Austro engine reliability and safety

[ememic99]

Quoting witnesses:

The conditions at the airport at the time of the crash included overcast clouds at 1,200 feet, 1 ¾ miles visibility in light snow and gusting winds, the report says.

Two witnesses who watched the plane depart told investigators that it did so during a period of heavy snowfall, according to the NTSB report.

A witness on the airport property, who was also a flight instructor, reported that the takeoff appeared normal; however, due to the heavy snow fall and restricted visibility at the time, he told his wife to note the time as he did not feel that the flight would have a good outcome.

The flight instructor also noted that the plane was in the clouds when it reached the end of the 5,201-foot-long runway and that he could barely see the windsock at the time because of the heavy snow, according to the report.

Another witness, at a home about a half mile west of the runway, told NTSB investigators that the airplane turned left after takeoff and flew so low over his property “that he could have read the registration number had the snow not been so heavy.

The plane continued in a left circle back toward the airport runway until the second witness could no longer see it due to the low visibility. Then he heard a “crunching sound,” according to the report. The plane came to a rest about a half mile from the runway.

I hope the investigation will find what actually happened but no-IR PPL pilot departing in obvious IMC seems to be the primary cause of this accident.

[Rich]

Quoting witnesses:

The conditions at the airport at the time of the crash included overcast clouds at 1,200 feet, 1 ¾ miles visibility in light snow and gusting winds, the report says.

Two witnesses who watched the plane depart told investigators that it did so during a period of heavy snowfall, according to the NTSB report.

A witness on the airport property, who was also a flight instructor, reported that the takeoff appeared normal; however, due to the heavy snow fall and restricted visibility at the time, he told his wife to note the time as he did not feel that the flight would have a good outcome.

The flight instructor also noted that the plane was in the clouds when it reached the end of the 5,201-foot-long runway and that he could barely see the windsock at the time because of the heavy snow, according to the report.

Another witness, at a home about a half mile west of the runway, told NTSB investigators that the airplane turned left after takeoff and flew so low over his property “that he could have read the registration number had the snow not been so heavy.

The plane continued in a left circle back toward the airport runway until the second witness could no longer see it due to the low visibility. Then he heard a “crunching sound,” according to the report. The plane came to a rest about a half mile from the runway.

I hope the investigation will find what actually happened but no-IR PPL pilot departing in obvious IMC seems to be the primary cause of this accident.

Which accident are we talking about?

[chili4way]

I think two different accidents are being discussed in parallel. I'm not sure which one involves a takeoff into IMC.

Nashville (big bore Lycoming)
https://aviation-safety.net/wikibase/352204

[ememic99]

Quoting witnesses:

The conditions at the airport at the time of the crash included overcast clouds at 1,200 feet, 1 ¾ miles visibility in light snow and gusting winds, the report says.

Two witnesses who watched the plane depart told investigators that it did so during a period of heavy snowfall, according to the NTSB report.

A witness on the airport property, who was also a flight instructor, reported that the takeoff appeared normal; however, due to the heavy snow fall and restricted visibility at the time, he told his wife to note the time as he did not feel that the flight would have a good outcome.

The flight instructor also noted that the plane was in the clouds when it reached the end of the 5,201-foot-long runway and that he could barely see the windsock at the time because of the heavy snow, according to the report.

Another witness, at a home about a half mile west of the runway, told NTSB investigators that the airplane turned left after takeoff and flew so low over his property “that he could have read the registration number had the snow not been so heavy.

The plane continued in a left circle back toward the airport runway until the second witness could no longer see it due to the low visibility. Then he heard a “crunching sound,” according to the report. The plane came to a rest about a half mile from the runway.

I hope the investigation will find what actually happened but no-IR PPL pilot departing in obvious IMC seems to be the primary cause of this accident.

Which accident are we talking about?

When Nashville was mentioned I thought it was about this accident (last week, departure to IMC):

https://aviation-safety.net/wikibase/352204

[Rich]

When Nashville was mentioned I thought it was about this accident (last week, departure to IMC):

https://aviation-safety.net/wikibase/352204

I see no mention in this of IMC. The fatal leg was from Kentucky and reported engine problems and crashed near the cleared airport. There seems to be some disorientation involved as it was night.

[mfdutra]

Certainly this accident had other concerning contributing factors, like reluctance to declare an emergency, flying away from a perfectly good airport.

If you have a sick airplane, especially a single, stay high over an airport and spiral down. Don't go away from it.

[wseidel]

Excuse me if this has been answered - but is there any hard data on AE300 engine failures per flight hour to compare against Lycoming?

[Boatguy]

Excuse me if this has been answered - but is there any hard data on AE300 engine failures per flight hour to compare against Lycoming?

No.

[krellis]

Excuse me if this has been answered - but is there any hard data on AE300 engine failures per flight hour to compare against Lycoming?

It will be difficult for you to obtain anything other than anecdotal information on the Austro. Diamond (Austro) for some unknown reason has held that data very close to the vest. The installed base of Austro engines is also quite small compared to Lycoming or Continental.

I would look at all the posts on this forum about the numerous issues (service bulletins and airworthiness directives) on these engines and draw your own conclusions. Fuel injectors, cylinder heads, pistons, turbos, crankshaft cap bolts, etc.

Personally I wouldn’t own an Austro, especially on a DA40. The good news is they are exceptionally docile handling aircraft with best in class safety (like a 26G cage for the occupants).

[TimS]

Personally I wouldn’t own an Austro, especially on a DA40. The good news is they are exceptionally docile handling aircraft with best in class safety (like a 26G cage for the occupants).

Like a few others, the determining factor is proximity to an Austro service center. For me since I am still working, I want a service center less than an hour drive, two at most. Reason is there are issues often enough that I need a viable way for a family member to provide drop-off/pickup via car. Once I am retired, I could see it living with a service center up to a three hour drive away.

There is enough anecdotal evidence to go either direction with Austro versus CMI/Lycoming. The real advantage with CMI/Lycoming is there are enough mechanics around and close that know the common problems; that the service issue is not as large a problem.

Tim