Fatal ICON A5 crash

gsengle said:
The catch 22 is too much automation for instance, while in some ways adding safety, can yield pilots who forget how to fly...
Click to expand...

Well, then there's this ol' thing from Warren Vanderbergh....
 
What is the level of "too much automation?" The Wrights didn't have a six pack; are all those instruments excessive too?
 
citizen5000 said:
What is the level of "too much automation?" The Wrights didn't have a six pack; are all those instruments excessive too?
Click to expand...
Instruments are not automation unless they are wired to the controls, thus cutting the pilot out of the loop.
 
Instrumentation tells you what the airplane is doing.

Automation makes you ask yourself or your copilot "what's it doing now?"
 
citizen5000 said:
What is the level of "too much automation?"
Click to expand...

It depends -- there's no single answer.

The objective (regardless of aircraft type, operator, or reason for being flown) is generally to be safe and efficient in what you're doing. The level of automation that is appropriate to being safe and efficient is going to vary wildly between different aircraft, different pilots, different missions, and different environments.
 
Lndwarrior said:
Where's the "ignore the troll" button?
Click to expand...
Click on my username in one of my posts in this thread. About 1/3 of the way down on the RHS of the window that opens up click on "Ignore".

Nauga,
and his win-win
 
Nauga is a good dude.

Virtually. on the internet.

I've never met him. He could be a total *******.

But on POA he is greatness. If I were a woman or we were both gay I'm not saying he is (or isn't) and don't care but I am not.

But if I was (Which I'm not) and He was (which he may not be and that is fine I mean I don't think he is but I have no reason to think he is one way or another and I am sure as hell not trying to insinuate that anyone is even though that is not a big deal) I am just saying 2 dudes could have beers together and then go flying that is all.

I mean we would wait the required 8 hours (And during that 8 hours we would do straight guy things (not that there are straight or gay things so to speak (I mean some things are))). We would or wouldn't do those things. But we could or we might just fly RC planes and watch Austin powers or blossom or something.

Ultimately I don't think he is a gay troll.
Or a straight troll. (not implying that he is not straight, just not a troll)

I mean look at the GD avatar!!!!!

Bryan
Who has had less alcohol than most would imagine.
 
SixPapaCharlie said:
Nauga is a good dude.

Virtually. on the internet.

I've never met him. He could be a total *******.

But on POA he is greatness. If I were a woman or we were both gay I'm not saying he is (or isn't) and don't care but I am not.
Click to expand...
I've known Nauga for 20+ years...he was a co-defendant (unserved) in the RAH-15 lawsuit. He's got a hell of a lot of experience in aviation engineering, and keeps about 40 pounds of brain in a 10-pound volume.

He also has a good eye for fine aviation design....
nauga.jpg

Ron Wanttaja
 
wanttaja said:
I've known Nauga for 20+ years...he was a co-defendant (unserved) in the RAH-15 lawsuit. He's got a hell of a lot of experience in aviation engineering, and keeps about 40 pounds of brain in a 10-pound volume.

He also has a good eye for fine aviation design....
nauga.jpg

Ron Wanttaja
Click to expand...

Whoa!!! Is that "The Nauga"?
Total seriousness, I expected him to be about 20 years older than that.

He is no doubt a very wise man. And funny to boot. My wife and I laugh at his taglines when he posts.
 
SixPapaCharlie said:
Nauga is a good dude.

Virtually. on the internet.

I've never met him. He could be a total *******.

But on POA he is greatness. If I were a woman or we were both gay I'm not saying he is (or isn't) and don't care but I am not.

But if I was (Which I'm not) and He was (which he may not be and that is fine I mean I don't think he is but I have no reason to think he is one way or another and I am sure as hell not trying to insinuate that anyone is even though that is not a big deal) I am just saying 2 dudes could have beers together and then go flying that is all.

I mean we would wait the required 8 hours (And during that 8 hours we would do straight guy things (not that there are straight or gay things so to speak (I mean some things are))). We would or wouldn't do those things. But we could or we might just fly RC planes and watch Austin powers or blossom or something.

Ultimately I don't think he is a gay troll.
Or a straight troll. (not implying that he is not straight, just not a troll)

I mean look at the GD avatar!!!!!

Bryan
Who has had less alcohol than most would imagine.
Click to expand...

Does this post come with a flow chart?
 
wanttaja said:
I've known Nauga for 20+ years...He also has a good eye for fine aviation design....
Click to expand...
...and can make some cool motor noises. Thanks for the compliments (and the cockpit time), Ron. Not so much the picture tho. :eek:
I admire Ron equally, and I think it's fair to say we don't share my opinion of speculation. I understand and accept that, and maintain my admiration and friendship (in spite of his flaws).;)

SixPapaCharlie said:
I expected him to be about 20 years older than that.
Click to expand...
That picture was probably taken almost 20 years ago. But I still have the shirt. AND I can still make motor noises.

So, what are you doing after the show?

Nauga,
who was more comfortable when people thought he was a troll
 
Omalley1537 said:
Does this post come with a flow chart?
Click to expand...

I was going to say I feel sorry for 6PC's kids. Not only do they bear the burden of a celebrity father, but they probably get answers like that to simple questions...
 
SixPapaCharlie said:
Nauga is a good dude.

Virtually. on the internet.

I've never met him. He could be a total *******.

But on POA he is greatness. If I were a woman or we were both gay I'm not saying he is (or isn't) and don't care but I am not.

But if I was (Which I'm not) and He was (which he may not be and that is fine I mean I don't think he is but I have no reason to think he is one way or another and I am sure as hell not trying to insinuate that anyone is even though that is not a big deal) I am just saying 2 dudes could have beers together and then go flying that is all.

I mean we would wait the required 8 hours (And during that 8 hours we would do straight guy things (not that there are straight or gay things so to speak (I mean some things are))). We would or wouldn't do those things. But we could or we might just fly RC planes and watch Austin powers or blossom or something.

Ultimately I don't think he is a gay troll.
Or a straight troll. (not implying that he is not straight, just not a troll)

I mean look at the GD avatar!!!!!

Bryan
Who has had less alcohol than most would imagine.
Click to expand...

I wish I knew how to quit you.
 
wanttaja said:
I've known Nauga for 20+ years...he was a co-defendant (unserved) in the RAH-15 lawsuit. He's got a hell of a lot of experience in aviation engineering, and keeps about 40 pounds of brain in a 10-pound volume.

He also has a good eye for fine aviation design....
nauga.jpg

Ron Wanttaja
Click to expand...

Is that photo taken at Auburn?
 
Looks like the preliminary report came out yesterday. Basically sounds like CFIT. "Good" news is that the plane at least from a purely objective point of view doesn't appear to have flaws in its design, however this does also call to mind that the intended use of this plane (flying low and maneuvering around terrain) has some inherent risks to it. The test pilot I assume knew the lake and could fly it blindfolded yet they were still bit by cruising into that small canyon.. very said to have lost people in this accident and we'll see what that means for Icon

From Flying
"According to the NTSB report, a witness who was in a boat on the lake saw the airplane flying about 30 to 50 feet above the water into a nearby cove called Little Portuguese Canyon. “The witness heard the engine ‘rev up’ as the airplane drifted to the right side of the cove,” the report stated. “Subsequently, the airplane pitched upward and entered a left turn, just before it traveled beyond the witness’s field of view. The witness stated that he heard the sound of impact shortly after losing visual [sight] of the airplane.”"
 
nauga said:
Click on my username in one of my posts in this thread. About 1/3 of the way down on the RHS of the window that opens up click on "Ignore".

Nauga,
and his win-win
Click to expand...

Ok, based on the overwhelming support of this board I was 100% wrong and apologize for suggesting you were a troll.

Gary
 
Tantalum said:
Looks like the preliminary report came out yesterday. Basically sounds like CFIT. "Good" news is that the plane at least from a purely objective point of view doesn't appear to have flaws in its design, however this does also call to mind that the intended use of this plane (flying low and maneuvering around terrain) has some inherent risks to it. The test pilot I assume knew the lake and could fly it blindfolded yet they were still bit by cruising into that small canyon.. very said to have lost people in this accident and we'll see what that means for Icon

From Flying
"According to the NTSB report, a witness who was in a boat on the lake saw the airplane flying about 30 to 50 feet above the water into a nearby cove called Little Portuguese Canyon. “The witness heard the engine ‘rev up’ as the airplane drifted to the right side of the cove,” the report stated. “Subsequently, the airplane pitched upward and entered a left turn, just before it traveled beyond the witness’s field of view. The witness stated that he heard the sound of impact shortly after losing visual [sight] of the airplane.”"
Click to expand...

Has anyone heard if it was the company pilot at the controls or the new hire.??
 
If it turns out the plane itself did not have an issue and is structurally sound, there is absolutely no reason anyone should be afraid of owning one.

Based on what we know so far this has to be the safest single engine plane ever made. Obviously the pilot has to do his part. But all things being equal this plane should be extremely safe to fly by aviation standards.
 
Zeldman said:
Has anyone heard if it was the company pilot at the controls or the new hire.??
Click to expand...
@James331 is right, however from what I've perceived Icon enjoys letting newcomers fly the plane, and since this was that passenger's first flight I wouldn't be surprised if he was the one flying it... the sudden addition of power (per the witness) would suggest that was an "instructor" input, since presumably his familiarity with the area was a flag that they may be getting into a situation...

pure conjecture..

Also, I thought there were supposed to be cameras in the plane watching the pilot, that should show who was flying (but that could have also been a rumor I read in one of the "crazy contract" threads)
 
TexDeuce said:
If it turns out the plane itself did not have an issue and is structurally sound, there is absolutely no reason anyone should be afraid of owning one.

Based on what we know so far this has to be the safest single engine plane ever made. Obviously the pilot has to do his part. But all things being equal this plane should be extremely safe to fly by aviation standards.
Click to expand...

Safest? How so?

Don't buy the hype, it's 98% the pilot, frankly you'd be in the same situation in in a J3
 
Tantalum said:
@James331 is right, however from what I've perceived Icon enjoys letting newcomers fly the plane, and since this was that passenger's first flight I wouldn't be surprised if he was the one flying it... the sudden addition of power (per the witness) would suggest that was an "instructor" input, since presumably his familiarity with the area was a flag that they may be getting into a situation...

pure conjecture..

Also, I thought there were supposed to be cameras in the plane watching the pilot, that should show who was flying (but that could have also been a rumor I read in one of the "crazy contract" threads)
Click to expand...

That has been my thought from the start. The new hire might have been flying and possibly misunderstood a direction for a turn while the company pilot was fiddling with something else, but it is all pure speculation by me.

I haven't heard about the camera part but then again don't get around much...
 
James331 said:
Safest? How so?

Don't buy the hype, it's 98% the pilot, frankly you'd be in the same situation in in a J3
Click to expand...

What does the pilot have to do with what I said? Or the percentage of pilot/plane responsibility?

I am referring specifically to the plane. And I said "all things being equal" meaning we are comparing the same pilot with the same skill set across the board.

Certified spin resistant, great handling, low stall speed, AOA indicator, can land on water, and a parachute. This is the pinnacle of a safe plane, as far as we know.

I could be wrong. Can you find me a safer plane?
 
James331 said:
With dual controls don't know how they could ever know
Click to expand...

Injuries to the hands would be one way, unless both pilots had their hands on the controls, or both took their hands off the controls right before impact. Lot of energy gets transferred to the yoke in a sudden stop accident.
 
It doesn't seem plausible that if they were in a canyon the experienced test pilot would let the low time guy have the controls. The NTSB report says this was a "familiarization" ride for the engineer.
 
Last edited:
Zeldman said:
That has been my thought from the start. The new hire might have been flying and possibly misunderstood a direction for a turn while the company pilot was fiddling with something else, but it is all pure speculation by me.
Click to expand...

I was thinking or speculating along the same lines. New guy was flying and Karkow's attention was diverted when they began flying into that cove. When he realized where they were he took aggressive control of the aircraft with the result being what it was. Might not even had a good positive exchange of the controls. As you wrote pure speculation and there are other possible scenarios. Regardless, it was tragic.
 
TexDeuce said:
What does the pilot have to do with what I said? Or the percentage of pilot/plane responsibility?

I am referring specifically to the plane. And I said "all things being equal" meaning we are comparing the same pilot with the same skill set across the board.

Certified spin resistant, great handling, low stall speed, AOA indicator, can land on water, and a parachute. This is the pinnacle of a safe plane, as far as we know.

I could be wrong. Can you find me a safer plane?
Click to expand...


Pilot has TONS to do with it, for example you cite landing on water as a safety feature, well based on insurance and accidents, based on your skills and experience level, this actually makes the plane MUCH more dangerous than most of the land based GA fleet.

Per stall speed, plenty of other two seaters have similar or lower stall speeds.

Per spin resistance, many planes are, infact planes like the 172 are actually a little hard to do spin training in, and other planes like the cub stall recovery and spin prevention is even better.

Per the AOA, pilots not paying attention to airspeed or anything, if they don't pay attention to air speed they ain't going to pay attention to a AOA.

The chute, well that only helps for certain missions.

So overall, based on its amphib configuration, in the hands of a person without a bit of seaplane time, it actually quite dangerous, as the A5 accidents and amphib insurance has sown.
 
James, I am sorry my friend but I don't think you understand what is being said. When discussing the safety of a plane itself, the pilot has absolutely nothing to do with it.

That is like us comparing a car from the 1950's to a car made in 2017 and you telling me it is "98% up to the driver" etc. Which again, has absolutely nothing to do with discussing how safe a car is in and of itself. Nor does it mean the car form the 1950's is just as safe as a car from 2017.

When discussing the safety of a plane, you have to discuss this assuming the pilot is not a variable and we are discussing the same pilot and behavior across all planes.
 
As far as the safety of the Icon A5, no plane you mentioned has all of those safety aspects combined. Nothing you said has anything to do with the point being made that the Icon A5 is the safest single engine plane ever made. This has nothing to do with how risky a pilot wants to be in the plane with wild 20 foot AGL maneuvers and water landings in tight canyons. Amphib means engine out he can land on water and not worry about flipping over and drowning.

A safe low risk pilot will be safer in this plane than most or all others. Why? Because of the safety features and handling of the plane. I am not discussing the behaviors of a wild pilot doing crazy things in it. Nor am I saying flying is automatically "safe" in an A5. I am talking statistically and percentage wise, under the same conditions compared to other planes this plane should be safer than any other.

Again, if you can find me a safer plane (the plane, not discussing random pilots), please let me know.
 
TexDeuce said:
James, I am sorry my friend but I don't think you understand what is being said. When discussing the safety of a plane itself, the pilot has absolutely nothing to do with it.

That is like us comparing a car from the 1950's to a car made in 2017 and you telling me it is "98% up to the driver" etc. Which again, has absolutely nothing to do with discussing how safe a car is in and of itself. Nor does it mean the car form the 1950's is just as safe as a car from 2017.

When discussing the safety of a plane, you have to discuss this assuming the pilot is not a variable and we are discussing the same pilot and behavior across all planes.
Click to expand...

Well put.
 
TexDeuce said:
As far as the safety of the Icon A5, no plane you mentioned has all of those safety aspects combined. Nothing you said has anything to do with the point being made that the Icon A5 is the safest single engine plane ever made. This has nothing to do with how risky a pilot wants to be in the plane with wild 20 foot AGL maneuvers and water landings in tight canyons. Amphib means engine out he can land on water and not worry about flipping over and drowning.

A safe low risk pilot will be safer in this plane than most or all others. Why? Because of the safety features and handling of the plane. I am not discussing the behaviors of a wild pilot doing crazy things in it. Nor am I saying flying is automatically "safe" in an A5. I am talking statistically and percentage wise, under the same conditions compared to other planes this plane should be safer than any other.

Again, if you can find me a safer plane (the plane, not discussing random pilots), please let me know.
Click to expand...

Landing on water inhearently dynamic and having that ability makes it safer for some, less for others.

A amphib is LESS safe for a inexperienced pilot.


How much time do you have in amphibs
 
James, again you are arguing points I am not making. Of course amphib has more risks to it. That is absolutely correct. But they entail more risk in all planes. Who is to say you have to do amphib landings when buying an A5? You can buy an A5 and fly it normally like the rest of us. And if you do that, you don't add in the additional risk of the amphib landings. I was saying it is a safety feature due to it being able to land on water during an engine out circumstance.

I am not discussing people doing amphib landings on their own volition. And what makes the A5 more dangerous than doing amphibs in other planes? It is a completely moot point within the point being made. For the simple reason it isn't mandatory to do amphib landings in the A5.

If someone said they wanted the safest two seat cruising plane that they could find to fly as safe as possible in low risk flight, how could you tell them anything but the A5? Again, this assumes they will be the same trained pilot and behave in the same manner no matter the airplane. Assuming we don't find any structural issues with the plane I can't see how anyone can say this isn't the safest plane made to date.

And once again, I am not saying this automatically makes the plane "safe". I think aviation is rather dangerous and risky myself. Compared to most other hobbies or professions.
 
Last edited:
TexDeuce said:
James, again you are arguing points I am not making. Of course amphib has more risks to it. That is absolutely correct. But they entail more risk in all planes. Who is to say you have to do amphib landings when buying an A5? You can buy an A5 and fly it normally like the rest of us. And if you do that, you don't add in the additional risk of the amphib landings. I was saying it is a safety feature due to it being able to land on water during an engine out circumstance.

I am not discussing people doing amphib landings on their own volition. And what makes the A5 more dangerous than doing amphibs in other planes? It is a completely moot point within the point being made. For the simple reason it isn't mandatory to do amphib landings in the A5.

If someone said they wanted the safest two seat cruising plane that they could find to fly as safe as possible in low risk flight, how could you tell them anything but the A5? Again, this assumes they will be the same trained pilot and behave in the same manner no matter the airplane. Assuming we don't find any structural issues with the plane I can't see how anyone can say this isn't the safest plane made to date.

And once again, I am not saying this automatically makes the plane "safe". I think aviation is rather dangerous and risky myself. Compared to most other hobbies or professions.
Click to expand...

Oh come on, that's like saying a F-104 is super safe too, you don't have to take off.

As for safe two place planes I'd say this would be safer
http://savage.aero
Way lower stall, and you could literally land in a parking lot or a rocky field.

Of if you are not Tailwheel fluent, a zenith 701

Also aviation is not dangerous, based on working EMS, a poor diet and lack of exercise is going to check you out WAAAY before flying.

Or poor breeding

Or intersections

And starting any conversation about "saftey" and flying and not starting it out with the pilot is a fools conversation, these accidents highlight that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top