Roy Halladay's Icon A5 down off of Tampa Coast

PaulS said:
That video was disturbing, at one point the guy says "there he is" but makes no attempt to pull him out, just continues his inane commentary. Pull the f'n boat up, stick your hand down there and see if you can pull him out. Too interested in his moment of fame....
Click to expand...

I also read the article where it says when the first arrivers arrived, it was very obvious to them that the pilot was dead, and they had to call special rescue to use their boats because the water was too shallow for the first arrivers boats to get close in. I am pretty sure I am not going to risk my life for a dead body.

I also saw the video of the plane in the air from a far distance and was wondering if he was checking the area in preparation for landing. Pure speculation on my part but could this have been a bad water landing?
 
I didn't see an article about a plane crash. Just the headline about the kidnapped blonde.
 
"...said the airplane reached heights as low as 5 feet before the crash."

I assume they mean that Roy got down to 5 feet and then went back up again.

As opposed to just acknowledging that 5 comes before 0 on your way down...
 
While the videos do seem to depict high-risk maneuvering, the people filming sure freak out about even the straight-and-level flying at low altitude-- "I never thought they would be allowed to fly that low like that." You can't even have a little fun without people wondering if you're breaking some law. For the most part it seems reasonably safe to me, until he starts pulling the crop duster turns.

Zeldman said:
I also saw the video of the plane in the air from a far distance and was wondering if he was checking the area in preparation for landing. Pure speculation on my part but could this have been a bad water landing?
Click to expand...

Looking at the aircraft damage, I'm pretty sure this is more than just a bad landing. Has to be a high-speed impact. How hard is it to turn that climbing, high-bank turn into a stall/spin with the Icon?
 
Last edited:
F01LA said:
While the videos do seem to depict high-risk maneuvering, the people filming sure freak out about even the straight-and-level flying at low altitude-- "I never thought they would be allowed to fly that low like that." You can't even have a little fun without people wondering if you're breaking some law. For the most part it seems reasonably safe to me, until he starts pulling the crop duster turns.



Looking at the aircraft damage, I'm pretty sure this is more than just a bad landing. Has to be a high-speed impact. How hard is it to turn that climbing, high-bank turn into a stall/spin with the Icon?
Click to expand...
Or, how hard is it to nail the bottom of the dive when you're target is 5'. Heck, I have a hard time finding the runway sometimes on a stable approach to landing.
 
F01LA said:
While the videos do seem to depict high-risk maneuvering, the people filming sure freak out about even the straight-and-level flying at low altitude-- "I never thought they would be allowed to fly that low like that." You can't even have a little fun without people wondering if you're breaking some law. For the most part it seems reasonably safe to me, until he starts pulling the crop duster turns.



Looking at the aircraft damage, I'm pretty sure this is more than just a bad landing. Has to be a high-speed impact. How hard is it to turn that climbing, high-bank turn into a stall/spin with the Icon?
Click to expand...


If you’re drawing attention from bystanders like that... you’re doing something wrong.

If you insist on flying like that, at least go offshore a bit so as not to make a spectacle/annoyance of yourself.

Had he not crashed and continued to fly like that in the area regularly, I suspect there would be some complaints. Not good for GA../ :/
 
They marketed it as an “Apex Motorsport” jet ski. They will have customers buy into that image and drive it like a jet ski.

No different than the kids jumping wakes. Except the water surface is a bit harder at these speeds.

<shakes head>
 
ElPaso Pilot said:
They marketed it as an “Apex Motorsport” jet ski. They will have customers buy into that image and drive it like a jet ski.

No different than the kids jumping wakes. Except the water surface is a bit harder at these speeds.

<shakes head>
Click to expand...

Lol yea I can see it now,

“Alright Jimmy we’re gonna jump this yachts wake, should get us flying a bit quicker”
 
Max Trescott says he exceeded the non-aerobatic bank limitation of 60 degrees.

Capture.JPG
 
That’s not actually how aerobatic flight is defined.

91.303 - Aerobatic Flight - “an intentional maneuver involving an abrupt change in an aircraft's attitude, an abnormal attitude, or abnormal acceleration, not necessary for normal flight.”

The 60° bank limit relates to parachute requirements.
 
Did I wake up on Planet Stupid? You guys do steep banks at low altitude? Really? You do more than standard rate turns when you're maneuvering to land? Yeah, if he was thousands of feet in the air and was in a steep bank, no harm no foul. But unless that photo was altered, he wasn't even hundreds of feet above the surface. This crash wasn't an accident, it was an eventuality.
 
The more videos I see of the DB flying low, the less surprised I am of the outcome. Not that I was necessarily surprised to begin with. I definitely don't feel any sadness.
 
Yes, 60 applies to parachutes and not a definition of aerobatic. Parachute doesn't apply to solo either. Seems Max is not saying the maneuver is aerobatic but exceeds the manufacturers limit on AoB of 60 degrees???

Curious to know what their limit or if there is a limit for LSAs. Utility Part23 can exceed 60 degrees but yet aren't fully certified as aerobatic.

The problem with the definition of aerobatics is it has to much to do with the type of aircraft and the eye of the beholder and not a specific angle. What is "abrupt" or "abnormal" for one aircraft might not be for another.

http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-9th-circuit/1164943.html#footnote_2
 
Last edited:
James331 said:
That would be AWSOME!!!

So they go TU and a grown up airplane company like Cirrus buys their proven airframe and tooling, combines it with their training and proper aerospace marketing and puts a cool airframe to market with a proper company behind it.
Click to expand...
Interesting thought. And, since they are a new company there are not years of liability-lawsuits-waiting-to-happen.
 
My guess is if Icon stops operating., a foreign owned entity will purchase the remains of the company and sell from a country where manufacturing is cheaper and liability is lower. In this industry, it’s not unusual for the second mouse to get the cheese.
 
Brad Z said:
My guess is if Icon stops operating., a foreign owned entity will purchase the remains of the company and sell from a country where manufacturing is cheaper and liability is lower. In this industry, it’s not unusual for the second mouse to get the cheese.
Click to expand...


True. The unfortunate part of your analogy is that it's the customer with his neck broken in the mousetrap.
 
dans2992 said:
If you’re drawing attention from bystanders like that... you’re doing something wrong.

If you insist on flying like that, at least go offshore a bit so as not to make a spectacle/annoyance of yourself.

Had he not crashed and continued to fly like that in the area regularly, I suspect there would be some complaints. Not good for GA../ :/
Click to expand...

My Very Humble Opinions:

1. Bystanders are usually idiots. Sorry, bystanders are not pilots, not educated in flying or anything else related to aviation, therefore their opinions are worthless.
2. He's dead, and can't explain what he was doing and why. When I'm in the amphib or on floats I practice flying as low as possible. You need to check for debris in the water. If you don't check, you eventually end up dead. You also need to learn what different water looks like in different light and wind conditions. Slamming into the water because you thought you were higher is all too common.
3. At least one of the maneuvers looks like he is attempting a chandelle. Maybe he wanted to amaze the crowd with a fighter break next time he was at a fly-in. We'll never know. If he has never flown one, or has limited skills, higher is certainly better, but eventually you need to get down close.
4. Is he exceeding the g limits or the manufacturers specs. maybe, probably. But if you don't fly it close to the limits in practice, when the crap gets real you won't have a clue and that can kill you just as dead.
5. He would probably still be alive if he had a competent CFI in the plane to tell him "Dial it back" instead of trying to figure stuff out on his own.

Some absolutes you can take away from this:
He flew outside his personal limits. He probably flew outside the limits of the aircraft.
We are never going to know if there is\was a manufacturing malfunction. The FAA will NOT look that close because manufacturers have money and fight back. Dead pilots don't.

Personal statement:
There is nothing illegal, unethical, immoral or wrong with flying low. I do it all the time.
When I'm in the Cub (or similar aircraft) or on floats, I'm rarely more than a few feet above the FAA required altitude. Flying low is fun.
But it's something you need to practice. Like everything else in aviation.
 
I was re-reading the review in Flying Magazine... I don't have the issue date handy... It read (at the time) that 40% of the approximately 1200 deposits were from Non-pilots.... this airplane, based on what I read, was definitely designed and marketed to attract adrenalin junkies and thrill seekers. The results could have easily been predicted... I can't wrap my brain around any justification of such recklessness... I think a savvy prosecutor could make a case for reckless endangerment or something.... Showing low time/0 time pilots (customers) how to yank and bank at low altitude, like the Red Bull Pros, with an AOA indicator as the primary reference has "accident written all over it.... ICON, GOOD RIDDANCE!
 
Well written Shep.

No doubt it is easier and cheaper to blame a dead pilot than the airplane. If folks do not practice flying at the edge of the envelope, when it becomes real than what?

I witnessed a plane crash once. During a touch and go, the pilot panicked and yanked the yoke back when he was about to leave the pavement, nose up about 50 degrees, shallow left turn that turned into a very steep bank until the left wingtip hit the ground One complete cart wheel and the plane slammed down on its belly. Engine full throttle, prop marks on the ground. About 7 witnesses (all firemen) said the engine wasn't running. Funny, it was making a lot of noise....

Oh, pilot was walking away before I could even get to him.

Shepherd said:
Sorry, bystanders are not pilots, not educated in flying or anything else related to aviation, therefore their opinions are worthless.
Click to expand...

Totally agree.
 
Zeldman said:
Well written Shep.

No doubt it is easier and cheaper to blame a dead pilot than the airplane. If folks do not practice flying at the edge of the envelope, when it becomes real than what?

I witnessed a plane crash once. During a touch and go, the pilot panicked and yanked the yoke back when he was about to leave the pavement, nose up about 50 degrees, shallow left turn that turned into a very steep bank until the left wingtip hit the ground One complete cart wheel and the plane slammed down on its belly. Engine full throttle, prop marks on the ground. About 7 witnesses (all firemen) said the engine wasn't running. Funny, it was making a lot of noise....

Oh, pilot was walking away before I could even get to him.



Totally agree.
Click to expand...

Yeah but there's a huge difference in flying to the edges of the envelope of your aircraft at altitude vs down low. That's why aerobatics are done at 1,500 ft (non waiver) above the surface. It gives one time to make a mistake and recover without impacting the surface. Just flying low over a low contrast surface is difficult enough. Combine that with a low time pilot performing what most would describe as aerobatics and the results are predictable.

Personally I have no problems with experienced pilots that assume the added risk with that type of flying. But, I don't agree with marketing an airplane as a flying jet ski to a target of mostly inexperienced pilots. If one is inexperienced and has no offical training in aerobatics and low level / NOE flight, don't go out and expose a passenger to that flight regime either.
 
Velocity173 said:
Yeah but there's a huge difference in flying to the edges of the envelope of your aircraft at altitude vs down low. That's why aerobatics are done at 1,500 ft (non waiver) above the surface. It gives one time to make a mistake and recover without impacting the surface. Just flying low over a low contrast surface is difficult enough. Combine that with a low time pilot performing what most would describe as aerobatics and the results are predictable.

Personally I have no problems with experienced pilots that assume the added risk with that type of flying. But, I don't agree with marketing an airplane as a flying jet ski to a target of mostly inexperienced pilots. If one is inexperienced and has no offical training in aerobatics and low level / NOE flight, don't go out and expose a passenger to that flight regime either.
Click to expand...
I wouldn’t have an issue with the marketing if they had a training program to back it up. The real question in my mind is what the factory training is really like. Until that gets answered it’s hard to crucify the company solely on the marketing. That’s nothing new that icon invented. Every manufacturer has,at some point, been guilty of the same stuff.
 
FastEddieB said:
That’s not actually how aerobatic flight is defined.

91.303 - Aerobatic Flight - “an intentional maneuver involving an abrupt change in an aircraft's attitude, an abnormal attitude, or abnormal acceleration, not necessary for normal flight.”

The 60° bank limit relates to parachute requirements.
Click to expand...
But Eddie, the author of the article said that's how Acrobatic flight is defined.

Some of those gymnasts easily exceed 60deg of bank on some of their routines. :D
 
Velocity173 said:
Yeah but there's a huge difference in flying to the edges of the envelope of your aircraft at altitude vs down low.
Click to expand...

Hard to practice flying low at altitude....:lol:

But yes, no one taught me how to be a safe and competent bush flyer. I did that myself, slowly pushing the envelope smaller and smaller until the day the crap weather came in. And I was prepared for it. After I survived the first year, then the experienced bush flyer started offering suggestions.
 
Tarheelpilot said:
I wouldn’t have an issue with the marketing if they had a training program to back it up. The real question in my mind is what the factory training is really like. Until that gets answered it’s hard to crucify the company solely on the marketing. That’s nothing new that icon invented. Every manufacturer has,at some point, been guilty of the same stuff.
Click to expand...
Wonder no more.
 
Ryanb said:
But Eddie, the author of the article said that's how Acrobatic flight is defined.

Some of those gymnasts easily exceed 60deg of bank on some of their routines. :D
Click to expand...

Meh. FAA Order 8900.1, Vol 5, Chapter 9, Section 1, paragraph 5-1548 (B), at the bottom note states that the terms acrobatic and aerobatic are synonymous. Also, Form 8710-7 is called a "Statement of Acrobatic Competency." So, I'm not sure it's fair to suggest that "acrobatic" is wrong. http://fsims.faa.gov/PICDetail.aspx?docId=8900.1,Vol.5,Ch9,Sec1
 
Last edited:
Ryanb said:
But Eddie, the author of the article said that's how Acrobatic flight is defined.

Some of those gymnasts easily exceed 60deg of bank on some of their routines. :D
Click to expand...

I just did a new panel and had to make placards for it. The word Piper uses is Acrobatic... at least on the Dakota POH.
 
SkyDog58 said:
The more videos I see of the DB flying low, the less surprised I am of the outcome. Not that I was necessarily surprised to begin with. I definitely don't feel any sadness.
Click to expand...
Doesn't that thing come with cup holders .....to hold the beer?.....o_O
 
Ravioli said:
Please to explain, being a CFII and all... the differences between ground effect and water surface effect.

Your post could be interpreted to mean that there is more/less ground effect on land then then a fluid surface, but you stated in a very off hand manner.
Click to expand...

ElPasoPilot and some others above arr thinking in the right direction.

Water surface is usually flat unless your shooting the big surf breakers after a big storm.

Ground surface to Off-Airport Landing Sites or to Airstrip Trailheads can be almost any topographical configuration, with ravines, ridges, upslope and downslope, thick and uneven vegetation etc. Glaciers are similar in their unevenness sometimes.

The classic danger in uneven APP/DEP to LDGs & TOs is flying in the benefits of surface effect and having a drop out with sink, then not being able to regain enough altitude as surface rises. Especially dangerous on high DA ops.
 
F01LA said:
Skip ahead to 28:40.. yeehaw! It's a lot of fun until it isn't.
Click to expand...

Damn... If that was a test ride. This is problematic. I get that there are people capable of doing a lot with a plane and can do stuff like this "safely" but to be selling this type of flying to a new pilot is irrisponsible.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top