Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 14

Thread: Another Icon A5 Goes Down

  1. #1

    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    1,630

    Another Icon A5 Goes Down

    This one in spectacular fashion as shown in 2 spectacular videos. Amazing no one killed on Michigan lake 3 days ago. How many does this make now, I've lost track? i'm sure this will be self-explanatory to y'all.


    https://aviation-safety.net/wikibase/227679

  2. #2

    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    143
    Wow, that didn't look good from the very beginning! Glad there were no fatalities!

    Noticed Icon wasn't at AV19 for the first time in quite a few years.

  3. #3
    rwanttaja's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Seattle
    Posts
    2,280
    The pilot of the most recent accident had an ATP, and word is that he was a regional sales representative for Icon. Other stories say he was flying a prospective buyer of his own aircraft. I believe the pilot's ATP was relatively recent (in the past two years).

    There are about 100 Icons in the registry, and there have been, I believe, five accidents. I don't believe any of the accidents point to any failing of the aircraft. One deliberate maneuvering at low altitude, one flying up a box canyon, one fuel exhaustion, one hard landing (on the water), and, IIRC, one case of landing on the water with the gear down. Amphibious aircraft have higher accident rates than land-only airplanes, and at least two of the five cases are directly related to operations off the water.

    I certainly am one among many who decries Icon's marketing approach, but don't believe there's any evidence of a flaw in the design.

    Ron Wanttaja

  4. #4

    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    1,630
    Quote Originally Posted by rwanttaja View Post
    The pilot of the most recent accident had an ATP, and word is that he was a regional sales representative for Icon. Other stories say he was flying a prospective buyer of his own aircraft. I believe the pilot's ATP was relatively recent (in the past two years).

    There are about 100 Icons in the registry, and there have been, I believe, five accidents. I don't believe any of the accidents point to any failing of the aircraft. One deliberate maneuvering at low altitude, one flying up a box canyon, one fuel exhaustion, one hard landing (on the water), and, IIRC, one case of landing on the water with the gear down. Amphibious aircraft have higher accident rates than land-only airplanes, and at least two of the five cases are directly related to operations off the water.

    I certainly am one among many who decries Icon's marketing approach, but don't believe there's any evidence of a flaw in the design.


    Ron Wanttaja
    Agreed: don't believe any of the accidents point to any failing of the airplane.
    Agreed: don't believe there's any evidence of a flaw in the design.
    Agreed: the obscene marketing strategy tied to the liaissez-faire attitude about flying and safety that is the cause for these crashes.

    Clearly this crash is pilot error, neglect of proper on the water flying boat procedures and horrible decision making. I've got lots of seaplane experience and I've never ever seen a "U Turn" water take off. Yahoo jet ski attitude and little type flying experience meets flying boat is a recipe for disaster but that's all on Icon's negligent and offensively irresponsible marketing strategy for the past 11 years. This is the precise reason why they made customers who still wanted the airplane sign off on the liability waiver as well as accept the on board Flight Data Recorder contained in the revised one-sided sales agreement. THEY KNEW! THEY KNEW! Classic example of wanting your cake and eating it too.

    If you check the registry, you will notice that of those 100 or so Icons, 30-35 are registered to Icon Ltd.

    Icon did not exhibit this year at their usual big tent space of the past 11 years. But they did have a presence at the GoPro exhibit with an airplane and 2 reps(they were both Canadian so we got sympatico).

  5. #5
    rwanttaja's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Seattle
    Posts
    2,280
    Quote Originally Posted by Floatsflyer View Post
    ...Agreed: the obscene marketing strategy tied to the liaissez-faire attitude about flying and safety that is the cause for these crashes.
    Sorry, Floats I was apparently unclear.

    I don't like Icon's "Flying Jet Ski" marketing, but I think it's waaaay too early to claim it contributes to the accident rate.

    One of the five Icon accidents is hot-dogging, but the Halliday case involved a pilot with over 600 hours of time in other types of aircraft. I would have expected he knew the issues. Witnesses agree he was "yanking and banking" at low altitude, but according to one witness, the accident didn't involve FJS (Flying Jet Ski) sort of flying. "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. "

    Obviously, could be a belated pull-up. But the accident itself didn't occur during the low-level "FJS" maneuvering.

    In any case, a total of five accidents is not statistically significant.

    There may be readers who own calculators, and thus may claim, "20% of Icon accidents are due to FJS operations!"

    Mathematically true. However, based the first five RV-8 accidents, we could claim, "20% of RV-8 accidents are due to wing failures!" or "20% of RV-8 accidents involve inflight fires!" Mathematically true...if we consider only the first five accidents. Things got a lot better with time.

    Amphibian aircraft always have a higher accident rate than conventional aircraft. There's a reason the Searey has about the same accident rate as Lancairs.

    We can play Cassandra all we want, but the fact is, understanding the causes of aviation accidents owes more to hindsight than foresight. I don't like Icon's marketing approach, but the jury's still out about whether it's going to affect the safety rate.



    Ron Wanttaja

  6. #6

    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    1,630
    Quote Originally Posted by rwanttaja View Post
    I don't like Icon's marketing approach, but the jury's still out about whether it's going to affect the safety rate.

    Ron Wanttaja
    I'm afraid that by the time the jury re-enters the courtroom, two things will have occurred: Either Icon will close the doors and go out of business or the insurance industry will refuse to cover them.

  7. #7
    rwanttaja's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Seattle
    Posts
    2,280
    Quote Originally Posted by Floatsflyer View Post
    I'm afraid that by the time the jury re-enters the courtroom, two things will have occurred: Either Icon will close the doors and go out of business or the insurance industry will refuse to cover them.
    Reminds me of a (probably apocryphal) quote from Mao Tse Tung. They asked Mao what he thought of the French Revolution.

    His answer:

    "Too soon to tell."

    Ron "Inscrutable" Wanttaja

  8. #8

    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    1,630
    Quote Originally Posted by rwanttaja View Post
    Reminds me of a (probably apocryphal) quote from Mao Tse Tung. They asked Mao what he thought of the French Revolution.

    His answer:

    "Too soon to tell."

    Ron "Inscrutable" Wanttaja
    Good one! I'd prefer to quote something more current like when the present occupant of the WH goes to his most favorite, most used highly intelligent phrase, "We'll see what happens."

  9. #9

    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    35
    From the looks of that impact, I suspect the Icon has an excellent restraint system considering both occupants survived that crash.

  10. #10

    Join Date
    May 2019
    Posts
    4
    If you watch closely, you can see the plane is just at the beginning of a stall when he hits that tree. Too slow airspeed for that steep of bank. Not sure how big that lake is, but I would think he had better take off options than to launch that close to shore and then turn as he was climbing.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •