R44 piece and discussion on safety culture

The ramblings of our community of aviators.

Moderators: Rick, Lance Murray

User avatar
Don
4 Diamonds Member
4 Diamonds Member
Posts: 377
Joined: Tue Jul 06, 2010 9:15 pm
First Name: Don
Aircraft Type: DA40
Aircraft Registration: N623DS
Airports: KTOA
Has thanked: 123 times
Been thanked: 162 times

Re: R44 piece and discussion on safety culture

Post by Don »

When I purchased my first new DA40 back in March of 2003, I was a student with less than 10 hours in a C-172. Prior to my purchase, I did my research and the DA40 appeared to be the safest aircraft. (At that time there were zero fatal accidents) Shortly after receiving my PP, my wife wanted to learn to fly and I felt very comfortable with here soloing
in a Diamond. Over 15 years later, and four new Diamonds purchased, I am very happy that I made the right decision back in 2003. Time has proven that Diamond is indeed the safest aircraft that money can buy.

Diamond safety record attached.
Diamond-Safety-CrashRates.png
Diamond Star XLS, N623DS, SN40.1076
User avatar
Wall-e
3 Diamonds Member
3 Diamonds Member
Posts: 82
Joined: Mon Apr 02, 2012 5:20 pm
First Name: Wally
Aircraft Type: DA40
Aircraft Registration: N125HA
Airports: ARW
Has thanked: 10 times
Been thanked: 7 times

Re: R44 piece and discussion on safety culture

Post by Wall-e »

Perhaps closer to our aircraft, the various Cirrii have accident rates that are higher than the GA average. These have come down in recent years to around the same as the GA average overall (around 3x the DA-40 rate).

If you have tried to insure a Diamond, Cirrus, and Robinson then you know exactly what the insurers think.

It is fascinating to me to see the difference between a culture focused on safety (as Diamond clearly is) and one focused on sharing the blame. While we may have gripes about Diamond, there is no question that their products have proven to be quite safe. Modern design methodologies should result in extremely low crash rates. There really is no argument with this -- we see large airplanes running around at 550MPH all over the world with the best safety record in transportation while more banal transportation modalities (walking, flying a GA plane, and, especially, driving) are more dangerous. It is a matter of safety / non-safety culture vs. design and tech.
Having flown the DA40 nearly every month for the last 5 years & total time in that model of over 800 hours with over 400 CFI I have a very good feel for the plane. It is easy to fly & comfortable transportation. I know that Diamond has really started to look for innovative markets for their planes like military applications & the standard flight training. Introduction of the DA62 prior to the DA50 indicates to me that they want to compete with Cirrus using the twin model until the DA50 is available.

In the past two years I have flown the SR-22 over 250 hours & really enjoy the performance of the plane. The Diamond design using a more benign airframe versus the Cirrus design with more performance & style does produce better fatal accident numbers but that may be partially due to the use of DA40s in many flight schools. I can't find stats for it but comparison of DA40 numbers outside of flight training may be a lot closer to Cirrus SR-22 stats regarding fatal accidents. The accident rate in training environments has always been less than personal use/business flying.

I do find that Cirrus is more progressive with new equipment/avionics than Diamond. Cirrus has led the industry in the advancement of the G1000 cockpit by adding new features continuously. Diamond on the other hand seems happy with what Garmin offers them.

So, what makes one plane more safe than the other - training. Cirrus has not only led the industry in aircraft sales, they have also led the industry in aircraft specific training. The company has a very robust training program for CSIPs & produces programming for every aspect of pilot training in the Cirrus. The current accident rate for Cirrus would probably be much lower if all Cirrus pilots were trained by CSIPs. That training comes with the purchase of a new plane but aircraft sold on the used market have not included that until recently.

The fatal rate for Cirrus has continually come down since the company committed to standardized training. Now it is just a matter of convincing pilots purchasing used aircraft to avail themselves of the training available.
Wally
CFII
User avatar
Colin
5 Diamonds Member
5 Diamonds Member
Posts: 2006
Joined: Sat Aug 21, 2010 8:37 pm
First Name: Colin
Aircraft Type: DA42
Aircraft Registration: N972RD
Airports: KFHR
Has thanked: 319 times
Been thanked: 527 times

Re: R44 piece and discussion on safety culture

Post by Colin »

You can train someone all day in the Cirrus but having spring-loaded controls for roll means that they feel the actual forces on the control surfaces incorrectly and, therefore, not develop the correct instincts for the various situations one finds in the first 500 hours of flying.

If there are compromises to be made between safety and performance I feel that Diamond always chose safety. I believe some of the time Cirrus chose performance.
Colin Summers, PP Multi-Engine IFR, ~3,000hrs
colin@mightycheese.com * send email rather than PM
http://www.flyingsummers.com
N972RD DA42 G1000 2.0 s/n 42.AC100 (sold!)
N971RD DA40 G1000 s/n 40.508 (traded)
Antoine
5 Diamonds Member
5 Diamonds Member
Posts: 2043
Joined: Fri Oct 15, 2010 11:00 pm
First Name: Antoine
Aircraft Type: OTHER
Aircraft Registration: N121AG
Airports: LSGG
Has thanked: 87 times
Been thanked: 220 times

Re: R44 piece and discussion on safety culture

Post by Antoine »

Sorry for crashing the party :

The latest iteration of the DA40 is also the worst in terms of safety. Talk about progress...
Could we compare the fatality rate of the DA40 NG vs industry average?
Even worse, Diamond let slip a deadly ergonomics error in the design of the instrument panel.
This actually killed people before they fixed it. How they got this through certification remains a mystery to me...
User avatar
pietromarx
4 Diamonds Member
4 Diamonds Member
Posts: 433
Joined: Fri Oct 07, 2016 2:52 am
First Name: Peter
Aircraft Type: DA40
Aircraft Registration: NZZZ
Airports: KWHP
Has thanked: 29 times
Been thanked: 156 times

Re: R44 piece and discussion on safety culture

Post by pietromarx »

Antoine wrote:Sorry for crashing the party :

The latest iteration of the DA40 is also the worst in terms of safety. Talk about progress...
Could we compare the fatality rate of the DA40 NG vs industry average?
Even worse, Diamond let slip a deadly ergonomics error in the design of the instrument panel.
This actually killed people before they fixed it. How they got this through certification remains a mystery to me...
Say more ... ?

Generally, it does seem that there is very little certification / oversight given to ergonomics, physical or digital.
User avatar
Chris
5 Diamonds Member
5 Diamonds Member
Posts: 935
Joined: Sat Jun 19, 2010 3:34 am
First Name: Chris
Aircraft Type: DA42NG
Aircraft Registration: N449TS
Airports: KHIO
Has thanked: 1050 times
Been thanked: 481 times

Re: R44 piece and discussion on safety culture

Post by Chris »

pietromarx wrote:
Antoine wrote:Sorry for crashing the party :
Even worse, Diamond let slip a deadly ergonomics error in the design of the instrument panel.
This actually killed people before they fixed it. How they got this through certification remains a mystery to me...
Say more ... ?
I believe Antoine is referring to this accident, which was caused by the pilot turning off the Engine Master rather then the Fuel Pump switch shortly after take-off. The two switches are very similar and located within inches of one another on the DA40NG.
Chris
N449TS / DA42-NG / 42.AC049
KHIO
User avatar
Pehu
3 Diamonds Member
3 Diamonds Member
Posts: 119
Joined: Wed Jun 22, 2016 7:47 pm
First Name: Pekka
Aircraft Type: DA62
Aircraft Registration: ESTWN
Airports: LSZL
Has thanked: 38 times
Been thanked: 38 times

Re: R44 piece and discussion on safety culture

Post by Pehu »

That switch was fixed a long time ago, now it has a clear red guard on it.

I know at least one incident from Finland but it ended up well (engine was restarted successfully).
ES-TWN / DA62 #62.155
OH-ASM / DA40NG #N_399 (sold)
OH-WOW / DA40NG #N_328 (co-ownership, sold)
Based in Locarno, Switzerland
Post Reply