Fatal ICON A5 crash

A video I found interesting, from the NTSB.
Has nothing to do with the ICON A5 crash. Yet the canyon turning made me contemplate (not speculate) about it.
It's loooong, but for us students, and probably others, very informative.


and if you have 30 minutes to just absolutely throw away:
However I do love that plane....
 
I think the lesson learned is if you are going to fly a narrow canyon arm like this, fly it from the end of the canyon TO the lake body. Come in high at 90 degrees to the arm and turn and fly down to the water down the canyon. Don't land going into the canyon, there isn't a go around going that direction.

I used to have a Husky (actually a DIFFERENT one than mine now, and no I didnt crash it, I sold it) on Amphibs and I would water taxi up these narrow arms, not fly up them. That was exciting enough for me.

This is true of non-float aircraft as well. If you are going to fly a canyon, fly it going DOWN the canyon. You can only fly up a canyon if it is wide enough to do a 180 in. Never get yourself boxed in....
 
Pure speculation but seems reasonable - it's entirely possible they just made a wrong turn up that finger of the lake. Momentary lapse.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
coloradobluesky said:
If you are going to fly a canyon, fly it going DOWN the canyon. You can only fly up a canyon if it is wide enough to do a 180 in. Never get yourself boxed in....
Click to expand...
That was one of the things I was taught by the old(er) mapping pilots when I started doing it. The other one was, never get so absorbed in looking at the map that you forget where you are.
 
coloradobluesky said:
I think the lesson learned is if you are going to fly a narrow canyon arm like this, fly it from the end of the canyon TO the lake body. Come in high at 90 degrees to the arm and turn and fly down to the water down the canyon. Don't land going into the canyon, there isn't a go around going that direction.

I used to have a Husky (actually a DIFFERENT one than mine now, and no I didnt crash it, I sold it) on Amphibs and I would water taxi up these narrow arms, not fly up them. That was exciting enough for me.

This is true of non-float aircraft as well. If you are going to fly a canyon, fly it going DOWN the canyon. You can only fly up a canyon if it is wide enough to do a 180 in. Never get yourself boxed in....
Click to expand...

All good points. If any of you get a chance to fly this aircraft you'll find out that it turns incredibly well. At 70-80 KIAS its turn radius is well less than 200'. So while I'll agree that flying up box canyons isn't a good habit to develop, this aircraft may we'll have been able to make that sort of turn and quite comfortably too. It's also quite possible the PIC had done exactly that many times before. I wouldn't rule out anything at this point.

I haven't been in that canyon so I have no idea of how tight it is. Needless to say, what could be next to impossible to do in most GA aircraft is quite within the performance capabilities of the A5. In the meantime we'll have to wait for the NTSB to complete their investigation. Hopefully ICON will have had some GPS telemetry aboard that plane that will help toward piecing together what really happened.

Cheers,
Z
 
Last edited:
Unless the canyon walls are vertical, how tight a canyon is depends on how high you are.
 
Zman767 said:
All good points. If any of you get a chance to fly this aircraft you'll find out that it turns incredibly well. At 70-80 KIAS its turn radius is well less than 200'. So while I'll agree that flying up box canyons isn't a good habit to develop, this aircraft may we'll have been able to make that sort of turn and quite comfortably too. It's also quite possible the PIC had done exactly that many times before. I wouldn't rule out anything at this point.

I haven't been in that canyon so I have no idea of how tight it is. Needless to say, what could be next to impossible to do in most aircraft is quite within the performance capabilities of the A5. In the meantime we'll have to wait for the NTSB to complete their investigation. Hopefully ICON will have had some GPS telemetry aboard that plane that will help toward piecing together what really happened.

Cheers,
Z
Click to expand...

Next to impossible in most aircraft?

It's just math, entry speed, stall speed and angle of bank.


But any aircraft that can go 75kts with a 39kt stall ( most 2 place planes fit that bill ) can do the same thing, lest you toss something serious like a savage cub into the mix ( http://savage.aero/page/2/?paged=2 ).

I like the icon, but it's not doing magic, if anything I think these events should bring that sadly home.
 
Last edited:
Zman767 said:
All good points. If any of you get a chance to fly this aircraft you'll find out that it turns incredibly well. At 70-80 KIAS its turn radius is well less than 200'. So while I'll agree that flying up box canyons isn't a good habit to develop, this aircraft may we'll have been able to make that sort of turn and quite comfortably too. It's also quite possible the PIC had done exactly that many times before. I wouldn't rule out anything at this point.

I haven't been in that canyon so I have no idea of how tight it is. Needless to say, what could be next to impossible to do in most aircraft is quite within the performance capabilities of the A5. In the meantime we'll have to wait for the NTSB to complete their investigation. Hopefully ICON will have had some GPS telemetry aboard that plane that will help toward piecing together what really happened.

Cheers,
Z
Click to expand...

Thanks for your input and firsthand experience. I posted earlier in this thread that I thought if no flaws are found with the design, this might be the safest single engine plane ever made

Certified spin resistant, great handling, low stall speed, AOA indicator, can land on water, and a parachute.
 
Zman767 said:
All good points. If any of you get a chance to fly this aircraft you'll find out that it turns incredibly well. At 70-80 KIAS its turn radius is well less than 200'. So while I'll agree that flying up box canyons isn't a good habit to develop, this aircraft may we'll have been able to make that sort of turn and quite comfortably too. It's also quite possible the PIC had done exactly that many times before. I wouldn't rule out anything at this point.

I haven't been in that canyon so I have no idea of how tight it is.
Click to expand...

Around 245ft at the narrowest at the point of impact.

Canyon.png
 
TexDeuce said:
Thanks for your input and firsthand experience. I posted earlier in this thread that I thought if no flaws are found with the design, this might be the safest single engine plane ever made

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

This should also bring home that saftey isn't a product or feature
 
James331 said:
This should also bring home that saftey isn't a product or feature
Click to expand...

I think that's an overbroad statement.

There are certainly products and features that can markedly enhance safety. Too many to mention.

The trap is "risk homeostasis". There's no doubt ABS brakes enhance safety, but if you drive faster and/or follow traffic more closely, there goes your advantage. Same idea applies to CAPS in a Cirrus, or the many safety features in the ICON. Modifying behavior to rely on them and you're back at square one, risk-wise.
 
nauga said:
I think you should take a good hard look at who's trying to 'shut down' discussion. I'm more than happy to discuss why I think uninformed speculation is pointless.

I could say the same...

Nauga,
and a mirror
Click to expand...
Regarding whether speculation on accident causes has value or not, I agree that you have as much right to post your opinion on that as anyone else.
 
Palmpilot said:
Regarding whether speculation on accident causes has value or not, I agree that you have as much right to post your opinion on that as anyone else.
Click to expand...

But the whole point of posting a thread on an accident is to talk about the accident. Not to speculate, would be useless in creating the thread in the first place.

Maybe in future accident threads, we should be a bunch of robots who just say "RIP" and then wait for the NTSB results to come out 2 years from now.
 
I wonder what the weather was like last Monday? It's been pretty windy here the last few weeks. Any way to look up historical weather? I tried through the NOAA site but I could only find statistical information.
 
denverpilot said:
Now that we know there weren't any witnesses, it'll be nice to read NTSBs speculation in a year or so. LOL.

Told ya they wouldn't be asking for witnesses if they had any...

Of course maybe they'll find something physically broken that wasn't supposed to be over the course of the next year or so, but I doubt it.
Click to expand...
What about the witness who was quoted in the NTSB report?
 
Velocity173 said:
But the whole point of posting a thread on an accident is to talk about the accident. Not to speculate, would be useless in creating the thread in the first place.

Maybe in future accident threads, we should be a bunch of robots who just say "RIP" and then wait for the NTSB results to come out 2 years from now.
Click to expand...
I agree with you. I'm just saying that people who disagree with us are still allowed to post their opinions.
 
Velocity173 said:
But the whole point of posting a thread on an accident is to talk about the accident. Not to speculate, would be useless in creating the thread in the first place.

Maybe in future accident threads, we should be a bunch of robots who just say "RIP" and then wait for the NTSB results to come out 2 years from now.
Click to expand...

We are Borg. You will be assimilated. :D
 
FastEddieB said:
I think that's an overbroad statement.

There are certainly products and features that can markedly enhance safety. Too many to mention.

The trap is "risk homeostasis". There's no doubt ABS brakes enhance safety, but if you drive faster and/or follow traffic more closely, there goes your advantage. Same idea applies to CAPS in a Cirrus, or the many safety features in the ICON. Modifying behavior to rely on them and you're back at square one, risk-wise.
Click to expand...

Not in GA, go read up on the NTSB, the cause of like 95% of the accidents is the pilot, the mass majority of chute saves are at the long end of a chain of crap decisions, safety isn't your cirrus, cool isn't your cigarette and sex ain't your ladies' stockings.

Saftey is you.

 
It's the dirty truth.
As another example, I am the VP of technology at my employer.
During meetings over the years, the good ole "we need better communication around here" talks kept coming up.
We added forms of communication again and again. Now have- email, telephones, voicemail, message boards, post-it door holders, employee newsletters, postings by the timeclocks, electronic signage across the campus, popup messages on the timeclocks, mandatory communication meetings (of all things), paging system, cellphone text groups, facebook account postings, website postings, and yes...even more.
To this day, it's still brought up regularly that we need better communication.
So, you can have all the devices you want.
Tools, safety features, anything. If they aren't used properly or are misused, they are worthless and or dangerous, and sometimes can just get in the way.
I barely have time to communicate with people due to trying to manage all the useless communication systems.

In the cockpit, I (being new to aviation) sometimes get overwhelmed and get distracted by the very devices that are there to improve safety/situational awareness. Have had to just drop everything and aviate a few times...including talking to the tower for a minute.
The saying is true for sure. Aviate, navigate, communicate.

Not saying safety features are useless at all. But people sure do find ways around them.
I'm a fine example ha ha
 
Last edited:
The presence of a safety device yields a greater than zero probability of it's use when needed. The absence of a safety device negates all probablity of it's use when needed. Which leads to higher risk?
 
It's not that simple a formula.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
I agree the chances are better... just like with the different forms of communication we've put in place. Many ways....but I still here regularly, "I was going to email you" or "I was going to leave you a message".
It's still on the person though to be safe in the majority of cases...or to communicate. "I was going to check the gas"
Engine goes out? A chute might be nice depending.... It probably didn't/wouldn't help the ICON A5 situation here...but safety devices can and do save lives.
 
Last edited:
Good grief, I'd HOPE that 95% (or even better, 99.9%) of accidents WERE caused by pilots! What's the alternative? More airplanes randomly breaking? ATC messing up more often?

The "percent" of accidents is a silly measure, like the current nonsense about the percent of accidents happening in "maneuvering" flight; the real test is, is the rate per hour going up? Or down? Truth is, total GA hours isn't knowable, just approximated. Are we really pranging more often in maneuvering flight? Or, are the number of accidents caused by other factors decreasing, and the hand-wringing over maneuvering flight is BS?

You hear the FAA spew something about a "percentage", take it with a grain of salt; sometimes I think someone's next review is tied to a pretend safety project, like the nonsensical sleep apnea scam.
 
But it's not that simple one doesn't exist without the other. Maybe this plane will attract risk takers. Maybe another attracts IMC pilots but exhibits spiral instability more than another type. Maybe another has poor slow flight feel. Maybe another has poor visibility, and another makes you feel invincible with a chute. The plane combined with the pilots it attracts and the human factors issues it has yields accidents. It's not as clear cut as a wing fell off or it's pilot error. It's always a little bit of a mix...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
I'm more draconian - if the airplane didn't break, and ATC didn't kill you, its pretty much on the pilot, to know the weak points in the design and/or performance. But I get what you're saying; design factors can kill, or contribute to a kill.
 
Sundancer said:
I'm more draconian - if the airplane didn't break, and ATC didn't kill you, its pretty much on the pilot, to know the weak points in the design and/or performance. But I get what you're saying; design factors can kill, or contribute to a kill.
Click to expand...

Sure training can compensate for design shortcomings, and as a pilot I hold myself accountable for being safe in whatever I choose to fly, but more often than not, statistically, design and human factors shortcomings show up in the accident rates...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
citizen5000 said:
The presence of a safety device yields a greater than zero probability of it's use when needed. The absence of a safety device negates all probablity of it's use when needed. Which leads to higher risk?
Click to expand...

The whole idea behind most safety devices (e.g., wx radar, TCAS, GPWS, autopilot, etc.) is to keep the pilot out of a UAS (undesired aircraft state) well before needing to rely on them to save their bacon. Of course the catch is to make sure pilots are trained in how to properly use them.
 
nauga said:
I think jumping to conclusions with no substantiating data is just as likely to reinforce bad conclusions as good. I've also been on the side that had access to data and seen the results of unchecked speculation. Why is my viewpoint any less valid than those of others who think they can determine the cause?

Nauga,
factorially
Click to expand...

Where's the "ignore the troll" button?
 
Zman767 said:
The whole idea behind most safety devices (e.g., wx radar, TCAS, GPWS, autopilot, etc.) is to keep the pilot out of a UAS (undesired aircraft state) well before needing to rely on them to save their bacon. Of course the catch is to make sure pilots are trained in how to properly use them.
Click to expand...

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


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Accidents are caused by the ground approaching faster than desired.
 
citizen5000 said:
The presence of a safety device yields a greater than zero probability of it's use when needed. The absence of a safety device negates all probablity of it's use when needed. Which leads to higher risk?
Click to expand...

Doesn't work for the number one safety system on board, the human brain, statistically well over 80% of the time. Just having it on board doesn't mean it'll be used.
 
denverpilot said:
Doesn't work for the number one safety system on board, the human brain, statistically well over 80% of the time. Just having it on board doesn't mean it'll be used.
Click to expand...

The "human weapon system" is unfortunately often the greatest risk factor on the aircraft as well.
 
Skyrys62 said:
or too much Mexican food...which can really stink in a warm cockpit.
Click to expand...
Relevant. Spoiler for slight language.

CRdBr4uWwAEXOqg.jpg

Not sure what DRB012 or TRB009 update references.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top