Is the ICON A5 the new Cirrus?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 325
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Is the ICON A5 the new Cirrus?
If you haven't been following the ICON A5, there's been lots of articles on this US$389,000 LSA machine after retired Champion pitcher Roy Halladay crashed and died in his A5 off the Gulf coast of Florida. Ray's was the founder edition number 001, pretty much the first run of customer aircraft. I believe the only other aircraft out there were for the approved training centres.
This follows very recently the chief designer and another employee crashing into a canyon which the NTSB believes that they mistook for another one nearby.
There's lots of talk about how Cirrus went down a similar path in the early days and invested significantly in training to overcome these types of "teething" issues.
Where would you start?
Halladay and his wife whom didn't want him to purchase the aircraft initially:
This follows very recently the chief designer and another employee crashing into a canyon which the NTSB believes that they mistook for another one nearby.
There's lots of talk about how Cirrus went down a similar path in the early days and invested significantly in training to overcome these types of "teething" issues.
Where would you start?
Halladay and his wife whom didn't want him to purchase the aircraft initially:
Last edited by StickWithTheTruth; 9th Nov 2017 at 06:29.
Join Date: Jul 2017
Location: Dunda
Posts: 159
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This is their over the top marketing.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=2wlvpJLcf-A
They show it as being practically unstallable and unspinnable. They tear around these lakes low level right next to sheer rock faces. Steep turns flying it like a fighter.
In Halliday’s video he’s doing crazy stuff you’d see in the RedBull Air Race.
Same same but different to the Cirrus. Play stupid games win stupid prizes.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=2wlvpJLcf-A
They show it as being practically unstallable and unspinnable. They tear around these lakes low level right next to sheer rock faces. Steep turns flying it like a fighter.
In Halliday’s video he’s doing crazy stuff you’d see in the RedBull Air Race.
Same same but different to the Cirrus. Play stupid games win stupid prizes.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 325
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In one of their videos the demo pilot raves on about the ability of the aircraft to get out of a boxed canyon by performing a max performance 180 degree turn and then that is exactly what happened to the aircrafts lead designer when he died with passenger.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Rockytop, Tennessee, USA
Posts: 5,898
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
It appears that Karkow, a highly experienced engineer and pilot who had been working with Icon from its inception, made a wrong turn into a narrow cove from which he was unable to escape. The NTSB report stated that a witness saw the airplane flying slowly at about 30 feet above the water as it entered Little Portuguese Canyon, which is surrounded by terrain several hundred feet tall and gets narrower the farther into it you go.
The witness reported hearing the engine “rev up and accelerate hard,” seeing the airplane start a left turn in an apparent attempt to reverse course out of the cove, and hearing the impact after losing sight of the airplane.
“It is likely that the pilot mistakenly thought the canyon that he entered was a different canyon that led to the larger, open portion of the lake,” the report stated. “Additionally, it is likely that, once the pilot realized there was no exit from the canyon, he attempted to perform a 180-degree left turn to exit in the direction from which he entered.”
With no mechanical flaws found with respect to the airplane and a clean toxicology report for the pilot, the NTSB found that the probable cause of the accident was “the pilot’s failure to maintain clearance from terrain while maneuvering at a low altitude. Contributing to the accident was the pilot’s mistaken entry into a canyon surrounded by steep rising terrain while at a low altitude for reasons that could not be determined.”
The witness reported hearing the engine “rev up and accelerate hard,” seeing the airplane start a left turn in an apparent attempt to reverse course out of the cove, and hearing the impact after losing sight of the airplane.
“It is likely that the pilot mistakenly thought the canyon that he entered was a different canyon that led to the larger, open portion of the lake,” the report stated. “Additionally, it is likely that, once the pilot realized there was no exit from the canyon, he attempted to perform a 180-degree left turn to exit in the direction from which he entered.”
With no mechanical flaws found with respect to the airplane and a clean toxicology report for the pilot, the NTSB found that the probable cause of the accident was “the pilot’s failure to maintain clearance from terrain while maneuvering at a low altitude. Contributing to the accident was the pilot’s mistaken entry into a canyon surrounded by steep rising terrain while at a low altitude for reasons that could not be determined.”
This is their over the top marketing.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=2wlvpJLcf-A
They show it as being practically unstallable and unspinnable. They tear around these lakes low level right next to sheer rock faces. Steep turns flying it like a fighter.
In Halliday’s video he’s doing crazy stuff you’d see in the RedBull Air Race.
Same same but different to the Cirrus. Play stupid games win stupid prizes.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=2wlvpJLcf-A
They show it as being practically unstallable and unspinnable. They tear around these lakes low level right next to sheer rock faces. Steep turns flying it like a fighter.
In Halliday’s video he’s doing crazy stuff you’d see in the RedBull Air Race.
Same same but different to the Cirrus. Play stupid games win stupid prizes.
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.
Last edited by B2N2; 11th Nov 2017 at 14:43.
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Alaska, PNG, etc.
Age: 60
Posts: 1,550
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Alaska, PNG, etc.
Age: 60
Posts: 1,550
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
OK, maybe the words you used mean something different to you than they do to me. The water in the video is by no means "calm" as in glassy water whcih is hard to judge height, It's not whipped into a malestrom by a storm, but there is more than sufficient wave action to provide good depth perception. And if I were to use the words "simply misjudged his altitude" I would be describing something where the misjudgment of altitude was the sole factor. I wouldn't use them to describe an incident where the pilot was maneuvering aggressively, including rapid altitude changes as low as a few feet above the water. To me, that isn't "simply misjudging his altitude", there's some other stuff going on which is a significant factor in the accident. But again, perhaps those words mean something different to you than they do to me.
Last edited by A Squared; 11th Nov 2017 at 20:43.
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Alaska, PNG, etc.
Age: 60
Posts: 1,550
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My take is that this situation is of Icon's making to a larger degree than Cirrrus. The problem lies with the marketing, who they're selling to, and exactly *what* they are selling. Not that there's anything inherently wrong with the Icon A5 aircraft itself. Both have been focusing their marketing efforts on people who are not currently pilots, trying to attract them to flying, but there's a huge difference. Fundamentally, Cirrus is selling an airplane, something that you get in and fly to other places, transportation. Fun transportation, but at the end of the day, Cirrus wasn't selling anything much different conceptually, than a Cessna 172 (If you are firing up the keyboard right now to quibble about performance or avionics, my point has just gone sailing waaaayyy over your head) By contrast, Icon is selling a Jet Ski with wings. This has been clear right from the beginning, before the first prototypes were flying. The Icon founder was pretty explicit about this in the interviews he gave the various aviation rags. He was very clear that he was doing something completely different than the usual approach of selling airplanes to people who were pilots, or who already had an interest in aviation. He was targeting the Jet Ski crowd, not pilots. His plane was going to be designed, and styled and marketed not to people who want to fly from one point to another, but to people who want to bomb around the lake at low level, thrilling their girlfriends and chasing their buddies in their ski-boats. If there's any doubt about that, you only have to watch their marketing videos, they are filled with footage of low level flying over the water, flying next to ski boats, flying over guys slaloming on Jet Skis, flying low near canyon walls, etc. It is very clear that what Icon is selling is low level fun and thrills close to the water.
So, yeah, it's something less than astonishing that with a total 6 (Or is it 7?) customer aircraft delivered there have been 2 fatal accidents both of which involved low level flight around bodies of water as a major contributing factor.
So, yeah, it's something less than astonishing that with a total 6 (Or is it 7?) customer aircraft delivered there have been 2 fatal accidents both of which involved low level flight around bodies of water as a major contributing factor.
I didn’t see anything in the video that wouldn’t be equally fatal in a C152.
Semantics but to an inexperienced pilot it doesn’t have to be mirror smooth aka glass water landing smooth to misjudge.
He was clearly having fun with his airplane then dinged it.
And killed hisself...
Semantics but to an inexperienced pilot it doesn’t have to be mirror smooth aka glass water landing smooth to misjudge.
He was clearly having fun with his airplane then dinged it.
And killed hisself...
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Alaska, PNG, etc.
Age: 60
Posts: 1,550
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It's interesting to read Icon's "low level flying guidelines" according to the guidelines applicable to pilots with a sport pilot certification and no specialized training is that maneuvering below 300 ft agl is acceptable up to bank angles of 45 degrees. 60 degrees bank is only acceptable above 300 ft AGL. However, if you take Icon's "LOWALT" training, your good to go for up to 60 degrees of bank down to 100 ft AGL.
Can anyone here who has done primary flight instruction imagine saying to a student: "Hey, now that you've passed your Private Pilot Checkride, it's safe for you to go out and practice those 60 degree steep turns at 400 ft above the ground, but when you're flying at less than 300 ft above the ground, don't bank any more than 45 degrees.
That in essence, is Icon's low altitude flying recommendations.
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Alaska, PNG, etc.
Age: 60
Posts: 1,550
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
That was kind of a random thought.
Same as this one: it’s an amphibious airplane. Lands on water.
So flying low over an extended landing area is dangerous how?
Flying a SE low over land is more hazardous.
So the encouragement to fly low by the manufacturer...over water yes why not. The bank limitation recommendation should be painfully obvious and I’m not even sure why they mention it.
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Alaska, PNG, etc.
Age: 60
Posts: 1,550
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
and if you're maneuvering aggressively at low altitudes over the water you're margins for error is a lot less than if you were doing the identical maneuvering at say 2000 ft, and you could hit the water and kill yourself.
Those are just two possible scenarios which come to mind.
Are you seriously trying to pretend that low altitude flying, generally, is not more hazardous than flying at altitude, all else being equal? That a 45 degree bank within a wingspan of the water is no different that a 45 degree bank at 3000 ft agl?
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Alaska, PNG, etc.
Age: 60
Posts: 1,550
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Uhhh, you're kinda missing the point. banks up to 45 degrees at altitudes below 300 AGL is what they are saying is acceptable low level maneuvering for a brand new sport pilot with no specific training in low level flight.
This whole discussion is apples and oranges.
Last edited by B2N2; 12th Nov 2017 at 00:29.
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Alaska, PNG, etc.
Age: 60
Posts: 1,550
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No, that absolutely is not my interpretation. If you work their little matrix for "soft decks" and level of training, their recommendation for someone with only their sport pilot level training is banks up to 45 degrees, lower than 300 above the surface. There's no interpretation or grey area involved. That is strictly within the plain black letter meaning of their recommendation. If English is a second language for you, I can walk you through reading their low altitude recommendation letter to see where that is stated, but this is not an interpretation of something vague and indefinite.
It even states in the Founders introduction letter to the "Low altitude flying guidelines" that the very purpose of the Icon A5 is for low flying.
I wanted you to hear about this topic (low altitude flying) directly from me since A) it's near and dear to my heart for many reasons, and B) it's the essence of sport flying and the very reason the A5 was created in the first place.
Last edited by A Squared; 12th Nov 2017 at 00:38.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 325
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bit of a complexity over in the US with their low flying rules too. If I'm not mistaken, you can fly low if it's not a safety risk?
Agreed 100% that to be low flying at even 45 degrees as a 20 something hour sport pilot feels like it's asking for trouble. In Aus I'm guessing you'd need the initial 20 hours (usually more), a float rating but presumably no low level rating assuming you're only taking off and landing on the water - not mucking around just above it.
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.
Agreed 100% that to be low flying at even 45 degrees as a 20 something hour sport pilot feels like it's asking for trouble. In Aus I'm guessing you'd need the initial 20 hours (usually more), a float rating but presumably no low level rating assuming you're only taking off and landing on the water - not mucking around just above it.
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.