The National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) has released its preliminary report regarding the fatal accident on May 8, 2017, that claimed the lives of two ICON employees at Lake Berryessa, California.
The ICON A5 aircraft was piloted by ICON’s Engineering Fellow and Chief Test Pilot Jon Karkow. Also aboard was ICON’s recently hired Director of Engineering, Cagri Sever. The flight was Sever’s first in the A5 and was set to be his introduction to the product on which he would be working at ICON.
“This was a devastating personal loss for the ICON team,” said Kirk Hawkins, ICON’s CEO and founder. “We didn’t just lose employees; we lost family members. Jon and Cagri were both passionate engineers who were inspired by the mission to make personal flying more accessible. Jon was an aviation legend who spent 21 years at Scaled Composites before dedicating the last 10 years of his career to ICON developing the A5, initially as ICON’s Lead Aero Engineer and then as Engineering Fellow. Cagri joined ICON as Director of Engineering a week prior to the accident after a distinguished rise through Ford Motor Company’s engineering organization. We will miss them both tremendously, and our thoughts and prayers are with their families.”
ICON officials noted they have been working with the NTSB to support its investigation. In addition to investigating the crash site, the NTSB obtained an eyewitness statement and has also reviewed the aircraft’s Flight Data Recorder (FDR) with ICON engineers.
The NTSB preliminary report included details from the eyewitness account indicating that the aircraft was flying slowly at about 50 feet over the water where it entered a steep, narrow canyon. The aircraft was then observed to increase power, pitch up, and enter a left turn in the canyon before it hit the side of the lake bank.
“We’re unsure why the plane flew into such a narrow canyon that had no outlet,” said Shane Sullivan, ICON’s Director of Flight. “We’re deeply saddened and fully committed to learning whatever we can from this tragic situation. Jon and Cagri were part of the ICON family.”
The NTSB will produce a final report, which typically takes several months, that will contain the facts and circumstances related to the accident, along with a determination of the probable cause.
ICON initially suspended all flight operations of the A5 fleet immediately after the accident. Flight operations have now resumed following the NTSB preliminary report.
Memorials for Karkow and Sever are being planned.
I am sorry they lost there life’s but I did that I am not going to pay someone to die that money will be spent on motorhome
Just, for your info…:
http://christinenegroni.com/icon-statement-suggest-pilot-erred-a5-plane-crash/
“…When Hawkins gave me control of the plane, I was impressed by its intuitive controls….”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A4xyKmstD7g&t=37s
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.
Exactly!
Many of us have known at least one, some are so unfortunate as to have known two or more pilots/pax/crew who perished in an aircraft accident. Of those I’ve personally known, all perished because of one or more errors in their own judgement. I am sad for them, and also grateful that their experience (and some of the speculation that followed) have encouraged me to be a better, and more careful pilot. Their stories also help persons young to aviation learn WHY good decisions, followed by good actions are important. There is no such thing as “SAFE”, just controlled risks.
My condolences to the bereaved. It’s a hard reality that “such is life” in any human endeavor.
We don’t know if he had sufficient space to set down on the water but obviously that would have been the safest thing to do if there was room for it.
With regard to the first post, it was not his luck that failed him, it was his judgement. The Icon A5 is regularly being flown in an aggressive manner that compromises safety, as if this were its reason for existence. They are so impressed with their claims of “safe airplane”, that they forgot that you have to FLY IT safely. It this case it appears that even a world-class pilot couldn’t make up for the safety margins that had been intentionally squandered.
Excellent Summary but Tragic Epitath! As pilots, every flight is a test of our planning, not just our skills.
I go back to when a pilot friend took off in fog & flew right into the hillside knowing it was right there.
The fundamental flaw in the design of this airplane is the concept that flying and airplane can be made safe for people who aren’t committed to safety and risk management, a description of 95% of the population. This has been tried before in aviation as far back as the 1930’s and it’s never worked and never will. When you get more than 10 feet off the ground and travel more than 40 mph you’ve entered an environment where only good judgement and a constant awareness of the three dimensional risk you take will keep you safe. Even then there are a hundred ways an airplane can kill you and only experience, mechanical perfection and luck will keep it from happening. In this case an experienced pilot flying a mechanically perfect airplane ran out of luck. Think it won’t happen when they rent these things to people who think of them as glorified jet skis and who have an extreme sport adrenaline addiction?
Bartr and Marc,
You Monday morning Quarterbacks just can’t wait for the final report of the facts before advancing your baseless theories.
Your amateur analysis makes me sick.
My condolences to the families.
Tom
And what will the final report say in addition to “he flew up a blind canyon at low altitude with no reasonable exit strategy”?
I feel bad for the pilots and the families too but the fundamental problem remains. Flying is a very unforgiving activity and to market an airplane to people as a recreational toy is a bad idea.
Also flying at low altitude in an area you haven’t surveyed from height beforehand is a bad idea. Unfortunately the pilot made an error in judgement, we’ve all done it, sometimes the outcome is a fright and a lesson sometimes its a smoking hole, thats the nature of aviation.
Don’t get so wrapped up in the emotional tangle of the death of a fellow aviator that you can’t see the real issue, an issue which the final accident report will NOT ADDRESS.
Well Lake Berryesa is the backyard of Icon factory is 5 minutes flight from Nut Tree airport, so I am pretty sure the pilot knew that area perfectly, may be more than just flew into a narrow canyon…
Leo,
So something broke on the airplane? What other option is there? It’s going to be hard to determine that. I’m willing to wait for the final report to see but if you read a lot of NTSB reports, as I do, you note the overwhelming majority don’t involve a mechanical failure of the airplane. No reason to think this one will be any different.
Were you aware these were company test pilots? How then do you make the leap that “marketing a plane as a toy to recreational pilots is a bad idea”? Sorry, could be just me, but I can’t in any way make a logical connection between that statement and this accident. The analysis is not only amateurish, it doesn’t make sense.
Tim,
Yes I am aware of the skill level of the pilots that’s why my contention that marketing the airplane to unskilled people with no commitment to or understanding of aviation safety is a bad idea makes perfect sense.
Sorry my conclusion seems “amateurish” to you so I won’t elaborate on my background in aviation unless you want to go there on yours.
Bartr is looking down the road, Timmy. Accurately. If these guys got killed by a “watch this” burst of unwise demo flight exhiliration, what carnage will follow the wake jumper crowd that is Icon’s bread N butter ?
I’m writing this for the second times since it was for some reason not approved, even though there was nothing objectionable with my tone, language, etc. I’m going to try a different email account.
I really dislike people that are not willing to discuss, or as you stated it, “Monday Morning Armchair Quarterback” an accident. Saying that it is disrespectful, and that sort of mindset, is what is disturbing and dangerous.
Yes, people died. Hopefully people can learn something from this and apply it. I’m a firm believer that something can be learned from every accident. It is rare that an accident happens for no apparent reason, and 85% of the time it comes down to pilot error. The bereaved are still bereaved, that won’t change. No one is slandering the pilots here, and no one is calling into question their experience.
Being able to talk about an accident is important. Being able to dissect what when wrong is important. Using the NTSB reports is a way of educating ourselves to hopefully avoid repeating the same sort of accident. Stifling conversations about preliminary reports is foolish. Calling it disrespectful is childish, and your unwillingness to think outside the box makes me not want to share a flight station with you.
Too many FB groups stifle rational discussions of accidents. The NTSB is there as a learning tool, and discussions based upon initial reports and final reports are important, and is meant for discussion. That is why it is public information.
The military requires us to read any hazardous reports (HAZREPS) on accidents, and if there is a Class A, there is always training and discussion on it. Too bad the weekend warriors with their 172’s with an AOA gauge in it cannot seem to do the same, and instead try to shut down these discussion…….
My condolences go out to the families of Jon Karkow and Cagri Sever. Putting 20 years in at Scaled Composites had to have been an amazing experience. Very sad time for everyone. God bless.
Sounds like a classic case of entering a closed canyon whence the highly experienced pilot chose to try and reverse course to fly out of the tight closing space possibly resulting in an accelerated stall and loss of control in the turn or simply loss of altitude in the turn resulting in terrain impact. Why not set down and water taxi back out? If a frog had wings it wouldn’t kick its behind when it jumps. Speculation as to the cause before the investigation is complete is basically worthless but……