Icon's lead test pilot killed in A5 accident

[Redneck_pilot86]

Probably easy to do. I suppose in this particular case, one could do a couple of fly-by's at 90 degrees to the entrance to make sure that It is safe. There must be some experienced guys who flew VFR in the Rockies...what were your techniques.

I did one course out in BC and the same sort of thing almost got done.Should be doing another course this month.

I don't have a huge amount of experience in the mountains, but the general idea is to *not* fly low up valleys. You either fly near the peaks where you have a good view ahead and more options, or else have enough height and horizontal space to be able to turn around. Low flying in the mountains is generally risky and mostly unnecessary...that's how Sparky Imeson and Steve Fossett died. (If your job is to fly in all weather in the mountains, you'll hopefully be highly experienced at mountain flying, and you'll accept the increased risks).

If you want to see people flying on the very edge of what is safe in the mountains, Everest Rescue is a good show to watch (on Discovery...if you have Shaw it will be in the on-demand page).

There are two types of low weather flying in the mountains. You can have low ceilings and good vis underneath, in which case you followrivers/vallleys, sticking to one side so that you don't have to think about which way to turn if a 180 is needed, and as high as you can. You never head up a canyon without knowing the elevation of the pass at the top, and if you are unable to attain or maintain an altitude suitable for crossing it, you turn around, try another pass or go home.
The other possibility is low vis in high ceilings - smoke is a common one, or ice crystals, occasionally precipitation. In this case, you can fly closer to direct lines but should always know where the higher terrain is in relation to your position, and where the low terrain is. As you approach a saddle, make your approach angle as shallow as possible with the intent of not making it through (turning back should be the plan, getting through should be the surprise, not the other way around) If you get up close and see decent enough weather on the other side, you can continue on your track. If you don't, go home.
As the elevation of the passes you are trying to navigate increases, the performance of your aircraft decreases. Just because something works in a 2000' pass does not mean it will work at 4000'. Always have an out, and don't rely on extreme maneuvring to take it. The trip will still be there tomorrow.

[anofly]

Well they thought they could make the turn no doubt, but maybe a Landing straight ahead in the remaining arm would have been more adviseable, in hindsight.... I dont think the sea doo with wings is gonna work long term. Man there are a lot of wires, antennas, and stuff in the air down low these days.
I was not there.....

[Victory]

Unfortunately Roy Halladay was just killed in his Icon A5 that he purchased a few weeks ago. He was the pilot and only occupant.

http://kwese.espn.com/mlb/story/_/id/21 ... ulf-mexico

[pdw]

https://www.avweb.com/avwebflash/news/N ... 482-1.html

The NTSB on Tuesday released its final report on the Icon A5 crash on May 8 ...

... They did report that in examining the wreckage, they found that the ballistic parachute handle was partially extended, and the pin was removed.

A smart test pilot would always keep the chute on the ready when one is available . . .

The report states it’s “likely that the pilot mistakenly thought the canyon that he entered was a different canyon that led to the larger, open portion of the lake.” Also, the report continues, “it is likely that, once the pilot realized there was no exit from the canyon, he attempted to perform a 180-degree left turn to exit in the direction from which he entered.”

" Mistakenly " turning North up the little canyon ? (FYI this is in the canyons at the south/southeast end of Lake Berryessa)

Why not land and then reverse course (if that's true) and not turnable. Also, what's a poor component (turn illusion) going to add to the diameter of the above turning circle at the lowest level of the canyon there against the west face .. with 7-10kts NW/NNW going on higher up above the canyon floor at that end of the lake as the alleged turn back SOUTH is nearly complete (3-5 nearest wx-station histories ie East Lake Berryessa/Spanish Flat Mobile Villa).

A longtime test pilot does have a lot of hours experience . . .

EDIT:
The warm/dry air comes in overhead just at 9am / KVCB (southeast of accident site); CALM / 10degC during flight planning and 5kts NE 15degC while enroute to test site / southeast Berryessa. 23C deg 10ktG17kts North at VCB / homebase (closest wx record after the accident) ... suggests increased downwind situation prevailing where crash occurs turning thru west to south .. using GyvAir's turning diameter illustration.

This tragedy could also be a full power on accident simialr to the description of the nonfatal April accident (pilot's own description of shear event).
According to the promotional videos, a stall descent rate of this AC is comparable to the decent-rate of a parachute; YES, except how will that hold true when aiming the nose down to get out of it or when adding full power during such stall onset ... will that not end up in a faster nosedive at first ?

[pelmet]

From their website.....

"ICON Low Altitude Definition

ICON considers flights below 300' AGL as operating in the "low altitude" environment for the ICON A5 aircraft. What is "low" is relative to an aircraft's speed, turning ability, climb performance, as well as each pilot's ability and reaction time. Given the A5's excellent handling qualities, Spin-Resistant Airframe, slow flying speeds, and tight turning radius, 300' AGL provides a reasonable margin for a pilot to make decisions and maneuver the aircraft away from terrain or stationary hazards that are visibly detected based on environmental conditions, initial aircraft conditions, and proper pilot inputs. At 300' AGL while level at normal flying speeds, the A5 is also able to execute an engine-out, 180-degree turn to a landing under normal conditions with proper pilot inputs.

Soft-Deck Maneuvering

The use of a soft deck is central to ICON's Lowalt flying philosophy. The idea is that when in the low altitude environment, the PIC should shift a significant portion of their attention to terrain and obstacle avoidance (like towers, power lines, etc.) while also maneuvering more benignly. This conscious shift should be observed below a prescribed altitude or "soft deck." While good judgment and airmanship always takes precedence over any guidelines, the following maneuvering limits should generally be observed:

Above Soft Deck: Normal, non-aerobatic maneuvering (+/- 60 bank +/- 30 pitch)*
Below Soft Deck: Benign maneuvering (+/- 45 bank +/- 10 pitch)"

https://www.iconaircraft.com/flight-cen ... w-altitude

Seems ridiculous to me.

[CpnCrunch]

Seems ridiculous to me.

Me too. They really only have themselves to blame for Roy Halliday's crash, as this just encourages low time pilots to get themselves killed.

[pdw]

This thread's pilot was a high time pilot. On the previous page of this thread, GyvAir shows the 750' turning circle on a graph illustration .. when only 450' is required. This leads me to understand that it could so easily have been a turn illusion (looks doable but is not) if halfway through the turn got into increasing downwind against the west face of "Little Portuguese Canyon" (the location of the tragedy).

The Icon stalls at 45kts (39kts with 30deg flap / report) and the investigation reveals that on impact it was doing 66kts. Prior to the left circling turn toward the west face ..turned slightly right .. a bit east first ..when at 54kts .. as if to take advantage of the available width for a maximum turning space.

As with the non fatal water-impact (shear) accident on April 1st six weeks earlier, the collison May 8 with terrain (this synopsis) is also during highest power application.

[pdw]

this just encourages low time pilots to get themselves killed.

This sure seems obvious as one follows the story line ..

There's so many commenting that there is advertising which seems "encourages" meandering so close to the surfaces and sometimes with the temptation into steeper maneuvring that appears precarious; so the concern is obvious, that fearfully a higher accident-rate could be in it's infancy and only beginning to pile up.

A fact to their credit, the Icon company promotions are using flap properly and their website does advocate to adhere to "proper flying techniques". In the very first accident, flap is admittedly not used when needed in a "windshift/shear" (pilot admission / NTSB report April 1/2017). The meteorology fact determined there is prime example of something unforseen that can catch off-guard esp in distraction at low level; like that going on in wx history for this stalling event (this tread topic/ Little Portuguese Canyon) now determined to be 'insufficient turning arc/height'. Was it the first time into that Canyon, .. really ?

If an increased/increasing groundspeed (IAS bleed) of unusually stronger tailwind was truly going on past the halfway-point of this turning-circle as it arced over to the opposite/lee surface of the canyon into a southerly heading during a northwind increase (to NNW), it's easily calculable to prove exactly how significant that was when using the local/available wx history/component-data and NTSB-report's aircraft speed-data.

[PilotDAR]

It is true that an unexpected change in wind direction, the use or not of flaps, or the misunderstanding/awareness of stall speed may be factors in an accident. However, if any of those factors become causal in that accident, the pilot had already got themselves into a really bad place.

Pilots flying water aircraft must approach any over water or maneuvering type flying with a very different mindset than "land" pilots. There is a misconceived sense of freedom flying over the water, seemingly away from "airport" or other airspace which is overseen, allowing some freedom in maneuvering which is not there for landplane pilots - wrong! It is alarmingly easy to misjudge distance/altitude/attitude over water, or in canyon environments. 300 feet is nothing to an error in judgement, easy miss. Maneuvering an aircraft to within 300 feet of anything beyond the centerline of a runway is sadly difficult for most pilots. So a pilot who flies into a situation where his required precision for separation is 300 feet is a fool. They're already in too deep to receive the benefit of wind awareness, flap position, or stall speed awareness.

Stall speed is G dependent. A pilot who gets them self into trouble maneuvering in a tight area, or low altitude is going to pull. Pulling increases G, and stall speed. I defy a pilot to tell me the stall speed of their aircraft while they are pulling G, and not having a G meter - guesswork at best, complete unknown more likely.

It is not possible to prevent an accident by assuring that the pilot is aware and attentive to the winds, flap position, or stall speed, and yet they're ignoring the danger of their confined maneuvering environment. The pilot is going to have the accident anyway. A confined maneuvering environment may be simply low altitude, and nothing more. I do not have a table for a "safe" bank angle for 300 feet altitude, but 45 degree is not it for a low experience pilot. The fact that an aircraft manufacturer seems to normalize it does not make it safe. Enough training to begin to make a pilot safe doing this would most likely make that pilot afraid of doing it!

So, new, low experience pilots, particularly of water aircraft , do not think that you can low fly and maneuver at low altitude, and into canyons - doing that is dangerous. There are a number of accidents to prove this, and although the reports might mention winds, flap position, or stall speed, it is unlikely that these are causal factors, but low altitude ('could be because of low ceiling), confined areas, and aggressive maneuvering are often reported as factors. Pilots who survive, spend a lot of time overflying landing or maneuvering areas at altitude, and formulating safety plans. They conduct any maneuvering at a suitably high altitude, fly something like a circuit to approach for landing, and do not fly near the stall speed, much less increase it by pulling G.

There may be something like a jetski with wings, but such a machine has no business being maneuvered in three dimensions like a jetski. A pilot who flies such an aircraft as though it is a fighter is immature. If a pilot would like to fly aggressive maneuvering, there are aircraft designed for that - they don't land on the water. Pilots must make their choice: Low maneuvering, cautious at all times, careful landing on the water, of tumbling in the mirth at altitude in a plane designed to do it, with a G meter!

[Cat Driver]

Pilots must make their choice: Low maneuvering, cautious at all times, careful landing on the water, of tumbling in the mirth at altitude in a plane designed to do it, with a G meter!

Or even better with an AOA indicator.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DCerL8ljRwk

[confusedalot]

Nice to see that some know their aerodynamics. Many of the drones I flew with quickly forgot the basics but were real good at spotting the dots and comma's of an SOP.

[pelmet]

NTSB report here.....
https://ntsb.gov/_layouts/ntsb.aviation ... 101&akey=1

This is the docket with additional info.....
https://dms.ntsb.gov/pubdms/search/hitl ... B01AEAC78A

It is interesting to note that there was a parachute onboard like the Cirrus aircraft have. That could save the day in a situation like this where a collision is unavoidable. Pull the chute. Instinct says to try to fly out of a bad situation. In my Cirrus training I have had the engine power pulled to idle and after going through the motions for a restart, I selected a field to land in at which point the instructor told me what I should be doing....pull the chute. Hadn't even thought of it. Neither did the pilot of the Icon.

[PilotDAR]

That could save the day in a situation like this where a collision is unavoidable.

From 150 feet above the water surface, where collision with terrain is immanent? I don't think a parachute will be of much use (unless you open it in front of you like an airbag!). The information in the report seems to confirm that the pilot was flying in a manner endorsed on the ICON website - low altitude, and maneuvering - without an exit plan from a blind canyon. There really has to be a "don't do that stuff" lesson in this for any wise pilot.

and the manner of death was "accident."

I think I'd say that the manner of death was "collision". Perhaps it was an accident, though an experienced pilot should not have got himself into this situation, was entirely accidental that this was the outcome?

I would be embarrassed to admit to my colleagues that I'd been flying like that.

[pelmet]

That could save the day in a situation like this where a collision is unavoidable.

From 150 feet above the water surface, where collision with terrain is immanent? I don't think a parachute will be of much use (unless you open it in front of you like an airbag!).

At some point they realized they were going to die. Pulling the chute can’t make it any worse and might just slow you down enough to survive. If it doesn’t work, nothing more is lost.

[PilotDAR]

Pulling the chute can’t make it any worse and might just slow you down enough to survive. If it doesn’t work, nothing more is lost.

I suppose..... But it would be so much better if pilots flew normal category certified aircraft in such a way that a parachute was not even in their thinking as an emergency system.