DA20

Open for questions of visitors of DAN. Posts of our guests are on moderation queue.

Moderators: Rick, Lance Murray

User avatar
Joey
4 Diamonds Member
4 Diamonds Member
Posts: 263
Joined: Wed Aug 11, 2010 2:31 am
First Name: Joey
Aircraft Type: DA40
Aircraft Registration: N633DC
Airports: KJGG
Has thanked: 11 times
Been thanked: 17 times

Re: DA20

Post by Joey »

This is over a 12 year span (from the couple of posts I read) and involves A1 and C1 models that have different engines. It's interesting that you found the articles, but I don't think it's systemic to the fleet of DA20's. The Diamond family of aircraft as a whole have one of the best safety records out there for GA aircraft.
Joey Ritchie
DA40 XLS 40.940
JGG Williamsburg VA
Jay

Re: DA20

Post by Jay »

It's interesting that the DA40 doesn't seem to have the same issues. I realize it's a different issue. This recent AVweb review of the DA20 raises a potential engine issue.

"North America's original DA20-A1 Katana is powered by a Rotax 912-F3. As such, it became the first "mainstream" Rotax-powered GA aircraft most pilots and mechanics encountered. Rotax was and is a well-known and respected maker of quality engines for the ultralight, LSA and light homebuilt market. But at the time, a Rotax was unheard of in a certified airplane.

Initially, the Rotax 912 engine had a 1000-hour/10-year TBO. In March 1999, this was extended to 1200 hours/10 years. Again in April 2003, TBO was extended, this time to 1500 hours/12 years. These values are generic, however; review a specific engine's serial number and maintenance/parts history to determine the manufacturer's recommendation. Presently, the Aircraft Bluebook Digest shows the DA20-A1's engine to have a 1200-hour TBO; the overhaul's average cost is $10,000 installed.

The Rotax engines in the A1 Katanas have delivered generally good service, although Diamond complained about overheating, which Rotax attributed to the installation, not the engine. Over time, complaints about anemic climb made their way back to the factory. For these and perhaps other reasons, Diamond switched to the Continental IO-240B in the 1998 model year, giving it 125 HP and the C1 Evolution designation.

First certificated in 1990, Continental's IO-240-series engines—which basically are two-thirds of the six-cylinder IO-360—generally have a good service record. Beginning in 2004, however, Continental released a handful of service bulletins and service letters designed to address what were termed an "idle stability problem on the IO-240 engine models."

Transport Canada (TC) put it more bluntly in early 2008: "There have been a number of rough running/unstable engine events and engine shutdowns occurring on Diamond Aircraft (DA) model DA20-C1 powered by the Teledyne Continental Motors (TCM) IO-240-B series engine."

A TC-issued service difficulty advisory noted, "Uncommanded engine shutdowns have occurred during various phases of training flights (stalls, spins and sideslips). Engine idle instability and sputtering at low power have also occurred during the critical approach phase and after landing."

To address the problem, Diamond issued a mandatory service bulletin (MSB) and Transport Canada Civil Aviation issued AD CF-2007-27R1, mandating Diamond's MSB and specifying incorporation of Revision 23 to the DA20-C1 Aircraft Flight Manual."
User avatar
Cschobel
3 Diamonds Member
3 Diamonds Member
Posts: 102
Joined: Thu Aug 04, 2011 9:24 pm
First Name: Charlie
Aircraft Type: DA40
Aircraft Registration: N68C
Airports: KLZU
Has thanked: 3 times
Been thanked: 12 times

Re: DA20

Post by Cschobel »

Notice that most of the accidents the pilot and passengers walked away uninjured. That is very significant. the airframe is strong and no fires after the accident which is how many get killed after an off airport landing.
Charlie Schobel
N68C
Www.rollingwithkc.com
KLZU
User avatar
Chris B
5 Diamonds Member
5 Diamonds Member
Posts: 843
Joined: Wed Sep 26, 2012 1:52 am
First Name: Chris
Aircraft Type: DA40
Aircraft Registration: N171CB
Airports: KRHV
Has thanked: 210 times
Been thanked: 215 times

Re: DA20

Post by Chris B »

Jay wrote:Am I being paranoid or is there a potential issue here?
Hi Jay -

I don't think you are being paranoid. But I also don't think there is a big issue.

After looking at these links, there definitely seems to be a reason that Transport Canada issued the DA20-C1 advisory (link) & TCM issued an alert on the IO-240-B, not specific to the DA20-C1 (link). There is clearly more of an apparent engine-out history with the DA20-C1 than the DA40-180. By my count, ~2x the apparent engine/fuel related incidents, but ~1/2 the sales volume.

OTOH, the overall DA20 incident ratio remains very low. And the slow stall speed, benign handling characteristics & sturdy fuselage of the DA20 are reflected in the overall fatality rate. Stall/spin is what often kills inexperienced pilots. So personally I would not be concerned with training in a DA20, except with finding an outfit having high maintenance standards.

But training in a DA40 might be the right choice for you. The primary downside is higher cost, and arguably the added complexity of the constant-speed prop & zippy electronics. Plus not being able to purposely spin! :D

Good luck on your search. Many of us chose Diamonds specifically because of safety concerns, and we'd love to have you on DAN! :thumbsup:

Chris
Jay

Re: DA20

Post by Jay »

I think I would prefer to train in the DA-40 but I prefer the shcool/instructor that has the brand new DA-20 so I think I'll go with them. For some reason the loss of power on take off that happened in DA20s to the instructor and student in New Jersey(instructor died/student seriously injured) and in Tennessee (instructor and student lived but had serious injuries), along with the above listed incidents are making me a little paranoid. I couldn't find any such incidents with the DA-40.
It's a new DA-20 at a school with extremely experienced instructors and an excellent maintenance program so I'm sure it is very safe. I guess power loss on takeoff could happen but I guess someone could run a red light and hit me on the way to the lesson too!
I'm already planning on getting my instrument rating and hopefully transitioning to a DA-40 soon after. I'm absolutely convinced the Diamonds are the safest planes in GA.
Jay

Re: DA20

Post by Jay »

First flight lesson today in the DA-20. All went well. Had a blast! 1 hour down. Thousands more to go.
User avatar
RMarkSampson
4 Diamonds Member
4 Diamonds Member
Posts: 237
Joined: Fri Sep 05, 2014 1:24 am
First Name: Mark
Aircraft Type: DA20-C1
Aircraft Registration: N966CT
Airports: KPCM
Has thanked: 20 times
Been thanked: 45 times

Re: DA20

Post by RMarkSampson »

Jay,
Much of your training is about emergency situations. Engine Out is certainly at the top of the list. I had the same thoughts as you about finding a safe training aircraft when I started working on my PPL. Any paranoia you have now will turn into understanding as work through your training syllabus. It is my firm belief that you can't point to the DA-20 and say that it has a engine out problem - when all single engine aircraft have similar stories to tell. You might be able to correlate real emergency situations to the maintenance practices and standards of flight schools (sounds like you are tracking on finding a good school). I definitely don't think you should correlate the DA-20 with a systemic safety issue. In my opinion, the DA-20 is the safest a/c found in flying schools - or in private use. Per an engine out, a poorly running engine normally gives you a heads-up no matter what aircraft you are flying. I wonder how many of these accidents could have been avoided if the PIC would have questioned the engine's performance at run-up. I own a DA-20 that has never been in a flight school. My DA-20 has run perfectly (knock on wood) except for the one time it came out of its annual. Turns out the mechanic decided to clean the injectors only to make them much worse. At run-up I decided that the engine was not performing and with a couple of aircraft behind me I still took the runway with no intention of taking off. As I expected, the engine did not generate the power it should have - and it went straight back to the shop (and not into the trees if I would have attempted to take off). Bottom line, as you train always be thinking about those "what if" scenarios and remember, in an emergency, aviate aviate aviate -- navigate and communicate are optional if you have the time. From those pictures, it is clear to me that the pilots with the most success were the ones that were able to manage their energy so they did not A) stall (hard to do in a DA-20) or B) try to land at an excessive speed (easy to do if you rush to get back to the ground). Never worry about the state of the plane after an emergency landing - just the number of occupants that walk (or maybe limp) away. While I love my DA-20, and it pains me to think that it would look like one of those a/c in those posts, I do know that my DA-20 will get me - or any student pilot - safely to the ground if you keep your wits and aviate aviate aviate.

PS - you cannot file IFR in a DA-20 but you can certainly do a lot of IFR training in a DA-20 if you have the avionics. Fair winds and good luck!
Jay

Re: DA20

Post by Jay »

Great stuff Mark. Thanks!
User avatar
krellis
4 Diamonds Member
4 Diamonds Member
Posts: 339
Joined: Fri Apr 29, 2011 10:42 am
First Name: Keith
Aircraft Type: OTHER
Aircraft Registration: N853DF
Airports: GA04
Has thanked: 1 time
Been thanked: 63 times

Re: DA20

Post by krellis »

RMarkSampson wrote:Jay,


PS - you cannot file IFR in a DA-20 but you can certainly do a lot of IFR training in a DA-20 if you have the avionics. Fair winds and good luck!
See FAA order 8900.1 Section 5-439, copied below. We have filed IFR several times in our DA-20 and I know for a fact that Falcon Aviation in FFC does it frequently. You are of course, limited to VMC, but you can be on an IFR flight plan.

Krea Ellis
DA20-A1
DA40-XLS

5-439 USE OF AIRCRAFT NOT APPROVED FOR IFR OPERATIONS UNDER ITS TYPE CERTIFICATE FOR INSTRUMENT TRAINING AND/OR AIRMAN CERTIFICATION TESTING. The following paragraphs are intended to clarify the use of an aircraft not approved for IFR operations under its type certificate for instrument flight training and/or airman certification testing.
A. IFR Training in Visual Meteorological Conditions (VMC). Instrument flight training may be conducted during VMC in any aircraft that meets the equipment requirements of part 91, §§ 91.109, 91.205, and, for an airplane operated in controlled airspace under the IFR system, §§ 91.411 and 91.413. An aircraft may be operated on an IFR flight plan under IFR in VMC, provided the PIC is properly certificated to operate the aircraft under IFR. However, if the aircraft is not approved for IFR operations under its type certificate, or if the appropriate instruments and equipment are not installed or are not operative, operations in Instrument Meteorological Conditions (IMC) are prohibited. The PIC of such an aircraft must cancel the IFR flight plan in use and avoid flight into IMC.
Post Reply