Fatal ICON A5 crash

James331 said:
Ya know, this new age touch feely stuff really has to stop.

Look, I don't care about feelings, nor does gravity, physics, or blunt force trauma, this isn't "feelings of America" it's "pilots of America" if their family comes into a aviation board looking up the accident, they'd be a fool to expect anything other than aviation related discussion about it, this type of discussion on this type of site is to be expected by anyone.

Second, It's a public accident, it's already made the papers


Now here's the deal, everyone here is discussing things which could be done in a similar situation to PREVENT this type of accident, even if some aspects don't don't directly apply to this accident, we've so far discussed low level wire surveys, box canyons, stalls, and a few other saftey aspects.

If this PUBLIC DISCUSSION saves one person, or even prevents a "oh chit that as close" it's WELLLLLLLL worth any "hurt feeling".

As to those survived, I'd hope they might find solace in knowing something was learned from this and maybe someone might be spared their grief from those hard taught lessons.
Click to expand...

 
James331 said:
If this PUBLIC DISCUSSION saves one person, or even prevents a "oh chit that as close" it's WELLLLLLLL worth any "hurt feeling".
Click to expand...
I abhor speculation, and it has nothing to do with 'hurt feelings'. It has to do with flawed analysis, questionable interpretations, opinions posting as fact, and 'negative learning' due to these. I've all but given up trying to convince anyone on POA otherwise, so I tend to sit out the pseudo-analytical BS threads like this one. YMMV.

Nauga,
who would rather be approximately correct than precisely wrong
 
Lindberg said:
They could choose to read it or not. Same as you.
Click to expand...

They might be a family member, uneducated on aviation looking for answers. I'm not sure a lot is being said that is disrespectful. If there is kindly point it out. But aviation has risks and they must absolutely be discussed.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
exncsurfer said:
I don't even recall reading an accusatory speculation in this thread.
Click to expand...
This has actually been VERY tame for "speculation" accident threads. Someone blew a head gasket but it provided some entertainment to the thread.
 
I believe there is a great deal of respect here for the deceased. There will be a lot of contention one way or the other about what they were doing.
I mean basically they are flying something that was designed to be umm... an aerobatic jet ski?... So that just has to be dangerous to at least some degree.
On the other hand it is guys like that who have pioneered aviation, space exploration, etc.. and made it what it is, and find where it can go. Therefore...we HAVE to learn from it. Or they have died in vain?
 
Last edited:
MAKG1 said:
...How would you like someone discussing YOUR death by speculating what mistakes you might have made, without the slightest clue....
Click to expand...
If it happens to me, I welcome it. If my death stimulates others to talk about hazards and how to deal with them, I consider that a plus.
 
nauga said:
But similarly lacking in facts.

Nauga,
and the ministry of disinformation
Click to expand...
I firmly believe that talking about possibilities is a highly useful part of making us safer pilots. The NTSB needs to stick to the facts, but we are not the NTSB.
 
Palmpilot said:
I firmly believe that talking about possibilities is a highly useful part of making us safer pilots.
Click to expand...
And I believe that rampant speculation as to what is 'possible' in the absence of meaningful facts is equally likely to result in flawed conclusions and limited utility - we might as well be debating over whether or not they were struck by a meteorite. I note that some of the gang had focused on a cause by somewhere around post 40 or so. I don't find that useful in the slightest.

Nauga,
flying to conclusions
 
Ntsb reports can not be discussed without speculation. Even the final reports lack sufficient facts to fully describe every detail and some logical leaps must be made in discussions.

In fact, the statement above is proven true by the fact that we need to discuss the reports at all. If they provide every fact, then there is no need to have a discussion at all. Any further discussion will be based on speculations made from those facts.
 
The interesting part of this discussion is that this is exactly how the ntsb investigates a crash. They do not discount any theories. They look at every possibility they can think of and then use the physical evidence to disprove or provide those theories. They sometimes head towards a cause, only to find evidence that disproves it, and then head down a totally different direction due to the evidence.
 
nauga said:
And I believe that rampant speculation as to what is 'possible' in the absence of meaningful facts is equally likely to result in flawed conclusions and limited utility - we might as well be debating over whether or not they were struck by a meteorite. I note that some of the gang had focused on a cause by somewhere around post 40 or so. I don't find that useful in the slightest.

Nauga,
flying to conclusions
Click to expand...
If we were tasked with reaching conclusions about the most probable cause of an accident, then I would agree that speculation on our part would serve no purpose, but we are not tasked with that. That is the NTSB's job. On the other hand, if our purpose is to use each accident as a tool to help us think about hazards and how to deal with them, then speculation DOES serve a purpose. In my opinion, the key is to be clear about which are facts, and which are speculation.
 
People need to chill out. It's not like others are saying "they were probably drunk" or "I heard that the pilot forgot his meds" or outlandish crap like that. It's been a civil discussion. Nothing wrong with speculating about potential causes. It does help and is a sobering reminder of just how unforgiving aviation can be sometimes.

NOT talking about accidents is far more dangerous in my opinion
 
Last edited:
I respect MAKG1's position on speculation, but if nobody discussed speculative causes, there would be little or nothing to discuss. I don't think anyone here is under the illusion that there are enough facts available to definitively state what happened at this point in time.
 
I learn from accident speculation.

I spend time with AOPA accident videos.

I read the latest NTSB reports as part of my preflight.

I find it helps me to recognize when I am putting the links of an accident chain together.

I hope if I make a fatal mistake others will learn from it with open discussion.

All those that are close to me know of my efforts to mitigate risk and won’t be hurt if people speculate as to how clear the links of the accident chain are even if the speculation is completely unfounded.

I feel it doesn’t take very many little mistakes as a pilot to have a fatal accident.

I don't know enough about fixed wing aircraft to speculate much.

I don't know enough about aviation protocol to have an opinion about good manners.
 
I am so tired of the Speculation Police (only a couple characters in this thread) jumping into the threads and trying to shut down all discussion. It is madness. If someone came up to me in real life and started telling me and the other pilots we couldn't discuss or speculate on any crashes we would think he is a loon and tell him to hit the road.

Since nobody here was there, all discussion is speculation and if it were up to a couple of these guys there would be no threads at all. Anyone with an IQ above 70 would expect to find robust discussion of accidents on an AVIATION DISCUSSION FORUM.

Here is some advice from the rest of us. If you don't like discussion about the accidents, don't open the thread. Or get some thicker skin. Considering these discussions go on in every aviation forum and hangar in the world you are doing absolutely nothing but clogging up the threads with overly dramatic hysteria.

Thank You
 
Last edited:
I have no problem with reasoned speculation. We all do it when we read of an accident, don't we? As long as the speculation is not an emotional tirade against the accident pilots I'm fine with speculation among pilots.

With respect to Icon, I know nothing about this accident, but I've not been impressed with what I perceive as a 'this is a flying jetski' marketing technique to non-pilots. Skimming just above the surface of the water is all fun and games until somebody gets hurt.

jTspT5i.jpg


Yd5Aw2z.png
 
Just as an incidental FYI, that second picture is Putah Creek, which runs downstream of the Monticello Dam from Berryessa towards Davis. They are taking the scenic route to Berryessa. The highway would be on the right hand side under the chase plane. They don't seem too intent on flying much higher than they need to be to clear the dam itself.

I get the photo ops and the scenery and all, but I would personally be uncomfortable with having the same view in my own airplane, at least if they happen to be in the section where I think they are, which is within a couple miles of the dam.
 
I've been waterskiing on Berryessa for 50 years. Here are some facts, not speculation. Pilot had no business up that arm of the lake,down on the deck. It's narrow, so narrow much of it is 5mph boat speed, it hosts a log boomed slalom course, wakeboard course that blocks off a lot of that end of the arm. Boats are always up that arm, so he giving kids haircuts at between 5 and 30 feet agl. It's a box canyon with steep terrain. If you got close to the shore you need a bell jet ranger to climb out. Why was he in there? The water is always smooth up there. The main body on berryessa, even with 6-10 knots, add ski boat wakes that travel forever, is rough. It's not a seaplane, you never see this thing on the water unless it's dead smooth Berryessa is never smooth. and the possible reality that hitting a boat wake is what killed the last icon, he was trying to give the former ford executive a landing and rather than say, yeah, too rough, next time, he was working the arm for a landing shot.
 
unsafervguy said:
The interesting part of this discussion is that this is exactly how the ntsb investigates a crash. They do not discount any theories. They look at every possibility they can think of and then use the physical evidence to disprove or provide those theories. They sometimes head towards a cause, only to find evidence that disproves it, and then head down a totally different direction due to the evidence.
Click to expand...
Reading NTSB reports (and conclusions), they really don't always look at all possibilities, and draw some fairly sketchy conclusions often enough. Not ragging on them - they likely have limited time, and if the accident doesn't appear to be caused by a fleet wide problem, and isn't high profile (lot's of victims, or a few important ones) they'll do what they can, in th time available, and then move on.
 
IRT respect for the departed: they may or may not have made an aviation mistake; doesn't make them bad folks if they did, and we mourn their loss, either way. Talking about what might have happened doesn't seem to me to be crude or base or harmful. People get killed flying airplanes, and it's natural for those who fly to think, talk, and speculate about crashes. It's just "what ifs", and any guesses or semi-conclusions aren't binding.

Bad news that aviators were lost, and an interesting (or at least "unique") airplane was destroyed. And family and friends are terribly affected.
 
Sundancer said:
Reading NTSB reports (and conclusions), they really don't always look at all possibilities, and draw some fairly sketchy conclusions often enough. Not ragging on them - they likely have limited time, and if the accident doesn't appear to be caused by a fleet wide problem, and isn't high profile (lot's of victims, or a few important ones) they'll do what they can, in the time available, and then move on.
Click to expand...


very true. however, in most crashes, even if the cause is very apparent that is was pilot error they still look at the mechanical, weather, and medical info. the reality is that with most small aircraft crashes there is just not enough hard data to prove 100% what the cause was.
 
unsafervguy said:
very true. however, in most crashes, even if the cause is very apparent that is was pilot error they still look at the mechanical, weather, and medical info. the reality is that with most small aircraft crashes there is just not enough hard data to prove 100% what the cause was.
Click to expand...
Concur - and it can be weird; I think it was in Flying, maybe Peter Garrison in "Aftermath", that I read about a high performance single just flat dropping like a rock, from on top, through the undercast, and into the ground. The passenger was taking pictures just before the event, and the camera survived; and, they had a lot of flight data from the avionics. But no real clue WTF happened, or why. As I recall it was a pretty long drop, from well on top, in excess of 10 or 12K MSL, if memory serves.
 
unsafervguy said:
The interesting part of this discussion is that this is exactly how the ntsb investigates a crash. They do not discount any theories. They look at every possibility they can think of and then use the physical evidence to disprove or provide those theories. They sometimes head towards a cause, only to find evidence that disproves it, and then head down a totally different direction due to the evidence.
Click to expand...
The difference between the way the NTSB and other agencies do this and the way that it's done here is that they have access to far more data than POA at this stage and they have experts doing the analysis of said data. In the case of this crash, a cause was "determined" in this thread with nothing more than some screen grabs and Google maps. In another, one of my personal faves, the initial "analysis" was done using a photograph of the wrong crash site. There *is* something to be learned from both of these, but it has little to do with specifics of either accident.

Nauga,
from where a miss is as good as a mile
 
Velocity173 said:
In the absence of video or telemetry, which I don't believe either exists...
Click to expand...
I agree - sort of - I believe the term 'telemetry' is misused a lot these days, but I *do* think that it's likely that there was some sort of onboard data recording as there is with most 'modern' avionics. Whether or not it can be retrieved (if it's there) remains to be seen.

Nauga,
and his MSDRS
 
nauga said:
The difference between the way the NTSB and other agencies do this and the way that it's done here is that they have access to far more data than POA at this stage and they have experts doing the analysis of said data. In the case of this crash, a cause was "determined" in this thread with nothing more than some screen grabs and Google maps. In another, one of my personal faves, the initial "analysis" was done using a photograph of the wrong crash site. There *is* something to be learned from both of these, but it has little to do with specifics of either accident.

Nauga,
from where a miss is as good as a mile
Click to expand...

Thank god a righteous soul like yourself is here to set everyone straight and explain this to us!
 
JimNtexas said:
...With respect to Icon, I know nothing about this accident, but I've not been impressed with what I perceive as a 'this is a flying jetski' marketing technique to non-pilots. Skimming just above the surface of the water is all fun and games until somebody gets hurt....
Click to expand...
That's quite a caption on that second advertising photo: "Limits. Boundaries. Borders. You've spent your whole life ignoring them. Don't stop now."

I wonder if that advice extends to ignoring the Limitations section of the POH? :eek2:

Or maybe they're saying the buyers can just ignore the limitations that Icon puts on them in the purchase contract. :devil:
 
Last edited:
Velocity173 said:
Which doesn't provide much information. NTSB may never know what actually happened.
Click to expand...
This part of the NTSB report seems pretty illuminating to me:

A witness, who was in a boat on Lake Berryessa, reported observing the accident airplane flying over the lake about 30 to 50 feet above the water, at what seemed to be a low speed. The witness stated that the airplane passed by their position and entered a nearby cove, traveling in a northerly direction. The witness heard the engine "rev up" as the airplane drifted to the right side of the cove. Subsequently, the airplane pitched upward and entered a left turn, just before it traveled beyond the witness's field of view. The witness stated that he heard the sound of impact shortly after losing visual site of the airplane.​

...Just don't look at speculation as being fact.
Click to expand...
Amen to that!
 
I feel bad for the family, friends and co-workers of the individuals in this accident. We will most likely never know what truly happened. I hope the GA population will focus on the events/outcome of this accident and will strive to fly accident free.
 
Well the witness description makes it sound like they flew into a dead-end and stalled while trying to execute something like a canyon turn.
 
Palmpilot said:
That's quite a caption on that second advertising photo: "Limits. Boundaries. Borders. You've spent your whole life ignoring them. Don't stop now."

I wonder if that advice extends to ignoring the Limitations section of the POH? :eek2:

Or maybe they're saying the buyers can just ignore the limitations that Icon puts on them in the purchase contract. :devil:
Click to expand...

Reminds me of this Cessna ad:

14207827053_5f6248b161_c.jpg


Which, of course, goes against everything that flight instructors try to instill in their students.

But, they're right that with that attitude, "...tomorrow might not happen", but in a way I don't think they intended.
 
Back in the day, I was on a number of USAF Accident Investigation teams. First impressions of the probable cause were usually borne out but I spent the vast majority of my time trying to prove that initial assessment wrong and identify other possible reasons to make sure we found the most probable cause.

Cheers
 
ollopa said:
Well the witness description makes it sound like they flew into a dead-end and stalled while trying to execute something like a canyon turn.
Click to expand...

That would be so sad if that was the case. That canyon is 3000 ft long - the ICON A5 water landing distance is 2000 ft. They could have just landed and turned around on the water.
 
nauga said:
The difference between the way the NTSB and other agencies do this and the way that it's done here is that they have access to far more data than POA at this stage and they have experts doing the analysis of said data. In the case of this crash, a cause was "determined" in this thread with nothing more than some screen grabs and Google maps. In another, one of my personal faves, the initial "analysis" was done using a photograph of the wrong crash site. There *is* something to be learned from both of these, but it has little to do with specifics of either accident.

Nauga,
from where a miss is as good as a mile
Click to expand...

But the weekend warrior, low time experts here have more knowledge and experience than the NTSB and thus don't need any hard data. I have heard that the NTSB investigators seek their inputs, especially the cirrus drivers, when the investigators see inconsistencies in their data. Lot of legends in their own minds here.
 
KA550 said:
But the weekend warrior, low time experts here have more knowledge and experience than the NTSB and thus don't need any hard data. I have heard that the NTSB investigators seek their inputs, especially the cirrus drivers, when the investigators see inconsistencies in their data. Lot of legends in their own minds here.
Click to expand...
I'm all for thinking through things and trying to ponder what might gave caused an airplane to crash, but what is interesting here is that this was a company test pilot, doing company work, and folks on the internet seem to think they know what happened.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top