RivetBangers.com

Last Thursday the local Diamond distributor brought a DA40XLS by my airport so I took it for a test flight. Wow dude. In summary I was extremely impressed with the capabilities. I was actually interested in flying the airframe and didn't go into it too concerned about the avionics package. In short I was taken by surprise by the latter.

The airframe was actually fantastic. Its a true 145kt+ TAS cruiser, fantastic visibility (not quite as good as an RV) and extremely stable. Actually I think the control forces were heavier than those of my 172. The plane was quite comfy, and extremely quiet. I was very impressed with how quiet it was. In short this is an extremely good airframe for IFR flight with 3 adults, good speed, and I am really sold on their safety record and thought they have put into the design.

The complete surprise was the avionics package. The XLS has G1000 with active traffic, weather, etc. The demonstrator also had SVT, TAWS, and HITS. To be honest, I never really have a hope of owning a package like this which is why I was less interested in the avionics than I was the airframe. Also having just gotten my IFR and having been using it every weekend, I have started to get really accustomed to flying the "steam gauges" and have appreciated how it really keeps you plugged into the "raw data" aspect of IFR flying. I was a bit prejudiced against losing that level of information.

I was completely surprised by what the new generation of avionics gives you. Flying the G1000 with SVT was not like flying instruments, it was like flying VFR through a screen. Terrain was true to life, etc. There was no real concept of flying an AI, it was just like flying with a normal horizon. Extremely impressive. The other part that blew me away was HITS. This one I had really discarded as I previously thought of it as "cheating". You no longer really fly radials, or gps driven courses using CDI's, or localizers, etc. You just fly through the boxes. Our one landing was an ILS 23 at FDK using HITS. The sales doodle just loaded up the approach and watched for traffic as I went heads down. Flying the HITS was a snap. Really, it was stupid easy. Every once in a while I would cross check against the HSI (displayed on the lower portion of the PFD) and we were spot on in the approach. Like I said, stupid simple.

I still have an aversion to this type of flying because to some extent it passes off the mental situational awareness aspect of navigation from the PIC to the system in front of you. If it were to ever belly up I could see where you might get into trouble if you have not kept up with the mental picture. However, the off load of the work is extremely impressive and the ability to communicate the situation and picture to you intuitively is extremely impressive. Situations like turning outbound on a procedure turn, spinning the OBS, and having the needle go to the "wrong" side are gone. You no longer have to really reconcile CDI indications against heading and transmitter placement. Raw data details like that are gone. Its a very impressive package. I really can see where packages such as this, if used without ignorance of the underlying navigation principles, can greatly increase safety.

The question that I think is begging to be asked is this: Does it at some point become irresponsible to yourself or your passengers to not avail yourself to this technology? If so, what is that point? This stuff is currently d@mn expensive. Items such as the G1000 only come in OEM installations, of which you are going to pay $350K+. The G900x has this technology, but its $60K+, arguably doubling the cost of your project. Most of us can't truly afford that. At the same time I think of putting the wife in a plane and going on a trip to, say, Osh and ask at what point do I owe it to her to make the equipment as safe as possible?

Spike

Good write up Spike. I agree with all that you said about the G1000 and it's capabilities. It's the main reason I shied away from EFIS systems for a long time, and is still the reason I don't completely trust them in IFR conditions...no matter if they're certy'd or not.

We have a 40 here with the G1000, but not SVT or HITS. It's a great airplane, like you said...but I have my personal limits with using all it has to offer.

Excellent report and observations. Your impressions of the avionics is exactly why at this point I want the GRT screens (can't really justify the Garmin system). I first 'flew' HITS on a computer about 18 to 20 years ago and knew instantly this was the way to display complex paths to pilots. It was the same time I was getting my private and being exposed to ADFs, VORs, and ILSs on round gages, what a difference.

If I didn't have any sensitivity to cost, the DA40 plane was at the top of my list for a single engine plane. I even went as far as printing off the order forms and trying to figure out how I could afford one. I came back down out of the clouds when I found the RVs and decided that was the path for me, especially since how much I enjoy building things.

A couple years back I had a half day tour of the factory in London ON, about an hour away, quite impressive, just too bad about the engines for the twin at the moment.

Thanks for the report.

Spike wrote:The question that I think is begging to be asked is this: Does it at some point become irresponsible to yourself or your passengers to not avail yourself to this technology?

Spike

In a word - NO.

Your primary responsibility as a pilot to yourself, your family, and your passengers is to conduct the flight (ANY flight) in a safe manner. Fancy gadgets are nice, but they don't help if the pilot is not using them correctly. I know one pilot in particular that I would trust with my life in an engine-out IFR minimums approach on partial panel - and another that I wouldn't fly with in CAVU if you offered me a new G550. It's the pilot and his (or her) approach to the flight that makes it safe - not the equipment. Equipment helps - but only if the pilot has the mentality to use it appropriately.

Not knocking the Diamond - I've flown it and it's sweet - but it's also well beyond range of my checkbook.

Great perspective Greg, thanx!

While Greg's point is quite valid, I would argue the new technology ENHANCES safety and gives a pilot extra data to assist in performing the main job. I fly the DA-40/G1000 mentioned by Chad and love it. I was flying an old but (8000 TT) '76 Dakota through a local flying club, but resigned from them to exclusively fly the more modern DA-40/G1000 for the reasons of improved safety and become accustomed to an aircraft that is current in the tech dept (and will simulate what I intend for the -9A). This modern cockpit has enhanced my situational awareness by giving me traffic alerts flying around Chicago, and I have used the XM weather to go through an easy line of rain barely getting us wet whereupon 50 miles south it appeared to be a severe line of storms. I used the mark 2 eyeball with the radar to see that continued flight ahead was no big deal. It also provides more accurate fuel calculating (and shows a reserve and total fuel range ring on the moving map). Has terrain avoidance. Think how many pilots would be alive today especially from these latter two issues from the many fuel starvation and CFIT accidents? I could also go on about modern engine monitoring, and how current systems enhance your ability to monitor flight and watch for traffic by allowing you NOT to have to scan the engine gauges. Alarms are set will alert you if there is a problem. This concept is the only way we can have 2 pilot crews on airliners - computers monitor everything and only alert the pilot if a problem is detected. Otherwise, task saturation would preclude safe flying on complex aircraft.
All this is like GPS - can we imagine flying without it? Yes, but it has been a whole magnitude of order of improvement and ease in navigation. I have never met anyone who uses GPS go back. These modern avionics just are another enhancement that are evolving as a standard. I look at it similarly to the car - my old '70 Chevelle was a capable car to drive, but the modern car provides technologies that enhance safety - airbags, ABS, traction control, improved tires, more reliable engines with less breakdowns, and so on. The primary function is up to me to drive safely from point A to B, but I will take the modern car any day in its ability to make it safer.
And the beauty of this is we can have this technology for barely more than the steam gauges (actually, a simple day VFR setup with a Dynon D-180 would be less) - the experimental market provides systems that will do most of what the $$$ G1000 will do for a fraction of the cost.