Fatal ICON A5 crash

dennyleeb said:
Nice looking bird. I own a 2016 SR22. I guess that's why your uninformed, uneducated opinions without facts bother me. Not sure why.
Click to expand...

That's why you're blindly defending the design I guess. You have a lot of dollars tied up in that pride.

How about you tell me what I said factually wrong, instead of cheapening yourself with ad hominem attacks?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
gsengle said:
That's why you're blindly defending the design I guess. You have a lot of dollars tied up in that pride.

How about you tell me what I said factually wrong, instead of cheapening yourself with ad hominem attacks?


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

That's why I posted facts. Unlike you....

I have owned several other designs. Glad I fly a cirrus now. But wouldn't hesitate to own others like Cessna / mooney etc. I like the majority of them.
 
Sorry for hijacking the thread. Accident was horrible. Thoughts are with the families.
 
dennyleeb said:
That's why I posted facts. Unlike you who has nothing but an opinion.

I have owned several other designs. Glad I fly a cirrus now.
Click to expand...

This thread isn't appropriate but...
There was a very high accident rate for many years, remedial training was required for the fleet, with an emphasis on not hesitating to pull the chute. The airplane has a widely criticized spring (not aerodynamic) trim system which has been criticized from a human factors perspective as making slow flight handling less obvious possibly contributing to pattern accidents too low for chute saves. A Cirrus engineer wrote an article in which he says that the same wing design that makes spins harder to enter also makes them harder to exit. US spin testing wasn't passed, they couldn't get it down to one turn. And of course the early fatal test crash, which in fairness lead to some redesign. I personally dislike the control system and feel. And strictly personally I like retractable gear. In the plus column it's comfy and the chute is a plus. Now let's leave this for other threads.

I like many types. Prefer low wing. SR20/22 is one of the few I don't like. To bring it back on topic I really do hope the A5 turns out to be a good design.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Last edited:
dennyleeb said:
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
Click to expand...

Based on the fact I can only see partial responses to the thread I know exactly what's going on. The ignore button works wonders. Might as well make the POA experience as enjoyable as possible.
 
gsengle said:
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.
Click to expand...

Cirrus has pluses and minuses just like any other aircraft but why obsess over a plane you do not fly or own? You seem comfy in your Mooney Ovation. Isn't that enough?
 
You make a good point about the marketing and use of the plane. Obviously buzzing around low altitude barely skimming the water and doing amphib landings and takeoffs has some serious additional risks. Much more so than the regular Joe who takes off and stays high up in the air.

That being said, you can't blame the plane. If the A5 proves to have no faulty design issues, this might be the SAFEST single engine plane ever made. Believe it.

Certified spin resistant, great handling, low stall speed, AOA indicator, can land on water, and a parachute. This is the pinnacle of a safe plane, as far as we know.
 
TexDeuce said:
You make a good point about the marketing and use of the plane. Obviously buzzing around low altitude barely skimming the water and doing amphib landings and takeoffs has some serious additional risks. Much more so than the regular Joe who takes off and stays high up in the air.

That being said, you can't blame the plane. If the A5 proves to have no faulty design issues, this might be the SAFEST single engine plane ever made. Believe it.

Certified spin resistant, great handling, low stall speed, AOA indicator, can land on water, and a parachute. This is the pinnacle of a safe plane, as far as we know.
Click to expand...
Agreed.

At what altitude is the chute deployable?
 
MetalCloud said:
Based on the fact I can only see partial responses to the thread I know exactly what's going on. The ignore button works wonders. Might as well make the POA experience as enjoyable as possible.
Click to expand...

Shame you decided to block - you seemed like a nice enough guy. You took a joke really the wrong way. As for others, no one seems to want to cite specific objections, they just start with the personal attacks. Seems like that's more acceptable these days than trying to have a fact based discussion.

It takes a lot for me to block someone. Prob only have done so once. I like to hear all opinions. Fly safe all.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
CT4ME said:
Suggested deployment is usually around 500+ ft, but 'chutes have been successfully deployed below 100ft
Click to expand...
Depends on the chute. The early chutes need at least 7 or 800' if not more.

I believe that Cirrus changed it up a few years ago to get the chute deployed sooner.

Watch the video of the ferry pilot who pulled the chute on the way to Hawaii. That was one of the earlier chutes....not very useful in the traffic pattern.
 
I'm assuming it's a smaller lighter chute in the Icon, wonder if that makes lower deployments possible?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
BRS makes a different size rocket and parachute dependent on aircraft parameters. MTOW is a major factor as is where on the airframe the chute will deploy from and how the chute will be anchored to the airframe.

Cirrus has three size rocket/chute combos now (SR20/22, SR22T, SF50). Unlike Cirrus which well documents and trains for CAPS deployment SLSAs incorporating the parachutes do not often document in their product manuals how, when and at what height their chutes are to be deployed.
 
Might be hard to get our hands on an icon AFM at this point, wonder if they every tested the chute...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
citizen5000 said:
BRS makes a different size rocket and parachute dependent on aircraft parameters. MTOW is a major factor as is where on the airframe the chute will deploy from and how the chute will be anchored to the airframe.

Cirrus has three size rocket/chute combos now (SR20/22, SR22T, SF50). Unlike Cirrus which well documents and trains for CAPS deployment SLSAs incorporating the parachutes do not often document in their product manuals how, when and at what height their chutes are to be deployed.
Click to expand...

I think I have corrected you on this before. It isn't correct.

The SR22 and SR22T parachutes are identical. The difference is between G3 and G5 parachutes which went from 55 ft diameter to 65 ft enabling the 3600 lb gross weight (again same for SR22 and SR22T)

Fearless Tower - the newer parachute is actually a bit slower opening due to its larger size than the the original (G1-G3) version. What changed over time is the guidance to use it lower since we built up a broader base of actual use events in which we observed effective deployments at lower altitudes than originally recommended by Cirrus and COPA. By the way, the Lue Morton deployment on the way to Hawaii was a G5 with the latest and slower to open parachute.
 
The BRS website shows a save of a CTSW with a pull at 60'. I'm not sure what conclusion should be drawn from that other than it's never too late to pull the chute.
 
Gsengle, you could save yourself a bunch of time if you'd just edit your signature to say "cirrus sucks and mooneys are the best ever". Then you just type "bump" and hit enter. The efficiency would be incredible.
 
arkvet said:
Gsengle, you could save yourself a bunch of time if you'd just edit your signature to say "cirrus sucks and mooneys are the best ever". Then you just type "bump" and hit enter. The efficiency would be incredible.
Click to expand...

Totally unfair. That all ya got?

Cirrus had some serious problems. Mooney has its issues too. But the fanboys just attack ya personally when you dare to bring em up rather than talking facts. It's not good for GA to ignore real issues.

You know why everyone can jump on criticizing the A5? Because so few pilots have invested a lot of pride and money in them yet...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
gsengle said:
I'm assuming it's a smaller lighter chute in the Icon, wonder if that makes lower deployments possible?


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

I highly doubt a chute would have made a save with how it appears that icon went down.
 
James331 said:
I highly doubt a chute would have made a save with how it appears that icon went down.
Click to expand...

Agree, just curious. Was interesting that there was such a low CTLS save...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
gsengle said:
Agree, just curious. Was interesting that there was such a low CTLS save...


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

It because the CLTS looks like a egg, and some like their eggs scrambled.
 
James331 said:
It because the CLTS looks like a egg, and some like their eggs scrambled.
Click to expand...

Ever flown one? I have about an hour in one and it was like instant airsickness. Had a lot of wiggle in it. Flight school got rid of em, too many students were breaking em. Now have a Grob and a Pipersport which are holding up much better.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
My Cherokee 140 is way more capable and faster than any Mooney or Cirrus will ever be. Take that! :blowingkisses:
 
CC268 said:
My Cherokee 140 is way more capable and faster than any Mooney or Cirrus will ever be. Take that! :blowingkisses:
Click to expand...

Darn, you win! xoxo


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
gsengle said:
Totally unfair. That all ya got?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

It's just that the frequency and predictability of your posts of that nature are crazy high. Your criticism of Cirrus owner's being "fanboys" is a classic example of the Pot calling the kettle black.

I don't even have skin in the game. I own and fly an old station wagon that lacks the blazing speed of your Mooney and the chute of the Cirrus.
 
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.

Edited to add: If you have a problem with the marketing, that in no way reflects on the aircraft itself.
Click to expand...
Do a little research and find out why the caps system was put in the cirrus in the beginning. Then ask the question "is it optional". After you answer those two questions you might have a different opinion of how good the design is on the cirrus
 
Tarheelpilot said:
Do a little research and find out why the caps system was put in the cirrus in the beginning. Then ask the question "is it optional". After you answer those two questions you might have a different opinion of how good the design is on the cirrus
Click to expand...

And why was it put into the plane?
 
arkvet said:
It's just that the frequency and predictability of your posts of that nature are crazy high. Your criticism of Cirrus owner's being "fanboys" is a classic example of the Pot calling the kettle black.

I don't even have skin in the game. I own and fly an old station wagon that lacks the blazing speed of your Mooney and the chute of the Cirrus.
Click to expand...

They are predictable because I say something, get attacked, put down some simple facts in defense, simple facts get ignored, and then get personally attacked.

A fanboy is religious about something and ignores criticism. I don't. I try and be fair in all discussions and quick to admit when I'm wrong. So no I don't think it's the pot calling the kettle black. I've flown a lot of types over 25 years. It's dumb to say they're all equally good somehow. They aren't. And when some are bad, in aviation, people die.

So let's have open congenial conversations without resorting to all to obviously defensive name calling.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Fearless Tower said:
Depends on the chute. The early chutes need at least 7 or 800' if not more.

I believe that Cirrus changed it up a few years ago to get the chute deployed sooner.

Watch the video of the ferry pilot who pulled the chute on the way to Hawaii. That was one of the earlier chutes....not very useful in the traffic pattern.
Click to expand...

Actually, according to CAPS training material, older SR22s can deploy chutes lower.. 400 is the for older than G5. 561 for G5+. I'm assuming it's due to weight increase
 
gsengle said:
Ever flown one? I have about an hour in one and it was like instant airsickness. Had a lot of wiggle in it. Flight school got rid of em, too many students were breaking em. Now have a Grob and a Pipersport which are holding up much better.


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

Is that the Piper sport that made by the Czech company? Was not a fan of the disportionate controls

Y'all ever look into a 7AC or something, sweet flying tried and true plane.
 
Tarheelpilot said:
Do a little research and find out why the caps system was put in the cirrus in the beginning. Then ask the question "is it optional". After you answer those two questions you might have a different opinion of how good the design is on the cirrus
Click to expand...

I believe you are laboring under a misconception. Or two.

But this should REALLY be moved to another thread. It does a disservice to those wanting to follow the Icon crash discussion.
 
James331 said:
Is that the Piper sport that made by the Czech company? Was not a fan of the disportionate controls

Y'all ever look into a 7AC or something, sweet flying tried and true plane.
Click to expand...

Lots of taildraggers like the champ on the field. But not as rentals. Haven't flown the pipersport, yep that's the one. I've flown a J3, will have to beg a ride in the 7AC. But now way off topic....


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Don't get the argument... all planes are dangerous.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top