DA42 vs Fatal Accidents

Any DA42 related topics.

Moderators: Rick, Lance Murray

User avatar
dgger
4 Diamonds Member
4 Diamonds Member
Posts: 217
Joined: Sun Feb 21, 2016 11:00 pm
First Name: Peter
Aircraft Type: DA62
Aircraft Registration: OEFGM
Airports: EDLN
Has thanked: 21 times
Been thanked: 39 times

Re: DA42 vs Fatal Accidents

Post by dgger »

ememic99 wrote:Just to add that in these 13 accidents 30 people lost their lives. And relative majority of accidents are related to training which is quite surprising having one (or sometimes two) instructors on board not reacting to prevent the accident.
True, but let‘s not forget that the overall numbers are too small and information on the majority of accidents too scarce. We have everything from suicides and lightning strikes to disappearences during unknown surveilance missions in conflict zones. I would want to not draw the conclusion that DA42 pilots lack training form here. And even so: Should you be a throroughly trained pilots that would only mean that a DA42 is a very safe aircraft for you as long as you stay out of reach of anti-aircraft weaponry.
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: DA42 vs Fatal Accidents

Post by Antoine »

Two people died in international waters between Cyprus and Lebanon in a DA42 in 2014. Very obscure circumstances.
I have a suspicion that they were confused with this at a time where several battleships were on high alert in this area.
Capture d’écran 2018-08-20 à 13.34.21.png
User avatar
dgger
4 Diamonds Member
4 Diamonds Member
Posts: 217
Joined: Sun Feb 21, 2016 11:00 pm
First Name: Peter
Aircraft Type: DA62
Aircraft Registration: OEFGM
Airports: EDLN
Has thanked: 21 times
Been thanked: 39 times

Re: DA42 vs Fatal Accidents

Post by dgger »

Antoine wrote:I have a suspicion that they were confused with this at a time where several battleships were on high alert in this area.
I wonder, if Diamond has ever considered the impact on its civil line of products when the decided to build spy planes. The similarity between the two is seriously limiting in parts of the world.
User avatar
ememic99
5 Diamonds Member
5 Diamonds Member
Posts: 1078
Joined: Wed Apr 09, 2014 10:31 am
First Name: Emir
Aircraft Type: DA42
Aircraft Registration: SEMAD
Airports: LDZA LDVA
Has thanked: 203 times
Been thanked: 390 times

Re: DA42 vs Fatal Accidents

Post by ememic99 »

dgger wrote:
ememic99 wrote:Just to add that in these 13 accidents 30 people lost their lives. And relative majority of accidents are related to training which is quite surprising having one (or sometimes two) instructors on board not reacting to prevent the accident.
True, but let‘s not forget that the overall numbers are too small and information on the majority of accidents too scarce. We have everything from suicides and lightning strikes to disappearences during unknown surveilance missions in conflict zones. I would want to not draw the conclusion that DA42 pilots lack training form here. And even so: Should you be a throroughly trained pilots that would only mean that a DA42 is a very safe aircraft for you as long as you stay out of reach of anti-aircraft weaponry.
I didn't try to draw any conclusion - I just provided source and some data. I don't think DA42 is unsafe aircraft, otherwise I wouldn't own it and fly one. If some conclusion can be drawn from this resource then it's the opposite - DA42 is very safe and the aircraft itself hasn't been the cause of the accidents (at least in majority of clarified/solved cases) with pilot errors being the most probable cause of the most of the accidents.
User avatar
CFIDave
5 Diamonds Member
5 Diamonds Member
Posts: 2678
Joined: Wed Nov 07, 2012 3:40 pm
First Name: Dave
Aircraft Type: OTHER
Aircraft Registration: N333GX
Airports: KJYO Leesburg VA
Has thanked: 231 times
Been thanked: 1473 times

Re: DA42 vs Fatal Accidents

Post by CFIDave »

Many of the accidents listed in the database seem to be just gear-up landings.

I find it interesting that with hundreds of Diamond twins flying in North America -- probably about half the fleet -- there have been no fatalities in this region. Let's hope it stays that way. :thumbsup:
Epic Aircraft E1000 GX
Former DA40XLS, DA42-VI, and DA62 owner
ATP, CFI, CFI-I, MEI
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: DA42 vs Fatal Accidents

Post by Colin »

I'm TRYING, Dave.
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)
User avatar
ememic99
5 Diamonds Member
5 Diamonds Member
Posts: 1078
Joined: Wed Apr 09, 2014 10:31 am
First Name: Emir
Aircraft Type: DA42
Aircraft Registration: SEMAD
Airports: LDZA LDVA
Has thanked: 203 times
Been thanked: 390 times

Re: DA42 vs Fatal Accidents

Post by ememic99 »

CFIDave wrote:Many of the accidents listed in the database seem to be just gear-up landings.
Yes. And majority of them are pilot errors rather than mechanical failures.
I find it interesting that with hundreds of Diamond twins flying in North America -- probably about half the fleet -- there have been no fatalities in this region. Let's hope it stays that way. :thumbsup:
I believe that it’s a consequence of people flying more in your region and GA is simply more developed than here. In Europe everything is more complicated and more expensive, from EASA regulation, to expensive fuel, to high airport taxes.
User avatar
dgger
4 Diamonds Member
4 Diamonds Member
Posts: 217
Joined: Sun Feb 21, 2016 11:00 pm
First Name: Peter
Aircraft Type: DA62
Aircraft Registration: OEFGM
Airports: EDLN
Has thanked: 21 times
Been thanked: 39 times

Re: DA42 vs Fatal Accidents

Post by dgger »

ememic99 wrote:
CFIDave wrote:Many of the accidents listed in the database seem to be just gear-up landings.
Yes. And majority of them are pilot errors rather than mechanical failures.
I find this is a fine and sometimes rather difficult line to be drawn. I like to think that some aircraft seem to invite certain piloting failures.

For example take a look at the the now infamous Speyer accident which was caused by a double engine failure shortly after take-off. IIRC the PIC had used ground power to start both engines resulting in too low a battery charge which caused the electric system to collapse upon gear retraction - including the ECUs ultimately resulting in a total loss of power.

Now that could be chalked up as a pilot error. Afterall did the POH only allow one engine to be started with ground power and required the second to be started off the first one. But to be honest, I would rather not want to fly an aircraft that turns into a glider, because I forgot to honor an abscure footnote on page 758 of the POH in the heat of the moment...

Another example are PA-46 loss-of-control accident. Yes, clearly losing control of an aircraft is a pilot error. Yet, I would not feel good in an aircraft that requires me to be an better-than-average pilot to be safe.
User avatar
ememic99
5 Diamonds Member
5 Diamonds Member
Posts: 1078
Joined: Wed Apr 09, 2014 10:31 am
First Name: Emir
Aircraft Type: DA42
Aircraft Registration: SEMAD
Airports: LDZA LDVA
Has thanked: 203 times
Been thanked: 390 times

Re: DA42 vs Fatal Accidents

Post by ememic99 »

dgger wrote:
ememic99 wrote:
CFIDave wrote:Many of the accidents listed in the database seem to be just gear-up landings.
Yes. And majority of them are pilot errors rather than mechanical failures.
I find this is a fine and sometimes rather difficult line to be drawn. I like to think that some aircraft seem to invite certain piloting failures.
Extracting gear in DA42 for sure is not something that trained pilot can easily forget, not to mention instructor on board. The speed and the attitude of the aircraft is so different with gear retracted and extended that for me it's hard to imagine not to notice the difference.
User avatar
TimS
5 Diamonds Member
5 Diamonds Member
Posts: 553
Joined: Thu Dec 02, 2010 1:10 am
First Name: Timothy
Aircraft Type: OTHER
Aircraft Registration: N1446C
Airports: 6B6 Stowe MA
Has thanked: 94 times
Been thanked: 97 times

Re: DA42 vs Fatal Accidents

Post by TimS »

dgger wrote: I find this is a fine and sometimes rather difficult line to be drawn. I like to think that some aircraft seem to invite certain piloting failures.

For example take a look at the the now infamous Speyer accident which was caused by a double engine failure shortly after take-off. IIRC the PIC had used ground power to start both engines resulting in too low a battery charge which caused the electric system to collapse upon gear retraction - including the ECUs ultimately resulting in a total loss of power.

Now that could be chalked up as a pilot error. Afterall did the POH only allow one engine to be started with ground power and required the second to be started off the first one. But to be honest, I would rather not want to fly an aircraft that turns into a glider, because I forgot to honor an abscure footnote on page 758 of the POH in the heat of the moment...

Another example are PA-46 loss-of-control accident. Yes, clearly losing control of an aircraft is a pilot error. Yet, I would not feel good in an aircraft that requires me to be an better-than-average pilot to be safe.
Actually, I think it was both a design failure and a pilot mistake. An electrical dependent aircraft the battery is your first line of defense for all sorts of items from power surges to power drops. If your battery does not start the engines, it likely cannot handle the other functions.
Second, the plane should have had local and independent batteries per ECU from the start in case of electrical "hiccups".

Tim
Post Reply