Icon A5 down....

bbchien

bbchien

Touchdown! Greaser!
Joined
Feb 13, 2005
Messages
13,366
Location
Bolingbrook, IL
Display Name
Display name:
Bruce C
I’ve been gettin ICON promotional email all week. 120 mins ago, on repeat of two crashed in the woods about a mile N of KPWK, inbound. Pilot radioed the tower that he was down.... pand was taken to the hospital about 30 minutes ago....

Guess there’s not gonna be a promotional tour this weekend......
 
Glad the pilot made it. Wonder what happened to down the Icon A5. They’ve had a string of mishaps, unfortunately.
 
Anybody know how many of those things are in service? Wikipedia says there were 90 built as of January. Am I right in thinking that four losses out of 90 is a lot?
 
Last edited:
A picture supposedly shows the pilot walking out of the woods wearing his sunglasses... at night.

upload_2019-7-12_6-15-15.jpeg


I wonder if he pulled the chute.
 
Palmpilot said:
Anybody know how many of those things are in service? Wikipedia says there were 90 built as of January. Am I right in thinking that four losses out of 90 is a lot?
Click to expand...

Their last email said they shipped their 100th Icon recently.
 
Palmpilot said:
Anybody know how many of those things are in service? Wikipedia says there were 90 built as of January. Am I right in thinking that four losses out of 90 is a lot?
Click to expand...
Actually, compared to the STS and Concorde, it's pretty good.
Edit: Different ways to wreck an Icon:
Land in water with gear down (flipped)
Hard landing in water, cracking fuselage (may have happened to more than one A5)
Semi-aerobatic maneuvers close to water (with drugs in your system)
Flying up box canyon (factory pilot and new hire killed)
This latest one ... some new cause. Out of gas?
So far, no real failures of the plane itself, TBD on the last one.
 
Last edited:
Last edited:
Attached is a printout from the FAA's preliminary reports page. Excerpt:

"PILOT DECLARED MINIMUM FUEL INBOUND TO LAND RWY 16 AND SUBSEQUENTLY CRASHED IN A WOODED AREA APPROXIMATELY 1.3NM NE OF AIRPORT (PWK)."​
 

Attachments

  • N83BA.pdf
    174.5 KB · Views: 305
Palmpilot said:
Anybody know how many of those things are in service? Wikipedia says there were 90 built as of January. Am I right in thinking that four losses out of 90 is a lot?
Click to expand...
My January 2019 FAA Registry shows 81 on the active list, with another five shown as deregistered. This (of course) wouldn't show additional aircraft that were exported to other countries.

The Icon is an amphibian, and small amphibians generally have an elevated accident rate (One small homebuilt amphib has a fleet accident rate about equal to that of the Lancair IV). If you look at the previous Icon accidents, they all happened either on the water or very close to it. There doesn't seem to be any direct contribution of the aircraft to the accidents...all were related to the pilot's decision-making.

Ron Wanttaja
 
frfly172 said:
May have to do with insufficient pilot trainig
Click to expand...
Certainly. But of the three previous Icon accidents, one pilot had over 8,000 hours, and another had over 4,000.

The first case was a hard landing (on water). The pilot had 175 hours in type. The second involved a mistaken turn up the wrong canyon and a stall when attempting to turn around. That pilot 595 hours on the Icon (and, in fact, was a company pilot).

The third case involved needless maneuvering at low altitude....700 hours total time, 50 on the Icon.

So all were probably past the stage that more-involved training would have had an effect.

This latest one *may* be related to the reported low fuel state. Unless it was related to fuel management vs. just stretching the range, training probably wouldn't have helped there, either.

Ron Wanttaja
 
wanttaja said:
The Icon is an amphibian, and small amphibians generally have an elevated accident rate (One small homebuilt amphib has a fleet accident rate about equal to that of the Lancair IV). If you look at the previous Icon accidents, they all happened either on the water or very close to it.
Click to expand...

Interesting. Do you have any information on how the accident rate would compare between the homebuilt amphibians and factory built ones?
 
frfly172 said:
May have to do with insufficient pilot trainig
Click to expand...
That's been my biggest problem with Icon, the boastful advertising that all you need is 20 hrs of training and you can tool around doing low level stunts in a flying jetski
 
wanttaja said:
Certainly. But of the three previous Icon accidents, one pilot had over 8,000 hours, and another had over 4,000.

The first case was a hard landing (on water). The pilot had 175 hours in type. The second involved a mistaken turn up the wrong canyon and a stall when attempting to turn around. That pilot 595 hours on the Icon (and, in fact, was a company pilot).

The third case involved needless maneuvering at low altitude....700 hours total time, 50 on the Icon.

So all were probably past the stage that more-involved training would have had an effect.

This latest one *may* be related to the reported low fuel state. Unless it was related to fuel management vs. just stretching the range, training probably wouldn't have helped there, either.

Ron Wanttaja
Click to expand...
Quality versus quantity. I believe a 100-hour pilot with a 10-hour proper CSIP transition course will be safer than a 5,000 pilot who does not take the course

A big part of Icon's issue is that they're marketing these things as toys.. so the whole training and flying mindset is completely different, and frankly, instigates reckless behavior
 
Tantalum said:
Quality versus quantity. I believe a 100-hour pilot with a 10-hour proper CSIP transition course will be safer than a 5,000 pilot who does not take the course

A big part of Icon's issue is that they're marketing these things as toys.. so the whole training and flying mindset is completely different, and frankly, instigates reckless behavior
Click to expand...
After you get that 5000 hours in your logbook let me know if you still think this statement is accurate.
 
Tantalum said:
That's been my biggest problem with Icon, the boastful advertising that all you need is 20 hrs of training and you can tool around doing low level stunts in a flying jetski
Click to expand...
Well, you can do exactly that. Safely? Another question. How many car ads have "professional driver on closed course" as a disclaimer?
I don't believe that they are getting many ab initio takers.
 
mondtster said:
Interesting. Do you have any information on how the accident rate would compare between the homebuilt amphibians and factory built ones?
Click to expand...
I ran a *quick* look at the Lake Amphibian statistics for the 1998-2017 time period my homebuilt database runs. The Fleet Accident Rate for the Lake was about the same as that homebuilt amphib. Almost twice that of the Cessna 172.

Ron Wanttaja
 
Tarheelpilot said:
After you get that 5000 hours in your logbook let me know if you still think this statement is accurate.
Click to expand...
Not all flying is equal, and 5,000 hrs in one plane does not translate. There'v been 10,000 hr airline pilots take off with control locks in place, and there have been evidence found (I think Peter Garrison wrote at least a couple articles on it) that super high time can also lead to complacency, hubris, etc. So raw hours does not someone make safe. It's a good indicator, but it's not the whole thing

I'll tell you what, if I get 5,000 hrs and I assume I'm safer than someone with 1,000 hrs then that should be a redflag

The Icon, as an airplane, should be very safe, state of the art wing, modern design, etc., yet we're finding it isn't.. and we're finding that many of the accidents are from people with a lot of time. That to me has a training issue written all over it. Accident rates have turned around with other planes before, not just Cirrus, but the MU2, and I'm sure there are others, from just stronger training
 
Tantalum said:
Not all flying is equal, and 5,000 hrs in one plane does not translate. There'v been 10,000 hr airline pilots take off with control locks in place, and there have been evidence found (I think Peter Garrison wrote at least a couple articles on it) that super high time can also lead to complacency, hubris, etc. So raw hours does not someone make safe. It's a good indicator, but it's not the whole thing

I'll tell you what, if I get 5,000 hrs and I assume I'm safer than someone with 1,000 hrs then that should be a redflag

The Icon, as an airplane, should be very safe, state of the art wing, modern design, etc., yet we're finding it isn't.. and we're finding that many of the accidents are from people with a lot of time. That to me has a training issue written all over it. Accident rates have turned around with other planes before, not just Cirrus, but the MU2, and I'm sure there are others, from just stronger training
Click to expand...

i tell you what... if you assume that a 110 TT pilot with 10 hours of type training is safer than a 5000 hour pilot without the 10 hours you are doing exactly what you are telling me I should not do.. make assumptions based on what's in a log book. That 10 hours of training will not help any pilot, regardless of experience, if they have unsafe attitudes. You are making lots of assumptions. Ill quote your post again:

Tantalum said:
Quality versus quantity. I believe a 100-hour pilot with a 10-hour proper CSIP transition course will be safer than a 5,000 pilot who does not take the course

A big part of Icon's issue is that they're marketing these things as toys.. so the whole training and flying mindset is completely different, and frankly, instigates reckless behavior
Click to expand...

You did not attach any qualifiers to your "5000 hour pilot" it was just a blanket statement. As far as your 10,000 hour airline pilot flying taking off with the controls locked... well big surprise. No amount of flight time makes one immune from error. I bet you could find solo'd students and 20,000 hour pilots that have done the same thing.

Type training is not some kind of magic elixir that can replace 4890 hours of experience. Furthermore it ignores some basic things intrinsic in the human factors behind how we operate as airmen. What will you do when faced with the need to gain proficiency in a single seat aircraft that has no training support of any kind?

To summarize, if your initial post was trying to say that a 110 hour pilot with type training is safer than an arrogant, negligent, self righteous prick with 5000 hours then i would not only agree but be willing to go a step further and say that any pilot, regardless of experience, is safer than any pilot, regardless of experience, which has those personality traits.

If you think that two pilots of equal discretion regarding attitude and professionalism will fit your initial statement then I very much disagree.
 
wanttaja said:
I ran a *quick* look at the Lake Amphibian statistics for the 1998-2017 time period my homebuilt database runs. The Fleet Accident Rate for the Lake was about the same as that homebuilt amphib. Almost twice that of the Cessna 172.

Ron Wanttaja
Click to expand...

That’s what I was going to guess. Thanks!
 
IMO, there's also a difference between 1 hour flown over and over again 5000 times and 500 hours of varied practice honing skills. The repeated hour over and over applies to both professional pilots that fly one type, take-off, set the A/P, and land as well as the local flyer that flies the same airplane to the same airport for a burger twice a week. Just my opinion.

Hours are just plain meaningless to use as a metric for the most part.
 
Clearly I triggered someone..

yes, a pilot without any type of type training in a specific model is going to be less safe than a pilot with type training in that model.. that's the whole point of type training

pipe training, at least when I took it, also spoke heavily to attitudes, it's not just sitting in a different airplane and doing the same stuff
 
So....
Possible fuel starvation ended up short of the runway, thankful to be alive.

Wonder if bad weather diverting caused the pilot to miscalculate his fuel requirements?
 
The local composite shop has two of them on the floor right now. One was the one that was landed gear-up at PDK. It has been repaired, but is back because it bumped a dock and punched a hole in the nose (small hole, minor repair). The other one is a second one which someone landed gear up.

Adding retractable gear to an LSA may not be the way to go...
 
kyleb said:
The local composite shop has two of them on the floor right now. One was the one that was landed gear-up at PDK. It has been repaired, but is back because it bumped a dock and punched a hole in the nose (small hole, minor repair). The other one is a second one which someone landed gear up.

Adding retractable gear to an LSA may not be the way to go...
Click to expand...

Sounds expensive to keep that one that likes to break stuff in the air!!
 
Salty said:
IMO, there's also a difference between 1 hour flown over and over again 5000 times and 500 hours of varied practice honing skills. The repeated hour over and over applies to both professional pilots that fly one type, take-off, set the A/P, and land as well as the local flyer that flies the same airplane to the same airport for a burger twice a week. Just my opinion.

Hours are just plain meaningless to use as a metric for the most part.
Click to expand...
If you think airline flying is the same hour being flown over & over, I would love for you to ride in my jumpseat.

I admit, every now & then I get a pretty mundane flight, but more often than not there is a wrench thrown into the mix.
 
Salty said:
Hours are just plain meaningless to use as a metric for the most part.
Click to expand...

Thank you.

Nothing is more infuriating than someone that uses a quantity of hours for validation. There is something to be said for experience but just because you may have been doing something wrong for 10,000 hours it does not somehow make it more right!
 
Shawn said:
Thank you.

Nothing is more infuriating than someone that uses a quantity of hours for validation. There is something to be said for experience but just because you have been doing something wrong for 10,000 hours it does not somehow make it more right!
Click to expand...
But let’s not forget... the pro who has 10000+ hours has been through rigorous training on a regular basis. The odds of repeatedly doing something terribly wrong after that many years of training are small.
 
Kritchlow said:
But let’s not forget... the pro who has 10000+ hours has been through rigorous training on a regular basis. The odds of repeatedly doing something terribly wrong after that many years of training are small.
Click to expand...

Not necessarily.

I had a 10K hour CFII that was all airline hours and now retired and back to put put planes and instructing as a side gig. He "taught" me so many things that were procedurally wrong that were GA related...some even counter to the AIM...I just had to do it his way to get through the training knowing what was correct and not...and double checking the things he DID teach me.
 
Kritchlow said:
If you think airline flying is the same hour being flown over & over, I would love for you to ride in my jumpseat.

I admit, every now & then I get a pretty mundane flight, but more often than not there is a wrench thrown into the mix.
Click to expand...

As I said, it can apply to professional pilots. There are pro pilots out there that just bus drivers. Sorry if that offends you, but I know some. They exist. I didn’t say you were one of them, I only said you can’t use hours to determine if you are or not.
 
Shawn said:
Not necessarily.

I had a 10K hour CFII that was all airline hours and now retired and back to put put planes and instructing as a side gig. He "taught" me so many things that were procedurally wrong that were GA related...some even counter to the AIM...I just had to do it his way to get through the training knowing what was correct and not...and double checking the things he DID teach me.
Click to expand...

And you let this person train you? Even KNOWING he was training you wrong, believing you would catch the mistakes AND correct them BEFORE completing a check ride?
 
Tantalum said:
Clearly I triggered someone..

yes, a pilot without any type of type training in a specific model is going to be less safe than a pilot with type training in that model.. that's the whole point of type training

pipe training, at least when I took it, also spoke heavily to attitudes, it's not just sitting in a different airplane and doing the same stuff
Click to expand...
If you were referring to me I wasn’t triggered. I just thought you said something profoundly silly
 
Old Thread: Hello . There have been no replies in this thread for 365 days.
Content in this thread may no longer be relevant.
Perhaps it would be better to start a new thread instead.
Back
Top