Twin Star (DA42) - Glass vs Clockwork

[sps1013]

Folks,

I guess this is being dragged up again but I think some fresh ideas would'nt go a miss.

Does anybody have any thoughts on doing an MEIR on the DA42? Inparticular the ability to fly IR trips with a centre stick where a conventional knee board for holding plates cannot be used due to the ergonomics?

Secondly, the 42 is a glass cockpit and not your traditional "analogue" style aircraft. Does this feature way in favour of selection by airlines or not? Reason being, will a prospective employer view your ability to fly on a glass system (like many operators use) as beneficial or would they prefer you to be able to prove your ability on an old stlye system?

Thoughts greatly appreciated.

sps1013

[FougaMagister]

Do a quick search and you'll see that a thread got started recently on precisely the same subject.

[too_sleepy]

The short answer is that you'll do the multi on an older aircraft.
The DA42 is used for the Multi/IR.
...and as far as I know, it's a sidestick so you shouldn't have problems with your kneeboard.

[davepilctl]

It is not a sidestick however you won't have any problem to use your knee board except when rotating the plane (aft position of stick) which is not the best time to have a look at your flight log...:hmm:

[sps1013]

Dear All!

Having consulted AIC Pink 31(P98)/06 - Single Power Lever Control Aeroplanes just exactly how do you train properly on the DA42?!

It seems that the glass cockpit is causing more problems than it is solving.

Within the AIC it quite rightly states that differences training must be undertaken for this type by both candidates and instructors alike. However, if you conduct your MEIR on a DA42, pass and have the MEIR appended to your licence you cannot fly a PA34 without undergoing further, expensive training on the use of mixture controls, prop levers etc.

So this begs the question - is it really worth busting a gut through the IR on the DA42 only to be stuck with keeping current on a "MEP" at selected venues?

What with this and the problems with limited panel and such like, how do the FTO's encourage students to part with cash?

Comments greatly appreciated.

sps1013

[moggiee]

Well, we´ve found students taking to it like ducks to water, as have other FTOs.

You don´t have to do differences training to fly it - any more than you have to do differences training to fly any other aeroplane in the "class". Most people only train on 1 multi-engined piston aeroplane and then move up to the next stage.

However, you do need to do a short stint of training (couple of hours maybe) to allow you to fly archaic, multi lever aeroplanes, but what´s new there? Do you think that if you train on a Seneca you can REALLY fly a Duchess or a Cessna twin without a couple of hours familiarisation? Would an organisation that operates senecas let a Duchess trained pilot loose in their aeroplane without training and a check ride? Of course not, and the same applies for going from DA42 to avgas power and back again.

Of course, you can train on Seneca/Duchess/Cessna and be stuck with 1940s technology but look how many DA42s are coming into the country - before long they will be as numerous at FTOs as the Seneca.

One or two questions - what do you plan to do with your CPL, ME Class Rating and MEIR? Do you plan to spend your career flying light twins or is it a step up to turboprops or jets? If it's the latter, then the DA42 is the most logical choice but if it´s the former, then find yourself an FTO with Senecas.

[moggiee]

Within the AIC it quite rightly states that differences training must be undertaken for this type by both candidates and instructors alike.
The issue of "differences training" is also greatly exagerated. You fly it on an ME class rating, as any other light twin. Full stop. Instructors are training on it because it is new, not different - and that point has been successfully argued with the CAA.

[BillieBob]

You don´t have to do differences training to fly it - any more than you have to do differences training to fly any other aeroplane in the "class".Oh yes you do! Differences training is required between any and all types of MEP aeroplanes. If, for example, you complete the MEP rating on a Duchess, JAR-FCL 1 mandates differences training before you fly a PA34, and again before you fly a C310, or a DA42. The very reason that the UK CAA was unable, as it wished, to mandate specific differences training to/from the DA42 was because it was the opinion of the JAA that it was already mandated. Hence we ended up with the 'advisory' AIC.
Moggiee's robust defence of the DA42 is doubtless influenced by his own vested interests as one of the early customers.

[High Wing Drifter]

Do you plan to spend your career flying light twins or is it a step up to turboprops or jets? If it's the latter, then the DA42 is the most logical choice but if it´s the former, then find yourself an FTO with Senecas.
I can't see how, just because it has 'glass' and single faster-slower lever, a DA42 is any more step in the right direction for jets/tps than any other small aircraft. It seems to me to have none of the challenging aspects of neither jets nor traditional light GA aircraft.

Don't get me wrong, I would rather fly a DA42 than any other twin, but one's preparedness for type ratings is surely no better.

[Send Clowns]

JAR-FCL 1 mandates differences training before you fly a PA34, and again before you fly a C310, or a DA42Where does it state that? I am interested because I was cleared on three aircraft with nothing but a check out. Admittedly one was an LPC/OPC which was part of mandated training, but for the AOC not the aircraft. One was with a recently-qualified MEP instructor who is a stickler for the rules, and very much involved with JARs. Another check was brief as I was already checked out on the company's other twin, and with one of the most qualified examiners in the country, who works closely alongside the CAA and is well aware of the regulations.

Note that difference training that is advised but not mandated has much the same effect as mandatory training. No-one will hire you one without (their insurance company would probably not cover it, under due care clauses) and if you buy one then no-one is likely to check either way unless you crash it and damage someone. Then if you have to defend yourself in court you will not be able to justify ignoring advice much more easily than ignoring the law!the DA42 is the most logical choiceWhy? There is no particular advantage. In fact I would suggest you are much less prepared for many jobs. Look at a light turboprop such as a Beech 90 (I only say this because I was in one on Saturday). It has the same number of levers as a 'traditional' light twin! In the case I was flying in the same instruments too, with the obvious exception of the engine instruments. There are plenty of early jobs in clockwork cockpits!

Also why restrict yourself before you even start? People should not be thinking "t'prop or jet" before they even start the course, they should be thinking "flying job". I did not expect to end up doing what I am doing, flying a PA-34, but it is huge fun, I'm the Captain already and it pays better than many junior FOs get! Think of the problems I'd have had though if I'd only flown under IFR on glass instruments with single-lever power. The change over would have been a shock, at the same time as learning single-crew air-charter operations.

[moggiee]

Also why restrict yourself before you even start.
It is no more restrictive than any other aeroplane in it´s class - whatever you move up to will require type rating during which you learn the specifics of your new aeroplane.

If you then go on to fly a C310, Seneca or Duchess then you SHOULD still do the SUGGESTED differences training but it is not mandated. A class rating is just what it says - a class rating and that theoretically clears you to fly any aeroplane in that class.

However, I return to my original point and ask "how many ME aeroplanes are you likely to fly as you move through the training system"? For most students that will just one.

My personal opinion, having flown pistons, turboprops and jets, is that in general the aeroplanes get easier to fly as they get bigger. Experience would suggest that the DA42 is easier to fly than a Seneca so the question is "why make getting your CPL and MEIR any more difficult than it has to be?".

[Charley]

Interesting point raised about the MEP class rating. I had been led to believe that differences training is indeed mandatory, so given the different view held here I decided to check on it.

The first port of call was JAR-FCL 1 (http://www.jaa.nl/publications/jars/563247.pdf). Section 1.215 deals with Class Ratings and can be quoted as follows.

JAR–FCL 1.215 Class ratings (A)

(a) Divisions. Class ratings shall be
established for single-pilot aeroplanes not
requiring a type rating as follows:

...

(6) all multi-engine piston aeroplanes
(land); and

...
It goes on to say:
(b) Listings

(1) Class ratings for aeroplanes will
be issued according with the associated
administrative procedures accepted by the
JAA. In order to change to another type or
variant of the aeroplane within one class
rating, differences or familiarisation training is
required.

Note the use of the word required rather than recommended. Further on, part 1.235 refers to privileges and states:

JAR–FCL 1.235 Type and class ratings – Privileges, number and variants

(a) Privileges. Subject to JAR–FCL
1.215(b) & (c) and JAR-FCL 1.220(a) & (b)
above, the privileges of the holder of a type or
class rating are to act as a pilot on the type or
class of aeroplane specified in the rating.

Finally, the second half of Table 1 of the JAA class & type ratings (http://www.jaa.nl/licensing/classtyperatings.html) suggests that differences training applies when moving between variants of the MEP class rating.

These are the bits of info I managed to find, what I couldn't find is any UK exemption or differences filed by the CAA. One could be forgiven for believing that differences training is required between between MEP aircraft.

[Send Clowns]

Moggiee

I didn't say it was any more restrictive - what I was saying was that you are assuming people will be choosing beforehand to fly modern jets and turboprop! That is not the way to start a course unless you're sponsored. Even there I don't think there's any special advantage so I disagree that "the DA42 is the most logical choice", but I was just pointing out the assumption.

It is only a specifically logical choice for a new aircraft. It is cheaper to run than a petrol-engined aircraft, but that saving is taken by the extra cost of the airframe unless a school was going to buy new anyway.

If there is a reason to fly with three levers per engine, then I would say that the reason for making the IR challenging while you are still used to flying the complex type (required for the CPL) is that if you don't then your observation will be reversed. You will not find a large, last-generation turboprop easier to fly than a DA-42. Then not only are you learning to operate the aircraft and deal with emergencies you have suddenly stepped back a stage in complexity again as well.

However I was not trying to argue a positive advantage for the traditional twin, just that there was no advantage to having done an IR on the DA-42.

Charley

Interesting that it doesn't say anything about the nature of the training - in fact as far as I can see a ground brief would cover initial differences training, let alone a check ride. On the other hand if you haven't flown that type in a couple of years the differences retraining has to be specifically entered into the log book.

[moggiee]

Again, from personal experience, I found the only really challenging aspect of moving from a single lever single engined aeroplane to the Jetstream (flown as a Single Pilot Aeroplane) to be the actual asymmetric handling.

The number of levers etc seemed to make very little difference.

Of course, that´s personal experience - if you find it to be a challenge, that´s a different story.

[Send Clowns]

Exactly. The single/three levers are not that different, so no reason either is better for a future career in jets.

[moggiee]

If there is a reason to fly with three levers per engine, then I would say that the reason for making the IR challenging while you are still used to flying the complex type (required for the CPL) is that if you don't then your observation will be reversed.

All the evidence from DA42 operators shows that the DA42 is easier to fly and operate than the "traditional" aeroplanes and surely this is a good thing. There are no extra points to be scored or ratings to be earned from doing the most difficult part of your training on an aeroplane that makes life even more difficult for you. All that there IS is the increased risk of a failure or partial pass. A partial will cost the student and extra £1000 or so in training, aircraft hire and test fees- a failure probably double that. £1000 buys you 3 hours in a Seneca - enough to get used to multilever operation (should you need to do such a thing).

The IR is a hurdle to jump - everyone knows that - but it is not a realistic example of the sort of flying that you will do next. It replicates single pilot AOC work - something that the majority of IR graduates will be some 500hours short of being qualified for. By the time the pilot has 700 hours under their belt they will have the experience required to handle the workload and the transition from single lever to multi lever aeroplanes.

Very few IR graduates go on the fly the aeroplane upon which they passed their tests - most go on to do MCC and head for an airline or go for an FIC and fly single engined aeroplanes for some time (as you yourself did, I believe). Therefore, the choice of MEIR training aeroplane should not be particularly closely based upon what come next but upon what is going to best facilitate the training process.

However, as airliners become more spohisticated, even at the bottom end of the market, the EFIS/GPS type operating environment will become more representative of where the graduate is likely to find himself.

The "pass your test on something challenging" attitude would have people learning to drive on Austin Sevens with crash gearboxes, iffy brakes and dodgy steering. The world moves on (unless you are Piper in which case the world is still as it was in the 1950s). Even Cessna are now fitting EFIS to the 172.


However I was not trying to argue a positive advantage for the traditional twin, just that there was no advantage to having done an IR on the DA-42.

But that's precisely what you did do in your first quoted comment!

[wangus]

I am strongly considering UK IR provider who uses Diamond Twinstar for IR modular training. I have a slight concern at flying such a revolutionary aircraft for IR, and wonder firstly, will time be wasted familiarising with a glass cockpit, and secondly, will it lend itself to IR flying in the seemingly antique Duchess and Senecas or 310s others fly. From anyone who has flown it for IR, to viewing commercial pilots, I would welcome any inputs. No mud-slinging thank you.

[FlyingForFun]

I didn't train on glass, but I have flown glass.

Moving from dials to glass is pretty simple, since the scan you learn on dials will work perfectly well with glass. Moving the other way is, I guess, a little more difficult, because you will develope a scan on glass which needs a little refinement to be used on dials, since the information you need is spread around a little more.

Just about every new aircraft has a glass cockpit, but the sim ride you do when applying for jobs will be on an old sim, possibly for a type which the airline doesn't use any more, so it will almost certainly have dials. I can't help but think that training on glass wouldn't prepare you for this.

Incidentally, the Twinstar also has a single power lever for each engine - no prop lever, mixture, carb heat, etc (not sure about cowl flaps, though), so it doesn't really prepare you for flying any conventional twin piston at all. Less relevant for moving onto jets, though, since jets also don't have prop controls or carb heats.....

If I was buying a twin, I would look very closely at the Twinstar. But not for training.

Small disclaimer - I work for an IR school which uses aircraft with dials, but I don't think this affects my views on this subject, which I held before I started teaching IR.

FFF
----------------

[LeFreak]

we learned IFR on single engine aircraft with conventional instruments .. after that, we started ME on the Twinstar .. it took a while to get used to but in the end it all felt pretty comfortable .. i don't think though that doing all the IFR on glass would be a good idea

[moggiee]

None of our students so far have had any trouble with the DA42 Twinstar - quite the reverse as they tend to find it easier to fly, manage and operate than the more conventional aeroplanes. In systems are logical and capable and the whole thing has anice, modern feel to it.

This allows them to concentrate on what the IR is REALLY supposed to be about - the IFR work. If they want to fly "conventional" (archaic!) aeroplanes later the differences training is done in a relatively low pressure environment (no CAA staff examiner!).

[B2N2]

We have recently started training with a DA-42 G1000.
Revolutionary is a bit of an understatement.
I am obviously biased because I love the thing but I will try to be impartial.
I would expect it to be one of the best ways to prepare for your first airline job. Unfortunately such a statement comes with no proof, you are really in the realm of personal opinion. Common sense would dictate it to be true however.
If your first job is on a smokey 310 you may need some adjustment.
Just about every new aircraft has a glass cockpit, but the sim ride you do when applying for jobs will be on an old sim, possibly for a type which the airline doesn't use any more, so it will almost certainly have dials. I can't help but think that training on glass wouldn't prepare you for this.

Even though I understand where this comes from I really disagree with the above statement.
That you would train for the hiring sim instead of for the job makes no sense to me.
Nobody expects you to be familiar with the type of sim anyway, it's more about demonstrating basic skills ( holds and ILS approach) and adaptation and learning curve then perfect performance first time on type.
Go for the training on the DA-42 and leave the old stuff for what it is.

[porridge]

Absolutely agree with all the foregoing posts - glass and the twin star is not the future it is the present here with us now. Stay with the conventional old 'steam' driven at your peril. It won't be long before it is standard on all new GA light aircraft anyway!

[scroggs]

It's inevitable that there will be slight differences in the rate at which glass cockpits are taken up by different parts of aviation. It's quite true that many airlines will continue to use 'clockwork' simulators to assess their new pilots, and indeed there will remain quite a few dialed aircraft in line service for many years to come.

I would not make my choice of school to do an IR (or any other training) on the equipment they use. I would base my decision purely on quality of instruction and successful output, where that information is available and reliable. I certainly would not refuse to use a school because its equipment is more advanced than the sims that some airlines use! As moggie says, you can always get some differences training later on if you feel you need it.

The main reason schools (or any operator) chooses new equipment is because it's cheaper to run, not because it gives a better 'experience' to the student. The transition to glass is easy, as is the transition from multi- to single-lever control. It can be done at any stage, so don't get too fussed by it.

Scroggs (A late convert to glass at age 46!)

[B2N2]

I would not make my choice of school to do an IR (or any other training) on the equipment they use.
Reality however indicates that most decisions are based either solely on price or on equipment.
As Scroggs states, reliable inforamtion concerning quality can be hard to come by.
Which again brings up the point of doing reasearch before dedicating to any particular training provider. A personal visit, if distances allow, is obviously always a good thing. Getting in touch with prior and present students also good.

The main reason schools (or any operator) chooses new equipment is because it's cheaper to run, not because it gives a better 'experience' to the student.
That is a little cynical, alot of schools definitely have the best interest of the customer or student in mind.
It is however unlikely that the best interest of the student will over-rule or conflict with the best interest of business.
There is room for both however.

[michaelknight]

Might have this all wrong, hasn't the Twinstar got FADEC, and auto feathering etc.... If so did I read that it's no use for a UK CAA skills test, as they want the student to do all the feathering manually?

Never been in a Twinstar yet... Like I said might have it wrong.

MK

[B2N2]

Transport Canada for instance certified it good for training without restrictions exactly because of that....the DA-42 DOES NOT have autofeather.
Feathering is accomplished by a rocker switch on the panel, the engine master switch.
http://www.diamondair.com/aircraft/da42_private/images/gallery/wallpaper/11.jpg

Either one of the switches to the left/right of the ignition key switch on the left side of the panel.
From the AFM:
3.5.3 ENGINE SECURING (FEATHERING) PROCEDURE
Depending on the situation attempts can be made to restore engine power prior to securing
the engine (see Section 3.5.2 ENGINE TROUBLESHOOTING).
Shut down and feathering of the affected engine:
1. Inoperative engine . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . identify & verify
2. ENGINE MASTER inoperative engine . . . . . OFF
CAUTION
Do not shut down an engine with the fuel selector valve. The
high pressure fuel pump can otherwise be damaged.
Securing the feathered engine:
3. Alternator inoperative engine . . . . . . . . . . . . OFF
4. Fuel selector inoperative engine . . . . . . . . . . OFF

[scameron77]

Can anyone recommend a flight school that is:


Currently flying the DA-42
Recognised by the CAA
Has access to an exaiminer qualified to examine a CAA CPL/ME in the DA-42


and finally but guessing this maybe stretching things a bit


Preferably in North America for cost issues


Many thanks,

[Superpilot]

The nearest to that is European American Aviation based Naples, FL. They have a couple of Twin Stars, are very European in nature but whether or not they actually do JAA ratings you will have to ask. My hunch is they do, but through some indirect and long winded method.

In the UK you could try Stapleford Flight Centre.

[class a]

Dont Atlantic flight training up at Coventry have one as well

[DJRC]

You could also try Egnatia Aviation in Greece, they seem pretty good on price (I think tax free if towards a commercial license). Never been there though so can't recomend it personally - http://www.egnatia-aviation.com/Fleet.htm

[scameron77]

The issue I have is that I have my ATPL's issued by the CAA and my memory tells me that a set requirement is the flight school for inital CPL has to be accredited by the same JAA member state.

Plus I'm currently doing my UK Multi/IR and no offence to any other JAA member states but I don't want my Instrument rating attached to Greek or Spanish CPL as my understanding is many UK based companies don't look favourably on this. If I'm wrong about this then the 5 Italians, 3 Danes, 2 Swedes and 5 Irishmen I did my Groundschool with kinda suggest otherwise.

From my 2 years on PPRuNe I know that last paragraph will maybe attract all sorts of abuse and name calling for about 8-12 posts. If I'm wrong or not or have offened any of you, this is not my opinion, Its merely what I've been lead to believe. Don't shoot the messenger who bodes bad news.

So I'll reiterate, CAA approved School (CAA FCL Standards Part 31), Access to an exaiminer approved on the DA-42, Offering DA-42 CPL conversions and preferably based in the US.

[rwhites]

you can't do you MEP in the DA 42 :eek: as it does not have a mixture leaver or propeller leaver, it has only one leaver for each engine. and i don't know of any school doing CPL's in one. You can do your IR in 1 if you have had the parshall panel singed of in a non glass cockpit aircraft usually done when you do you MEP.

[class a]

I think this has been covered already on here and it seems you can do you CAA MEP in the diamond star

[wbryce]

MP,

I'm considering the DA42 for my MEIR...as Moggiee said earlier the IR is to purely teach IFR flying and procedures so the DA42 seems like a very good platform..since you completed your IR have you flown any other MEP types? and if so how did you find it?

I'm considering Egnatia in Greece, what is everyones opinions on doing your IR in a different enviroment (greece opposed to Uk)? I say this as I've never been able to ask someone with this experience and wondering if I will face any unforseen difficulties.

[BlueRobin]

AFT at Coventry will put you through some hours on dials (including the PA44 I think) if you do the EFIS route on their Diamonds.

[scameron77]

The plan was to do the CPL in the Twin Star at a CAA recognised school (pref abroad for cost and weather issues). The CPL issued is limited to the DA-42 (similar to a automatic driving licence limits you not to use manual/stick shift) Then do an hour or so in the Seneca differences training at the school, get the MEP signed off and et viola . . . happy campers.

[BillieBob]

The CPL issued is limited to the DA-42 (similar to a automatic driving licence limits you not to use manual/stick shift)No, it is not. The licence is exactly the same irrespective of the type used, provided that it is a complex SEP or an MEP aeroplane.

What you may have intended to refer to is the Class Rating but the DA42 is in the MEP class, just the same as the Seneca, C310, Duchess or any other MEP aeroplane. It is true that, having gained an MEP Class Rating on the DA42, differences training is required to the Seneca but the same is true for any other MEP aeroplane. For example, if the MEP is gained on the Seneca then differences training is required to the C310, Duchess, DA42 or any other MEP aeroplane.

[scameron77]

OK then, well is it true to say that some partial panel stuff has to be done in another (traditional) sort of aircraft because of the G1000 and the standby instruments.

The DA-42 can't simulate (e.g. a vacum failure say or a pitot failure and the loss of the associated instruments with each only)

[Cirrus_Clouds]

I have been as of lately been flying an PA28 (analogue system), but have converted to the Diamond 40 (which has latest technology, no glass cockpit yet, GPS etc); how many of you plan to convert to a glass cockpit a/c i.e. DA42 or the less fancy Seneca when doing your Multi/IR?

I would also like to hear what training organisations think about whether the Glass cockpits are beneficial to those planning on going to the airlines?

Cirrus :ok:

[sam34]

hello everyone!

368 £ (552 euros) for one hour of DA42, do you think it is expensive ? :confused:

thanks friends!

[hixton]

That sounds like robbery!
$280 an hour over in sunny California

[sam34]

280 $ ??? :eek: god!

but usa it is the cheaper option i know.

and in Uk, what is the price please ?

[hixton]

I heard the cheapest around was a guy renting private, solo for 205 pounds/hr

[LFS]

Although the DA42 is significantly cheaper to operate in terms of fuel costs you do have to factor in the captial expenditure of buying a brand new aircraft at about £300,000 which is signicficantly more than your average second hand light piston twin training aircraft. Plus there will be uncertainties for operators of maintenance for a new aircraft, engine replacements (when and how much) etc.

[BlueRobin]

Yes but there are those still making a tidy profit from it, after all the ideal business cuts costs and charges more! But LFS is right, you have to pay the mortgage fees and Diamond UK's own sample ownership figures used to suggest factoring in hefty depreciation. Whether or not the price in real terms comes down when the dep slope smooths off is another matter.

[moggiee]

Off the top of my head, we charge £305 dual. We don't rent it out solo - it's too valuable an asset to do that!

[airspeedsalive]

In my opinion the problem with this thing as a trainer, is the no manual control over the props and no mixture control.

Learn to fly twins in this thing, then start flying a Baron or 310 and they will eat you alive. All the cool displays aren't going to help much when a real twin VMC rolls on you just after departure.

Two more thoughts - I don't like the idea of liquid cooled engines, and, I wonder how it will hold up after years as a training aircraft.

[VORTIME]

Everyone is missing the point.

It depends not on the plane but the pilot.

If the pilot plans to fly steam drive rust buckets for a few years, this is definitely the wrong aircraft for him.

However, if the point wants to transition onto a Learjet, Eclipse, Cessna jet or similar, it's amazingly similar avionics, jet-like power etc.

So there is no right answer - it depends on what you're preparing for next.

VT

[wbryce]

In my opinion the problem with this thing as a trainer, is the no manual control over the props and no mixture control.
Learn to fly twins in this thing, then start flying a Baron or 310 and they will eat you alive. All the cool displays aren't going to help much when a real twin VMC rolls on you just after departure.
Two more thoughts - I don't like the idea of liquid cooled engines, and, I wonder how it will hold up after years as a training aircraft.


Not really an issue in my opinion, before you fly a baron or 310 you would do the required difference/familirisation training. Anyone learning in the DA42 will obviously need a few hours difference training in say a clock n dial 6 lever twin...I'm planning to do my IR in the DA42 and have set aside 1k for some difference training in a convential twin shooting out some procedures and general handling.

Pre IR training us wannabes think of all the possible problematic issues, the IR rating is to teach you instrument flying, learning procedures...its not all about learning how to move 6 levers while shooting a procedure, the MEP rating teaches you that or ME type specific training!

At this present time we're all inexperienced at flying in the scenarios we're discussing and think of all the future problematic situations based on our current experience and knowledge...come the time we're maybe in a position to fly such aircraft we'ill be more experienced and clued up. (hopefully!)

[moggiee]

In my opinion the problem with this thing as a trainer, is the no manual control over the props and no mixture control.
Learn to fly twins in this thing, then start flying a Baron or 310 and they will eat you alive. All the cool displays aren't going to help much when a real twin VMC rolls on you just after departure.
Two more thoughts - I don't like the idea of liquid cooled engines, and, I wonder how it will hold up after years as a training aircraft.

A few years ago people said "I don't like ailerons, give me wing warping anyday". Then they said "You won't catch me flying with a variable pitch prop - too unreliable", "jets - they'll never catch on", "EFIS - nasty, dangerous stuff" etc. etc.

There are always a few Luddites - thank God that the industry doesn't listen to them or we'd all be training on Tiger Moths and Dragon Rapides before trying to jump straight to an A320!

Tell, does your car have to be hand cranked to start? Do you have an ignition timing adjuster on the steering wheel? Is the ignition produced by a "hot tube" rather than one of those nasty, modern spark plug thingies? Got no seat belts and no speedo? Do you still have one mechanical brake operating on a single, rear, solid tyre shod wheel? Of course not - so why expect aeroplanes to stand still.

You learn to drive on a modern car because most cars are modern cars. If you then want to drive a Model T Ford or Austin Seven Chummy, you get some to do differences training for these dinosaurs. The same applies to the DA42 and old fashioned aeroplanes.

The future is here now and it has liquid cooled, diesel engines and EFIS displays in the cockpit.

[pilotpaul]

First time pass on the DA42 last week, I love that aircraft, so much easier and nicer to fly than a Sene**.

Subsequently got offered a job on a aircraft that is EFIS equipped due to my "experience" on glass cockpit :ok:

[BlueRobin]

Just Googled them:
http://www.papa-bravo.com/
From Bagby. If they're using G-DJET then this is sometimes leased out to other DA42 operators ;)

[tonyjl]

You could also try Egnatia Aviation in Greece, they seem pretty good on price (I think tax free if towards a commercial license). Never been there though so can't recomend it personally - http://www.egnatia-aviation.com/Fleet.htm


I just did it. Tax free, good price, awesome plane, awesome terrain, awesome weather for IR (lots of ice, low ceiling, bad visibility..)

The only bad thing is that the Twinstar spoiled me.. Can't really bother to fly old Cessna's anymore..

[BlueRobin]

Before doing the IR on a DA42, would there be any merit therefore in doing the MEP on a "conventional" AVGAS piston? I can do so on a PA34-220T Seneca II next door for about the same money as my current FTO's DA42, so there's little cost factor involved between the two choices.

[wbryce]

Whats the current situation with the DA42 and screens to simulate IMC? Egnatia tell me the its impossible to fit screens on the DA42 due to its canopy....were as we have UK DA42 operators which use the '42 for training which most likely use screens since its a requirement...:confused:

[BlueRobin]

Stick a sack over your head a la Tiger Moth? :E

I may pop by the field tomorrow so will ask if I remember.

Any thoughts on the above MEP question, Mr B?

[wbryce]

Hard to say BR, doing it on the convential steam driven AVGAS drinker you will benefit in understanding the convential MEP operations early on...this may slow you down a bit in understanding the DA42 at the start of your IR and may not directly benefit you, it depends how easy the AC is to learn...since I haven't flown it yet, I can't quite say.

I planned to do some hours in a conventional MEP after the IR, mainly from my currency budget - this would still give the benefits your after IMO...

If you can ask the screens question at your FTO, then that would be great! :)

[PB4]

I fly at SFC and the DA42 has screens, one big for the left window and 3 smaller than usual ones for the windscreen due to the canopy dimensions. you still can't see anything outside :E

[BlueRobin]

Okay I had a look at the aircraft and FRASCA sim. This is going to be a tough decision as to wehter go steam, combination thereof or full glass, but the DA42 is definately ahead compared to the typical FTO trainer fleet. Plus the instruction seems okay.

AFT have had their screens custom-made.

[moggiee]

Whats the current situation with the DA42 and screens to simulate IMC? Egnatia tell me the its impossible to fit screens on the DA42 due to its canopy....were as we have UK DA42 operators which use the '42 for training which most likely use screens since its a requirement...:confused:
Our screens work well enough on our DA42

[High Wing Drifter]

BR,

Some comments I have heard are that some IR examiners have cottoned on to how realatively easy the DA42 is compared to a traditional MEP and are compensating by applying the deviation limits to the letter...or more strict in any case. I have no idea if this is true or not, but might be worth querying and adding to the mix.

[jamojdm]

Ok so theres screens for the DA42, but how does the limited panel work? Seems from photos you would need to turn off the glass displays but somehow leave the speed tape and vsi?

Jamo

[BlueRobin]

HWD can't see how they can when it is enshrined in JAR-FCL1 with no exception.

IIRC (which I probably don't) for one specific FTO P/P is done with the screen covered or dimmed, L/P is done in another aircraft with conventional instruments. How the two marry for the IRT I don't know.

[hixton]

Circuit breakers are pulled for the limited panel stuff.

[High Wing Drifter]

BR,

The IR standards for the skills test is published by the CAA. As many have noted, if you deviate from these standards you are not failed so long as safety was not compromised, you recognise it and you adjust and a smooth and timely manner. My interpretation is that that degree of latitude is not allowed for, that is all.

[RVR800]

Yes agreed sounds like the type of stuff some traditional 40's technology schools might peddle to prevent student numbers declining...:rolleyes:

[High Wing Drifter]

I agree, it does sound ****e! But worth querying non the less.

[Port Strobe]

compensating by applying the deviation limits to the letter
I heard they were halving them

[Cirrus_Clouds]

I'm thinking about my flight training route for the future and I'm not sure whether do to an IR in a DA42 or keep it to something like a Seneca.

For those who are doing their ME and IR at the mo, what are the reasons behind choosing the a/c type you are flying?

I am flying the DA40 currently and very tempted to learn the Glass Cockpit system, with the future in mind.

I have heard the DA42 is easier to fly and lacks the power when comparing to a Seneca, but seeing as I would like to fly a Glass Cockpit a/c if I obtain a job, I should maybe fly this a/c type for the ME/IR?

[Aim High]

Move with the times
Learn the latest technology

If for some reason you end up needing to fly 3-lever twins just do differences training

[portsharbourflyer]

Never flown the DA42 but I would probably guess that the DA42 as it is built from composite(hence lighter than the seneca) and only a four seat twin is probably alot easier to handle than the seneca (basing this on the grounds that I find a dutchess far easier to fly than the slightly larger seneca). My own experience is that a seneca is far better for developing your general handling and assymetric flying technique and would be far better preparation if you were interested in going down the instructor / air taxi route. However by the sound of your post ("interested in flying glasscockpit aircraft", in truth you can't be that fussy) doesn't sound like you are, if you really are keen to fly glass cockpit aircraft then self funding an A320 rating after your IR would be a possible option to achieve this goal; in which case I would guess the DA22 cockpit would be better preparation. So your choice really depends on what you wish to do after you get your f(ATPL).

[MIKECR]

In the middle of ME/IR just now, on the seneca. I've found it a huge jump from the SEP's i've flown. A friend from my ATPL course is starting the IR shortly on the DA42, it will be interesting to hear how he gets on. I would suspect the DA42 is easier to fly but once you have the power/prop settings of the seneca committed to memory, its not as bad as it seems.

[adwjenk]

Hi,


I have a fair few friends who have done their IR on the PA34 and DA42!
One of them said to me that if you do your IR on the DA42 all glass cockpit you have a restriction on your IR! For example you could not get your IR on the DA42 EFIS and then step into a PA34 and go on a IFR flight, while if you did your IR on a Seneca then you could! He mentioned to me that for this reason you are restricted to fly the DA42 on IFR trips! He also said it was much easier to fly, not having to worry about the props since they are self conditioning and all the nav aids are picked up by the equipment onboard makes it one hell of alot easier!

I would be tempted to take the Seneca, never flown a DA42 tho yet have used EFIS on a 172 and it relieves the work load with the help on the nav aids and the routing!! Also self-conditioning props must be a god send after flying a PA34 not having to worry about the props would free up your work load and capacity!

Hope this helps if anyone can confirm the above mentioned restriction if its accurate or false i would be grateful!

ADWJENK

[MIKECR]

I cant see it being a "restriction", more just a case of difference's training required(conventional wobbly props) presumably?? Perhaps there's more to the story.......anyone??

[Cyclone733]

Given the choice I would pick the DA42 over an older aircraft type. They tend to be more reliable (engines start first time, gauges work, not held together with duct tape etc) and with the trend indications on the Garmin 1000s should be easier to instrument fly.

Also you're looking at 2 levers for the engines (not counting alternate air) and a very simple engine shut down and restart drill. As long as you take a bit of time to learn the Garmin 1000 system on the ground with the software, you should have a lighter work load than with a non-GPS enabled aircraft with a total of 10 engine levers and no intergrated Nav.

[dartagnan]

I would go seneca(to avoid restriction), then airbus for MCC.

[moggiee]

I would go seneca(to avoid restriction), then airbus for MCC.
What restriction? There is no restriction - it's a scare story put around by Luddites who don't like new tecnology.

You have to do differences training - as you do when changing aircraft anyway - but that's all.

[BillieBob]

There is no restriction whatsoever on a MEIR gained on a DA42, it is equally valid on all MEP aeroplanes (in the UK, at least). Extension of the privileges of the MEP class rating from a DA42 to any other MEP type will require differences training, but then that is true of any MEP type.

There is no differences training required to exercise the privileges of a MEIR on any other SPA type, whether MEP, SEP, MET or SET, irrespective of the type on which it was gained.



Moggiee, you just beat me to it!

[Cirrus_Clouds]

Thanks for the input all, I am starting to think the DA42 will be the a/c I will do my IR in; I just hope it won't limit me to any job opportunities. :rolleyes:

I think I'll learn the Garmin 1000 on the DA40, so then it should hopefully be a breeze when converting to the DA42.

[npasque]

doing mine in the good ol beech duchess. supposed to be a good trainer, for assymetrics etc. also a very stable aircraft.

unfortunately no G1000 for me, have to do it the hard way :}

enjoy

[sam34]

anybody esle flew on DA42?

[skyhigher]

just a though but if you do the me/ir in the twinstar will you not do some training in SE da40 or piper? that would be the best of both worlds would it not. IFR on dials (and say twin430's) in a single (35hrs) then 15 hours g1000 on the twinstar. 3 less levers for learning is one point i can think of.