The aviation world was rocked Monday when acclaimed aeronautical engineer Jon Karkow and fellow Icon Aircraft employee Cagri Sever died in a crash of an Icon A5 amphibious plane on the shores of Lake Berryessa in Napa, California. The A5, which has received FAA certification but not yet reached market, has been one of the most hotly anticipated aircraft designs in recent years, with its sleek appearance and advanced safety features key selling points.
According to NTSB spokesman Peter Knudson, the flight departed from Nut Tree Airport in Vacaville. Karkow, Icon’s lead test pilot as well a designer, was giving an introductory flight to the newly-hired Sever. A boater on the lake saw the plane flying 30 to 50 feet above the water. It passed into a cove, and the witness heard the engine rev higher as the plane pitched up into a climb. It turned left and passed out of sight. Then the boater heard the crash.
The plane had come to rest on the shore with the left wing in the water and the rest on land.
The cause of the crash was not immediately apparent. There was no fire, and all of the pieces of the plane were accounted for at the crash site. The plane did not strike a power line, as some had feared, given its low altitude.
NTSB investigators are now writing up a preliminary report, to be issued tomorrow or Saturday. (UPDATE: It’s now available here.)
It is of course impossible to understand the cause of a crash without a full investigation. One possible scenario that investigators will likely explore is the possibility that the pilot pulled up too steeply at the edge of the lake and caused an accelerated aerodynamic stall. In this condition a too-high angle between the wing and the relative wind causes the former to abruptly lose lift. At the accident airplane’s low altitude, there would be little room to recover.
It is common practice for floatplanes to climb steeply when transitioning from low-level flight over water to flight over land, in order to avoid hitting obstacles such as powerlines.
The Icon A5, a sleek and sexy sport plane with seats for two, has generated enormous interest in the media, and was nominated for a Collier Trophy last year. More than 1,000 customers have reportedly laid down deposits. But the company has lately been troubled by production problems, and this crash will add significantly to its woes. Apart from the human tragedy, the accident will add expense and delay to the program as the company struggles to address whatever problems caused the crash.
Safety has been one of the primary selling points of the Icon; the company claimed that its design minimized the danger of spinning and stalling. A fatal crash is not a good look—especially if that crash turns out to have been caused by the very aerodynamic condition the plane is supposedly immune from.
If so, the story of Icon will go down as one of the dangers of engineering for safety: as with the Titanic, if you believe that you’re safe from danger, there’s an incentive to flirt with it.
@Jeff
So, despite being poor, I do have rich friends, and they have been asking me about this incident since two of them have deposits on the aircraft. Looking into details from the nearest MESOWEST weather station about 10 miles NorthEast of the crash site, the wind was less than 2mph with gusts less than 5mph at the time of the crash. Temperature was around 60F. In other words, perfect flying conditions. One of these friends who has completed the ICON training program tells me that the A5 is very uncomfortable to fly in wind speeds above 7 knots.
@DennisW, Really?? So interesting. I’ve found the Icon story frankly rather strange from the get go. The plane came in overweight for the Light Sport Aircraft criteria, but they got a waiver on the pretext (if I recall) that it would be extra hard to spin. A lot of the press about the plane has focused on how spins and stalls are a big danger in GA, and that if they can make a plane “spin-resistant” it will save a lot of lives, but I don’t think the statistics really bear that out.
At any rate, it sounds like your friend is saying that the plane is not very stable? Seven knots sure isn’t a lot of wind!
@Jeff
Direct email quote below:
“Winds are ok at up to 7 knots but they suggest you don’t fly it above 10 knots. I took my 3 days of training some months back and they’re right about the winds. You get beat up pretty good above 7.”
@DennisW, Wow, if that’s true, it’s really something. Imagine spending a quarter million on a plane that can only carry one passenger and can’t be flown safely and comfortably on any but the calmest days. That’s going to spend a lot of time in the hangar…
@Jeff
Just a messenger in this case. I don’t really have clue what the private aviation market is all about. My close friend group is all into that, and racing motorcycles. I am only interested in the racing motorcycle part.
Certainly, this is a setback for ICON and their investors, as you pointed out.
The 10 knot limit must be for new seaplane pilots. Whitecaps form at about 13 knots. There are some very calm mornings but what about the rest of the day.
@Jeff
My take on it.
http://tmex1.blogspot.com/2017/05/icon-a5-lake-berryessa-crash.html
I’d take that pilot report with a huge grain of salt. I flew it in early March in Tampa with the winds 12G18 and did 5 water landings and 3 at the airport. No big deal.
Of course I wouldn’t recommend that with someone who’s new to flying and hasn’t spent a good bit of time down low with performance aircraft. Hey, it’s an LSA, not a Boeing!
Huge fun for sure!
@Zman
I’m sure about the fun factor. Like I said, I am steering clear of general aviation. It would not have a happy ending for me.
1> I tend to be reckless and generally irresponsible.
2> In a recent email conversation on stuff we own it turned out that between vehicles, motorcycles, chain saws, walk behind mowers, zero turn mowers, tractors, water pumps, air compressors, log splitters, generators, and leaf blowers that I have 47 things that run on internal combustion. Honest to god. I am not making that up.
No way I am going to add an airplane or two that mess.
@Zman
Forgot about weed whackers and ranch quads above.
@DennisW
Sounds like you can add the EPA to the list of people who already love you for your charming personality. Probably a very wise choice, not adding an aircraft to the mix of your “toy box”.
@Susie
We have solar at both the ranch and beach. Last year I was 250 kW-hrs net return to the grid. I have hero status.
The wind is almost always from the North so my emissions blow into the Bay Area where they can’t do much harm to those people.
@jeff
A colleague suggested looking at fog possibility. Turns out to be likely using weather data from a station closer to the crash site than the station in the NTSB report. Will update later today. A good fit actually.
Even on calm days there can be white squalls.
I think you guys miss the point.
Icon’s ads and videos feature the most seductive and dangerous type of flying: Flat Hatting.
To quote the US Navy:
Flat-Hatting Sense. Flat-Hatting is a form of flying that discourages longevity. Originally the term simply meant flying low needlessly. That definition has been expanded to include grandstanding, or showing off — flying foolishly and carelessly.
Flat-Hatting Sense, USN Training Manual 1944
http://www.aboutww2.com/flat-hatting/flat-hatting.html
@Steve, I hadn’t realized that their marketing promoted that. Yes, it’s an exciting way to fly, and very dangerous. Interestingly, it’s promoting flat-hatting that got my bete-noir John McAfee run out of the country.
@Steve
Yes, I agree, but that is what interesting people do. Why do I run my Ducati at 100 mph+ on Skyline Blvd in the Bay Area or racing it on the track. It is the rush. Other people do fine running their Prius at 50mph in the HOV lane on the freeway. Go figure. It is a personality thing. I would not characterize it as good or bad unless you are the government facing the possibility of replacing a $100M aircraft. Then it is bad.
Oh dear, after all the missed deadlines and purchase contracts issues suffered by this fledgling company this could put all their plans for success into a tailspin. It’s never easy to get a new business off the ground, and this tragic accident could bring their hopes and expectations crashing around their ears – irrespective of what the caused this disaster.
An arduous journey, from proof of concept in 2007, six years with over 700 development flights from 2008 to 2014, to production. It has been a long road for the guys that met at Stanford, they have battled hard to get to this point. It could not get much worse as they now deal with the death of two in the company, one who had been there since the beginning, lost in their own aircraft. Sounds to me like they could really use a break, I hope their investors patiently respect the tragedy for what it is and then carefully weigh the options.
@Susie
What I find so unique about the ICON story is their marketing approach. Unlike other general aviation manufacturers they position the A5 as a toy (think snow mobiles and quads) not a tool. Some 30% of their preorders came from people who have never flown a plane before.
@DennisW, Really good point. Since at least the 1940s, aircraft manufacturers have been marketing planes with the idea that a new model is safe, fun, and easy. It’s really the wrong headspace for people to be starting out in aviation.
So what are Icon’s options if they want to still insist that the plane is safe? Will they (and NTSB) findings report that the crash was the result of pilot error? That’s not good either for the image of a company’s pilot.
DennisW got it right.
Icon pitches the glamour and allure of flight at low altitude as if it were a magic carpet instead of an aircraft along with the idea that anyone with 200k that can drive a car can fly their product safely because, as an amphibian with an AOA and their exclusive stall proof safety features. Give me a break….Caveat Emptor but with a twist…….they target the initiated and make extravagant safety claims that sound good but aren’t backed up by the facts we all learn.
Flat Hatting though is the real thing I object to in their marketing.
Look up Icon on Youtube and I doubt you’ll find a video where the aircraft is more then 200 feet AGL.
Ya…..most of us have flown low across a beach, river or lake……It’s definitely a rush but not safe and promoting that kind of behavior as this aircraft’s raison d’etre to the unitiated is, in my opinion, irresponsible.
@Steve
I absolutely share your point of view. Some years ago I was talking to the Yamaha motorcycle dealer in Red Bluff. Yamaha had just come out with the R1 which is an insanely fast sport bike. That dealer scored five of them, and sold out almost immediately. All five were wadded up inside of two months. One buyer only made it about a mile from the dealership. I think the ICON A5 was destined to produce a similar result.
@all
In way over my head here but when the FAA decided to approve an “Light Sport Aircraft” class and a “Sport Pilot” certificate it obviously opened a door. The word “sport” by itself indicates recreation, so a product designed toward high income adrenaline junkies makes sense. I glanced at the requirements for SP certification required to fly the Icon A5, it’s not bubble gum machine criteria. There are also some heavy hitters on their list of Advisors that probably would not be there if they believed it was a reckless design.
@Susie/Steve
The A5 was designed for having fun. When someone wads up a Ducati the manufacturer does not come out with a memo recommending to stay below 55mph. Is it irresponsible to manufacture a motorcycle that can go from zero to 100mph in under 6 seconds? The bike was not designed to be safe or to use for grocery shopping.
Certainly Krakow knew all there was to know about flying the aircraft. He just strayed outside the envelop. We’ve all done that. We just have not gotten killed doing it.
@DennisW
I agree wholeheartedly. Most of us who have danced on the edge, accepted the danger as our own creation. The ultimate limit belongs to the individual willing to push it.
@DennisW
I have always enjoyed fast machines and even struggle keeping the odometer under 90 when on the freeway. One of my sons drives “like a little old lady”, I think as a byproduct of riding with me.
Ok, long ago now, I own up to deliberately practicing “flying” my F2 Hovercraft in to strong winds on the river Medway just to see what happens ! Yep your craft is now a kite and the throttle is the “string ” .Great fun ,boys will be boys and take it to the limit.
I got to 1k float hours and 5k total pilot hours before i sold the planes. Did tons of low level flying.
Problem with this kind of flying is that pilot must constantly consider terrain, winds, climb ability, stall speed in turns, temperature…..
Doesnt take an einstein but does take cautiously acquired experience. Mistakes and misjudgement can end very badly and very quickly.
I think two guys made mistake of flying into narrow bay in a plane having not 10 but 15 lbs per hp. They couldnt climb to clear rim, probably had too lttle room to turn, did their best but stalled and hit shore.
Pity. New pilots should learn that even great pilots can set themselves up for a crash just as great drivers occasionally hit trees.
No doubt both of these guys were far better pilots than I. They just picked the wrong bay or made the wrong assumption and the plane didnt have enough power to allow them to get out of a tight spot.
@Jeff Green, Thanks for sharing your experience, really invaluable.
@Jeff
If one looks at the elevation profile of that canyon it is very clear that there was no need to climb steeply to exit. Your comments are not relevant to the crash environment.
Jeff, you should know better as well. The data is out there, and I published it.
@DennisW, The idea I put forward is not that the pilot climbed steeply to avoid terrain, but because it is a common procedure when transitioning from low-level flight over water to flight over land. One doesn’t need to visually identify an obstruction in order to be endangered by it; in fact it’s exactly the ones we don’t see (eg power lines) that can be most deadly.
I think he was putting on a show for the new employee to demonstrate the prowess of the aircraft design, and with all the conversing going on inside the cockpit he momentarily lost situational awareness of location and airspeed. I doubt the cockpit was sterile.
No, I am not going to look at the terrain profile. The last witness said plane was flying slowly. Therefore it had little kinetic energy. And, with two people the thing had to weigh 1400 pounds even with min fuel. 14 pounds per hp is not exactly a climbing angel; a 180 super cub is 10 lbs per hp and has a bigger wing.
Which probably means the A5 climb gradient would be pretty poor and very little rising terrain would be impossible to clear. So I expect they did next best thing after starting to climb…they probably started a turn. But now they were going slowly or slower because of the initial attempt to climb. And it stalled and hit shore.
Of course this may be wrong but plenty of people have gotten into this fix.
I once asked an old bush pilot if safety improves after a couple thousand hours of bush flying. He said, “Son (he was 70 and I was 50) someday you will will be flying toward a ridge, maybe on a hot day, and you are gonna wonder how it’s all going to work out.”
Again, we don’t know. But this is a sad ending for two great guys.
@Jeff Green
Flying never felt right for me, ironically I have experienced a few very close calls as a passenger on private aircraft.
The adage “what goes up must come down” does not mean the down part is always by choice, I always felt the odds of escaping danger were much better with both feet on the ground.
For most of us the risk reward thing begins to balance more with age but I imagine others like your bush pilot friend, fly because it is who they are, having written off the danger equation long ago.
@Jeff
Sure, it could have ended just as you suggest. I get hung up on analytics more than I should possibly. Just seems like the combination of pilot experience and terrain characteristics don’t support a climb and stall scenario. Does not mean that did not happen.
I am still hung up in the fact that a landing on water had to be on the agenda for the new guy’s first flight. My personal opinion is that the pilot hit a tree and spun into the bank attempting a water landing at the end of Little Portuguese Canyon. Fog may have been a contributing factor.
http://tmex1.blogspot.com/2017/05/icon-a5-lake-berryessa-crash.html
I see Icon is now wondering why two pilots would fly into a narrow blind canyon.
That approach may exonerate the plane, at least to icon’s satisfaction. But it indites the whole concept of a plane pitched as a fun toy for neophites…..
If two fine pilots could set themselves up for diaster, clearly neophites will be still more likely to get into a fix that cant be corrected.
Nothing wrong with low level bush flying, but if you are human, it has risks.
Remeber the ball player who, with an instructor, flew into a Manhattan building some years ago. They turned left instead of right…..probably realizedlo g before impact that they had no exit.
John C
Keep in mind that it is not just the purchase that confronts you, you also must have a place to store it and if not at an airport a trailer large enough to haul it.
It can be a bitch to fuel it as you need
a ladder, long hose or big gas cans. There goes a whole day for just one flight.
Actually fuelling isnt so bad. You can put wheels down and land at an airport. Or pull into some marinas.
More interesting prob is that you are sitting low so its hard to see dead heads (floating log ends) and you cant pull nose first up to a dock and then get to dock.
Years ago i suggested to Alton Bouchard the owner of PK floats that make floats for Lake amphibs so they could b reAl bush planes. He was wise enough ignore me
They were most likely skimming the lake for fun when they drifted a little left with the wind. As the bank curved out, they caught the wing tip and pivoted into the embankment at speed.
@Dave P
I agree with that assessment or even a possible landing attempt at the end of the canyon interrupted by the same thing.
@Jeff Wise:
I just thought about a “coincidence”:
The pilot – oddly, because totally unneceesarily – repeats his flight level (17:07:56 UTC) a mere 8 seconds (!) after the last ACARS transmission (17:07:48 UTC)
I raised the issue on V’s blog but was shrugged off, as ACARS transmissions (including their timing) would not be known to the pilot.
Agreed. Still, I can’t shake the nagging feeling, that something is not right here.
I mean, think of it:
• only 8 seconds after last ACARS message: pilot places odd (because completely unnecessary) ATC call
• only 5 seconds after passing IGARI and only 1 minute after last ATC comm: transponder shuts off
• only 3 minutes after MH370 vanishes from primary radar: SDU re-logs on to Inmarsat
When contemplating this pattern of “coincidental” timings, I get the feeling that this was all planned exactly punctual to the minute/second.
…
OR this is, what we are being made to believe.
(Maybe someone missed to add some buffer time to the “story”, forgetting that the pilot could neither have known precisely when leaving radar coverage nor when the last ACARS message was sent.)
[BTW: Here are 2 different theories for the unnecessary ATC call at 17:07:56 UTC repeating the flight level (fishing for hand-off or rattled by disposal of co-pilot).]
sorry, wrong thread
I have 20+ yrs as an airline pilot and fly RC’s as a cherished hobby. I just purchsed an icon and it is, by far, the most unstable platform of any of the 23 RC models I own, especially in wind conditions greater than zero. It has stalled several times, fortunately over the water, when accelerating in a climbing turn. Sounds eerily similar to the flight characteristics of the full scale airplane. Wow!
That’s really interesting. In your past experience, do RC planes exhibit similar flight characteristics to the full-sized ones?
There are many flow problems on the the ICON. Notice the vortex generators going back to the prop (I saw at factory). The sponsons (lower wings for balance) interact with the tail surfaces and blank out the tail making it a death trap when it enters a full stall. This crash is why you don’t want a spin resistant airplane with a death spin trap. People think the resistance will protect them. Once in the stall it is all over….pull the chute, just like the Cirrus. NOT good. This plane NEEDS two vertical fins, NOT one with a single pusher, and hence the configuration is not valid. The wake behind the cabin leaves a zone of street vortexes that get worse the faster it goes. The Glass Goose had this same issue and at 140 mph it because unstable in yaw. This is NOT a good seaplane. Also, as stated by others, the visibility is not good (I sat in one at the factory so….) enough for operations around boats. Not even close. You need helicopter visibility to take people around other boats. I guess Karma caught up with the designer and he died believing his nonsense. No way would I work for that company. The idea of a fun airplane is valid, but the ICON design is not the right design for the claimed mission and nor is it a toy. At least they named it right…. “I Con” Need more be said? Sad.
@seaplaneguy, Thanks for your input, really fascinating.
@all
NTSB report.
http://napavalleyregister.com/news/local/federal-investigators-pilot-error-caused-double-fatality-plane-crash-at/article_ecda1c4d-966c-5ad9-9546-bcb3a1dbb97b.html
Thanks, @DennisW. Looks like the pilot tried to do a canyon turn and either stalled or spun. Pretty devastating blow for the company, not only in losing such a key member of the team but also in undermining its claim to being particularly safe due to stall/spin resistance.