Search results

Over at Plane & Pilot, Robert Goyer is "skeptical about the prospects" that Icon will survive. "My gut tells me the year’s delay in the program is the beginning of the end. It tells me that I’ve seen this film before and the good guys don’t win, that the design winds up being built by someone...

Update - Icon appears to have capitulated on the most controversial parts of its original purchase agreement, but the story now involves layoffs and major production delays announced yesterday. https://www.aopa.org/news-and-media/all-news/2016/may/25/icon-slashes-production-lays-off-workers

Fast Company appears to be little more than a blog with delusions of becoming the next Robb Report, but if the photographer you mention is the one I think you're referring to, I would argue that he's just a devout aviation enthusiast who loves taking pictures of sharp-looking aircraft (in that...

ICON appears to have stepped up its efforts recently for coverage in non-aviation press: Fast Company (Source of the "flip-flops" quote cited above): www.fastcompany.com/3059485/test-flying-the-icon-a5-a-revolutionary-new-plane-for-amateur-pilots Autoweek (AUTOWEEK?)...

Considering the fine line I would imagine EAA is having to walk on this issue (especially given the timing of the "Gathering of Eagles" A5 auction fundraiser announcement) Pelton's statements are pretty damning.

Icon is sticking to its guns so far. A company spokesman told AIN, “We are trying to manage liability, and we’ll control it through these sales contracts, as well as through the overall safety of the aircraft.”...

No butthurt here, but in my experience, "pilot-rated passenger" is typical NTSB-speak for describing... a pilot-rated passenger who wasn't otherwise acting as a CFI or PIC for the flight. No lawyering-up is necessarily implied.

No, he really couldn't; by that, I mean that he is mentally incapable of just letting the story run on its merits, without injecting himself/his opinions into the fray. I had limited success with serving as editor/gatekeeper to some of his wilder rants while I was at ANN. It's pretty clear that...

The full Prelim actually has a lot of details about the other plane (a C172) including the N-number. There were two persons onboard, a CFI and his student who had just passed his PPL checkride at TPF earlier that morning. The newly-minted pilot was the one flying. Damn... From the report: "The...

Reported to be a Cessna 310. FlightAware shows a C340 scheduled to depart TPF at around that time.

While the LiveATC feed didn't capture every communication between the accident pilot and ATC, what it did record seems different than what is presented in the Prelim. Shortly after the accident, I transcribed what was available on the feed. 21:37 [RECORDING TIME] - N711BX: Departure, Citation...

Schrenker II? http://www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/08/19/fugitive.pilot/

Cause found. Everyone's just a bit jumpy lately... http://www.kob.com/article/stories/S3981422.shtml?cat=500#.VmEEOLkvnLY

The reported accident site on S. Powers Blvd. is less than one mile NW off the departure end. Pretty much where you'd expect with an 'impossible turn' scenario.

There are lots of interesting small mountain peaks throughout the PHX metro area, especially to the SSW if you have the time.

Based on news reports, LiveATC.net and FlightAware, the accident occurred shortly after takeoff from IAH and he'd only climbed to around 1,300 feet (1,200' AGL) before reporting engine problems. There have been some questionable BRS pulls in Cirrus aircraft, but at first blush this doesn't...

Not too far. The TFR is centered 4nm SSW from GINNE, which is adjacent to the accident location initially reported.

Based on news reports, the approximate crash site appears to be near the GINNE intersection and well outside of the MOA (but near IR18 as previously stated.) The GA plane is reported to be a Cessna 150. No survivors (I wouldn't think so.) From SkyVector.com. GINNE roughly corresponds to...

The FAA proposed a 500' AGL altitude limitation for commercial sUAS in the Part 107 NPRM released earlier this year. Comments from at least one alphabet group suggested a 400' AGL maximum in line with the recreational R/C aircraft limitation, which (at least in theory) provides 100' separation...

I almost posted the same thing in the OP but decided it wasn't appropriate at the time. I wouldn't be surprised if such departures were SOP for the company when 9 was in use to avoid the long slog to the opposite end of the field, but it's hard to ignore the fact they left a lot of pavement...