The National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) has released its final report on the May 8, 2017, accident in which ICON Aircraft employees Jon Karkow and Cagri Sever lost their lives.
In an analysis of the accident, NTSB investigators note that Karkow, a commercial pilot, was performing a new employee familiarization flight with Sever, who had just joined the company.
While flying over Lake Berryessa near Vacaville, California, where the company is based, Karkow entered a cove, which was surrounded by rising terrain on either side. Realizing there was no outlet to this cove, he climbed the amphibious aircraft to about 100 feet above the water and “accelerated hard” in an attempt to climb out of the canyon, according to a witness.
Shortly after the witness lost sight of the plane, he heard it crash.
NTSB investigators theorize that it is likely the pilot mistakenly thought the canyon he entered was a different canyon that led to the larger, open portion of the lake.
Additionally, it is likely that, once he realized there was no exit from the canyon, he attempted to perform a 180° left turn to exit in the direction from which he entered.
“Based upon performance information outlined in the Pilot’s Operating Handbook for the accident airplane, the airplane’s altitude above the water’s surface and its indicated airspeed, and the ridge line elevations in the area adjacent to the accident site, the airplane would have not been able to climb out of the rising terrain that surrounded the area, which led to his failure to maintain clearance from terrain,” the report reads.
The NTSB determined the probable cause of this accident to be the pilot’s failure to maintain clearance from terrain while maneuvering at a low altitude. Contributing to the accident was the pilot’s mistaken entry into a canyon surrounded by steep rising terrain while at a low altitude for reasons that could not be determined.

“I want to thank the NTSB for its professionalism and thoroughness in this process; this is an important step in reaching closure for the families of Jon and Cagri, as well as the ICON team after such a traumatic loss,” said ICON CEO and Founder Kirk Hawkins. “Jon and Cagri were both extraordinary individuals and are missed tremendously. Cagri had recently joined ICON as a star engineering leader from Ford Motor Company. Jon was a legendary aircraft designer, test pilot, and unsung hero in aviation. He was a founding member of the ICON team, the lead aero engineer on the A5, and a core part of ICON’s DNA. The A5 not only reflects his genius, it represents his love for flying in its purest form — it was his final gift to aviation. The ICON family is committed to carrying the flag forward in Jon and Cagri’s honor.”
Memorials for both Jon and Cagri were held in the weeks after the accident. ICON also created a page dedicated to Jon on its website.
The hammerhead turn mentioned above was probably a viable option for a successful turn and has been demonstrated in similar confines. But, it is not well known nor practiced by flatland pilots no matter how much commercial time they have.
It should definitely be tested and practiced by ICON factory pilots since this situation will be a recurring event in the usage pattern for this aircraft, especially as it is marketed. Their clientele is used to ripping up any UNKNOWN bay that they come across in a boat with the option of stopping and turning around if they choose. If ICON’s marketing materials promote exploring water bodies at low altitude then this situation is essentially being set up in advance.
Getting stuck in a canyon can happen to the best pilots. CC Pocock in his excellent book “Bush & Mountain Flying” covers the topic very well, demonstrating the various options in getting out of the situation, including where the canyon is too narrow for a normal tight turn. He flies a C172.
One of the safety features of a seaplane is the ability to land on water and come to a rapid stop.
A planned landing [splashdown] would have probably been survivable.
With more altitude a hammerhead turn is the quickest course reversal.
An ordinary turn, even with a 60 degree bank takes lots of space. Of course, trying to climb puts te plane behind the power curve if a turn is then attempted.
I am amazed at the record speed for an NTSB report
This airplane has a ballistic parachute. This was a case when the chute should have been the first response, not the last.
On reflection probably not. The chute likely wouldn’t have worked at such a low altitude. Sad to say that he just got into a situation with no good out.
So for all those who earlier were hoping for “something else” to show up in the final report to absolve the pilot of being the causal factor in this accident, sorry for that. This was a tragic accident involving a highly skilled aviator flying a state of the art airplane with all the latest safety features but he’s dead because he put himself in a situation with no way out. How often is this going to happen with Icon’s target market, a question they don’t seem willing to answer or even contemplate. Stay tuned, there will be more.
It is unfortunate. Standing in the booth at Oshkosh and watching the marketing videos Icon was showing gave me the willies. The aircraft were flying really low over built up urban areas. It looked like 200′ AGL, and in any case was much lower than 500′. It seems Icon is marketing to a group of people who find that kind of flying attractive for business reasons.
I believe much of their marketing videos depicts flying that should earn them a violation of the FARs, and is dangerously low. Add in that they are trying to market to non-pilots by making the interior look like an automobile, and I am really concerned.
Note: I am not commenting on the design in any way. My concern is for the company culture which seems to laud low flying, and company business decisions driven by marketing data that are probably not wise or in accordance with good safety practice, or the FARs.
Let me see if I have this straight. You both just said that this kind of accident is because a.) they designed their plane like a car (meaning they used modern ergonomics?) and b.) this is because of Icons target marketing?
And you put that kind of logic in a public forum. You”ve got to be kidding me.
Tim,
Nope, not kidding. Stay tuned, if they continue to market this airplane to the extreme sports, adrenaline junkies as they have up to now this is just the start. A highly qualified pilot, key designer of the airplane is killed in it, why? Possibly because he forgot that stooging around at low altitude and low airspeed in close proximity to the ground is risky? Or because he bought into the hype about how safe an airplane it is? Why do you think he died?
The remarkable thing is, as far as I can tell no one has devised a new way to die flying an airplane for well over 30 years that I have been watching.
Whenever I fly around Berryessa or any other terrain similar, I always fly downhill. Flight into a cove ? No, fly out of a cove into open water.
Simple little method.
But I keep on reading articles like these to see if anyone has come up with something new.
Jose, is that your crash helmet ? Oh I hope not.
” NTSB investigators theorize that it is likely the pilot mistakenly thought the canyon he entered was a different canyon that led to the larger, open portion of the lake. ”
I challenge anyone, after looking at the map of Berryessa, to make the same statement knowing the pilot had been in the area before. I guess it isn’t copacetic to just admit the obvious. He took the new boss up for a run, thought it would be worthwhile to impress him by hot dogging it, or was so distracted by the boss he couldn’t think 15 seconds ahead any more. A damn shame either way.