Fatal ICON A5 crash

James331 said:
The vickers is computer drawings right now, and is a A5 knock off
A searay isn't the same demographics, the people who want a A5 ain't going to strap into what looks like a garage built searay

And float flying is backcountry by its very nature.

Also you'll probably see the same types own the always clean carbon cubs you see kept at controlled airports or perfectly near scissor cut looking grass strips, those are very much the same crowd who'd debate buying a A5 IMO
Click to expand...

The Vickers is going into production this fall.

The ICON is a water plane with folding wings. It is heavier than a standard SLSA and even heavier than an SLSA with floats and is slower and has a shorter range. It is not an STOL and cannot land with it's wheels (no tundra tires allowed) on anything other than a paved runway. It is flimsy by STOL standards and won't be flying in Alaska.
 
citizen5000 said:
The ICON is a water plane with folding wings. It is heavier than a standard SLSA and even heavier than an SLSA with floats and is slower and has a shorter range. It is not an STOL and cannot land with it's wheels (no tundra tires allowed) on anything other than a paved runway. It is flimsy by STOL standards and won't be flying in Alaska.
Click to expand...
Yup. So it's basically a gimmick. It's writing checks it obviously can't cash. It's an illusion of something it wants to be.
 
citizen5000 said:
The Vickers is going into production this fall.

The ICON is a water plane with folding wings. It is heavier than a standard SLSA and even heavier than an SLSA with floats and is slower and has a shorter range. It is not an STOL and cannot land with it's wheels (no tundra tires allowed) on anything other than a paved runway. It is flimsy by STOL standards and won't be flying in Alaska.
Click to expand...

When I see one fly and can touch it, I might take it seriously.

Why couldn't a A5 fly in AK?
I know climate change is occurring, but don't they still have water up there?

Most amphibs don't do real backcountry work on their amphib wheels, and I don't see any ABW tucking into floats or hulls, that goes for DHC2s, C208Bs, skywagons, Quests, or even PA18 clones. I know I don't land my 185 amphib on ruff ground.
 
This view is about 1.25 miles north of the crash site. This is the west side of the canyon looking east. It is about 1600 feet shore to shore in the photo. Its about 900 feet at the crash site. Like someone upthread said, the terrain is rugged.
hill.jpg
 
FastEddieB said:
The one found on the ground occurred during a "boxing" of the controls - something like full rudder in one direction with full opposite aileron. Something in the bungee interconnect, which is, frankly, rather Rube Goldberg-ish. Not likely to occur in flight, but you know how Murphy works.

Completely different from the aileron jamming early on.
Click to expand...

I believe that interconnect system was completely eliminated when the G3 wing was introduced.
 
Not that it couldn't, but that it wouldn't. I agree with @citizen5000, the A5 is marketed to the same type of people who would buy a new Range Rover... that car is obviously not going to get taken off the pavement ever, unless maybe to a dirt parking lot at a festival. Although, that's not entirely fair, because while a Range Rover could still take a fair beating (as Top Gear has proven time and time again) I don't think the A5 has the same chops that the 206s, etc., flying around AK have... so I too doubt we'll see it up in AK. This, if it succeeds, will be towed behind Porsche Cayennes, Audi Q5s and Q7s, and the occasional Range Rover. Folks will load it at the boat ramp to much fan fair, and then do some sporty low level cruising. If these things ever sell in numbers I could see a healthy amount of yearly accidents each summer

P.S. - yes I know Top Gear is largely staged, but they still beat the hell out of that Range
 
GRG55 said:
I believe that interconnect system was completely eliminated when the G3 wing was introduced.
Click to expand...
I think you are right. The interconnect was there because the wing dihedral was insufficient, later models added a degree or two and the interconnect was gone. The SR20 at our club still has the interconnect, but I only perceive it when maneuvering on the ground and have full left or right rudder
 
Tantalum said:
I think you are right. The interconnect was there because the wing dihedral was insufficient, later models added a degree or two and the interconnect was gone. The SR20 at our club still has the interconnect, but I only perceive it when maneuvering on the ground and have full left or right rudder
Click to expand...

Having upgraded to a G3 from my G2 it does feel weird now when I'm back in an older Cirrus to feel that interconnect (and to see the ailerons move in response to rudder turns when taxiing).
 
I think the Ercoupe also had interconnects? Right? I always found them weird, like someone else said above it is kind of a "hack" fix
 
I flew the DA40 yesterday afternoon on my first cross country at 18 hrs.
Coming in, as we got low the trees started looking close and I thought of this thread. I can't imagine, at my current experience, comfortably flying through that narrow of a space or as low as the ICON advertisements or other videos show and pulling any type of maneuvers.
Frankly, I'm shocked (no pun intended) at how often wires and towers show up seemingly out of nowhere when we get low. I'd say you better damn well know where you're at, what to expect, and not be dingle-dicking around even if you do
(not saying these pilots were)...just my thoughts.
 
Last edited:
Tantalum said:
Not that it couldn't, but that it wouldn't. I agree with @citizen5000, the A5 is marketed to the same type of people who would buy a new Range Rover... that car is obviously not going to get taken off the pavement ever, unless maybe to a dirt parking lot at a festival. Although, that's not entirely fair, because while a Range Rover could still take a fair beating (as Top Gear has proven time and time again) I don't think the A5 has the same chops that the 206s, etc., flying around AK have... so I too doubt we'll see it up in AK. This, if it succeeds, will be towed behind Porsche Cayennes, Audi Q5s and Q7s, and the occasional Range Rover. Folks will load it at the boat ramp to much fan fair, and then do some sporty low level cruising. If these things ever sell in numbers I could see a healthy amount of yearly accidents each summer

P.S. - yes I know Top Gear is largely staged, but they still beat the hell out of that Range
Click to expand...

It'll land on a lake in AK just as well as a lake in CA, actually with DA, probably better and depending on things, flying boats, especially with top mounted engines actually handle ruff water better.

Just shy of 100kts burning auto fuel and with I'd imagine is a somewhat comfy quiet cabin, that make a good little camp check plane, or a take a single person or couple bags out somewhere machine.

Where the A5 would really be a contender is if they backed down on all the crazy cockpit recorders, buyer agreements and and other nonsense, forgot that LSA nonsense, beefed up a few things to take out the time limits and maybe looked into the engine etc to open up the cruise speed and lower the take off distances, it is a slick airframe, without LSA rules I betcha she'd cruise very nice for a amphib.
 
Tantalum said:
I think the Ercoupe also had interconnects? Right? I always found them weird, like someone else said above it is kind of a "hack" fix
Click to expand...

There are lots of airplanes with aileron/rudder interconnect
 
The interconnect certainly seems like an afterthought... to be honest there are a lot of components on planes that seem pretty dainty. But I'm more upset about the video recording skills. The only thing worse than vertical videos are horizontal video uploaded vertically; add in some wobbly camera handling and you have the trifecta there
 
I thought Cirrus put that interconnect There To Remind the pilot to use his feet when he's turning lol.

Ercoupe has the interconnect because they don't have any rudder pedal at all.
 
Tantalum said:
Yikes... so there were two different jammed controls?! :eek:

Although, I can't recall ever need more than maybe 25% deflection of ailerons while flying (slips excluding)... elevators, yes those routinely go full aft, but ailerons I've never really had to be that aggressive on them...
Click to expand...

You will... you will...

Heh... heh... evil CFI mode, on...

Oh, and you just admitted you don't take the ailerons over to the stop after a crosswind landing? ;)
 
denverpilot said:
Oh, and you just admitted you don't take the ailerons over to the stop after a crosswind landing?
Click to expand...
You always turn away from the wind, right?? JK JK JK! :D

I did not "while flying" and slips excluded. For groups ops I'll turn them into the wind, etc., but that's where my cirrus gripes are.. the spring loading is too aggressive

If I were to change anything on that plane I would
*reduce, or even eliminate the spring load on the stick
*soften out the electric trim, or make it progressive, at least in the roll axis
*make a retractable gear version (going to get seriously flamed for this) - but if the wheel pants make a 10% speed difference per each wheel (per the CFI) then I would bet you could get another 10-15 knots out that plane with the gear out of the way

^really, numbers 1 and 2 have been my only real "complaints" with Cirrus
 
Epic typos, sorry about that. "ground ops" and "did notE"
 
The spring load is due to lack of aerodynamic trimming. It's my biggest gripe with the Cirrus design. Kinda Mickey Mouse...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
gsengle said:
The spring load is due to lack of aerodynamic trimming.
Click to expand...
Yeah, that's a very crude fix. You're never really balancing the plane, kind of just force feeding it. But for what you get in comfort and at least the illusion of safety for your pax, and a relatively fast frame from someone graduating from Skyhawks and Archer IIs it's still a great plane
 
Tantalum said:
Yeah, that's a very crude fix. You're never really balancing the plane, kind of just force feeding it. But for what you get in comfort and at least the illusion of safety for your pax, and a relatively fast frame from someone graduating from Skyhawks and Archer IIs it's still a great plane
Click to expand...

It also dulls low speed control feedback, which some think has contributed to pattern accidents...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
gsengle said:
It also dulls low speed control feedback, which some think has contributed to pattern accidents...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
Mooney also has rudder aileron interconnect.
 
Sac Arrow said:
The pictures don't do the terrain in the area justice. I can't imagine low level maneuvering in that location, if they were in fact doing that.
Click to expand...
Well, sometimes people have land in similar environs. Attached is a picture of a local runway with hills at both ends. I guess the difference is that the crew of the A5 did it for fun and not because they had to deliver some medicine or whatnot.
 

Attachments

  • 20140530-uncha-22.jpg
    20140530-uncha-22.jpg
    197.1 KB · Views: 58
gsengle said:
Yep. Has nothing to do with trim.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Mooneys are serious about trim. They wiggle their whole tail for it.

(Cough, seventies movie/slang references... cough... should be a bumper sticker...)
 
denverpilot said:
Mooneys are serious about trim. They wiggle their whole tail for it.

(Cough, seventies movie/slang references... cough... should be a bumper sticker...)
Click to expand...

Yep they have a jackscrew that moves the whole empennage kinda like on a jet. Gives you aerodynamic trim without messing with draggy trim tabs.

If my tail wiggled, I think I'd go grab the A&P :-o


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
gsengle said:
Yep they have a jackscrew that moves the whole empennage kinda like on a jet. Gives you aerodynamic trim without messing with draggy trim tabs.

If my tail wiggled, I think I'd go grab the A&P :-o


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Think Moonies are even more movable than jets, most of the ones I've seen just move the horizontal stab, some smaller GA stuff has it too, cubs and skywagons come to mind
 
Tantalum said:
Not that it couldn't, but that it wouldn't. I agree with @citizen5000, the A5 is marketed to the same type of people who would buy a new Range Rover... that car is obviously not going to get taken off the pavement ever, unless maybe to a dirt parking lot at a festival. Although, that's not entirely fair, because while a Range Rover could still take a fair beating (as Top Gear has proven time and time again) I don't think the A5 has the same chops that the 206s, etc., flying around AK have... so I too doubt we'll see it up in AK. This, if it succeeds, will be towed behind Porsche Cayennes, Audi Q5s and Q7s, and the occasional Range Rover. Folks will load it at the boat ramp to much fan fair, and then do some sporty low level cruising. If these things ever sell in numbers I could see a healthy amount of yearly accidents each summer

P.S. - yes I know Top Gear is largely staged, but they still beat the hell out of that Range
Click to expand...
What a bunch of elitist nonsense. They don't fly like you and they drive nicer carts, so they must be poor pilots.
 
Lindberg said:
What a bunch of elitist nonsense. They don't fly like you and they drive nicer carts, so they must be poor pilots.
Click to expand...
That wasn't my point all, I've stood up for the Cirrus folks when others have bashed them also as not "real pilots." Just because people can afford nice cars and other toys has nothing to do with theit piloting skills, in fact it affords them the luxury to get more trainings and ratings, etc. So they might even be safer! But the Icon's marketing sure paints the picture I described above, and I doubt we will be seeing these in AK, at least not in it's current form. I also hold by the statement that encouraging people to fly low level near hills and canyons skipping along the water after a short transition course from low time CFIs does not a good pilot make.

Hopefully I am wrong and this company can bring the thrill of GA to more people... I think everyone here can agree that the current state of GA could be better
 
I didn't read Tantalum's comment as elitist. He simply made the point that the ICON is a luxury SLSA and has a narrow mission.

"Lead engineer and chief test pilot Jon Karkow, and Cagri Sever, who recently joined the Icon team, were killed in the crash.
Prior to joining Icon, Karkow spent 22 years working as an engineer and test pilot with Burt Rutan’s Mojave, California-based Scaled Composites. There, he worked on more than 20 projects, including the record-breaking around-the-world Virgin GlobalFlyer. Karkow joined Icon in 2007. One of his many contributions to the program was the spin resistant and hydrodynamic design of the A5. Karkow also flew the first test flights of the proof-of-concept A5 and the production version of the airplane." http://www.flyingmag.com/icon-chief...pJobID=1041255922&spReportId=MTA0MTI1NTkyMgS2

All of us in aviation mourn this tragedy. Few accidents will get as much focus and attention since this incident could well be a company killer too.
 
Last edited:
citizen5000 said:
Prior to joining Icon, Karkow spent 22 years working as an engineer and test pilot with Burt Rutan’s Mojave, California-based Scaled Composites. There, he worked on more than 20 projects, including the record-breaking around-the-world Virgin GlobalFlyer. Karkow joined Icon in 2007. One of his many contributions to the program was the spin resistant and hydrodynamic design of the A5. Karkow also flew the first test flights of the proof-of-concept A5 and the production version of the airplane.
Click to expand...

It's considered bad form to copy and paste entire blocks of text without crediting the source, making the words appear to be your own.

http://www.flyingmag.com/icon-chief-test-pilot-killed-in-a5-crash

It's called plagiarism. Pretty sure you've done this repeatedly here and on other sites. You really should stop.
 
Lots of people trashing the plane when it could have been pilot error as the cause. We don't know for sure so we will see how it plays out. RIP to the two deceased. Very sad.

As far as the plane, so far it seems to be one of the safest planes ever made.

Certified spin resistant, great handling, low stall speed, AOA indicator, can land on water, and a parachute.

Are you kidding me? If no flaws come up with the build of this plane this is ABSOLUTELY one of the safest planes you could ever fly.
 
TexDeuce said:
Lots of people trashing the plane when it could have been pilot error as the cause. We don't know for sure so we will see how it plays out. RIP to the two deceased. Very sad.

As far as the plane, so far it seems to be one of the safest planes ever made.

Certified spin resistant, great handling, low stall speed, AOA indicator, can land on water, and a parachute.

Are you kidding me? If no flaws come up with the build of this plane this is ABSOLUTELY one of the safest planes you could ever fly.
Click to expand...

We just don't know how safe the airframe is yet. It sank pretty easy it seems in the last instance. We speculate pilot error this time... but even pilot error can have human factors root. We shall see...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
gsengle said:
And no I didn't forget about the Cirrus... I still won't buy one as I personally am not satisfied with their safety...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Do you own any aircraft? Because cirrus fatal accident rate is now about half the GA average.
 

Attachments

  • cirrus safety record.jpg
    cirrus safety record.jpg
    246.7 KB · Views: 41
dennyleeb said:
Do you own any aircraft? Because cirrus fatal accident rate is now about half the GA average.
Click to expand...

I fully understand the point in the graphic being made, but just as a point of order, the fatal accident rate and the total accident rate diverge considerably. That's the effect of the chute. Not the flying qualities of the aircraft.
 
What's the difference between Business and Corporate in that chart?
 
dennyleeb said:
Do you own any aircraft? Because cirrus fatal accident rate is now about half the GA average.
Click to expand...
Yep. And there's a ton of them up there.

Sucks about the Icon accident because the loss of life. Terrible. It certainly doesn't bode well for the company but maybe they can rise above it. Though I have zero interest in owning or flying in one. I like that it's new and different.

And agree with @Tantalum
 
dennyleeb said:
Do you own any aircraft? Because cirrus fatal accident rate is now about half the GA average.
Click to expand...

Yep the chute saves a problematic airframe. I fly a Mooney Ovation.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top