Is the ICON A5 the new Cirrus?

[A Squared]

Originally Posted by StickWithTheTruth

However.... you've been able to buy an LSA seaplane/floatplane since a long time back now, so nothing's changed legally, it'a just all in the marketing. The same thing happened with wind surfers, kite boards and Jetskis - people were killed during all of those coming on scene.

That's all true. The Icon A5 isn't any more hazardous than say the Searey, which has been around for a while. But the marketing approach is actively and explicitly encouraging this behavior.

[patty50]

Originally Posted by B2N2

I’d have to disagree with you.
I’m not seeing anything outrageous in the video. Steep turns can be done in any light airplane and they certainly didn’t do it in a reckless manner scraping the paint as you’re insinuating.
And “Red Bull” airrace flying is something completely different then a low pass over water.
I’m thinking he may have simply misjudged his altitude over calm water.

Of course nothing outrageous, but is it the stuff you want to be telling non-pilots they can do as soon as you buy an A5? No

As for Halladay, turns of any significance at such low altitude aren't wise unless you truly know what you're doing. Even the person filming was saying how crazy it was, before he crashed...after he crashed 'oh man what the **** were you thinking'.

Low pass, pitch up, steep(ish) turn at very low level, before nose down back to the water where he unsurprisingly ends up.

A random guy on a boat can guess that what he was doing probably wasn't very safe.

[Flying Binghi]

Originally Posted by A Squared

That's all true. The Icon A5 isn't any more hazardous than say the Searey, which has been around for a while. But the marketing approach is actively and explicitly encouraging this behavior.

I'm a little uncomfortable with the Icon A5 marketing being singled out. Most of the advertising for all brands or endeavours "encourages" a behaviour. Heck, even Hollywood movies encourage me that the easiest way to solve my life's problems is to shoot somebody...

Like a parent telling a child that just because you see 50 fun shooting murders a week on TV it does not mean you go out and do it yer-self, a flying instructor can instruct their students that there is a correct way to fly an aircraft and advertising be damned.

For the new chum pilot the correct way to fly an aircraft is first shown by a flying instructor and flight manual and then the flying regulations pertaining to a particular operation. I do not recall in all my years of flying any reference in the flying regulations that an aircraft sales speil is any sort of flying standard. If a sales speil is a flying standard then i reserve the right to use the movie Top Gun as an instructional for a tower buzz at my home field..





.

[StickWithTheTruth]

Halliday had nearly 800 hours in his logbook if that changes things...

[A Squared]

Originally Posted by Flying Binghi

I'm a little uncomfortable with the Icon A5 marketing being singled out. Most of the advertising for all brands or endeavours "encourages" a behaviour. Heck, even Hollywood movies encourage me that the easiest way to solve my life's problems is to shoot somebody...

Like a parent telling a child that just because you see 50 fun shooting murders a week on TV it does not mean you go out and do it yer-self, a flying instructor can instruct their students that there is a correct way to fly an aircraft and advertising be damned.

For the new chum pilot the correct way to fly an aircraft is first shown by a flying instructor and flight manual and then the flying regulations pertaining to a particular operation. I do not recall in all my years of flying any reference in the flying regulations that an aircraft sales speil is any sort of flying standard. If a sales speil is a flying standard then i reserve the right to use the movie Top Gun as an instructional for a tower buzz at my home field..





.

Ok, so the pilot's flight instructor is supposed to teach him to not fly at low altitudes. Great. Now, here's the piece of the puzzle which you're missing: in order to buy an Icon, you are required to take their flight training. If you are not already a pilot, all your flight training up to your sport pilot certificate will be at the Icon flight school. Now, if the position of the Icon CEO is that low altitude flying is "the very reason the A5 was created in the first place" (direct quote), what do you think the chances are that the Icon flight school is teaching the students that low altitude maneuvering is something new pilots should avoid??? Hint, not a snowball's chance in hell. So where does the new Icon owner find this instructor who will teach him a healthy respect for the hazards of low level maneuvering? Not at the Icon school, those instructors are teaching him that low level maneuvering is cool and what the A5 is intended for.

[A Squared]

Originally Posted by StickWithTheTruth

Halliday had nearly 800 hours of that changes things...

Didn't seem to.

[Flying Binghi]

Originally Posted by A Squared

Ok, so the pilot's flight instructor is supposed to teach him to not fly at low altitudes. Great. Now, here's the piece of the puzzle which you're missing: in order to buy an Icon, you are required to take their flight training. If you are not already a pilot, all your flight training up to your sport pilot certificate will be at the Icon flight school. Now, if the position of the Icon CEO is that low altitude flying is "the very reason the A5 was created in the first place" (direct quote), what do you think the chances are that the Icon flight school is teaching the students that low altitude maneuvering is something new pilots should avoid??? Hint, not a snowball's chance in hell. So where does the new Icon owner find this instructor who will teach him a healthy respect for the hazards of low level maneuvering? Not at the Icon school, those instructors are teaching him that low level maneuvering is cool and what the A5 is intended for.

You make some valid points. If what you claim is correct then i suspect the Icon training syllabus will be getting some major changes.

The accident pilot apparently had an IFR ticket and a twin rating so whilst new to the brand was not a new pilot as such. So in my opinion the claimed Icon training 'limitations' are likely not a factor.

Of interest is this video on the subject. I don't know the credibility or otherwise of the video presenter though he comes across as fairly genuine: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=A1AjJ19QqbE Note: At approx the 10 minute mark the reference to a flight recorder of some sort.

What we don't have yet is an NTSB report on the prang. All the YouTube videos I've seen of the so-called low flight and turns don't show anything I would consider dangerous or outside of missed approach to water landing training. So the NTSB report may show something compleatly unrelated to the discussion so far.





.






.

[StickWithTheTruth]

The Icon A5 has a factory camera fitted along with monitoring similar to a Dynon that is only accessible by the Icon service agents. It is likely that they would already know what happened. The NTSB report for the previous crash came out in lightning speed presumably for this reason.

Many don't realise it but many new cars have similar features (bar the camera) that are effectively a black box should you crash. I've not heard of any legal ramifications or precedents regarding this as yet in Australia.

[A Squared]

Originally Posted by Flying Binghi

The accident pilot apparently had an IFR ticket and a twin rating so whilst new to the brand was not a new pilot as such. So in my opinion the claimed Icon training 'limitations' are likely not a factor.

True, Halladay apparently wasn't an Icon ab-initio product, so he'd obviously had some exposure to other flight training organizations and instructors. A couple of observations on that though: First, he really didn't have a real depth of experience. From what I've read, he began his flight training in 2013. 4 years and 7-800 hours is not a real experienced pilot. There's the principle of recency to consider: That what has been learned most recently is remembered most strongly. So if you have a relatively inexperienced pilot whose most recent training experience is his Icon corporate training where you're indoctrinated into the Icon culture where low flying is what we do, and your training is centered around that. And add to that that he didn't merely take the required classes and move on, he was pretty heavily enmeshed in the Icon culture, he was a company spokesman, making promotional videos, issuing tweets which were adopted as Icon marketing fodder extolling the thrills of low level maneuvering. Given all that, which do you think had a stronger influence on his behavior: The Icon "low flying is what we do" Training, marketing and corporate culture he was surrounded with, or some other hypothetical flight instructor 2 years ago who tried to instill in him a respect for the risks of low altitude flying.

[A Squared]

Originally Posted by Flying Binghi

If what you claim is correct then i suspect the Icon training syllabus will be getting some major changes.

Well, perhaps. That's going to be tough to do, because the entire Icon concept is been built around low level thrills from the beginning. Again, this was evident even in the founder's interviews as early as 2009, when they were in the very early prototype stages.

Given that Icon's first attempt at encouraging prudence in low altitude operations was to suggest that Icon owners limit bank angle to 45 degrees when maneuvering below 300 ft, and only after getting more Icon training should they be maneuvering at 60 degrees bank angle down to 100 ft AGL I think they have a long way to go.

[A Squared]

Originally Posted by StickWithTheTruth

The Icon A5 has a factory camera fitted along with monitoring similar to a Dynon that is only accessible by the Icon service agents. It is likely that they would already know what happened. The NTSB report for the previous crash came out in lightning speed presumably for this reason.

And when you buy an ICON, you sign a contract which stipulates that you will maintain the camera and data recorder in working condition and that the data is the property of Icon.

My (somewhat cynical) take on the this is that Icon knows full well that they're going to have a bunch of A5's trying to play High speed submarine,(It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure that out) and the cameras and recorders are there to give Icon data so that they can place the blame on the pilot (perhaps not unfairly) in the courtroom in the inevitable lawsuits from the families of the deceased who are trying to claim that it's the airplane's fault the crash happened.


My sense from reading about the Icon contract terms is that you really don't *own* the A5, in the sense that it's yours and you can sell it to whom you like, or modify it how you like (within the Regulations) or decide what avionics you do or do not want installed in it.

[Sunfish]

The Icon A5 is going to quickly gain a reputation as a killer if it is aimed at the rich "jet ski" crowd, because the entire rationale behind a jet ski is cheap thrills and showing off.

The entire marine jet ski culture is abhorrent, and that is the description the Victorian Minister used when she wrote to me. I have a yacht and have observed the disgusting behaviour of jet ski drivers for years to the point that I call the police about them regularly. I have seen plenty of near misses. They always ignore the rules about speed and proximity to other vessels and swimmers.

If this culture is allowed to infect aviation, as it would appear from this crash that it has, then we are in for a spate of crashes and deaths as a result of low flying beat ups gone wrong.

[StickWithTheTruth]

They always ignore the rules about speed and proximity to other vessels and swimmers.

Strong words there Sunfish.

I've been boating 3 days in the last week and haven't seen an issue with the literally dozens of JetSkis operating near me.

[Sunfish]

I have a personal letter from the Victorian Minister of transportation stating that the only reason that a recreational boating licence was introduced was "the abhorrent behaviour of jetskis.

The main rule they always break is 5 knots within 50 metres of another vessel, swimmer or structure and within 200m of shore. The main use of jetskis is cheap thrills and showing off. The only legitimate uses of jetskis seems to be rescue.

I often anchor in a cove near Portsea and the jet ski traffic on a summers day is frightening. I usually ring the water police when things get out of hand although a camera pointed in the offenders direction seems to make them piss off.

The standard jetski driver in Victoria seems to be a guy of middle eastern appearance wearing a gold necklace with no girlfriend. They seem to hang about yachts and piers in groups of 2 or 3 looking for an audience for their 'stunts".

Can you say "loook at moi!".

If that is the Icon buyer profile - cheap thrills on water, then god help them. A ballistic parachute ain't much help at less than 500 ft I would think.

To put that another way; when the Icon was released I thought "how cool would that be at Quarantine beach, palm beach or Point King". I'm not immune to marketing.

[Popgun]

Ahem, we were just kidding, actually flying below 300 feet is pretty hazardous and you should probably only do it when taking off and landing. "

^This^

Hopefully the NTSB, FAA and relevant seaplane/sports pilots training bodies can work together to come up with a better program before the possible perils of low flying (below 500') bring others to an early end.

PG

[Bend alot]

Originally Posted by Sunfish

I have a personal letter from the Victorian Minister of transportation stating that the only reason that a recreational boating licence was introduced was "the abhorrent behaviour of jetskis.

.

I have several personal letters from ministers and one also from the Prime ministers office and cabinet (or what ever they call themselves).

I can produce much evidence that these letters contain lies - and not even white ones.

So you can trust them - I wont give that any weight.

[Flying Binghi]

Originally Posted by Sunfish

I have a personal letter from the Victorian Minister of transportation stating that the only reason that a recreational boating licence was introduced was "the abhorrent behaviour of jetskis.

The main rule they always break is 5 knots within 50 metres of another vessel, swimmer or structure and within 200m of shore. The main use of jetskis is cheap thrills and showing off. The only legitimate uses of jetskis seems to be rescue.

I often anchor in a cove near Portsea and the jet ski traffic on a summers day is frightening. I usually ring the water police when things get out of hand although a camera pointed in the offenders direction seems to make them piss off.

The standard jetski driver in Victoria seems to be a guy of middle eastern appearance wearing a gold necklace with no girlfriend. They seem to hang about yachts and piers in groups of 2 or 3 looking for an audience for their 'stunts".

Can you say "loook at moi!".

If that is the Icon buyer profile - cheap thrills on water, then god help them. A ballistic parachute ain't much help at less than 500 ft I would think.

To put that another way; when the Icon was released I thought "how cool would that be at Quarantine beach, palm beach or Point King". I'm not immune to marketing.

"...I'm not immune to marketing..."

Yeah, we know that. You've bought the global warming scam hook line and sinker..


"...I have a personal letter from the Victorian Minister of transportation stating that the only reason that a recreational boating licence was introduced was "the abhorrent behaviour of jetskis..."

Looking at the mess the Vic government has made of the states power supply all because of corrupt 'advise' it has received I'd say anything from them has zero credibility..





.

[Airbubba]

The NTSB has released a preliminary accident report:

National Transportation Safety Board Aviation Accident Preliminary Report

Location: Clearwater, FL Accident Number: ANC18FA007 Date & Time: 11/07/2017, 1204 EST Registration: N922BA Aircraft: ICON AIRCRAFT INC A5 Injuries: 1 Fatal Flight Conducted Under: Part 91: General Aviation - Personal

On November 7, 2017, about 1204 eastern standard time, an amphibious, light sport Icon Aircraft, Inc., A5 airplane, N922BA, impacted open water in the Gulf of Mexico while maneuvering at low level near Port New Richey, Florida.

The private pilot sustained fatal injuries, and the airplane was substantially damaged. The airplane was registered to N529PG LLC, and operated by the pilot as a 14 Code of Federal Regulations Part 91 visual flight rules personal flight. Visual meteorological conditions prevailed at the time of the accident, and no flight plan was filed. The local area flight departed from a lake near the pilot's home in Odessa, Florida, about 1147.

The airplane was equipped with a digital data module that recorded basic GPS, engine, and flight parameters. The airplane was also equipped with a Rockwell Collins engine control unit that recorded engine parameters. The data track from the accident flight showed that the airplane departed from a private lakeside home north of Lake Keystone in Odessa about 1147 and climbed to a GPS altitude of 1,909 ft and tracked north for 4 miles before turning to the west toward the coastline. The airplane then flew for 10 miles and crossed over US Highway 19 about 600 ft GPS altitude, then descended to 36 ft over the water before turning south. The airplane then flew on southerly track past Green Key Beach at 11 ft GPS altitude and 92 knots. The airplane then performed a right 360° turn while climbing to about 100 ft. The airplane continued on a southerly track, flying as close as 75 ft to the Gulf Harbor South Beach houses. The last data point recovered indicated the airplane at an altitude of 200 ft, a speed of 87 knots, and tracking 196°.

Video footage taken of the airplane before the accident, shows the airplane in a descending left 45° banked turn and then maneuvering about 10 ft above the water. A witness to the accident stated, during an interview with a National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) investigator, that he saw the airplane perform a climb to between 300 and 500 ft on a southerly heading and then turn and descend on an easterly heading about a 45° nose-down attitude. He then saw the airplane impact the water and nose over.

The airplane came to rest in 4.5 ft of saltwater oriented on a 192° heading with the fuselage and wings inverted. The front fuselage and cockpit were highly fragmented. The empennage section separated from the airframe and came to rest forward of the wings in an inverted position. Two inflated life vests and numerous fragments were recovered within a 300-ft radius from the wreckage. All the flight controls and major components were located at the main wreckage site. The CAP ballistic parachute system was not deployed, and the handle pin was installed.

On November 8, 2017, the wreckage was recovered from the water and transported to a secure facility for further examination.

The airplane was a certificated light sport aircraft that was outfitted with a Rotax 912iS engine. The pilot accepted delivery of the airplane on October 10, 2017.

The pilot's logbook indicated that he had logged a total of 703.9 flight hours, of which 51.8 hours were in an Icon A5 airplane, and 14.5 hours were in the accident airplane.

The closest weather reporting facility was the St. Pete-Clearwater International Airport (PIE), about 19 miles southeast of the accident site. At 1153, a METAR from PIE was reporting, in part: wind calm, visibility 10 statute miles, clouds and sky condition clear, temperature 83°F, dew point 67°F, altimeter 30.08 inches of mercury.

Aircraft and Owner/Operator Information Aircraft Manufacturer: ICON AIRCRAFT INC Registration: N922BA Model/Series: A5 NO SERIES Aircraft Category: Airplane Amateur Built: No Operator: On file Air Carrier Operating Certificate: None
Meteorological Information and Flight Plan Conditions at Accident Site: Visual Conditions Condition of Light: Day Observation Facility, Elevation: PIE Observation Time: 1153 EST Distance from Accident Site: 19 Nautical Miles Temperature/Dew Point: 28°C / 19°C Lowest Cloud Condition: Clear Wind Speed/Gusts, Direction: Calm Lowest Ceiling: None Visibility: 10 Miles Altimeter Setting: 30.08 inches Hg Type of Flight Plan Filed: None Departure Point: Odessa, FL

[Sunfish]

Yep, typical jet ski behaviour. "Look at moi"! "Look at moi"! Might this have been caused by an accelerated stall at unrecoverable altitude?

[Connedrod]

There are no old bold pilots