DA42: prepare records for EASA proposal 26-096

To prepare a Diamond DA42 records package for EASA proposal 26-096, link the aircraft’s identity, maintenance document revisions and the history of the component concerned. As of 11 September 2026, the text remains a proposal: preparing for it does not remove the need to comply with limitations already applicable. Source: EASA publication status.

The practical aim is to send a precise question to the organisation responsible for continuing airworthiness or maintenance. It needs to locate the installed part, the documented requirement used and the evidence needed to establish when it becomes due. A collection of PDFs without those connections leaves that work to be repeated.

What is published and what remains proposed

The EASA 26-096 record gives an issue date of 24 August 2026 and a consultation closing date of 21 September 2026. PAD means Proposed Airworthiness Directive. Page 1 of the PDF does not yet set an effective date; the PDF’s standard wording is fourteen days after the AD issue date.

The scope covers DA 42, DA 42 M, DA 42 NG and DA 42 M-NG aeroplanes, all serial numbers, type certificates EASA.A.005 and EASA.A.513, which lets you confirm applicability to a given aircraft. This does not mean every aircraft would receive identical work: paragraph 1 ties the actions to the model and configuration.

The distinction from existing obligations matters. Page 2, under “Reason”, recalls that approved Chapter 04 limitations and instructions are already mandatory, and states that failure to accomplish them could result in an unsafe condition. Do not wait for the future AD to comply with limitations already applicable.

The proposal specifically mentions a life limit for the gas spring of the passenger door latching mechanism. It does not provide the numerical value. A figure found for another part or another revision cannot fill that gap.

Twelve months is not a general replacement grace period

The proposal separates two actions that need to be read independently:

• Replacement and maintenance, paragraph 1, page 2: from the future effective date, observe the applicable life limits, thresholds and intervals.
• Maintenance programme revision, paragraph 3, page 3: incorporate the limitations and tasks into the AMP, Aircraft Maintenance Programme, within twelve months after that effective date.

ALS means the Airworthiness Limitations Section of the maintenance manual. Paragraph 4, “Credit”, addresses an AMP that already includes an earlier ALS revision before the future effective date. To meet paragraph 3, the proposal allows the new or more restrictive tasks and limitations to be incorporated, with the applicable ALS compliance times. Ask which revision is already included and have the changes identified against it. This provision does not grant a general extension of component life limits.

This is the timetable in the proposal, pages 2 and 3. The twelve months do not start on 24 August and do not postpone paragraph 1 actions. The final text and its effective date will need checking when published.

Build the package around four connections

1. The aircraft and its configuration

Start with the exact model, serial number and registration. Add the reference and date of the configuration record used. This first line prevents a search for “DA42” from mixing records for different aircraft.

Then identify the installed component and any work that may have changed its identity. Record the part number and, where available, the individual identifiers shown in the documents. If two records conflict, retain both references and describe the discrepancy to resolve.

2. The manual and its applicable revision

AMM means the aircraft maintenance manual; ALS is its Airworthiness Limitations Section. The ALS definition on page 2 of the proposal combines Chapter 04 of the relevant manual with the cited bulletin. It also allows for a later manual revision incorporating the temporary revision.

To request the documents unambiguously, use the references in page 3, “Ref. Publications”:

• AMM 7.02.01, DA 42 Series, revision 6 dated 17 March 2025; or AMM 7.02.15, DA 42 NG, revision 6 dated 12 May 2025, depending on the model.
• MSB 42-152 / MSB 42NG-100, Mandatory Service Bulletin issued as a single document, initial issue dated 4 August 2026.
• WI-MSB 42-152 / WI-MSB 42NG-100, the associated Work Instructions, bearing the same date.
• AMM-TR-MÄM 42-1368, initial temporary revision dated 2 February 2026.

This list reproduces the proposal’s references, not a finding about the version held for your aircraft. The proposal accepts later approved revisions: ask the competent contact to confirm the applicable documentation. We have not verified the technical contents of the Diamond documents themselves here.

Send comments on the proposal to ADs@easa.europa.eu, quoting PAD 26-096, before the consultation closes on 21 September. For technical questions about the component or proposed requirements, the Diamond contact is airworthiness-austria@diamondaircraft.com. Both contacts appear on page 4 of the proposal.

3. The limit and the data needed to calculate it

The next step is to connect the applicable limitation to the component’s history. Request the exact page, unit and counting rule, then the data required to establish when it becomes due. The installation date alone is not a universal basis for calculation.

Keep the value from the documentation separate from the aircraft-specific data. If information is missing, name it: “counting rule to be confirmed” is more useful than an empty cell or an unsupported “compliant” status.

4. The due date and who receives it

Prepare a tracking entry for each open point: question, evidence expected, contact and closure condition. This is a working method proposed by Kepler, not an additional regulatory procedure.

The team taking over the records must distinguish a request sent from an answer received and validated. Our guide to maintenance records handover develops that process. Here, the starting point remains the DA42 limitation and the documentation needed to establish it.

Entirely fictional case: an invoice does not document installation

Imagine a records coordinator preparing a DA 42 NG package. She finds an invoice labelled “door gas spring”, an old configuration record and the maintenance programme. The records reviewed contain neither the corresponding maintenance report nor a reference to the applicable limitation page.

She could copy the invoice date as the installation date. Instead, she separates two questions: which part is currently installed, and what data should establish when it becomes due? The invoice is a search lead; it does not answer those questions on its own.

Her request to the maintenance organisation specifies the aircraft model and serial number, the invoice reference and the missing items. It asks for evidence of the work, identification of the installed component and applicable documentation. No replacement due limit is calculated from the EASA proposal alone.

As this fictional example continues, the organisation retrieves the maintenance report and the team matches its part number to the updated configuration. That first discrepancy can be closed: the documented identity is now linked to a maintenance event. One item needed to determine when replacement is due still requires confirmation.

The handover sheet therefore reads: “identity reconciled; due date to be established once the counting data is confirmed.” It names the contact responsible for the answer and the reference expected. The records review advances without turning a partial check into overall approval.

This case demonstrates neither that the aircraft is fit nor that it is unfit to fly. Operational follow-up belongs to competent people and organisations under applicable requirements and procedures. A missing item in the records reviewed calls for an explicit check.

A worksheet to copy for each aircraft

Use this template to prepare the discussion with your technical contact. Replace brackets with a verifiable reference or a precise question. An entry marked “to confirm” should retain an owner and an identified next step.

DA42 RECORDS / PAD 26-096 WATCH
Review date: [date]
Records owner: [name / role]

AIRCRAFT
Model / serial number: [references]
Registration: [reference]
Configuration: [document / version / date]

DOCUMENTATION
AMP in use: [reference / revision]
Applicable AMM / ALS: [reference / revision]
MSB / WI / TR: [references / issues]
Applicability confirmed by: [who / when]

COMPONENT AND LIMIT
Installed part: [part number / ID if present]
Maintenance evidence: [document / date / page]
Limit: [document / page / value / unit]
Counting rule: [exact reference]
Calculation data: [values / evidence]
Due date / limit: [verified result or open question]

OPEN QUESTIONS
Discrepancy: [missing or conflicting information]
Evidence expected: [reference or precise request]
Answer expected from: [contact]
Agreed follow-up: [date / action]
Closure: [evidence / person / date]

EASA WATCH
Status checked on: [date / URL / version]
Future AD: [reference if published]
Effective date: [if set in the final text]
AMP / task impact: [analysis needed or reference]
Update recipient: [name / role]

Download the worksheet as a text file

Prepare the next decision without presuming its outcome

Gather the references now, ask for missing data to be clarified and continue tracking existing applicable limitations. If an AD is published, compare the final wording with the archived proposal, then have its impact on tasks and the programme assessed.

Keep the EASA 26-096 record as your monitoring point: the consultation closing date of 21 September is not an effective date. A prepared package makes it possible to ask the right questions as the text evolves, without inventing tomorrow’s technical answer today.