148 hours – not bad at all 
having in mind lightning strike that kept me grounded for more than one month.
The plan for 2017 is exactly the same – around 150 hours and then I have to change the engines. It will be exactly 1500 houurs on CD-135 engines and I’m planning to upgrade my DA42 to CD-155. And, as always, I’m considering possibilities for upgrading to SET but it heavily depends on financies 
35h only, 3rd slowest year, but was quite busy. Still:
- managed to take my 87 year old on a couple of flights. Despite her Alzheimer and forgetting most of things short terms, she remembers each flight quite well (even if during the flight she forgets the destination!), and she is one of my eagerest passengers (and it’s not easy for a 87 year old to get in & out the front seat of a DA40!)
- long touring trip (which included the point above), which also included
– valley flying
– steepest ILS in the world
- handled first emergency
- felt improvement in decision making / requesting things to ATC etc
For 2017, it’s going to be more hours already: doing the MEP / ME + have some trips already planned.
Only 41 hours last year — mainly because I didn’t do any trips abroad. For this year I’ve planned several trips so hopefully figures will improve.
The high point of last year was flying into the Swedish mountains at Hemavan (ESUT) for a four-day trek with my wife.
So please tell; where is the steepest ILS?
I’ve read Lugano LSZA, but I realise it comes from a “sim” database. http://www.simtours.net/airportstatistics.php
It’s actually an IGS (it’s offset)
To steep for the DA40 to do it at best glide in no wind conditions!
I did the approach VFR (requested to do so, I wasn’t allowed to do it otherwise as it requires a special qualification). Very surprising!
Another curious fact is that you see 4 Whites on the PAPI for most of the approach, and the plate instructs to disregard until a certain distance (or you might hit a hill on the way of the approach)
Noe wrote:
To steep for the DA40
I have to say I really would like to know more about this statement. I have decades of flying behind me of which prob 95% is in Cessna variants with a large mix of other types. What is so different about the DA40 that it needs a shallow approach? Some of the landing strips I use may seem quite scary to the long hard runway users but honestly they are safe (when you have been given proper training) and HUGE fun.
I meant that you have to glide worse than best glide (in still air) as best glide has a shallower angle of descent than the approach (you’d end up too high otherwise). I was only referring to staying on the instrument approach/ glidepath.
Noe – please humour me and explain more if you don’t mind. You seem to be saying that you cannot go to anywhere that has a steep approach path in a DA40, am I correct? If so I still do not understand why and would like to learn more. Am I missing something?
Thanks
No, sorry. Certainly can go steep. I was just saying that for a specific approach (Lugano LSZA), if you glide at best glide in still air, then your descent rate won’t be enough to stay on the Glidepath. You can obviously descend at a steeper angle than best glide, with the regular options. I don’t know exactly how it compares to other planes (I remember the Arrow falling more like a stone with power off and gears and drag flaps), but I I don’t recall going around in that plane because I couldn’t descend fast enough.
At the time went I went to do the approach I was a bit fast (there was another plane coming), and I struggled a bit at / after the glideslope intersect (the DA40 has a low-ish flap limiting speed), as to bring the speed down I had to get on a part of the L/D curve that gives an even better glide angle (so pulling nose up already puts you high, then you also get an even better glide with puts you even higher compared to the steep glidepah). If I had to do it again, I am pretty sure I wouldn’t have the issue anymore.
What is the DA40 like to side slip?
