Icon Suggests Pilot Erred In A5 Plane Crash

May 18, 2017 / 5 Comments

Investigators don’t know what caused the fatal plane crash last week of the new and highly-anticipated light-sport Icon A5, but in a statement on the company website, Icon’s director of flight, Shane Sullivan suggests pilot error was an issue.

“We’re unsure why the plane flew into such a narrow canyon that had no outlet,” Sullivan wrote.  Such speculation by an interested party during the investigation is highly unusual and frowned upon by the National Transportation Safety Board.

The men killed in the crash. Icon provided photos

On May 8, aeronautical engineer and chief test pilot Jon Karkow was piloting the two seat amphibious A5 with Icon’s new director of engineering, Cagri Sever on board as a passenger.  For reasons not yet determined, the plane crashed into the side of a canyon in a cove on Lake Berryessa. This large lake is where Icon regularly tests its planes. During my visit there last May, this is where company founder and CEO Kirk Hawkins demonstrated the airplane.

If a jet ski married a helicopter, the Icon A5 would be their love child. Who wouldn’t want to fly that?  When Hawkins gave me control of the plane, I was impressed by its intuitive controls.

This is by design, he said. Hawkins had an idea to build a recreational airplane that was easy to learn, so that would-be pilots might get a feel for flight before tackling more complex planes in more complex airspace.

ICON Aircraft A5  flies over Lake Berryessa – provided photo

The A5 took a decade to create, partially because Icon engineers pressed on to add a spin/stall resistant wing that received FAA certification. This added a year or more to the program.

Initially, the general aviation community was smitten by the A5. Last year, Hawkins claimed two thousand buyers had placed deposits for the quarter of a million dollar airplane.

But soon Hawkins was forced to apologize for a startling lack of appreciation for the many ways accidents can happen. In the initial sales contract, buyers were obligated to hold Icon harmless in the event of a crash. Hawkins explained he was trying to do away with the legal liability issues that hamper innovation in general aviation.

Suing airplane manufacturers was “an aviation issue not being dealt with aggressively,” he told me by way of explanation. The pressure in the GA community forced Icon to dial back from many of the restrictions in the sales contract.

Flying in the Icon A5 with Greg Zachney

So the company statement that Karkow flew into a cove from which he could not exit, is a troubling reminder that Hawkins still harbors the notion that his airplane is perfect and won’t crash unless the pilot screws up.

He and the others at Icon would do well to remember something Wilbur Wright said at a meeting of the Western Society of Engineers in Chicago in 1901.

“If you are looking for perfect safety, you will do well to sit on a fence and watch the birds; but if you really wish to learn, you must mount a machine and become acquainted with its tricks by actual trial.”

Credit is due to Hawkins and his clever engineers who worked long and hard on the A5. Now they must be open to learn what tricks caused the loss of their colleagues and the plane. That can’t happen by deciding early on that the pilot was to blame.

Categories: Flying Lessons
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , ,

5 responses to “Icon Suggests Pilot Erred In A5 Plane Crash”

  1. Bartr says:

    Ok, so you think something other than “pilot error” should be considered, any idea what that might be? NTSB will look for issues with the aircraft as it was configured the day of the crash. They may look at it from the point of view of problematic design but they will NOT consider the fundamental problem of the basis of the design, as described by you, that the airplane is “intuitive” to fly and designed for people with no aviation background. If a highly experienced and qualified PILOT is killed in such an airplane what other possible causal factor could there be that relates to the aircraft itself?

  2. Philip Potts says:

    The Icon Vision Statement is flawed.
    First: “Hawkins wants it to change the way individuals think of flying…..” Humans make errors, more during training and fewer as we learn, perform, and accumulate experience. Yet errors are made by all experience levels. If Icon believes the A5 is a jet ski with wings then there are more opportunities for new pilots to hit Boats, Docks, Water, Beach, Poles, Wires, and other hard objects with an airplane. ……
    Vision Statement 2: “… and on a larger scale, to set the extremely litigious general aviation industry on a different course.” Using the 2015 flight demonstration as an example; Icon demonstrates a planned low level flight and water work by a company trained pilot. Icon is encouraging new pilots to maneuver close to the water/ground/people to impress low time pilots. Pilot Errors without timely reaction time or pilots not aware of hazards fosters aggressive piloting and probable accidents. Cirrus encouraged flight training to a standard flight program to achieve higher levels of safe flight. Icon’s vision shows no interest in safety training or practices.
    The litigious Practices of the aviation industry will not be swayed by Icon’s legal paper work.

  3. Andy Franz says:

    How does that crow taste Chrissy now that the final report is out and is exactly as rather company said. Do you really think they didn’t know the first day what happened with all the telemetry as well as more than likely video and audio recorders being installed on a test plane. The overwhelming majority of aviation accidents are due to pilot error (flying a perfectly functioning airplane into the ground) but in our lawsuit happy PC culture the manufacturer has the deeper pockets. You should be ashamed for even writing this article in the first place.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Enter to Win

Want to receive some free swag from Christine? Sign up for the mailing list!