Icon A5.. another crash Jul 27

[denverpilot]

[Jokeing mode ON]

You mean all of that up pitch I was having to hold while flying into a headwind, right?

Yeah, that’s right, Now that I’ve made my downwind turn, the stick is pretty much all the way forward to keep from zooming upward.

Uh sure...






Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

In a turn part of your lift is no longer vertical, and you need a higher AoA (or more power) to make up for the loss to the horizontal component.

 

[jimhorner]

In a turn part of your lift is no longer vertical, and you need a higher AoA (or more power) to make up for the loss to the horizontal component.

Ah geeze.

That’s the POINT I was making in post 167. I thought you were making a joke based on Stol’s claim of needing more or less pitch depending on the wind. So I replied with an absurd claim playing along.

You guys did see my [Joke mode on], right? Guess not.

Why do I even bother? Guess my humor doesn’t translate all that well.


Rest assured I understand about the horizontal and vertical components of lift and the need to increase the vertical component in a turn and the need to release the back pressure when decreasing the bank angle. But thanks anyway.

 

[denverpilot]

Ah geeze.

That’s the POINT I was making in post 167. I thought you were making a joke based on Stol’s claim of needing more or less pitch depending on the wind. So I replied with an absurd claim playing along.

You guys did see my [Joke mode on], right? Guess not.

Why do I even bother? Guess my humor doesn’t translate all that well.


Rest assured I understand about the horizontal and vertical components of lift and the need to increase the vertical component in a turn and the need to release the back pressure when decreasing the bank angle. But thanks anyway.

I wasn’t sure if you were joking, so I went back to basics in my reply.

Some of the posts in this thread... wow. I think I know what “focus area” FAA needs to announce for Flight Reviews. LOL.

(Problem is, their current focus areas are getting worse. Loss of control on the ground accidents continue to rise. Put those controls to the stops on the rollout, folks... sigh.)

 

[jimhorner]

I wasn’t sure if you were joking, so I went back to basics in my reply.

Some of the posts in this thread... wow. I think I know what “focus area” FAA needs to announce for Flight Reviews. LOL.

(Problem is, their current focus areas are getting worse. Loss of control on the ground accidents continue to rise. Put those controls to the stops on the rollout, folks... sigh.)

Fair enough. Maybe I should have BOLDfaced the joke mode on comment.

But yeah, I completely agree with your point. Basic aerodynamics and physics seems to be lost on some folks. Witness the Icon crash. The pilot clearly had too much pitch angle early on. Looked to me as if he could have leveled out in ground (water?) effect to build up airspeed and made a turn back towards the center of the lake. Instead he was mushing along nose high towards the trees. It bit him.

Sometimes I think part of it is how it works out for a lot of folks that the theory and practice are covered by separate instructors. The theory is more addressed by the written, and lots of folks rely on the various test prep services which end up encouraging rote memorization more than developing a deep understanding. The actual flight instructor spends more time on teaching the mechanics of the actual flying along with navigation, pattern work, preparing for the practical, etc. Not as much on the theory of aerodynamics. And now, with the scenario based training, there’s maybe less of an emphasis on the basics and more on the systems? Not sure the new ACS stuff is a good thing either. Slow flight that’s not, stall training that isn’t, etc. Leads to accidents like this one, in my opinion.

When my dad was teaching me to fly, we used to have long coversations about aerodynamics and how things worked. Building free flight models also taught me a lot. Not sure the new pilots really get that sort of training and understanding of how things really work...

 

[denverpilot]

Fair enough. Maybe I should have BOLDfaced the joke mode on comment.

But yeah, I completely agree with your point. Basic aerodynamics and physics seems to be lost on some folks. Witness the Icon crash. The pilot clearly had too much pitch angle early on. Looked to me as if he could have leveled out in ground (water?) effect to build up airspeed and made a turn back towards the center of the lake. Instead he was mushing along nose high towards the trees. It bit him.

Sometimes I think part of it is how it works out for a lot of folks that the theory and practice are covered by separate instructors. The theory is more addressed by the written, and lots of folks rely on the various test prep services which end up encouraging rote memorization more than developing a deep understanding. The actual flight instructor spends more time on teaching the mechanics of the actual flying along with navigation, pattern work, preparing for the practical, etc. Not as much on the theory of aerodynamics. And now, with the scenario based training, there’s maybe less of an emphasis on the basics and more on the systems? Not sure the new ACS stuff is a good thing either. Slow flight that’s not, stall training that isn’t, etc. Leads to accidents like this one, in my opinion.

When my dad was teaching me to fly, we used to have long coversations about aerodynamics and how things worked. Building free flight models also taught me a lot. Not sure the new pilots really get that sort of training and understanding of how things really work...

An interesting point, but we aren’t supposed to sign them off if we didn’t teach it... whiteboard time is necessary at all levels, no matter how much the student just wants to kick the tires and light the fires. Haha.

This particular Ikon pilot just needed to abort. Chopping the throttle when the shoreline and the trees were looming and water taxiing further back than the cameraman while checking what the wind was doing, would have saved a lot of physical pain.

Sometimes you just need to chop the throttle and start over with a better plan BEFORE you’re airborne with no “outs”, water or land based.

Too much “let me show you what this baby will do” and not enough “we haven’t lifted off by the usual point on this lake, and there’s no great options ahead”...

Wind may have shifted or not. Can’t really tell. But the abort should always be an option being fully considered until you’re absolutely committed to going flying. Ain’t nobody calling out V1 on a lake in an Ikon.

Sooner or later we all have pushed something into the air that we shouldn’t have. A sales guy likely had a decent amount of time in the little thing and thought he could “save” it after what looked like a hell of a rough ride in waves for the takeoff. Getting pounded in that little thing on a mildly wavy lake probably has the same effect as me getting pounded by my horribly rough property at home when mowing it. Brain shuts down due to sensory overload.

Bet there was some pressure to show “how well it handled” rough water conditions. For its size anyway, since rough is going to be subjective between aircraft types. That little thing isn’t a twin otter.

 

[3393RP]

You know, he could have just aborted at any time during that. Did he have a PLANNED off the water point in mind...? Sigh.

I think it's time to note the pilot was completely at fault in this. The A5 had nothing to do with his poor decision making. After several hundred yards of full throttle failed to get the plane on the step, a more prudent course of action might have been to close the throttle (sarcasm intended).

As an aside, the other guy in the cockpit has probably now realized that a certain amount of critical observation and assertiveness might be an asset in some flying (or not flying) situations.

 

[Silvaire]

The "downwind turn" isn't all myth. While the airplane doesn't have any idea what the ground is doing the pilot certainly does and at low altitude in a strong wind this is a very powerful visual force. If you are in a perfectly coordinated turn your path across the ground in relation to the nose of your aircraft is going to look all wrong and if you are concentrating on objects on the ground (such as trees you are about to hit) you can easily get all jacked up and maybe even ignore the simple slip indicator and that fancy AOA you've got right there in front of you. It has happened to seasoned pilots, not just noobies.

In this case, getting past all of the mistakes, he almost made it back over the water and might have pulled it off if he hadn't clipped that tree. Let's be fair though, seaplane operations are just plain more risky because you are operating off of uncontrolled spaces. How far off is that shoreline? You're mostly guessing because you don't have a chart with published data. What's the wind? No AWOS report. There is a reason why insurance is higher on a seaplane.

 

[FastEddieB]

The "downwind turn" isn't all myth.

I agree the danger of “downwind turns” should be taught. But instructors need to emphasize the danger lies in visual illusions, and specifically not in any aerodynamic effect.

 

[FastEddieB]

Sometimes you just need to chop the throttle and start over with a better plan BEFORE you’re airborne with no “outs”, water or land based.

No argument there.

But human psychology comes into play. Hopefully, how and when to abort a takeoff was covered in training. But after 100’s or even 1000’s of successful takeoffs, expectations can be very high that a successful takeoff will be the end result once the throttle is pushed forward. It can be maddening difficult to overcome this expectation.

 

[Bacho]

Sailors understand the idea of relative wind, but pilots seem to struggle with this concept for some reason.

A a race sailor I understand the wind, In many ways I agree that the heading relative to the wind should have little bearing, but as a sailor I can tell you that the edges of tree lined lakes can be very unpredictable on wind. From sailing experience I think he would have quickly encountered a lull as he got close to the edge. Turning away from the wind he issues would be compounded if/when he hit the wind again.

 

[luvflyin]

If it was big enough I don’t think the pilot would’ve needed to perform a takeoff sequence in the way he or she did.

It appears he didn’t ‘need’ to. He just did.

 

[RudyP]

Lift and airspeed both will increase with a headwind and both will decrease with a tailwind.

This is one of the simplest methods used to determine wind direction. Turns that reduce airspeed or require increased power, are downwind turns, where as, turns that increase airspeed or allow reduced power, are into the wind.

I'm not arguing that the aircraft knows what the ground is doing. Stop trying to say that.

The ONLY thing the aircraft knows is how fast the wind is moving over the wing.

In a headwind, it's moving faster. In a tailwind, it's moving slower. If the tailwind is significant enough, you will have to compensate for it, either by increased power, or increased pitch angle.

Wow!

I commend those who have patiently tried to explain simple physics (this isn't even aerodynamics) to you...

How about if I told you that a 30 kt headwind is actually a 200000 kt tailwind when referenced to the center of the universe? In your mind, does that have more or less bearing on the behavior of your aircraft in its air mass than the equally irrelevant surface of the earth below?

How about if you are flying in a 30 kt tailwind but over a river that is flowing at 30 kts in the opposite direction?

 

[RoscoeT]

Let's say you have a 45 knot headwind and your airspeed is indicating 45 knots. You are effectively hovering.

Without making any changes to airspeed or pitch attitude, turn downwind, what's going to happen?

Wow, we are actually still doing this here. Fly 360 deg turns on a windy day at low airspeed. I guess you stall/spin every time you turn downwind.

 

[Weekend Warrior]

I have a close friend with a cottage on Littlefield Lake. I've been on the lake many times, and I've once met the guy that was injured in the crash (the passenger). Looking at the video, it is clear they are not using the lake to their full advantage. The lake is narrow but long, and kidney shaped. On one side of the kidney (where they took off from), it is less than a quarter mile long. On the other side of the kidney, it is about 3/4 mile long. My first thought was that they were taking off from the short side due to winds, but looking at the video, it is clear that the winds would have been more aligned "head on" if they had taken off from the longer portion. So then I realized: they were taking off from the short side, most likely, because the passenger lived on the short side (and it looks like the video was taken from the passenger's dock area).

 

[Tantalum]

I think it's time to note the pilot was completely at fault in this

I think it's safe to say all the Icon crashes were completely pilot fault.. but at the end of the day when 5% of the (young) fleet has crashed there is clearly at least a cultural fault with this aircraft, and something that ought to be addressed by Icon at some point

Their most recent (and still cringeworthy) marketing video (I won't link it, because why send them the extra clicks) is essentially showcasing pretend flying.. there is a certain "lack of respect" the brand has towards aviation and the professionalism it ought to have

Until they fix their culture we'll continue to see them prone to accidents

 

[Lindberg]

Assume an airplane flying at 45 knots airspeed into a 45 knot headwind. What happens if the headwind instantaneously becomes a 45 knot tailwind?

Assume an airplane is flying into a 90 knot gust and the gust suddenly dies. It isn't necessarily the direction if flight that makes wind shear dangerous. We keep extra airspeed on final when it's gusty even though we're going upwind.

 

[Weekend Warrior]

So I just talked to my friend with the cottage on Littlefield Lake. He didn't see the crash, but his adult son was out on his boat and saw it.

I was wrong on my location of the video, although what the plane did may make even less sense. The plane took off from mid lake or worse, on the long portion of the lake. His son thinks he did this because of the number of boats all over the lake.

 

[Silvaire]

...
The ONLY thing the aircraft knows is how fast the wind is moving over the wing.

In a headwind, it's moving faster. In a tailwind, it's moving slower. If the tailwind is significant enough, you will have to compensate for it, either by increased power, or increased pitch angle.

Classic internet: so much information right at your fingertips. The only problem is that 89% of it is completely wrong.

 

[wanttaja]

I think it's safe to say all the Icon crashes were completely pilot fault.. but at the end of the day when 5% of the (young) fleet has crashed there is clearly at least a cultural fault with this aircraft, and something that ought to be addressed by Icon at some point

Their most recent (and still cringeworthy) marketing video (I won't link it, because why send them the extra clicks) is essentially showcasing pretend flying.. there is a certain "lack of respect" the brand has towards aviation and the professionalism it ought to have

Until they fix their culture we'll continue to see them prone to accidents

While I agree Icon's marketing may cause problems, I don't believe there's enough evidence, yet, that safety is being impacted. There have been five known accidents, and that isn't enough data to establish a trend. Only one of those is clearly a reflection on Icon's marketing. That's 20%, but it's still only one accident.

If you look at the first five RV-8 accidents, one was wing failure and one was an inflight fire (pilot jumped without a parachute). That's a 20% structural failure rate AND a 20% in-flight-fire rate. Yet the statistics averaged out over time, proving these were flukes. Five accidents is just not enough of a statistical base; I normally use 50 as a minimum for my homebuilt accident analysis.

As the Icon is being marketed as a "starter" airplane, eventually, I think the statistics will eventually show a higher-than-average rate of accidents due to the pilot's mishandling the controls, just like other production basic aircraft have similar elevated rates. That's due to pilot inexperience, not marketing.

WILL we see higher rates due to "Hot Dogging"? Perhaps. But too early to tell.

Ron Wanttaja

 

[Silvaire]

Yes, I'm with most of you concerning Icon's marketing shtick but let's not blame the airplane. It's a pretty slick piece of kit that I think a lot of people put their heart into developing and despite appearances I don't think any of them had any ill intent with their promotional methods.

 

[Tantalum]

Thanks @wanttaja from a statistical standpoint I agree with you, but there is a TON of evidence that this plane is marketed as a low flying, highly maneuverable, do anything starter toy with only 20 hrs required to fly it.. I know in reality many of the pilots have a lot of time, but the point is that they're advocating inherently risky flying tactics and not backing it up with the required training or disciplinary backbone. When almost half of the accidents so far has by their own employees (or people affiliated) flying into box canyons or having low altitude crashes this shows that the culture as a whole is flawed. The Cirrus and Vans crashes were different since they had different trends and causes. This is kind of like saying "we don't know that space walks without a space suit is dangerous since we don't have enough statistical evidence to prove that walking in space without a suit will kill you.. we need a bigger N"

They grounded all the Max jets after just *2* accidents despite *hundreds* of examples of flying and Boeing has been absolutely raked over the coals over the trim feature. I think 5 accidents out of 100 examples, all following a nearly identical trend (low altitude antics) should be a very strong indicator that something is wrong. I am *NOT* saying the plane should be grounded, but I do think the top brass at Icon needs to overhaul their training program (a la what Cirrus did) and get ahead of the bus here.

So far they've not only been silent, but continue to advocate, what is, honestly, poor flying, poor ADM, and poor judgement among what should be a professional sport

They're (Icon) basically telling you to fly this plane in direct violation FAR 91.13

 

[Weekend Warrior]

Thanks @wanttaja from a statistical standpoint I agree with you, but there is a TON of evidence that this plane is marketed as a low flying, highly maneuverable, do anything starter toy with only 20 hrs required to fly it.. I know in reality many of the pilots have a lot of time, but the point is that they're advocating inherently risky flying tactics and not backing it up with the required training or disciplinary backbone. When almost half of the accidents so far has by their own employees (or people affiliated) flying into box canyons or having low altitude crashes this shows that the culture as a whole is flawed. The Cirrus and Vans crashes were different since they had different trends and causes. This is kind of like saying "we don't know that space walks without a space suit is dangerous since we don't have enough statistical evidence to prove that walking in space without a suit will kill you.. we need a bigger N"

They grounded all the Max jets after just *2* accidents despite *hundreds* of examples of flying and Boeing has been absolutely raked over the coals over the trim feature. I think 5 accidents out of 100 examples, all following a nearly identical trend (low altitude antics) should be a very strong indicator that something is wrong. I am *NOT* saying the plane should be grounded, but I do think the top brass at Icon needs to overhaul their training program (a la what Cirrus did) and get ahead of the bus here.

So far they've not only been silent, but continue to advocate, what is, honestly, poor flying, poor ADM, and poor judgement among what should be a professional sport

They're (Icon) basically telling you to fly this plane in direct violation FAR 91.13

Go to their website...I don't think a single video is shot ABOVE 500 feet (or even above 200 feet for that matter).

 

[Brad Smith]

Here is what the editor of FLYING, Steve Pope, said about about the ICON A5 in a 2017 article:

https://sports.yahoo.com/plane-roy-halladay-flying-jet-ski-wings-234327786.html

 

[kgruber]

A5 is a dog. Needs at least 50 more horsepower.

 

[Dan Thomas]

Sometimes I think part of it is how it works out for a lot of folks that the theory and practice are covered by separate instructors. The theory is more addressed by the written, and lots of folks rely on the various test prep services which end up encouraging rote memorization more than developing a deep understanding. The actual flight instructor spends more time on teaching the mechanics of the actual flying along with navigation, pattern work, preparing for the practical, etc. Not as much on the theory of aerodynamics. And now, with the scenario based training, there’s maybe less of an emphasis on the basics and more on the systems? Not sure the new ACS stuff is a good thing either. Slow flight that’s not, stall training that isn’t, etc. Leads to accidents like this one, in my opinion.

One of the Seven Learning Factors is Intensity. Teaching "stalls" by recovering before the a wing or the nose actually drops is not meeting the standards of Intensity. Teaching slow flight without stalling out of it at least once isn't too intense, either.

From https://www.tc.gc.ca/eng/civilaviat...5494.htm#part-i-learning-and-learning-factors

(e) INTENSITY - Use dramatic, realistic or unexpected things, as they are long remembered.

 

[Dan Thomas]

The "downwind turn" isn't all myth. While the airplane doesn't have any idea what the ground is doing the pilot certainly does and at low altitude in a strong wind this is a very powerful visual force. If you are in a perfectly coordinated turn your path across the ground in relation to the nose of your aircraft is going to look all wrong and if you are concentrating on objects on the ground (such as trees you are about to hit) you can easily get all jacked up and maybe even ignore the simple slip indicator and that fancy AOA you've got right there in front of you. It has happened to seasoned pilots, not just noobies.

Doesn't the FAA have Illusions Created by Drift as part of the training syllabus?

 

[Tantalum]

Here is what the editor of FLYING, Steve Pope, said about about the ICON A5 in a 2017 article:

..and after that accident everyone in my office was questioning me about flying.. I had to speak to a reckless company's standards as if they represented all of GA

PS, the Flying dude hit the nail on the head here.. but that doesn't stop them from glamorizing the plane every few magazines, their most recent magazine featured it on their cover with a glowing review

"marketing the airplane designed to be a flying toy... seems like a recipe for disaster" <- and indeed we're seeing that now. Looks like they haven't learned anything still, and continue to fly this plane low and near the edge of its envelope in a type of Titanic-Infallibility-Syndrome. It's obvious from the video that the flight was going to end poorly... well, obvious to everyone but the salesman flying the plane on board and all the folks at Icon. After all, it's just a toy, a jet ski with wings, right?! What can possibly go wrong /S .. hell a NASA engineer even helped design the wings!

 

[Tantalum]

PS... not to pile on.. but their GLASSDOOR rating is a complete disaster. Mind you... many companies don't have the best GLASSDOOR ratings, but compare them to Textron Systems with an 88% CEO approval rating (vs 28% for Icon) and a 3.3 overall rating.. or Piper with a 2.8 rating and 51% CEO approval, or Cirrus with the highest at 3.6 rating (but oddly no CEO approval, likely because they just got a new CEO)

The company has lots of issues.. it's too bad a great design is doomed by crappy management

 

[wanttaja]

Thanks @wanttaja from a statistical standpoint I agree with you, but there is a TON of evidence that this plane is marketed as a low flying, highly maneuverable, do anything starter toy with only 20 hrs required to fly it.

Oh, there's no argument from me...I know it's being basically promoted as an aerial jet ski.

What I'm unsure of is how much of an eventual impact on the safety rate. Flying an aircraft...even one specifically intended for low-experience pilots...isn't all that easy. I think most of the risk-takers don't want to get instruction of ANY sort, regardless of the type of conveyance. Show them how to start the engine, show them where to set their phones for the best selfies, and wave bye-bye as they skitter off into the blogosphere.

Airplanes aren't like that. It *does* take instruction, there *are* fundamental concepts the operator needs to learn, and instincts to acquire. Twitter Tommy may think he's going to be able to step into his new Icon and yank and bank with abandon and fly like the Blue Angels, but he'll be disabused quickly. And maybe quickly lose interest.

And let me gently point out that there IS no regulatory minimum flight time required for flying most GA aircraft...Cessnas and Pipers included. All it takes is a solo sign-off from a CFI. The 20-hour Sport Pilot requirement is for carrying passengers, not for flying the aircraft. My ~2300-accident database of Cessna 172 accidents include over 500 with students as the PIC, including 70 with 20 or fewer hours. Nothing keeps Twitter Tommy from taking ten hours of instruction in a Cirrus and never speaking to an instructor again....

Ron Wanttaja

 

[Tantalum]

show them where to set their phones for the best selfies, and wave bye-bye as they skitter off into the blogosphere.

Airplanes aren't like that. It *does* take instruction, there *are* fundamental concepts the operator needs to learn, and instincts to acquire. Twitter Tommy may think he's going to be able to step into his new Icon and yank and bank with abandon and fly like the Blue Angels

..and people like that should stick to drones, Fornite, selfies, and the #Instagram

One of the CEO's (original) dreams was to make flying fun, affordable, and accessible to more people. He recognized many of the things we've also picked up on these threads.. that getting your PPL is beyond the attention span of most of today's generation and is expensive, and honestly cruising around at 110 knots in a 172 gets boring. The Icon sought to address and answer all of these elements, commendably. They ultimately missed the mark on price (unfortunately) and in their effort to market something fun they've ended up creating a crash-prone rich person's toy..

Oh well.. when they eventually go out of business for one reason or another hopefully someone picks up the design and can resurrect what should, otherwise, be a great plane

 

[zaitcev]

"marketing the airplane designed to be a flying toy... seems like a recipe for disaster" <- and indeed we're seeing that now.

No, we're not, and Ron explained it to you why. You then pretended to agree, and immediately continued spewing your hat... er... continued making the same point you did for a dozen messages already.

 

[Tantalum]

Okay one more post then I have to go back to work!
But can you imagine seeing this view out your 172 / Cirrus / Piper window? How is this not in violation of FAR 91.13?

From TheDrive, which incidentally after Jalopnik went off the deep end is a pretty solid motorsports website:
https://www.thedrive.com/tech/23019...ng-into-what-the-future-of-mobility-should-be
"This sort of freewheeling experience is precisely what former Air Force F-16pilot and Icon founder Kirk Hawkins envisioned" - oh dear God I never thought, after all the training we got about safety, ADM, "IMSAFE" etc., that we would be advocating a type of flying that is "freewheeling"

 

[Tantalum]

No, we're not, and Ron explained it to you why. You then pretended to agree, and immediately continued spewing your hat... er... continued making the same point you did for a dozen messages already.

'
If you don't see any issues with how they're pushing their product then we'll have to agree to disagree. Statistically 5/100 is not a trend, nor is 2/400.. but people need to look at all factors

 

[deyoung]

they've ended up creating a crash-prone rich person's toy..

Well, to quibble slightly, it does appear that it's not the toy that is crash-prone, but rather the rich person...

 

[Palmpilot]

...a crash-prone rich person's toy....

It's interesting that one of the ways that phrase could be interpreted is "toy for a crash-prone rich person."

 

[Tantalum]

but rather the rich person

I'll agree, but the way to fix that is a better program. Bonanza / Cirrus / MU2 are no longer "dangerous" planes to fly. Nor should the Icon. It's all about how you market, train, and develop a product

 

[Palmpilot]

Well, to quibble slightly, it does appear that it's not the toy that is crash-prone, but rather the rich person...

"Great minds minds think alike."

 

[SoonerAviator]

I know nothing about seaplanes, but.... why did they take off directly towards tall trees?

Well, they take off preferably into the wind, and in a direction on the body of water which allows for sufficient runway length. Better planning from the pilot/salesman would have taken those factors into consideration to choose a route which had a larger margin for error.

 

[FastEddieB]

But can you imagine seeing this view out your 172 / Cirrus / Piper window? How is this not in violation of FAR 91.13?
View attachment 76441

I’m personally at a loss seeing what’s wrong with that view.

 

[Tantalum]

I’m personally at a loss seeing what’s wrong with that view.

Back when I was on Facebook I posted something sort of similar on our club's FB page doing the bay tour here in San Diego.. ATC has you fly that, occasionally "at or below 500" - you can get some killer views.. but the majority of comments ridiculed that type of flying for a host of reasons

Whatever, to each their own. I think their approach and marketing is flawed, and these accidents (to me) seem to prove that