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...

[sps1013]

MEIR Training on DA42

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]

Originally Posted by sps1013

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]

Originally Posted by billiebob

JAR-FCL 1 mandates differences training before you fly a PA34, and again before you fly a C310, or a DA42

Where 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!

Originally Posted by moggie

the DA42 is the most logical choice

Why? 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]

Originally Posted by Send Clowns

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. Section 1.215 deals with Class Ratings and can be quoted as follows.

Originally Posted by JAR-FCL 1.215

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:

Originally Posted by JAR-FCL 1.215

(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:

Originally Posted by JAR-FCL 1.235

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 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]

Originally Posted by Send Clowns

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.

Originally Posted by Send Clowns

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]

Flight School Dilemma - Twin Star

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!).