DA-40 Safety Record

[VWGhiaBob]

More facts...re insurance, etc.

* Cirrus insurance rates have come down and requirements have eased (no more mandatory IFR). They are still high due to recent safety improvements...and expected to come down further if safety is sustained over time. They will never be low, due to composite structure (expensive to repair), according to one insurance agency. But then, that allows the Cirrus to fly along at 165 knots or above, at only 11.7gph!

* For all practical purposes, Cirrus training is REQUIRED. It's not a type rating, but not far from it. Without passing the official Cirrus written and flight test, just try to 1) Get insurance (you won't) ,or 2) Rent one (no way!), or 3) Buy one (factory won't release it without passing their training / testing).

So is training / testing required? No! Unless you want to fly one that is!

If true, this is not reflected in insurance quotes.

 

[Tarheelpilot]

More facts...re insurance, etc.

* Cirrus insurance rates have come down and requirements have eased (no more mandatory IFR). They are still high due to how fast safety has improved...and expected to come down further. They will never be low, due to composite structure (expensive to repair), according to one insurance agency. But then, that allows the Cirrus to fly along at 165 knots or above, at only 11.7gph!

* For all practical purposes, Cirrus training is REQUIRED. It's not a type rating, but not far from it. Without passing the official Cirrus written and flight test, just try to 1) get insurance (you won't) or 2) Rent one (no way!) or 3) Buy one (factory won't release it without passing their training / testing).

So is training / testing required? No! Unless you want to fly one that is!

Actually it is only required if you want to fly one insured. I have met one intrepid owner that operated uninsured. Figured it was no more complex than his previous aircraft. He got an hour or so when he bought it and rocked on....without insurance.

 

[VWGhiaBob]

Face it, guys and gals. Even the best pilots get into trouble, some fatally. Parachutes are not a substitute for good pilot skills and most Cirrus pilots don't view them that way.

The Cirrus community has taken safety and piloting skills at least as seriously as any other group I've seen. There's thread after thread on the COPA site re safety and honing piloting skills. Most of us take contant recurrent training.

But we are all human. Can anyone really claim they are immune from doing something that would later appear to be dumb on an NTSB report? "Dumb pilot...how could he have done that?"

The answer is we're all human, and I don't for a second believe that with all my training I would never make a "dumb" mistake. For me, the only "dumb pilots" are ones who don't know they are capable of serious mistakes.

The parachute is for when all else fails...we do something dumb, the forecast was wrong, the plane has a serious mechanical issue. It's a great comfort to me to know that if one of those happens, I have a fighting chance...a high likelihood I'll survive and walk away from an otherwise potentially fatal crash!

 

[weilke]

No one is going to insure you without you doing that Cirrus training course (or whatever it's officially called).

I was given an insurance quote that required 10hrs by a instructor with > 25 hrs in SR22 aircraft. No requirement for the instructor to have the special UND holy water sprinkle blessing.

 

[FastEddieB]

That was very well put, Bob.

Thanks.

 

[MachFly]

Face it, guys and gals. Even the best pilots get into trouble, some fatally. Parachutes are not a substitute for good pilot skills and most Cirrus pilots don't view them that way.

The Cirrus community has taken safety and piloting skills at least as seriously as any other group I've seen. There's thread after thread on the COPA site re safety and honing piloting skills. Most of us take contant recurrent training.

But we are all human. Can anyone really claim they are immune from doing something that would later appear to be dumb on an NTSB report? "Dumb pilot...how could he have done that?"

The answer is we're all human, and I don't for a second believe that with all my training I would never make a "dumb" mistake. For me, the only "dumb pilots" are ones who don't know they are capable of serious mistakes.

The parachute is for when all else fails...we do something dumb, the forecast was wrong, the plane has a serious mechanical issue. It's a great comfort to me to know that if one of those happens, I have a fighting chance...a high likelihood I'll survive and walk way from an otherwise potentially fatal crash!

I agree with every word you said. I for one am very much capable of doing something stupid, and when I do I would probably appreciate having a chute. What I ask is you stand back and look at yourself and Cirrus pilots as a whole. You are a member of this community and I assume as member of COPA, this means that you are a lot more interested in flying and as such you're likely better at it. Now look at the Cirrus pilots for who it is just a method of transportation that they use solely because they can afford it. Those are the type of "pilots" for who the "level" button and the "auto level" features were invented and they are the once who give the plane a bad name. All the stupid mistakes that I mentioned in my previous posts were aimed at the approach to flying such people take, not to the specific mistakes any one of us is capable of making in flight.

 

[MachFly]

I was given an insurance quote that required 10hrs by a instructor with > 25 hrs in SR22 aircraft. No requirement for the instructor to have the special UND holy water sprinkle blessing.

Curious, was this recent or some years ago?

 

[flyingcheesehead]

Check out the recent Cirrus statistics...now as safe or safer than DA-40...and improving fast.

Full disclosure: I'm a Cirrus owner...but also fly the DA-40 and many other aircraft. I decided on Cirrus because of its amazing safety record.

Cirrus safer than Diamond? No way. And it seems like by "recent" you mean "only within the last 12 months" which is not a long enough period of time to make the results statistically significant.

The reason they have good safety statistics is because these days to fly a Cirrus you essentially have to get type rated in it. Back when Cirrus pilots had as much training as everyone else the statistics looked very different.

And as the PIC you have control over how much training you get. If you got as much training in a DA40 as you have to in a Cirrus, you'd be even safer.

If you want a really good comparison of the safety records of aircraft in that class, see the "Safest Fixed-Gear Cruisers" article Ken Ibold did in the September 2001 issue of Aviation Safety Magazine.

Only problem with that is that when the September 2001 issue came out, the DA40 was barely certified - That happened on August 15, 2001 and given that most magazines come out well before the date printed on the front, the magazine might have been out first. In either case, there was no way to have any sort of record for the DA40 at the time of that article.

Ken, you want to write an update now that there are some new "fixed-gear cruisers" out?

Sounds like an incomplete analysis. For example, how many DA40s are in private hands vs operated by flight schools? Isn't flight training about the lowest fatality rate of any GA activity?

If that were the case, the C172 would be safer than the DA40... Way more of those, and a higher proportion, in flight training than the DA40.

 

[MachFly]

And as the PIC you have control over how much training you get. If you got as much training in a DA40 as you have to in a Cirrus, you'd be even safer.

Unfortunately sometimes people go for the cheaper option given the choice.





I was wondering when you would join the discussion.

 

[fiveoboy01]

The low fatality rate of the DA40 is at least in part the result of the population of pilots who seek it out. A 'Volvo are safe cars' type of self-fulfilling prophecy.

This post was glossed over and should have been the end of the thread.

The safest airplane is the one that doesn't get into an accident. That's on the pilot, not the aircraft:wink2:

 

[MachFly]

This post was glossed over and should have been the end of the thread.

The safest airplane is the one that doesn't get into an accident. That's on the pilot, not the aircraft:wink2:

On that basis the safest aircraft is the one with best reliability and visibility. Which also puts Diamonds pretty high up there.

 

[VWGhiaBob]

Thanks for the comments, MachFly. There are, of course, "bad apples" in every group. There are clearly some Cirrus pilots who take on unnecessary risks in the name of transportation, so your point is valid.

But the vast majority of Cirrus pilots are as least as passionate about safety as other pilots. They are concerned, rightly, that the overall GA accident rate and Cirrus accident rate are not acceptable. That is, even if Cirrus is now at the low end of accidents, we must not stop there. It's still too high.

Parachutes are now being incorporated into many new designs...even the new Cirrus Jet. There are those out there who would say "real pilots can put their plane down anywhere and don't need parachutes."

To that, I say..."It's great that you have amazing pilot skills. But you are human and humans all do dumb things from time to time. If your dumb thing happens to be in a small plane at 100+ knots, wouldn't you like to have a parachute option? Wouldn't your family also want that?"

I agree with every word you said. I for one am very much capable of doing something stupid, and when I do I would probably appreciate having a chute. What I ask is you stand back and look at yourself and Cirrus pilots as a whole. You are a member of this community and I assume as member of COPA, this means that you are a lot more interested in flying and as such you're likely better at it. Now look at the Cirrus pilots for who it is just a method of transportation that they use solely because they can afford it. Those are the type of "pilots" for who the "level" button and the "auto level" features were invented and they are the once who give the plane a bad name. All the stupid mistakes that I mentioned in my previous posts were aimed at the approach to flying such people take, not to the specific mistakes any one of us is capable of making in flight.

 

[weilke]

Curious, was this recent or some years ago?

2 years ago. There was also a SR22 that you could rent with 25hrs of glass cockpit experience and a checkout.

The story that everyone who wants to fly a Cirrus has to go through the CSIP training is simply not true.

 

[VWGhiaBob]

Exception proves the rule...so if there are places out there that rent without CSIP course, OK. I stand corrected. And I think they are foolish.

That's certainly not the case in this neck of the woods, and I wouldn't advise it. I can't think of even one thing in the course a Cirrus pilot shouldn't know to fly safely, right down to the reason for the diode between the two electrical systems, why the flap light must NOT come on with flaps down in the initial safety check, how to do classic VOR navigation (not trivial) and why one electrical system has higher volts that the other.

Without a curriculum, key items will be missed. If someone has those rental standards, I hope they require the instructors to follow the written test standards and pilot proficiency curriculum anyway. Otherwise, the pilot is flying without the necessary knowledge to take full advantage of Cirrus's remarkable but complex safety systems.

 

[poadeleted20]

A Cirrus would not be my first choice as a primary trainer, but...

2) Doesn't the Air Force use SR20's as primary trainers?

AFAIK, the SR20's are being used only at the Academy for flight screening, not for primary training, which is done in the Raytheon (really Beechcraft/Pilatus) T-6A Texan II. And they also use DA20's for flight screening.

 

[weilke]

That's certainly not the case in this neck of the woods, and I wouldn't advise it. I can't think of even one thing in the course a Cirrus pilot shouldn't know to fly safely, right down to the reason for the diode between the two electrical systems, why the flap light must NOT come on with flaps down in the initial safety check, how to do classic VOR navigation (not trivial) and why one electrical system has higher volts that the other.

You make it sound like an SR is some kind of highly complex rocket-ship that only the bravest and most highly educated pilots will be able to master after extensive standardized training.

But maybe you are right and it is that complicated a plane to fly. The guy who shut down his electrical system over Ohio and let the plane get away from him had 'attended and completed the Cirrus Standard Perspective Differences and Cirrus Turbo Differences Course on April 14, 2009. Additionally, he completed the Cirrus Icing Awareness Course on October 5, 2009.'

 

[Wingsofglass]

I have owned both a DA-40 and a Cirrus SR22T. The DA-40 is unquestionably safer as well as far less capable than the SR22. By safer I mean you can do a lot more stupid stuff in the Diamond and live to tell about it than you can in the Cirrus. A lot more. Plus the engine is more reliable. The Cirrus accident rate does seem to be improving. Part of that is because CAPs works incredibly well on this airframe and is a far better alternative than any other plan B if you have lost control or can't make a runway. People are starting to get the message. All this being said from a pure safety point of view, I'd much rather be in a DA-40 than an SR20. I view both planes as having similar capabilities.

This falling leaf thing in the DA-40 is a bit misleading because aside from the horizontal speed component, the rate of decent is not consistent. So you might drop at 1,000 ft/min and then the plane will pick up some speed and the decent rate will be 200 ft/min until speed builds up again. So if you are going to try this, hope that when you hit you're on the 200 ft/min cycle. Which brings up the point on why you would ever attempt this maneuver. I guess maybe IMC on a moonless night but otherwise just land it.

One last data point. When I bought my DA-40 as a newly minted PPL, I picked up the plane and was on my way. Nothing further required. When I picked up my SR22T 700 hours later, I needed a five day factory transition course before I was allowed to fly it on my own.

 

[poadeleted20]

I have owned both a DA-40 and a Cirrus SR22T. The DA-40 is unquestionably safer as well as far less capable than the SR22. By safer I mean you can do a lot more stupid stuff in the Diamond and live to tell about it than you can in the Cirrus. A lot more.

I wonder if you can share with us what "stupid stuff" you can do in a DA40 and survive but cannot survive in an SR22. My personal observation in reading some 15 years of SR22 accident reports is that there's nothing "stupid" which resulted in an SR22 accident which one could have "lived to tell about" had the pilot done the same thing in a DA40. Granted, I've only got about 100 hours in each type, so my concept of what one can get away with in each may be incomplete, but that's my observation.

 

[steingar]

Interesting that the DA40 and Skylane have about the same accident rates. Makes sense, they both tend to do wx and both go the same speed. I suspect the biggest difference is more folks are using Skylanes for turf strips and such than DA40s.

 

[Jaybird180]

BTW, see this report. That pilot would have died no matter what s/he was flying, and the fact that it was a DA-40 didn't make any difference. So, back to what I said -- it's all about the nut that holds the stick/yoke, not the type of aircraft to which that stick/yoke is attached. All I've learned from reading SR20/22 and DA-40 accident reports is that the Cirrus tends to attract a lot of pilots with really bad ADM skills, but I don't think you can blame that on the airplane. IOW, I agree with weilke's post above -- to misquote a former President, "It's the pilot, stupid" (or maybe better "It's the stupid pilot").

[sigh] Nothing says "minimally trained" 61.109 brand-spanking-new Private Pilot like "about 3 hours" night experience.

 

[poadeleted20]

[sigh] Nothing says "minimally trained" 61.109 brand-spanking-new Private Pilot like "about 3 hours" night experience.

Could be worse. When I got my PP in 1970, there was no requirement for any night time/training -- and that's exactly what I had. OTOH, I was required by the rules of that time to have 20 hours of solo including 10 hours of solo XC, and in that regard, I think I was a lot better prepared for my first flight going somewhere with a passenger.

 

[Wingsofglass]

I wonder if you can share with us what "stupid stuff" you can do in a DA40 and survive but cannot survive in an SR22.

Obviously Ron there are subtleties to this and you can hurt yourself in both but here are some examples where I found the DA40 to be more forgiving:

1) Bad X wind technique. The DA40 has a lower and wider stance and will allow you to get away with more side load on landing. Plus it's slower landing speed makes it much easier to save a landing that's headed off the side of the runway. Also has better brakes and uses less runway when making it easier to land short field or abort a takeoff.

2) Compared to the SR20, it has much better high density altitude performance. There have been several SR20 accidents where the pilot ran out of performance where the DA40 would still have had some left.

3) Go arounds. The DA40 has a better climb rate than an SR20, slower stall speed and a more benign stall than any SR. So it's easier to run out of lift in an SR20 than it is in a DA40 and it's easier to torque roll yourself to an accident in an SR22 than it is in a DA40.

4) Landings in general. The gear on a DA40 is less springy than the Cirrus so it's less bouncy. It's also more tolerant of speed over the fence deviations from Vref (note that mine had the 3 blade props so it slowed quickly) than the Cirrus. On the Cirrus forum they have a term called YALA (yet another landing accident). DA40 owners can't relate.

5) DA40 crashes are more survivable. The slow stall speed, sealed fuel tanks, integrated seats etc have lead to survivable accidents that have included a midair, flying into a box canyon and a wake turbulence encounter that left a DA40 upside down on the runway. The Cirrus is pretty tough too but you need the altitude, speed and sense to pull the chute in order to achieve the same safety on off field landings as the DA40.

6) As far as I know, there has never been a stall spin fatality in a DA40. The plane simply has a more benign stall than a Cirrus so you can get away with worse bank and speed technique, particularly in the pattern, in a DA40 than you can in a Cirrus.

7) Others may disagree, but I found the stick on the DA40 with it's push rods provided much more feedback when slow than the springs on the Cirrus side yolk do. A ten knot speed difference near VSO doesn't "feel" that different in my Cirrus. It sure did in the DA40.


Ron these are just personal observations and not based on indisputable facts but I believe them to be true. Also, while I think the SR20 compares performance wise to the DA40, my SR22T is in a totally different league and so I wouldn't expect it to be nearly as forgiving as a 40.

 

[VWGhiaBob]

You make it sound like an SR is some kind of highly complex rocket-ship that only the bravest and most highly educated pilots will be able to master after extensive standardized training.

But maybe you are right and it is that complicated a plane to fly. The guy who shut down his electrical system over Ohio and let the plane get away from him had 'attended and completed the Cirrus Standard Perspective Differences and Cirrus Turbo Differences Course on April 14, 2009. Additionally, he completed the Cirrus Icing Awareness Course on October 5, 2009.'

LOL..."bravest and most highly educated" is a bit over the top.

Not sure what your point is about the guy in Ohio...maybe you should clarify. Are you saying the training doesn't work because one guy messed up? The accident stats prove Cirrus training works overall. Maybe I'm not understanding your point.

Do I feel a 310hp Cirrus with two complete electrical systems (not just two mags), 2 glass screens, old steam gauges for back up, and 185 knot cruise needs more training than a 172. In the words of Sarah Palin - You betcha!

 

[VWGhiaBob]

Obviously Ron there are subtleties to this and you can hurt yourself in both but here are some examples where I found the DA40 to be more forgiving:

1) Bad X wind technique. The DA40 has a lower and wider stance and will allow you to get away with more side load on landing. Plus it's slower landing speed makes it much easier to save a landing that's headed off the side of the runway. Also has better brakes and uses less runway when making it easier to land short field or abort a takeoff.

2) Compared to the SR20, it has much better high density altitude performance. There have been several SR20 accidents where the pilot ran out of performance where the DA40 would still have had some left.

3) Go arounds. The DA40 has a better climb rate than an SR20, slower stall speed and a more benign stall than any SR. So it's easier to run out of lift in an SR20 than it is in a DA40 and it's easier to torque roll yourself to an accident in an SR22 than it is in a DA40.

4) Landings in general. The gear on a DA40 is less springy than the Cirrus so it's less bouncy. It's also more tolerant of speed over the fence deviations from Vref (note that mine had the 3 blade props so it slowed quickly) than the Cirrus. On the Cirrus forum they have a term called YALA (yet another landing accident). DA40 owners can't relate.

5) DA40 crashes are more survivable. The slow stall speed, sealed fuel tanks, integrated seats etc have lead to survivable accidents that have included a midair, flying into a box canyon and a wake turbulence encounter that left a DA40 upside down on the runway. The Cirrus is pretty tough too but you need the altitude, speed and sense to pull the chute in order to achieve the same safety on off field landings as the DA40.

6) As far as I know, there has never been a stall spin fatality in a DA40. The plane simply has a more benign stall than a Cirrus so you can get away with worse bank and speed technique, particularly in the pattern, in a DA40 than you can in a Cirrus.

7) Others may disagree, but I found the stick on the DA40 with it's push rods provided much more feedback when slow than the springs on the Cirrus side yolk do. A ten knot speed difference near VSO doesn't "feel" that different in my Cirrus. It sure did in the DA40.


Ron these are just personal observations and not based on indisputable facts but I believe them to be true. Also, while I think the SR20 compares performance wise to the DA40, my SR22T is in a totally different league and so I wouldn't expect it to be nearly as forgiving as a 40.

As surprising as it may be, this Cirrus SR22 owner and frequent SR20 / DA40 pilot agrees with most of the above. Thus, the need for more training in a Cirrus. As one of my instructors said, "Cirrus can be a handful".

My theory is people who say it's "easy to fly" either 1) have lots of time in Cirrus and therefore it is indeed EASY for them, or 2) have yet to realize that although it feels solid as a rock, the record shows that the Cirrus can get away from pilots fast...especially in the pattern and on landing. I could write a whole separate post on Cirrus landings...how small mistakes can and do result in the unthinkable.

So back to an earlier point. Highly trained Cirrus pilots are achieving a safety record that looks like it will pass DA40 and DA20 in the long run. Cirrus pilots who avoid training and think it's "easy to fly", not so much.

 

[poadeleted20]

As surprising as it may be, this Cirrus SR22 owner and frequent SR20 / DA40 pilot agrees with most of the above. Thus, the need for more training in a Cirrus. As one of my instructors said, "Cirrus can be a handful".

I also agree that the DA40 might be flown by a less skillful pilot without damage, but not that it is more forgiving of stupidity, which tends to be fatal in either type.

 

[Henning]

I was reading over the weekend about the DA-40, as I didn't know a lot about the aircraft and I see they are statistically considered the safest GA aircraft. Its overall and fatal accident rates are one eighth that of the general aviation fleet.

Beyond the numbers, what really stood out to me was this:

The aircraft (DA-40) can be trimmed full nose up, engine set to idle and it will descend at 600–1200 feet per minute at 48 kn (89 km/h) hands-off, a lower rate of descent than the competitive Cirrus SR22 can achieve with its airframe ballistic parachute deployed.

I wish they wouldn't have done that, it's dishonest advertising, either that or it shows them as idiots

 

[FastEddieB]

I wish they wouldn't have done that, it's dishonest advertising, either that or it shows them as idiots

Agreed.

They seem to be selectively ignoring the "at 48kn" part.

Over 55 mph of forward velocity should definitely NOT be ignored in the comparison.

 

[Henning]

The fact that the latest model SR series incorporates aluminum fuel tanks, my main concern with the Cirrus line has been addressed.

 

[Jaybird180]

Obviously Ron there are subtleties to this and you can hurt yourself in both but here are some examples where I found the DA40 to be more forgiving:

1) Bad X wind technique. The DA40 has a lower and wider stance and will allow you to get away with more side load on landing. Plus it's slower landing speed makes it much easier to save a landing that's headed off the side of the runway. Also has better brakes and uses less runway when making it easier to land short field or abort a takeoff.

2) Compared to the SR20, it has much better high density altitude performance. There have been several SR20 accidents where the pilot ran out of performance where the DA40 would still have had some left.

3) Go arounds. The DA40 has a better climb rate than an SR20, slower stall speed and a more benign stall than any SR. So it's easier to run out of lift in an SR20 than it is in a DA40 and it's easier to torque roll yourself to an accident in an SR22 than it is in a DA40.

4) Landings in general. The gear on a DA40 is less springy than the Cirrus so it's less bouncy. It's also more tolerant of speed over the fence deviations from Vref (note that mine had the 3 blade props so it slowed quickly) than the Cirrus. On the Cirrus forum they have a term called YALA (yet another landing accident). DA40 owners can't relate.

5) DA40 crashes are more survivable. The slow stall speed, sealed fuel tanks, integrated seats etc have lead to survivable accidents that have included a midair, flying into a box canyon and a wake turbulence encounter that left a DA40 upside down on the runway. The Cirrus is pretty tough too but you need the altitude, speed and sense to pull the chute in order to achieve the same safety on off field landings as the DA40.

6) As far as I know, there has never been a stall spin fatality in a DA40. The plane simply has a more benign stall than a Cirrus so you can get away with worse bank and speed technique, particularly in the pattern, in a DA40 than you can in a Cirrus.

7) Others may disagree, but I found the stick on the DA40 with it's push rods provided much more feedback when slow than the springs on the Cirrus side yolk do. A ten knot speed difference near VSO doesn't "feel" that different in my Cirrus. It sure did in the DA40.


Ron these are just personal observations and not based on indisputable facts but I believe them to be true. Also, while I think the SR20 compares performance wise to the DA40, my SR22T is in a totally different league and so I wouldn't expect it to be nearly as forgiving as a 40.

I probably represent the type of pilot that would be a good example for this. After getting my ticket, my very first airplane where I could log PIC time with a CFI in the right seat was in the DA-40 and I have several hours.

I found the DA-40 to be easy to handle.

Later in my flying, I flew the SR-22 when I had about 90-ish hours and I found it to be equally easy to handle and think I could have flown it very well in under 10hrs. Avionics may have taken the bulk of that time or more for competence. I didn't complete any kind of transition training

In between the DA-40 and SR-22 I did get a HP-endorsement in a Skylane (230HP), so I was expecting the torque pull of the SR-22, but the -22 has Sooooo much more Oooomph!

With that said, I think that everything above can be manageable with proper reading and digestion of the performance information in the POH and application of the basics. I think your comparison contains a dose of bias. The -22 is not some spooky machine that requires superhuman piloting skills to learn.