Icon A5.. another crash Jul 27

[Matthew]

It looked like the wing hit the tree, the plane whipped to the right, snapping the tail boom. I can't tell if hit a tree.

Should the empennage break that easily without a direct impact?

I suppose that once the airplane hits a tree, it doesn't really matter all that much anymore. It didn't break easily, that was a lot of force.

 

[Fallsrider]

What is the attraction to the Icon? It seems that for $400k, you could get a much more capable amphib.

 

[Dan Thomas]

What is the attraction to the Icon? It seems that for $400k, you could get a much more capable amphib.

But you'd have to have a real pilot's license, which involves real work and study.

 

[Farmboy]

Couple items to share -

If you look here you'll see Tyrone Finch listed as a Sales Director - like most of their other "owners".
https://www.zoominfo.com/pic/icon-aircraft-inc/133366830

In February he was flying N663BA, which is serial number 004. Don't know what aircraft was involved in this incident.

If you watch this "zoomed in and slowed up" video, you may note the extreme AOA they pulled trying to climb over the trees, and the tail snap after the wing caught the tree and rotated it sideways.

 

[Salty]

What is the attraction to the Icon? It seems that for $400k, you could get a much more capable amphib.

I think they are targeting non aviation people. “Hey look, you can fly a jet ski, and it won’t take long to learn”. The target audience has no knowledge of another choice, and doesn’t care.

But Halladay doesn’t fit what I just said, so maybe I’m wrong.

 

[Farmboy]

As others mentioned, that's entirely true.

The entire marketing campaign has been to young "professionals", that are non-pilots, often work on wall-street or in that type of environment, and still think they have the world by the balls. No aviation reports, test flights or exposure. But millions in advertising in GQ magazines, or what ever Manhattan reads these days. As others said - Buy a lambo/jetski/icon and you'll be "the man", in a few short days to get a sport license.

I'm biased, as I'm without doubt not a fan. It's an overweight underpowered pig with lipstick. As others stated, a SeaRey is twice the airplane at less than half the money.

 

[Rein Hart]

It looked like the wing hit the tree, the plane whipped to the right, snapping the tail boom. I can't tell if hit a tree.



I suppose that once the airplane hits a tree, it doesn't really matter all that much anymore. It didn't break easily, that was a lot of force.

I agree if the plane is touching trees it's game over anyway! The tail just appeared to break easier than other plane crashes I've seen.

 

[Lindberg]

Or when the boat is anchored.

So attached to the land and not traveling in the current.

 

[ElPaso Pilot]

I agree if the plane is touching trees it's game over anyway! The tail just appeared to break easier than other plane crashes I've seen.

That was a very significant rotating moment that the empannage is not designed to take.

That’s a big weight and aerodynamic load at the end of a stick that got whipped around.

 

[SkyDog58]

Where are people getting the notion that this incident involved an Icon employee? I don't see any mention of that other than the owner, who was trying to sell his airplane, was maybe once referred to as a "salesman"

He is a regional sales manager for Icon and the aircraft was company owned.

 

[Silvaire]

...As others stated, a SeaRey is twice the airplane at less than half the money.

If you have taken any serious looks at a Searey um nope, it’s not “twice the airplane” Basically just some tubes hanging off an ultralight wing with a fiberglass hull bolted to them. The Icon was a project that went way over budget and got completely out of hand. I don’t know where all the money came from but it’s doubtful they’ll ever get it back.

 

[dans2992]

Speaking of Manhattan... can you land a seaplane on the Hudson and just taxi right up to your Wall Street job?

(Somewhat serious question).

 

[Palmpilot]

Well the gust is not random. it is probably in the direction of normal wind....

I don't see any reason for assuming that. Gusts are a temporary increase in wind, which means that at some time after a sudden increase, there will be a sudden drop. An airplane is equally like to encounter the one as the other during a turn.

 

[dans2992]

Speaking of Manhattan... can you land a seaplane on the Hudson and just taxi right up to your Wall Street job?

(Somewhat serious question).

Researched it. Apparently there is a seaplane base on the east river, but no tiedowns and no overnights.... unless someone else is doing the flying.... kinda useless

 

[FastEddieB]

I don't see any reason for assuming that. Gusts are a temporary increase in wind, which means that at some time after a sudden increase, there will be a sudden drop. An airplane is equally like to encounter the one as the other during a turn.

I, too, have always seen gusts as having random direction.

We increase airspeed on final when gusts are present because any random gust of sufficient strength from the rear could lead to a stall were there not more margin above the stall. Or, a sudden decrease in headwind with the same result.

 

[Tantalum]

.. RE: gusts

from my sailing days the direction was always relatively consistent, plus or minus 45° but with a big change in wind speed.. say from 12 knots to 25. Unless it was really weird conditions I almost never saw a complete reversal or a 90° shift.. the only times I did was when traveling very close to land and already gusty conditions

 

[Palmpilot]

.. RE: gusts

from my sailing days the direction was always relatively consistent, plus or minus 45° but with a big change in wind speed.. say from 12 knots to 25. Unless it was really weird conditions I almost never saw a complete reversal or a 90° shift.. the only times I did was when traveling very close to land and already gusty conditions

Yeah but it has to go back down from 25 to 12 at some point. Otherwise the gusts would just keep adding up, and the wind speed would just keep increasing without limit.

When the wind goes back down, that's a negative gust.

 

[Bacho]

You mean when the boat is in reverse?

Its quite often a current moving from aft might be going faster than the boat. Its really the only time someone would notice. The boat is a different animal, and not a good comparison. The current is pushing a boat, wind pushes the boat, and swell can push the boat. These are not often all the same direction.

 

[3393RP]

Martin, you should probably also take into account some relativistic concerns in your flight planning. Remember that because you are moving relative to the ground, there will be a slight time dilation effect causing you to arrive slightly off your planned ETA.

Ok, very slight.

LOL!

Well played.

 

[genna]

I, too, have always seen gusts as having random direction.

We increase airspeed on final when gusts are present because any random gust of sufficient strength from the rear could lead to a stall were there not more margin above the stall. Or, a sudden decrease in headwind with the same result.

That is what could have happened here. As pilot turned away from the prevailing wind, a gust(or more likely an increased wind above tree line) from approximately the same direction(ie plane’s rear) momentarily lowered his airspeed below stall speed. It’s a possible scenario in which a downwind turn exacerbated(yeah, that's the correct word ) already bad situation

Or he was already screwed and neither turn nor wind mater at all.

 

[Warmi]

But you'd have to have a real pilot's license, which involves real work and study.

Actually the difference between SP and PP certificates training is minimal - a few more hours flying at night and a slightly longer cross country.
It really makes no difference and it is not worth doing SP since it only costs a bit more and takes a few more hours do go for the PP and that gives you a lot more options.
The real differences comes from the fact that you don’t have to have a medical for SP and, for some people, that’s the only way to get the ticket.

 

[Weekend Warrior]

Ty Finch, quoted here as Regional Sales Director for Icon:

https://www.businessairportinternat...tners-with-nashville-based-icon-aircraft.html

 

[FastEddieB]

That is what could have happened here. As pilot turned away from the prevailing wind, a gust(or more likely an increased wind above tree line) from approximately the same direction(ie plane’s rear) momentarily lowered his airspeed below stall speed. It’s a possible scenario in which a downwind turn exasperated already bad situation.

The possible increase in wind speed above the tree line has a name: shear. And shear could have been a factor. The rapid wind change does bring the plane’s inertia relative to the airmass it’s in into play.

But let’s revisit history. The post that led us down this rabbit hole:

Flying just above vs1 and turning into a tailwind?

Note: no mention of gusts or shear. Add those in and it’s a very different ball game.

And it’s “exacerbated”.

 

[FastEddieB]

The boat is a different animal, and not a good comparison. The current is pushing a boat, wind pushes the boat, and swell can push the boat. These are not often all the same direction.

I think that’s what I meant when I suggested a boat had one “foot” in each of two frames of reference: the moving water below and the moving air above. But you’re right that swells add yet another dimension.

 

[Bill]

CIf you watch this "zoomed in and slowed up" video, you may note the extreme AOA they pulled trying to climb over the trees, and the tail snap after the wing caught the tree and rotated it sideways.

Yeah, that thing was mushing severely right before contact. Still don't know why he didn't circle the lake to gain alt before departing the area. Also, it sure seemed to me that the plane was on the water a LONG time before it lifted off. Seems to be way underpowered to me.

 

[FastEddieB]

Seems to be way underpowered to me.

Maybe it is...for an amphibian.

But as far as overall power-to-weight, it’s not bad. My Sky Arrow at 1,320 lbs and 100 hp is very close to my old SR22, at 3,400 lbs and 310 hp. The ICON A5 at 1,510 lbs and the same 100 hp as my Sky Arrow falls behind a bit, but not by that much. Once off the water, I’d guess performance similar to or better than an SR20 or a Traveler, let’s say.

 

[mondtster]

Still don't know why he didn't circle the lake to gain alt before departing the area.

Just a WAG, but I think that’s what he was trying to do with the climbing turn. Unfortunately he was too close to shore and the trees...

 

[SoonerAviator]

Yeah, that thing was mushing severely right before contact. Still don't know why he didn't circle the lake to gain alt before departing the area. Also, it sure seemed to me that the plane was on the water a LONG time before it lifted off. Seems to be way underpowered to me.

Don't think he had the ability to do that given the direction he took off. He started making the turn pretty quickly after leaving the water, which caused some of his problems re: stall speed. I haven't seen a diagram of his takeoff run superimposed on the lake, but I suspect this was mostly an issue of poor estimation of runway distance compounded with a failure to abort the takeoff when it was apparent that they were on the ragged edge of capability. Give him another 200' of water, he probably could have climbed out just fine, albeit with closer margins that I'd ever want.

 

[zaitcev]

The ICON A5 at 1,510 lbs and the same 100 hp as my Sky Arrow falls behind a bit, but not by that much.

I used to fly Cessna 150 in Albuequerque, on days when DA was about 9,000 with instructor, above 10,000 solo. The gross is 1600 lbs on the same 100 hp, so a little worse than Icon A5. Performance was quite marginal and required long shallow climbs. Would not be possible in presence of any steady downdraft, e.g. coming off a ridge. I planned routes so the winds don't lock me away from an airport.

 

[Weekend Warrior]

Don't think he had the ability to do that given the direction he took off. He started making the turn pretty quickly after leaving the water, which caused some of his problems re: stall speed. I haven't seen a diagram of his takeoff run superimposed on the lake, but I suspect this was mostly an issue of poor estimation of runway distance compounded with a failure to abort the takeoff when it was apparent that they were on the ragged edge of capability. Give him another 200' of water, he probably could have climbed out just fine, albeit with closer margins that I'd ever want.

From what my son's friend told me, this is the takeoff run w/crash site:

 

[SoonerAviator]

From what my son's friend told me, this is the takeoff run w/crash site:

If that's the case, it's certainly some poor judgement of distance. I mean, even if they adjusted course and took off fully downwind, they could have gone to the right of the peninsula (where they ended up crashing) in order to gain probably another 1K'+ of runway. Of course, if they were smart, they would have just step taxied further down the lake to give them the proper amount of room to begin with.

 

[Salty]

If that's the case, it's certainly some poor judgement of distance. I mean, even if they adjusted course and took off fully downwind, they could have gone to the right of the peninsula (where they ended up crashing) in order to gain probably another 1K'+ of runway. Of course, if they were smart, they would have just step taxied further down the lake to give them the proper amount of room to begin with.

If that diagram is accurate, this whole situation is inexplicable

 

[Matthew]

Looks to me like a case of dumbassery.

 

[genna]

The possible increase in wind speed above the tree line has a name: shear. And shear could have been a factor. The rapid wind change does bring the plane’s inertia relative to the airmass it’s in into play.

But let’s revisit history. The post that led us down this rabbit hole:



Note: no mention of gusts or shear. Add those in and it’s a very different ball game.

And it’s “exacerbated”.

stupid autocorrect ... yeah, shear. I've called it that in other posts. Just wanted to be clear about which shear i'm talking about. As far as the rabbit hole of this thread, I agree. It went elsewhere. My observation was explicitly independent of the "steady wind" downwind discussion that produced some headache inspiring notions elsewhere in the thread. I stated it on various occasions and even explicitly lamented on how nuts that theory is. My observation is only to the fact that sheer was likely present and hence the turn/wind direction may have mattered.

So I do not disagree with you

 

[Weekend Warrior]

If that diagram is accurate, this whole situation is inexplicable

I believe the diagram is close, but I also believe it is worse than I drew it, because they were curving, and watching again it looks like it is filmed from a boat mid-lake, so the takeoff run would actually be shorter...As I drew it, the red line would be about 1000 feet.

 

[Weekend Warrior]

Redrawing the takeoff run as a curve, and notice the cell tower in the video, which I indicate on map view:

 

[Skip Miller]

Researched it. Apparently there is a seaplane base on the east river, but no tiedowns and no overnights.... unless someone else is doing the flying.... kinda useless

Correct. And, FWIW the primary user is a commercial service (more than one) running turbine amphibs to and from the Hamptons. Lots of traffic Fridays and Sundays!

-Skip

 

[ElPaso Pilot]

I believe the diagram is close, but I also believe it is worse than I drew it, because they were curving, and watching again it looks like it is filmed from a boat mid-lake, so the takeoff run would actually be shorter...As I drew it, the red line would be about 1000 feet.

View attachment 76458 View attachment 76459
Redrawing the takeoff run as a curve, and notice the cell tower in the video, which I indicate on map view:

Yet the brand image Icon marketing still proliferates to their non-pilot targets seems to be "You too can engage in irreverent adventure flying. Watch this badass low level maneuvering of our fun machines."

Case in point, watch the autoplay "Discover Adventure Flying" video on Icon's home page, which quickly jumps to two planes conducting low level maneuvering in formation while weaving along a wooded creek bed. They throw in some chicks, motorcycles, campfires, and the ability to tow it back home with a BMW to round off the image.

https://www.iconaircraft.com/home

 

[Tantalum]

Yet the brand image Icon marketing still proliferates to their non-pilot targets seems to be "You too can engage in irreverent adventure flying. Watch this badass low level maneuvering of our fun machines."

you hit the nail on the head sir, "irreverent" is the critical word there

Their old marketing materials used to literally tell you that you don't have to worry about the usual "complexity" of flying. And their site still boasts 20 hour checkouts and careless flying. their CEO once even said that he expected criticism but ultimately did not care

What they're advocating is reckless at best and outright endangerment at worst. How these guys are not actively in violation of 91.13 is beyond me

 

[ElPaso Pilot]

Interestingly, while making the last post, I saw Icon has added special 300' and 100' "Soft Deck" maneuvering guidelines after their own box-canyon accident.

If this is what they train to, it looks like our subject may have performed items 1-3 per Icon's guidelines before he ran out of options and performance.

Unfortunately, there is no airspeed consideration here.

https://iconaircraft.com/flight-center/guidelines/low-altitude

Box-Canyon Reversal (Emergency Terrain Escape)
There are dedicated books on mountain flying and this paragraph is not a substitute for advanced study and training should one choose to fly low in mountainous terrain. The term "box canyon" is frequently used to describe a situation where a pilot has inadvertently flown into narrowing, confined, and often rapidly rising terrain where the aircraft may not be capable of climbing over that terrain. Step one is to avoid these situations by appropriate knowledge and briefing of the areas being flown and to always preserve enough lateral turning room to easily reverse course if needed. However, should the conditions ever arise where a pilot is suddenly faced with the need for an immediate reversal of course in a box-canyon scenario, the following technique is recommended in the A5 to minimize the turn radius while simultaneously preserving altitude:

Box-Canyon Reversal:

1. Power – Full
2. Pitch – slightly up (~5-10° above horizon)
3. Immediately roll and pull (in most open direction)
4. AOA – pull mid yellow (or stall horn)
5. Keep nose above horizon (out of buffet)

Note: In no-wind conditions and properly flown, this maneuver can reverse the A5 direction at gross weight and at sea-level conditions in approximately 500' diameter. However, ICON recommends maintaining at least 1000' of lateral turning room to account for human error. Further, at high density altitudes and with adverse wind conditions, turn radius increases significantly. Bottom line: there are no absolutes. As PIC, you must always use your best judgement and immediately reverse course and exit any area where you are in doubt.​