Fatal ICON A5 crash

Fearless Tower said:
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.
Click to expand...

Yeesh, people speculate. But no we don't think we are going to prove what happened. That's totally not the point. We know we don't know. It's the exercise, the discussion which is what counts. And as more info comes out including the results of the investigation, we can follow along at home and learn from seeing how reality diverged from our own limited analysis. This is what everyone does every day with everything, you hypothesize, and then reality helps you to adjust your worldview, and you grow. Toddlers do it, adults do it, and good pilots do it.

No one here has tried to argue they proved anything.

In the end we become more thoughtful and aware about different aspects of aviation. And maybe we adjust our own practices in light of understanding risk better.

It's a discussion just like this that had me install a backup AI for instance.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
As a current student pilot, and former long time lurker, the speculation after accidents has helped me understand a lot of concepts and directed me to research countless times. I don't see what's wrong with it. In this case, it reinforced that even the best pilots can die when maneuvering at low level. Whether it's a stall, rising terrain, a wire, whatever, that's what I get out of it.

Nearly every rule or piece of kit in aviation was forged in blood. Uncomfortable as it may be, we owe it those aviators to ensure we don't needlessly spill more blood doing something that they've already given their lives to teach us.
 
I haven't seen the first post that says they know what happened. I haven't seen any wild speculation. I have seen people speculating. There is nothing wrong with anything that has been posted in this thread with the exception of the Cirrus hijack.
 
Mike Smith said:
I haven't seen the first post that says they know what happened. I haven't seen any wild speculation. I have seen people speculating. There is nothing wrong with anything that has been posted in this thread with the exception of the Cirrus hijack.
Click to expand...

The legit Cirrus parallel was the commentary on the dangers of how a plane is marketed. Although of course this wasn't a purchased airplane...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
FastEddieB said:
Reminds me of this Cessna ad:...

...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.
Click to expand...
The person who wrote "add an exponent to your productivity curve" in that ad also seem to be unaware that there is such a thing as an exponent less than one!
 
nauga said:
Post 49:

Post 220:

Nauga,
who thinks it's clear but not the way you think
Click to expand...
What is so terrible that you think is going to happen because someone made a statement in a forum thread that turned out to be wrong? Subsequent posts have pointed out the weaknesses in incorrect assumptions, and we learned from it. I count that as a good thing.
 
Last edited:
Palmpilot said:
What is so terrible that you think is going to happen because someone made a statement in a forum thread that turned out to be wrong? Later in the thread, the weaknesses in that assumption were pointed out, and we learned from it. I count that as a good thing.
Click to expand...

Post 58 corrected 49 and I don't think 220 is inaccurate.
 
Nauga, your point wasn't made.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Okay, I think without speculation, we can come to the following conclusions, thus far:
I'm a pilot, and a long time waterskier on Lake Berryessa, with hundreds of days on the lake, and up said arm of lake in particular. Here are the facts, and to this point, they are not disputed:
LSA ICON 5 aircraft, loaded with 2 adult males and fuel, took off Nut Tree Airport for new employee orientation flight. The pilot was highly experienced in all envelopes: total hours, hours in experimental aircraft, hours in type and intimately familiar with the flight geography. The weather was, for lack of a better term, near perfect. clear skies, light winds, temperatures in the mid 60s.
The ICON 5 was last seen at the narrow end of a box canyon, that terminates in steep, rugged and treed terrain, will known by (me).
The ICON was seen maneuvering at slow speeds within said, Box Canyon. (Potentially lethal in the opinion of this pilot.) Box Canyon is filled to some undetermined percentage with water. (Manmade lakes are built in steep box canyons, to no one's surprise.)
An eyewitness, on boat, in said canyon, observes the ICON heading (north) where, the canyon walls prevent continuation of level flight. Witness hears said Icon engine rev to higher RPMs, watches as the nose pitches up, and the pilot initiates a left hand (aileron) turn, to avoid plowing into the terminal end of the canyon. (There is no way an LSA, or any fixed wing aircraft could climb out of the canyon straight away, from lake level with less than an ability to climb at 2000 FPM for a period of 30 seconds to a minute.
Said aircraft flies out of sight of eyewitness, who (seconds?) later reports the sound of a crash.
The canyon side where the aircraft impacts, is so steep, that recovery crews are required to secure the airframe with cable, to prevent it from sliding into the lake and sinking.
 
Every time we flight plan we are 100% speculating. Even just pulling on the stick or pushing on the throttle is speculation....
I think if I move this much I'll be right on Centerline. Oops wrong again.
So I guess it's just in our nature.
Damn marriage was the biggest speculation hahahahaha
oh and the biggest crash
 
Palmpilot said:
What is so terrible that you think is going to happen because someone made a statement in a forum thread that turned out to be wrong?
Click to expand...
I think jumping to conclusions with no substantiating data is just as likely to reinforce bad conclusions as good. I've also been on the side that had access to data and seen the results of unchecked speculation. Why is my viewpoint any less valid than those of others who think they can determine the cause?

Nauga,
factorially
 
nauga said:
I think jumping to conclusions with no substantiating data is just as likely to reinforce bad conclusions as good. I've also been on the side that had access to data and seen the results of unchecked speculation. Why is my viewpoint any less valid than those of others who think they can determine the cause?

Nauga,
factorially
Click to expand...
It's the railing on people for speculating ... that's what gets old. If it's your viewpoint that people shouldn't speculate fine. I think everyone here gets that.

But I personally get annoyed when people take a holier than thou approach in telling me what I can and can't talk about.

So what's your goal now with this thread? To have people stop discussing the crash and potential causes? So what if people are wrong in their speculations? No one is saying anything bad about the pilots or the families.

Forums. They're fantastic.
 
nauga said:
I think jumping to conclusions with no substantiating data is just as likely to reinforce bad conclusions as good. I've also been on the side that had access to data and seen the results of unchecked speculation. Why is my viewpoint any less valid than those of others who think they can determine the cause?

Nauga,
factorially
Click to expand...
Nauga, I generally have great respect for your opinions, but if you're saying that people should keep their misconceptions to themselves, then how are they ever going to be disabused of those misconceptions? Speculation on this board is NOT unchecked. There is hardly any statement that is made here that is not extensively disputed and argued. I for one find that process very educational, and have learned a great deal from the back-and-forth that goes on here.

When a pilot is mistaken on a message board, their errors are pointed out. When a pilot is mistaken while airborne, the result can be fatal. I prefer the former.
 
What if the speculation is wrong and it made everybody a better pilot for no reason?
 
Jack Hobson said:
Okay, I think without speculation, we can come to the following conclusions, thus far:
I'm a pilot, and a long time waterskier on Lake Berryessa, with hundreds of days on the lake, and up said arm of lake in particular. Here are the facts, and to this point, they are not disputed:
LSA ICON 5 aircraft, loaded with 2 adult males and fuel, took off Nut Tree Airport for new employee orientation flight. The pilot was highly experienced in all envelopes: total hours, hours in experimental aircraft, hours in type and intimately familiar with the flight geography. The weather was, for lack of a better term, near perfect. clear skies, light winds, temperatures in the mid 60s.
The ICON 5 was last seen at the narrow end of a box canyon, that terminates in steep, rugged and treed terrain, will known by (me).
The ICON was seen maneuvering at slow speeds within said, Box Canyon. (Potentially lethal in the opinion of this pilot.) Box Canyon is filled to some undetermined percentage with water. (Manmade lakes are built in steep box canyons, to no one's surprise.)
An eyewitness, on boat, in said canyon, observes the ICON heading (north) where, the canyon walls prevent continuation of level flight. Witness hears said Icon engine rev to higher RPMs, watches as the nose pitches up, and the pilot initiates a left hand (aileron) turn, to avoid plowing into the terminal end of the canyon. (There is no way an LSA, or any fixed wing aircraft could climb out of the canyon straight away, from lake level with less than an ability to climb at 2000 FPM for a period of 30 seconds to a minute.
Said aircraft flies out of sight of eyewitness, who (seconds?) later reports the sound of a crash.
The canyon side where the aircraft impacts, is so steep, that recovery crews are required to secure the airframe with cable, to prevent it from sliding into the lake and sinking.
Click to expand...

Not to start an argument, but do we know if it was the company pilot flying or the new hire pilot flying? Does the Icon A5 have dual controls?
 
Isn't thinking itself speculation? Think about it... :rolleyes1:

Agreeing or disagreeing is pure speculation. Especially disagreeing haha :fingerwag:


okayyy... too much coffee again. But I think I'm right!
Of course that is pure speculation though.
 
gsengle said:
The legit Cirrus parallel was the commentary on the dangers of how a plane is marketed. Although of course this wasn't a purchased airplane...Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Cirrus is not dominating due to marketing. Cirrus dominates because the product has a higher value proposition to others.

The suggestion that thousands of Cirrus customers are somehow less sophisticated and prone to spending hundreds of thousands of dollars on a product simply because they were 'fooled' by a glossy brochure is absurd.
 
citizen5000 said:
Cirrus is not dominating due to marketing. Cirrus dominates because the product has a higher value proposition to others.

The suggestion that thousands of Cirrus customers are somehow less sophisticated and prone to spending hundreds of thousands of dollars on a product simply because they were 'fooled' by a glossy brochure is absurd.
Click to expand...

Again stop hijacking this thread. (And being so defensive)


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
gsengle said:
Again stop hijacking this thread. (And being so defensive)
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Just correcting your continued silly statement. You made this one in THIS thread btw.
 
Cirrus marketing *has* been criticized. Icon marketing *has* been criticized.

These are both facts.

You really have lost all credibility. You're often the first one to jump in with a "factual" statement that turns out of be false. Repeatedly. On multiple threads.

My statement was cautious and factual. So stop.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
gsengle said:
Again stop hijacking this thread. (And being so defensive)


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

He has a point though. I feel like the Icon is marketed as a souped up jet ski. Cirrus is marketed as a safe, comfortable, capable cross country airplane. Which it is.

The "fun" factor and "rule breaking" is a catch 22 for Icon. It is that, but it's an airplane first and foremost. That seems to be lacking.

I love that they're trying a new approach to aviation, but I don't think it's hitting right. Or maybe it's just not hitting me right, which is something completely different.

That said, if Icon gets their **** together I do think it would be fun to spend a weekend with one. No need / desire to own it though.
 
I agree, I think it may turn out to be a fun plane and a good design, if flown with good judgement...

The danger is that it encourages risky flying and people to buy it who will not exercise good judgement.

I won't rehash criticisms of early Cirrus marketing. I just point out that these criticisms exist, valid or not, and that is why it was raised here.

Pilot population is a major input to accident rate. Marketing can totally drive pilot population on a new design.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Oh I see your point… I wasn't even thinking about it in terms of early Cirrus marketing. I wasn't flying then so I have no idea what that was like
 
MetalCloud said:
Oh I see your point… I wasn't even thinking about it in terms of early Cirrus marketing. I wasn't flying then so I have no idea what that was like
Click to expand...

Realistically it's a risky thing to develop a new either high performance airplane or a seaplane and then market to non pilots...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Pnwannabe2 said:
As a current student pilot, and former long time lurker, the speculation after accidents has helped me understand a lot of concepts and directed me to research countless times. I don't see what's wrong with it. In this case, it reinforced that even the best pilots can die when maneuvering at low level. Whether it's a stall, rising terrain, a wire, whatever, that's what I get out of it.

Nearly every rule or piece of kit in aviation was forged in blood. Uncomfortable as it may be, we owe it those aviators to ensure we don't needlessly spill more blood doing something that they've already given their lives to teach us.
Click to expand...

Good post. There is absolutely nothing wrong with it, but every accident thread a couple crusty characters show up to tell everyone "we weren't there so only facts can be discussed".

It is the same ridiculous nonsense every time. Perhaps they are afraid of their own mortality? Maybe they are just ornery characters.

Either way nobody cares to hear it.
 
Last edited:
nauga said:
I think jumping to conclusions with no substantiating data is just as likely to reinforce bad conclusions as good. I've also been on the side that had access to data and seen the results of unchecked speculation. Why is my viewpoint any less valid than those of others who think they can determine the cause?

Nauga,
factorially
Click to expand...

Is your opinion less "valid"? No of course not. Your opinion is worth as much as anyone else's.

That being said, why even post in this thread? You and another character regurgitated the same talking points "we don't know what happened as we weren't there" etc. and attempt to shut down discussion in the thread.

Nobody cares to hear the same BS every thread. Don't open the thread if you can't handle speculation. Speculation goes on everywhere and your pedantic posts on the subject are tiresome. Your crusade flies in the face of rationality and reality.

Nobody said they know exactly what happened. Nobody said they are on the NTSB team investigating. We are discussing an incident on an aviation forum as normal human beings do.

If you don't like it don't open the thread. Simple enough.
 
Like I always say, speculation is fine, just don't assume it as fact. In other words, don't assign blame. Perfect example was the F-16 vs C150 thread. A few were assigning blame to the F-16 pilot simply because he was in the faster, more advanced aircraft. They were completely sure he was at fault. Absolutely absurd and once the facts came out, it ended up being mostly the controller's fault.

No one here is an expert but that doesn't mean we can't have theories based on experience. Nothing wrong with that if it's done tactfully. And if the theory ends up being wrong, oh well.
 
TexDeuce said:
That being said, why even post in this thread? You and another character regurgitated the same talking points "we don't know what happened as we weren't there" etc. and attempt to shut down discussion in the thread.
Click to expand...
I think you should take a good hard look at who's trying to 'shut down' discussion. I'm more than happy to discuss why I think uninformed speculation is pointless.

TexDeuce said:
If you don't like it don't open the thread. Simple enough.
Click to expand...
I could say the same...

Nauga,
and a mirror
 
I find it rather sad that a thread about the loss of human life and its potentially adverse effect on the longevity of their innovate employer has spiraled into a pizzing contest between a few jerks.
 
Now that we know there weren't any witnesses, it'll be nice to read NTSBs speculation in a year or so. LOL.

Told ya they wouldn't be asking for witnesses if they had any...

Of course maybe they'll find something physically broken that wasn't supposed to be over the course of the next year or so, but I doubt it.
 
nauga said:
I think you should take a good hard look at who's trying to 'shut down' discussion. I'm more than happy to discuss why I think uninformed speculation is pointless.
Click to expand...

Why not just start your own thread about it instead of derailing discussion here? It'd be more effective than pizzing into the wind here.
 
DutchRoller said:
I find it rather sad that a thread about the loss of human life and its potentially adverse effect on the longevity of their innovate employer has spiraled into a pizzing contest between a few jerks.
Click to expand...

They started it

Lol
 
JimNtexas said:
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
Click to expand...

Okay, new guy (to this forum)...but has anyone here flown the ICON A5? I have and consider it a well designed aircraft. I say this as a highly experienced pilot (18,000+ hrs) in fighters to airlines. Lots of high performance time at low altitude.
With that as background and with just a bit of time in the aircraft, while it's early in the accident investigation I'd hesitate to write this design off. Unfortunate as this was, ICON will learn from it and possibly modify its' training program and focus. In the short time I flew it I made 5 water landings (a first for me) in pretty windy conditions (12G18 knots) and 2 landings back at the Tampa FTC in the same conditions. Just like any aircraft flown in similar conditions, this isn't for the new pilot. In benign conditions this is an easy and safe aircraft. In testy conditions flying at low altitude is risky.
This raises the age old dilemma facing any owner/operator....when do I choose to say "not today", and wait till conditions improve. I won't speculate as to what possibly happened. The NTSB (hopefully) will find the cause.
Till then I'm sure ICON and any operators will focus on pilot capabilities and match them to the conditions present. Low altitude, especially in this aircraft which is very easy to fly, may lull many into a false sense of complacency. History is replete with examples of pilots in aircraft of all types never returning after failing to respect the dangers inherent in this sort of flying. Big fun though. Just be sure you're on your "A" game!

Cheers,
Z
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top