Icon A5 crash... any news?

The NTSB preliminary report included details from the eyewitness account indicating that the aircraft was flying slowly at about 50 feet over the water where it entered a steep, narrow canyon. The aircraft was then observed to increase power, pitch up, and enter a left turn in the canyon before it hit the side of the lake bank.
 
IIRC, there was conjecture about the plane striking power lines in that canyon. The NTSB preliminary info was discussed in the original thread, so that's not news. Guess we'll have details in a couple of years.

Meantime, I've been watching Searey videos on YouTube. Seems the pilots who fly these amphibs like to play close to the water, and the videos look a lot like Icon's advertising.

Actually, it looks like fun. But you'd better be on top of the SA. Just sayin'...
 
N659HB said:
IIRC, there was conjecture about the plane striking power lines in that canyon. The NTSB preliminary info was discussed in the original thread, so that's not news. Guess we'll have details in a couple of years.

Meantime, I've been watching Searey videos on YouTube. Seems the pilots who fly these amphibs like to play close to the water, and the videos look a lot like Icon's advertising.

Actually, it looks like fun. But you'd better be on top of the SA. Just sayin'...
Click to expand...

I am very interested in Seareys and hope to fly one soon thanks to a connection I made via @flyingron. Thanks Ron!! If you want a quick light hearted read on Seareys, I suggest picking up "Travels with Puff" by Richard Bach.
 
N659HB said:
Yup. Read it. Bach is one of my favorite authors.
Click to expand...

Wow! I haven't read Richard Bach since I was a kid. As a child, my aunt would read Jonathan Livingston Seagull to my brothers and me before bed. I wonder which one of them ended up with the copy she gave us.

Now that I'm flying, maybe I should pick up some of his books again.

Sorry for the thread hijack.
 
Justin M said:
Wow! I haven't read Richard Bach since I was a kid. As a child, my aunt would read Jonathan Livingston Seagull to my brothers and me before bed. I wonder which one of them ended up with the copy she gave us.

Now that I'm flying, maybe I should pick up some of his books again.

Sorry for the thread hijack.
Click to expand...

Yes, how dare you bring Richard Bach into this thread and thereby hijack it. You don't see anyone else doing that. WTF is wrong with you?!
 
Flew an underpowered plane up essentially a box canyon. Skidded into the side trying to turn out.....my 2 cents.
Given their advertising showing low level yank and bank teasers, along with their price and appeal to low time LSA trained pilots with more money than sense and you have the recipe for more problems.
 
SkyDog58 said:
I am very interested in Seareys and hope to fly one soon thanks to a connection I made via @flyingron. Thanks Ron!! If you want a quick light hearted read on Seareys, I suggest picking up "Travels with Puff" by Richard Bach.
Click to expand...

Bach had a very serious accident in 2012 when he hit power lines on San Juan Island in his Searey, Puff.
He wrote the missing fourth part of Jonathan Livingston Seagull during his long convalescence from brain and spinal injuries.

He had his Searey shipped back to Florida to be rebuilt and resumed flying it again about two years after the accident.
 
'And this is how you can safely do a canyon turn'
 
GRG55 said:
Bach had a very serious accident in 2012 when he hit power lines on San Juan Island in his Searey, Puff.
He wrote the missing fourth part of Jonathan Livingston Seagull during his long convalescence from brain and spinal injuries.

He had his Searey shipped back to Florida to be rebuilt and resumed flying it again about two years after the accident.
Click to expand...

Yep. I heard about his accident about the time it happened which was before I even knew about "Puff". I believe the book was actually published after his accident.

His passion for Puff along with my enjoyment of seaplane flying is what really has me focused on the Searey. That and they are a relatively inexpensive way to go amphib.
 
FastEddieB said:
100 hp is Light Sport planes results in pretty good power-to-weight ratios. I know the Icon got a gross weight increase, but 100 hp should still result in decent performance.
Click to expand...
Same HP as the Cessna 150, 90 pounds (~6%) lighter at gross, with less-efficient pusher configuration. Drag might be a wash...Icon is strutless and retractable gear, but has the amphibious hull and sponsons.

No reason to expect much better performance than a 150.

Ron Wanttaja
 
SkyDog58 said:
I am very interested in Seareys and hope to fly one soon thanks to a connection I made via @flyingron. Thanks Ron!! If you want a quick light hearted read on Seareys, I suggest picking up "Travels with Puff" by Richard Bach.
Click to expand...
If you come up to fly in Shannon's, drop by to see us. She can point you int he right direction.
 
Palmpilot said:
Just curious, what makes a pusher configuration less efficient?
Click to expand...

I love my Sky Arrow, but consider how the flow of air to the prop is compromised by the pusher configuration:

23596403906_20a397a77b_z.jpg


Compare that to the undisturbed air to the prop that a conventional setup allows.
 
FastEddieB said:
100 hp is Light Sport planes results in pretty good power-to-weight ratios. I know the Icon got a gross weight increase, but 100 hp should still result in decent performance.
Click to expand...

Perhaps, but I couldn't imagine taking anything other than a helicopter in to that canyon. I've been there. It's steep.
 
wanttaja said:
No reason to expect much better performance than a 150.
Click to expand...
Quite.

BTW, since you showed up in the thread, do you have stats for SeaRey in comparison to the overall fleet? They seem to find interesting ways to crash (such as a structural failure for no reason), but knowing how powerful a selection bias can be, I'm not ready to consider them particularly unsafe.
 
zaitcev said:
BTW, since you showed up in the thread, do you have stats for SeaRey in comparison to the overall fleet? They seem to find interesting ways to crash (such as a structural failure for no reason), but knowing how powerful a selection bias can be, I'm not ready to consider them particularly unsafe.
Click to expand...
Here's the raw output from my database, comparing the Searey to the overall homebuilt fleet. My apologies for the JPEG, haven't figured out how to build tables here.
searey.jpg

A couple of points that pop out to me, real quick. Keep in mind that there are only 55 accidents in my 1998-2015 homebuilt accident database.

Higher rate of Pilot Miscontrol (stick and rudder) accidents, despite the medium total time being about the same. However, a number of them are related to operating on water, so I don't think it's a reflection on the aircraft type.

Low rate of engine problems. One of the key points, to me, is the "Power Loss (any Cause)" line at the bottom. This notes how many accidents *started* with the loss of engine power, either mechanically or pilot-induced. Very low rate for the Searey.

The Searey does have a rather high "Fleet Accident Rate," the average yearly accidents divided by the fleet size at a given epoch.

(This parameter is meaningless as a raw number, but believe it's a reliable indicator of relative accident rates between types).

The average Fleet Accident Rate for homebuilts (based on 1998-2013 data) was 0.75% per year, while the Searey was 1.24%. This puts it on the high side of the scale, just above the Velocity (1.21%) and below the Lancair IV (1.33%).
rates.jpg


Again, though, this is based on only ~50 accidents, and of course water operations are far more hazardous.

Ron Wanttaja
 
wanttaja said:
Here's the raw output from my database, comparing the Searey to the overall homebuilt fleet. My apologies for the JPEG, haven't figured out how to build tables here.
Click to expand...
Thanks a lot! Looks like it's not that bad - you run a higher risk, but then when you plop it, you just splash (lower fatal ratio). In the accident where the strut gave way, one wing essentially folded. You'd be dead in a Cub, but IIRC SeaRey occupants swam to the shore.
 
FastEddieB said:
I love my Sky Arrow, but consider how the flow of air to the prop is compromised by the pusher configuration:

23596403906_20a397a77b_z.jpg


Compare that to the undisturbed air to the prop that a conventional setup allows.
Click to expand...
Does the flow of air onto aircraft structure not matter?
 
Last edited:
Palmpilot said:
Does does the flow of air onto aircraft structure not matter?
Click to expand...
Certainly it matters, but don't forget...the propeller is an airfoil. The airfoil works a lot better if the air is undisturbed, while the aircraft structure doesn't care as much.

As the prop rotates, its thrust will vary every time a blade passes aft of the wing, engine-mounting pylon, or fuselage. That's not good, either. The aircraft structure behind a tractor prop will see a continuous flow, and, again, doesn't care as much.

Tractor layout avoids all these problems....
seafire_sm.jpg


Ron Wanttaja
 
wanttaja said:
Certainly it matters, but don't forget...the propeller is an airfoil. The airfoil works a lot better if the air is undisturbed, while the aircraft structure doesn't care as much.

As the prop rotates, its thrust will vary every time a blade passes aft of the wing, engine-mounting pylon, or fuselage. That's not good, either. The aircraft structure behind a tractor prop will see a continuous flow, and, again, doesn't care as much.

Tractor layout avoids all these problems....
seafire_sm.jpg


Ron Wanttaja
Click to expand...
Thanks for the explanation!
 
wanttaja said:
Certainly it matters, but don't forget...the propeller is an airfoil. The airfoil works a lot better if the air is undisturbed, while the aircraft structure doesn't care as much.

As the prop rotates, its thrust will vary every time a blade passes aft of the wing, engine-mounting pylon, or fuselage. That's not good, either. The aircraft structure behind a tractor prop will see a continuous flow, and, again, doesn't care as much.

Tractor layout avoids all these problems....
Click to expand...

Good stuff Ron, as usual! Burt had good luck with a couple pusher designs but eventually moved on and away from them. Love mine and it goes like hell but that's due to a lot of things....
 
A Flight Design CTLS can cruise at or near 120k with a ROTAX 912.

Same engine in my Sky Arrow and I see about 95k.

I attribute a lot of the difference to the disturbed air the prop has to deal with. The inner portion of the prop is nearly totally blocked by the engine and cowling.

In addition, in a tractor configuration the form and cooling drag of the engine installation are inline with the fuselage. In a pusher, you have that big blob of an engine sitting up there in addition to the form drag of the fuselage.

But it's not all negative. In a pusher the pilot's view is totally unencumbered by a prop. Prop strikes and abrasion from gravel are virtually eliminated.

As in nearly everything in aviation, it's a compromise.
 
Last edited:
FastEddieB said:
But it's not all negative. In a pusher the pilot's view is totally unencumbered by a prop. Prop strikes and abrasion from gravel are virtually eliminated.
Click to expand...

Yep and no nasty prop distortion when recording video looking forward.
 
N659HB said:
Just stick a turbine on it. Problem solved! :D
Click to expand...

Not so fast. That's what Beech tried to do with the Starship. In fact they thought it was such a good idea they doubled down on that bet and put two oil burning pushers on it. :eek:

Didn't work out so well...:mad2: :idea:
 
GRG55 said:
Not so fast. That's what Beech tried to do with the Starship. In fact they thought it was such a good idea they doubled down on that bet and put two oil burning pushers on it. :eek:

Didn't work out so well...:mad2: :idea:
Click to expand...

There is a LOT more to that story. Beech didn't do much right.
 
Has Icon said anything else or have they been tight lipped?
 
Goofy said:
There is a LOT more to that story. Beech didn't do much right.
Click to expand...
Piaggio had a considerably greater success with their twin pusher turboprop, but even their design struggles in the market.
 
"BTW, since you showed up in the thread, do you have stats for SeaRey in comparison to the overall fleet? They seem to find interesting ways to crash (such as a structural failure for no reason), but knowing how powerful a selection bias can be, I'm not ready to consider them particularly unsafe."


SeaReys crashing with "structural failures for no reason"? I'd be very interested in any evidence of that. As a long time SeaRey pilot and member of the independent SeaRey owner site I'm not aware of any such accidents. Specifics, please.
 
Fluidflyer said:
"BTW, since you showed up in the thread, do you have stats for SeaRey in comparison to the overall fleet? They seem to find interesting ways to crash (such as a structural failure for no reason), but knowing how powerful a selection bias can be, I'm not ready to consider them particularly unsafe."


SeaReys crashing with "structural failures for no reason"? I'd be very interested in any evidence of that. As a long time SeaRey pilot and member of the independent SeaRey owner site I'm not aware of any such accidents. Specifics, please.
Click to expand...
The comment wasn't mine, but I see three Searey structure-related accidents in my database.

ATL98LA123 and ATL04LA171 both involved delamination of the fuselage during water operations. Neither NTSB report identifies a cause for the delamination. However, the last case was about 14 years ago.

The third was interesting. ERA13LA199 saw the failure of a wing strut join about 100 feet above the ground. This sounds a bit damning, until you read the NTSB report....

"Postaccident examination of the airplane revealed that the right/forward wing strut joint was disconnected from the leading edge and that the attachment bolts were fractured. Further examination revealed that the bolts were installed after the airplane's original assembly and that they were shorter than the prescribed bolts and had been installed opposite the prescribed direction, which likely resulted in fatigue cracking and the eventual shearing of the bolts during the accident flight. Further examination of the wreckage revealed that the inspection port for the right wing strut attachment area had been covered during a previous, undocumented repair, which made it difficult for pilots or maintenance personnel to inspect the attachment hardware.

"The airplane builder stated he had seen photographs of the airplane damaged beneath a hurricane-collapsed hangar. The covering of the inspection port made it impossible for pilots or maintainers to inspect the connection and associated hardware."

Doesn't sound like the airplane's fault....

Ron Wanttaja
 
Goofy said:
There is a LOT more to that story. Beech didn't do much right.
Click to expand...

The airplane couldn't meet its design performance specifications. Scaled Composites shares part of that responsibility.

Beech's first mistake was thinking it could make a better twin turboprop when it already owned the market.
 
GRG55 said:
The airplane couldn't meet its design performance specifications. Scaled Composites shares part of that responsibility.

Beech's first mistake was thinking it could make a better twin turboprop when it already owned the market.
Click to expand...

Sorry for the thread creep. Before we get back to the original subject.....

Do some reading on the subject before pontificating. The FAA had no clue what to do with certifying a composite aircraft. It met every requirement until they delayed the program with BS long enough to lose customer deposits and added unnecessary nonsense that destroyed the hot performance.
It's disappointing when people buy the first thing they read and run with it like it's gospel. The few guys that still have them love them.
Good thing they left spaceship one alone or it would be twice as heavy and twice the price and may never have flown.

From Air & Space:
The Starship would not gain FAA certification until 1988. Its empty weight would increase by 2,400 pounds and its gross weight would balloon to 14,900 pounds. Originally designed for a pair of 750-shaft-horsepower engines, the weight gain forced designers to adopt thirstier 1,200-horsepower engines. The diameter of the propellers would grow from 94 inches to 105 inches. It also lost two passenger seats. And by the early 1990s the price would inflate to $5.3 million.

And the Beech company was a mess:
Since 1950, Beech had been run by Walter Beech’s much younger widow, Olive Ann. Mrs. Beech would put yellow “happy face” stickers on the office doors of meritorious executives.

It wouldn’t be long before the Raytheon clamps were tightened. The old ways were gone, Mrs. Beech stepped aside, and the door to the president’s office began revolving. Occupants were either kicked upstairs to corporate headquarters in Massachusetts or shown the door. During the Starship’s development, from 1982 to 1989, Beech had three presidents and four engineering vice presidents, creating certification delays and performance compromises.

But what a beauty! Left Oshkosh a couple years ago behind Burt in Sheer's plane:

105 Bye Burt I'm Right Behind Ya.jpg
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top