Fatal ICON A5 crash

gsengle said:
Yep the chute saves a problematic airframe. I fly a Mooney Ovation.
Click to expand...

Problematic? In what way? I don't understand the hate for Cirrus. Sure, the airplanes have a chute, a nice interior, and are made of plastic, but it looks to me like they are doing a heck of a job. I'm an RV guy, so I'm not beholden to Cirrus, its airplanes, or their intended missions...
 
gsengle said:
Yep the chute saves a problematic airframe.
Click to expand...
So back in 2009 this was posted and it gives a rundown of the Cirrus chute saves... most these seem like legit chute pulls, not just times when the plane caused some crazy stall or spin

CAPS pull #1, Oct 2002, Lewisville, TX, 1 uninjured
Factors: VFR departure after maintenance, aileron unhinged due maintenance error Activation: low altitude, 1,500 feet VFR after maneuvering, first parachute deployment by pilot in a certified production airplane Landing: bushes near golf course

CAPS pull #2, April 2004, Lethbridge, AB, Canada, 4 uninjured
Factors: VFR night cruise, loss of control, possible autopilot-induced stall, night VFR over mountains, SR20 performance Activation: high altitude, deployment upon loss of control Landing: landed in scree in mountaneous terrain, skidded backwards 1/4-mile, helicopter extraction via parachute risers

CAPS pull #3, April 2004, Fort Lauderdale, FL, 1 uninjured
Factors: confusing instrument behavior, low IMC, departure climb, water in static system Activation: low altitude, 700 feet IMC, prior to disorientation Landing: landed in trees

CAPS pull #4, Sept 2004, Peters, CA, 2 uninjured
Factors: VFR climb, autopilot-induced stall, rolled inverted, attempted recovery Activation: high altitude, activated CAPS in VMC before entering IMC above 10,000 feet Landing: landed in walnut grove

CAPS pull #5, Feb 2005, Norden, CA, 1 fatality
Factors: IMC, pilot reported icing at 16,000 over Sierras, high speed descent well above Vne of 204 knots Activation: uncertain if intentional activation or due to airframe stress in high speed descent, CAPS failed as parachute found separated from airframe, located along track to crash site Landing: high speed impact in mountainous area

CAPS pull #6, June 2005, Haverstraw, NY, 1 serious injury (compression fracture of vertabrae)
Factors: IFR on approach to KHPN, pilot incapacitated from brain seizure, loss of conciousness, awoke and recovered from Vne dive, determined numbness and loss of function in legs Activation: low altitude, last radar report at 1,600 feet and 190 knots (well above Vpd of 133 knots) Landing: water, bay of Hudson River

CAPS pull #7, Jan 2006, Childersburg, AL, 3 uninjured
Factors: IMC, severe icing, loss of control Activation: high altitude, icing report at 9,000 feet IMC Landing: flat terrain

CAPS pull #8, Feb 2006, Wagner, SD, 2 uninjured
Factors: IMC, shortly after takeoff, pilot disorientation Activation: low altitude Landing: flat terrain

CAPS pull #9, Aug 2006, Indianapolis, IN, 1 fatality, 3 serious injuries (spinal surgery)
Factors: IMC, pilot incapacitation, 2.5 miles from departure airport Activation: low altitude, possibly first activation of CAPS by non-pilot, possibly not fully deployed Landing: water, pond among residential housing

CAPS pull #10, Sept 2006, Bull Bay, Jamaica, 4 uninjured
Factors: VMC cruise, passenger activated when fuel streaming from tank filler openings Activation: low altitude Landing: trees

CAPS pull #11, Feb 2007, Sydney, Australia, 2 injuries
Factors: VMC cruise, engine problems, rocket took unusual trajectory, parachute failed to open, successful emergency off-airport landing Activation: low altitude Landing: trees

CAPS pull #12, Apr 2007, Luna, NM, 1 injured
Factors: IMC cruise, climb to avoid weather, confusing instruments, terrain waring in IMC Activation: low altitude, IMC Landing: trees, mountainous terrain

CAPS pull #13, Aug 2007, Nantucket, MA, 2 injured
Factors: VFR in IMC during approach, parachute tangled with tower wires, 1 serious injury, 1 minor injury, 1 unborn child saved Activation: low altitude, IMC Landing: tower, flat open terrain

CAPS pull #14, Oct 2008, Spain, 3 uninjured
Factors: IFR in IMC during approach, pilot reported turbulence and loss of control, parachute tangled with power line wires, Activation: low altitude, IMC Landing: power line

CAPS pull #15, Nov 2008, Turriaco, Italy, 1 seriously injured, 3 uninjured Factors: fuel exhaustion and loss of engine power, parachute deployed at low altitude and late in the power-off glide scenario, approximately 400 feet above ground; Activation: low altitude, VMC; Landing: trees and grass

CAPS pull #16, Dec 2008, Gouvy, Belgium, 1 minor injured
Factors: icing, pilot attempted several outs but was unable to maintain altitude, Activation: low altitude, IMC Landing: trees

CAPS pull #17, Dec 2008, Patterson, LA, 1 uninjured
Factors: pilot reported mechanical difficulties late at night over coastal marshes, Activation: high altitude, VMC, night Landing: canal (water)

CAPS pull #18, Feb 2009, Deltona, FL, 2 fatal
Factors: instructional flight practicing low-speed maneuvers, witnesses report spinning aircraft with CAPS activation about 200 feet above ground; Activation: low altitude, VMC Landing: trees

CAPS pull #19, Mar 2009, Gaithersburg, MC, 1 uninjured
Factors: door popped open upon takeoff, pilot reported rain in the cockpit and attempted to manage door but became disoriented, Activation: low altitude, IMC Landing: residential street

CAPS pull #20, Jun 2009, Mount Airy, NC, 1 uninjured
Factors: catastrophic engine failure with oil obscuring windscreen, Activation: high altitude, 6,000 feet, VMC Landing: level field
 
Are we still talking about the Icon crash? LOL.

Mods? Can we get a Cirrus SZ? Hahaha.
 
kyleb said:
Problematic? In what way? I don't understand the hate for Cirrus. Sure, the airplanes have a chute, a nice interior, and are made of plastic, but it looks to me like they are doing a heck of a job. I'm an RV guy, so I'm not beholden to Cirrus, its airplanes, or their intended missions...
Click to expand...

For an airframe that was touted as ultra safe, there was a horrible accident rate. The only thing that improved things was a campaign to get people to be quick to use the chute.

Don't confuse the benefits of the chute with the record of the airframe.

My biggest issue is the spring trim system. Creates a low speed human factors issue. Springs aren't a good way to trim an airplane.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
I stole this from a former @wanttaja post and it seems like it is not any more "problematic" than other planes. Easy target and fun to pick on? Yeah probably that.

cirrus2.jpg
 
I think their improvement in safety wasn't just the result of more people pulling the chute, they really reviewed their training and transition program and it's incredibly solid. When I did the transition course it was a very in depth training and we covered a lot of key items, I know I walked away from it feeling like a much more competent pilot and it was far superior to any other "1 hr checkout" I've gotten in other planes
 
Yes that is all true. In my opinion having flown the plane, it's not a great airframe. It's just my opinion. I'm no body.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
gsengle said:
Yes that is all true. In my opinion having flown the plane, it's not a great airframe. It's just my opinion. I'm no body.
Click to expand...

"Not a great airframe" <> "Problematic Airframe"

If you'd said "I didn't like it.", that would have made more sense.
 
kyleb said:
"Not a great airframe" <> "Problematic Airframe"

If you'd said "I didn't like it.", that would have made more sense.
Click to expand...

I have specific issues with both the design and how it was marketed. Would you prefer deadly to problematic? I don't get the distinction you're trying to make.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
gsengle said:
I have specific issues with both the design and how it was marketed. Would you prefer deadly to problematic? I don't get the distinction you're trying to make.
Click to expand...

The distinction is that there is nothing wrong (deadly or problematic) with the airframe, as far as I know. If you have objective information otherwise, please share.

Edited to add: If you have a problem with the marketing, that in no way reflects on the aircraft itself.
 
kyleb said:
The distinction is that there is nothing wrong (deadly or problematic) with the airframe, as far as I know. If you have objective information otherwise, please share.
Click to expand...

That's been beaten to death in other threads. It's not a new discussion.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Look, all of these aircraft designs are well engineered and extensively tested. If the pilot flies them according to the POH and uses good judgement there will probably not be an injury, fatality or even an extensive damage accident. The Light Sport aircraft are all a bit, well, light in build and don't have enough useful load. Those are common criticisms. People criticize plastic, but they have always criticized plastic and yet plastic is working quite well in most apps where it is used. Both Boeing and Airbus have gone to plastic now, must tell something. Time will tell.
 
gsengle said:
Those are percentages of 100% not absolute numbers, what exactly are you trying to show?
Click to expand...
The percentages are the percent of total accidents involving that type. Pilot Miscontrol (stick and rudder mistakes by the pilot) are not included.

IIRC, this was in response to a claim that Cirrus aircraft suffered a disproportionately high rate of power failures.

Ron Wanttaja
 
wanttaja said:
The percentages are the percent of total accidents involving that type. Pilot Miscontrol (stick and rudder mistakes by the pilot) are not included.

IRRC, this was in response to a claim that Cirrus aircraft suffered a disproportionately high rate of power failures.

Ron Wanttaja
Click to expand...

And it doesn't show anything about accident rate. Just mix of accidents within the type.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
I love how analytic pilot folks are, and how seriously safety is overall taken. You don't (or at least I haven't) seen car forums where accident stats are compared and used as a legitimate indicator of a product's viability... it's kind of just assumed that if you crash a car you were either unlucky or an idiot..

Also, as we've discussed before here, accident stats are a very gray area because a lot of people do forge ahead into bad IMC and get burned for it, or make other mistakes that cause the rest of us to say "why would they do that?!" Some planes do need to be flown with more care than others or are less forgiving of mistakes. At face value the Icon should be a remarkably safe plane, but the intended use has many of us concerned that these accidents we are seeing now aren't really the result of "test flights" but the types of accidents that would hurt real people (hard water landings, flying into power lines at low level, etc.) and these are generally extremely qualified test pilots. Joe-I-just-got-my-20-hr-sign-off will have no where near the aviation acumen that these test pilots have, and will be tempted to do a lot of "I'm invincible" stuff with the plane. I hope I'm wrong for everyone involved.
 
gsengle said:
And it doesn't show anything about accident rate. Just mix of accidents within the type.
Click to expand...
I've done rates; traveling right now so don't have access to my data. Cirrus was not that far out of family, though comparing it to designs that were in production since the '40s and '60s is awkward due to the questionable status of older registrations.

At one point, I compared the Cirrus rate to that of the new-production 182, and the rates were pretty close.

Haven't looked at for a while, so when I get home I'll crack open the databases for another look. I'll post it to a new thread.

A couple of things to keep in mind. First, because of the CAPS, Cirrus accidents are often high-profile events. The publicity may make the type look more accident prone.

Second...a lot of folks might not realize that there's a ***pot of Cirruses out there. They outnumber several more traditional types.

Ron Wanttaja
 
gsengle said:
And it doesn't show anything about accident rate. Just mix of accidents within the type.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

If you want, I have pulled down the entire NTSB database and restored it to a SQL server.
79,790 crashes listed to date. And this is a serious proposal as I have my query tool up now.

Do you want to see any numbers a certain way?
 
I only track the columns below because it is specific to a website I am building

EventID
EventType
AccidentNumber
EventDate
Location
Country
AirportCode
AirportName
Fatal Damage
AircraftNumber
AircraftMake
AircraftModel
EngineCount
EngineType
Purpose
InjuryNone
InjuryMinor
InjurySerious
InjuryFatal
Weather
Phase
 
SixPapaCharlie said:
If you want, I have pulled down the entire NTSB database and restored it to a SQL server.
79,790 crashes listed to date. And this is a serious proposal as I have my query tool up now.

Do you want to see any numbers a certain way?
Click to expand...

Query: Icon A5

LOL. Pretty sure the Cirrus debate belongs elsewhere. :)
 
SixPapaCharlie said:
If you want, I have pulled down the entire NTSB database and restored it to a SQL server.
79,790 crashes listed to date. And this is a serious proposal as I have my query tool up now.

Do you want to see any numbers a certain way?
Click to expand...

For rates, you'll need to download the FAA registration database as well.

Ron Wanttaja
 
Palmpilot said:
It's also where I took my private pilot checkride!
Click to expand...
Just checked it out on Airnav, looks like a cool place to fly. I don't have any time flying in that area but I hope to change that someday
 
Tantalum said:
Just checked it out on Airnav, looks like a cool place to fly. I don't have any time flying in that area but I hope to change that someday
Click to expand...
It's one airport where it pays to study the terminal area chart carefully! It's also important to find out where the diamond-shaped waterway, Belmont Slough, and the (now invisible) former Bay Meadows racetrack are, so that you can fly the noise abatement routes that Tower will probably assign you.

And it has a nice little on-field restaurant for breakfast and lunch.
 
James331 said:
It'll land on a lake in AK just as well as a lake in CA, actually with DA, probably better and depending on things, flying boats, especially with top mounted engines actually handle ruff water better.

Just shy of 100kts burning auto fuel and with I'd imagine is a somewhat comfy quiet cabin, that make a good little camp check plane, or a take a single person or couple bags out somewhere machine.

Where the A5 would really be a contender is if they backed down on all the crazy cockpit recorders, buyer agreements and and other nonsense, forgot that LSA nonsense, beefed up a few things to take out the time limits and maybe looked into the engine etc to open up the cruise speed and lower the take off distances, it is a slick airframe, without LSA rules I betcha she'd cruise very nice for a amphib.
Click to expand...

You're probably right but they'd go broke trying to get it certified! Or have to sell to the Chinese like Cirrus did to get development and cert. money.
 
6PC, Is engine count referring to number of engines or time on engine?
Both would be interesting in your data set.
 
gsengle said:
Yep the chute saves a problematic airframe. I fly a Mooney Ovation.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Hahaha. Yeah. Figured such a response.

You own it? I'm guessing not. Seem like the type that talks about what they would do if buying but have never wrote the check.
 
dennyleeb said:
Hahaha. Yeah. Figured such a response.

You own? Just wondering if you have put your money where your mouth is.
Click to expand...

Own. So you guessed wrong. What do you own? Yep money where my mouth is. Have flown most airplanes in the class, Cirrus, Mooney, Bo. Wouldn't own a SR20/22. Have my reasons. Have nothing against BRS have nothing against composites. Jury still out on SF50....

f13a8adfb7582442952e830e185b4231.jpg



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Last edited:
Palmpilot said:
It's one airport where it pays to study the terminal area chart carefully! It's also important to find out where the diamond-shaped waterway, Belmont Slough, and the (now invisible) former Bay Meadows racetrack are, so that you can fly the noise abatement routes that Tower will probably assign you.

And it has a nice little on-field restaurant for breakfast and lunch.
Click to expand...

And a good steak place next to the helicopter transient across the field.

You also need to know where Class B is. It's close by and close overhead. If you can't find the invisible racetrack, you will bust the surface area. Don't cross the Hwy 92 freeway (and make sure you know where it is).

It's named SQL for a damn good reason. Oracle HQ is between the diamond shaped waterway and the airport. It's always tempting to take off on 30 with a middle finger hanging out the window....

That diamond shaped waterway is the former Marine World site (but it moved to Vallejo decades ago).
 
Badger said:
6PC, Is engine count referring to number of engines or time on engine?
Both would be interesting in your data set.
Click to expand...
gsengle said:
Own. So you guessed wrong. What do you own? Yep money where my mouth is. Have flown most airplanes in the class, Cirrus, Mooney, Bo. Wouldn't own a SR20/22. Have my reasons. Have nothing against BRS have nothing against composites. Jury still out on SF50....

f13a8adfb7582442952e830e185b4231.jpg



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Nice looking bird. I own a 2016 SR22. I guess that's why your uninformed, uneducated opinions bother me. Not sure why I let someone like you bother me. But frankly your post repeatedly **** me off. Lol
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top