ICON A5 Crash Report & Implications

[Jeff_S]

The NTSB report on the recent ICON A5 crash is out and there are no surprises. Somehow a very experienced pilot flew into a canyon he couldn't turn around in even with very aggressive maneuvers that only a former fighter-pilot might try. So we all pretty much knew that.  My thoughts are more to the long-term implications of this accident, and I admit I'm speculating here:

First, since the A5 is amphibious, I wonder if there isn't one maneuver that wasn't tried and should have been. Power off and just land as best you can in the water! I don't know this terrain at all and I realize from the other thread that many of you do, so perhaps there wasn't even space enough for that. But I would reckon that if this was a proscribed emergency procedure that was considered in advance, perhaps it would have been more feasible than an aggressive 180.  And shallow water is probably a lot more survivable than granite. Implication #1: If not there already, ICON might consider making this a standard part of training.

Second, many of the publications are now pointing out how ICON has made a big marketing push saying how safe these planes are and how they can be maneuvered aggressively at low altitudes, but of course all the video footage is of their professional pilots doing this...probably even the accident pilot. So some of the publications are now taking an "I told you so" stance against the company. Perhaps justified, but I also wonder how actual new ICON pilots might behave once in their airplane. There are stupid risk takers who kill themselves in any number of ways, all visible on YouTube (well, not the deaths, but at least the activities!). So you don't need an A5 if that's what you want to accomplish. My belief...perhaps "hope" is a better word...is that anyone who's willing to plunk down a quarter of a million dollars will have some sense of survival instinct (physical AND economic!) and will be as cautious as any new flyer is.  But I guess time will tell.

Any thoughts?

[MIm20c]

The icon is no different than any other plane. If operated at the limit by a pilot who has not spent a lot of time training for that exact maneuver things can go wrong quickly. 

In my opinion the last thing the company needs to do is impose more controls, limits, or requirements.  Instead provide a complete training regiment that will prepare future pilots as well as they can. 

[steingar]

Sounds like they got themselves into a canyon that the airplane couldn't get out of.  A really no-win scenario.  Normally I'd say flying into the crash as much as possible gives the best outcome, but that doesn't really work if you're crashing into a cliff face.  To be honest, dying because you stall/spun isn't any different from dying because you crashed into a cliff face.  Either way you're deceased.  Best bet is not to fly into canyons in the first place.

[jkhirsch]

4 hours ago, Jeff_S said:

Any thoughts?

I thought there was some 'local restriction' about landing or boating in the water where they were and I thought it was discussed in the prior thread?

Because I remember thinking that I'd rather have the violation of being in the water at that location (if they caught you) and alive.

 

Edited August 11, 2017 by jkhirsch

[kortopates]

I'll have to read the report. But IMO, rather than focus on what we/they as pilots could do to make their improper decisions making more survivable is kinda missing the point. My thoughts are on how to break the accident chain and here it seems a lack of pre-flight planning for a very low altitude flight with all of the added intrinsic hazard to low flight. Lack of planning was apparently due to complacency from having flown in the area very frequently.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

Edited August 12, 2017 by kortopates

[DaV8or]

I'll have to read the report too, but my understanding previously was they were scud running with gotta-get-there-itis. A well known recipe for disaster. Perhaps over confidence in their ability and their equipment. A company that is building a flying Jet Ski marketed intentionally to non pilots should really get used to these sorts of reports. There are lots more coming...

[Yetti]

I asked my flight instructor about a box canyon what to to do.   He said he would slow flight and turn it around.   made a lot of sense.   Don't know why I could not pull that off.  If you can get the plane to fly with no forward motion and do a 180 degree turn.  Why not.

[thinwing]

41 minutes ago, Yetti said:

I asked my flight instructor about a box canyon what to to do.   He said he would slow flight and turn it around.   made a lot of sense.   Don't know why I could not pull that off.  If you can get the plane to fly with no forward motion and do a 180 degree turn.  Why not.

That is best option over a land canyon cause there are big rocks at the bottom...this case,the canyon had a nice curving flat runway at the bottom which I have personally landed a floatplane on...their only option upon entering it at 100 awl(above water level)at slow cruise was to power off ,force the water contact and rudder to cause a water loop...very survivable at 70 mph...I know ,cause it happened to me on the same lake...and even though I was thrown bodily out the aircraft still belted to the seat...I simply skipped across the water like a stone and suffered no injury..kinda like a bad water ski header!

[steingar]

Reminds me of the Corey Lidle crash.  Same idea, box canyon, though theirs was made of buildings instead of rocks.  Still, all they had to do was yank hard up on the stick.  I'd say a violation for busting the bravo beats a fiery death from crashing into a building.  Maybe its just me, though.

[carusoam]

Corey Lidel's was more of a self induced one...

Canyon, yes...  box, no...

Today, There are several successful ways out of the east river...

One named the Central Park transition...(?) mentioned around MS at least once...

Best regards,

-a-