs. a muddy field. Shocking.

JW411

11th Jun 2009, 17:28

I think this chap should go for the Darwinian Awards for 2009.

I am simply incredulous that anyone should be allowed out with such an expensive piece of plastic without his mother's permission.

bookworm

11th Jun 2009, 18:03

The pilot reported that he thought his location was closer to the airport buildings and on the left side of Runway 25. He then attempted to take off. His plan was to track alongside Runway 25, displaced to the left, which he felt was firmer ground than on the runway itself.
...
The wheel marks on the airfield indicated that the aircraft had followed a straight track in a direction of approximately 200° from its start location on the right side of Runway 25.

I find the lack of comment on this discrepancy somewhat odd. Did the pilot confuse 20 and 25?

JW411

11th Jun 2009, 18:30

I don't think so: he simply confused reality with fantasy. Why did he need to get back home so badly?

Gethomeitis is a very, very dangerous disease.

I seriously think that the gentleman concerned should consider giving up aviation completely otherwise he will soon be dead. I don't think re-training will work in his case.

I believe that mushroom-growing can be quite rewarding.

S-Works

11th Jun 2009, 18:35

It does bring to mind the rather amusing stereotype of the Irish.....

LH2

11th Jun 2009, 19:40

The whole business of operating from grass is slightly dodgy. The actual takeoff performance can be dramatically different from anything that might have been documented in the POH

Agreed. A lot of the time it comes down to experience, local knowledge (from self or from reputable pilots familiar with the field), and that sixth sense which tells you it might not be such a great idea to attempt a take off right there and then (which is why the first question you ask yourself when landing on marginal sites is "is a take off possible?")

Now, a British >1000hr MEP-rated (ex-?)PPL is bound to be a regular here. So which one of you was it? :}

Mikehotel152

11th Jun 2009, 20:14

It was him, him, him...

[The stoning scene from Life of Brian]

IO540

11th Jun 2009, 20:58

Gethomeitis is a very, very dangerous disease.Gethomeitis does not exist. All you have to play with is performance data, weather data, pilot expertise / skills. This pilot messed up on the first one.

Gethomeitis is a term favoured by the training establishment to excuse p*ss poor training, strictly to the syllabus but useless for going somewhere for real, and favoured by the regulators who are not willing or able to do anything about this.

Sure, the pilot was under pressure to get out of Lands End. I would be, too ;) Probably the most exciting thing in that part of the UK are the crowds of pregnant 15 year old girls pushing prams.

This kind of thing is why I fly to grass only if somebody well familiar with IFR planes tells me it's a "good surface" and it has not rained for some days. And it must be 800m+ for me. Panshanger is fine. I also phone the place first and check they will have hard parking. I once got stuck in mud at Southend and a van could not move it; they had to get a fire crew with a 4x4. Never again.....

S-Works

11th Jun 2009, 21:25

Now, a British >1000hr MEP-rated (ex-?)PPL is bound to be a regular here. So which one of you was it?

I could spill the beans, but it would take the fun out of it......:p:p

Say again s l o w l y

11th Jun 2009, 21:45

Not sure I agree with that IO. When someone has over 1000hrs and has been out of the training system for a long time, the industry can take absolutely NO responsibility for one persons laziness or lack of nouse.

The responsibility is for a pilot to keep up there skills and to make the correct decisions. An FI can force people when they are in their hands, but we can't do anything about someone being a tit and ignoring all the training that they recieved in the first place.

Are all car drivers as cautious as they were when they first passed? Do they follow every rule to the letter? Do they hell. Why should PPL's be any different?

Gethomeitis is a real disease and a chuffing dangerous one. I know what I'm doing (usually) and it's tempted me on occasion.

Radar

12th Jun 2009, 02:53

bose-x

It does bring to mind the rather amusing stereotype of the Irish.....

Do elaborate ... or did I miss something earlier in the thread?

liam548

12th Jun 2009, 03:56

what kind of "weather mapping system" might he have been using in the aircraft? Is it likely to be a DA42 standard fit item?

Fuji Abound

12th Jun 2009, 07:31

I could spill the beans, but it would take the fun out of it

Heeinz.

I dont think you should.

IO540

12th Jun 2009, 07:59

Not sure I agree with that IO. When someone has over 1000hrs and has been out of the training system for a long time, the industry can take absolutely NO responsibility for one persons laziness or lack of nouse.That I agree with to a large degree; however there is a culture of sloppiness in GA and the training system is what sets the culture up in the first place, and maintains it through meaningless check flights thereafter. There are multi-thousand hour pilots who cannot read weather, for example, and they stay like it because the two yearly instructor check flight (obviously done with the most friendly instructor you can find - I do the same) is basically ineffective. In defence of this, many pilots would say that why should they know about this stuff when they only ever fly 20 miles down the road. It's a fair point, until one looks at the license privileges which are worldwide VFR.

Not far from where my plane lives, somebody rented a PA28, started it up with the towbar attached, took a 1" x 1" chunk out of the prop, chucked the towbar away around the corner, went for a flight, said nothing. To "us" this may seem utter folly but prop strikes are not taught in the PPL and (logically) my lawn mower doesn't need to be looked at when I hit a rock with it so why should a plane be any different?

I don't know this pilot so have no idea of his experience, but clearly he had no experience of the type versus poor-surface performance. Possibly, also, he was not the owner of the plane, and that makes a huge difference to "attitude to grass" etc.

S-Works

12th Jun 2009, 08:10

Quote:
It does bring to mind the rather amusing stereotype of the Irish.....
Do elaborate ... or did I miss something earlier in the thread?

The pilot of said aircraft is a friend of mine.

Don't worry I was not casting dispersions on the Irish, they are a fine nation.

It just happens that this particular Irishman could fit certain stereotypes!

Say again s l o w l y

12th Jun 2009, 08:45

IO, you don't get taught how to breathe, but most of us manage it ourselves.

It would be lovely if the training allowed hours of training on short strips and other more challenging things, but the PPL is just a basic licence. It isn't to a particularily high level on any area.

Afterwards though, there are plenty of courses around for farm strip, taildragger, IMC etc.

Schools would absolutely love it if the syllabus was expanded to include these things in the basic PPL, however, that isn't necessary and PPL's themselves are the ones that drive the cost and push for the course to be done and dusted as quickly as possible.

A PPL is a licence to learn, nothing more. You can't overload people with too much at the start. Teaching more advanced stuff is totally wasted for someone who's only just able to fly from one major airfield to another.

I agree that it would be nice if student PPL's were made to do at least 100hrs and that it brought in more challenging stuff, but that won't happen.

The other major problem (certainly up here) is that you aren't allowed to take students into many short grass strips as they aren't licenced. Whilst I do occasionally, it's not an everyday occurance as the student can't log the time and it is ever so slightly dodgy legally.

It would need a complete rip up of the current system. I do agree that it isn't anywhere near as good as it could be, the chances of the CAA ripping it all back and starting again are nil.