I take issue with certain statements he made in this podcast and I happen to have first-hand experience that he admits he does not have:
1. He states the "normal" approach speed of a DA40 is 71 KIAS. That would be absurdly fast with a pre-2004 DA40 at the likely weight the plane was carrying at the time of the accident. I'm in the low 60's normally at a load like this. But I do agree they were too fast.
2. Unlike Max, I have first-hand experience in full-flap go-arounds. The most memorable

was at (likely) similar weight at a sea-level airport on a normal-temperature late spring day with a total weight similar to what the accident plane likely had. Even though this was long before Powerflow the plane responded and climbed just fine with full flaps. And we don't even know they were at full flaps.
3. He talks about retracting flaps slowly. In reality, the rate at which the flaps retract is dictated by the flap motor and linkage. It's pretty rare in newer model aircraft to be otherwise. I have flown older models that you could nurse them up slowly. The most you could do in the DA40 is limit the initial retraction to T/O flaps. And there's absolutely no reason to be in a hurry to bring them up further. On a recent flight with full tanks and three adults aboard climbing out from my 3200 ft elevation airport I was seeing 800-1000 FPM with T/O flaps (although I do now have Powerflow).
4. Speculation is risky, as he postulated a possible bounced landing, prop strike and whatnot. The subsequent published preliminary report includes statements that the plane never touched down at all. Also in that report the witnesses stated that the power wasn't noticeably increased.
I have my own theory why power wasn't properly brought up related to a long flying day in a plane neither had much experience in, but will wait until information is available.
2002 DA40-180: MT, PowerFlow, 530W/430W, KAP140, ext. baggage, 1090 ES out, 2646 MTOW, 40gal., Surefly, Flightstream 210, Orion 600 LED, XeVision, Aspen E5