OT: RIP Roy Halladay
- Thread starter WhiteBus
- Start date
I recall reading that the designer of this plane was also killed in a crash of the same model a year earlier. Does anyone think the aircraft design was flawed?
Clemente dies on a mercy mission to .. Nicaragua? after an earthquake. This story says Halladay was showboating his flying skills... maybe it was mechanical issues.. maybe a health issue... Not sure what's worthy of immediate HoF consideration.. but still, any loss is a loss.
Yeah, mechanical... He was flying it like an acrobat plane which I'm sure this thing wasn't designed to do.
The head designer and lead engineer of the plane died in a crash in May. NTSB determined it was pilot error (flew into a canyon wall). There was another crash in April but they lived. I didn't find anything as to the cause although the pilot said the plane dropped altitude too quickly. I saw the videos on TMZ. RH was flying very aggressively which one can easily pick up by the bozo's comments who was videotaping RH. I guess it could have been mechanical (and if that's the case one needs to question RH's choice of plane in light of past recent events) but the fact is that he wasn't simply out for a ride and crashed. In the end, it doesn't really matter because RH died way too young.
Ii have seen reports that the advertising for this model gives an exaggerated impression of what it can safely be used for. Apparently it shouldn't be used to skim the surface of the water. Halladay's widow says she argued long and hard against his buying this plane.
And than gave in after her first ride in one with Roy. So much so she is in the commercial for this plane saying how much fun they are.
I also see reports on the internet that she liked the plane when she flew in it, but I haven't seen anything about the commercial (which I'm sure has been pulled for obvious reasons.) Do you have a link?
There's actually nothing that Halliday was doing with the aircraft (per the video) that is outside its performance certification, with respect to maneuvering.
It appears that he executed what the accident investigators refer to as "controlled flight into terrain". That means that the pilot was in command of the aircraft until, at least, just prior to impact and that the impact resulted from the pilot's lack of awareness of the aircraft's position with respect to terrain (in this case, water).
If you make contact with the water, with any part of the aircraft, at cruise speed there is virtually no chance of a positive outcome.
Halliday was clearly dickin' around. He died from it. It happens. We (pilots) have all done some crazy ****. It was no fault of the aircraft.
I wasn't suggesting it was the aircraft's fault; just that the advertising may have misled him into thinking that the aircraft could fly this close to water. At least it's a blessing his wife wasn't along; if she were, their children would have lost both parents.
I don't understand what you mean by "the advertising may have misled him into thinking that the aircraft could fly this close to water". It's an amphibious aircraft. It's made to land on water. It's just not made to hit the water at 100 mph. Nothing is. That's not how it works.
Icon's web site for the A5 is here. There's nothing in the content that suggests anything misleading.
It's actually a hell of a plane. Certified spin-resistant per FAA Part 23. That's virtually impossible to achieve.
Well, you know a lot more about this than I do. But it looks from this link https://www.cbsnews.com/news/roy-halladay-new-questions-after-video-emerges-final-flight/as though the company itself recommended flying at 300 feet (except presumably when you're landing or taking off either from land or water. But if you look at the promo for the angle of attack feature (which, by the way, sounds very useful to me, although again what do I know about it?) It seems to show a lot of maneuvering just above the water.
I agree with you that Halladay was, as they say, showboating. He must have misjudged how close he was getting to the water, right?
You're right, though, that he was
Just reading about this I see plane publications say they felt plane was going to be well designed but there were a lot of red flags with regard to production/testing issues - and a controversial purchase agreement that was deemed so onerous that the manufacturer had to back away. Manufacturers were skittish about potential owners caretaking habits. Plane looked kinda toyish - kinda begs to be messed around with.
"Sadly, the turbulent search for the next big thing often leaves some debris and damage behind… And, of late, we've become greatly concerned that the long-simmering Icon Aircraft program may turn out to be one of those. With a decade of development under its belt, nearly as many broken promises as achievements, and increasing dependence on Hype and PR fluff, their intensely cute little amphibious seaplane may ultimately turn out to be more of a nightmare than a dream.
It has been the subject of a tremendous amount of force-fed press, much of it positive though much of that positive press has been carefully orchestrated/mandated by Icon's intolerant PR machine to make sure that nothing but the very most positive comments are published.
During a round of so-called familiarization flights in the past year, a number of people have been allowed to fly the airplane, and under some very restrictive circumstances that seem intolerant of objective journalism. Icon has aggressively flouted "Flight Tests" from writers who are not pilots, and some truly silly though overtly positive, stories have resulted. And, not surprisingly, those aviation journalists with a reputation for the most discerning and critical editorial have been left off the invite list (or refused to give in to Icon's demands for control over the story)..
Mind you; some of the folks who have been given familiarization flights certainly do know a good airplane from a bad one, BUT the kind of highly critical, carefully tasked, arduous examination of the aircraft performance, capabilities, handling, and a thorough examination of its flight envelope, has yet in our opinion, to occur - and we're not the only publication to note this.
And yet, the 'flyability' of the airplane is among the least of our concerns-as we do expect that the plane will fly reasonably well based on the skills of some of those working on it. The chief of our concerns turns out to be whether or not Icon, itself, has the expertise, ability, and even the willingness to actually build the darn thing and whether the aircraft will be able to hold up to actual use over the long term. So far… it's looking a bit sketchy.
Icon A5 Purchase Contract May Be More Complex Than The Aircraft Itself...
http://www.aero-news.net/getmorefromann.cfm?do=main.textpost&id=f21e6bc1-0354-4214-958e-e4be3c73fbdd
I just watched the AoA video - all of the low-level footage is during the approach phase. The 180 degree steep turn was performed at 500'.
The indicator itself is brilliance in an amphibian. Putting a plane down in the water is 80% about angle of attack. The other 20% is airspeed. The relationship between the two actually guarantees that if you get the first one right, the second is going to be something close to what you want.
Saw it on ABC TV this morning. Would think they would have it there site.
To be honest I would normally search and link it but I really don't want to see their smiling faces again knowing the outcome. I'm sure you can find it.
I agree with 4Real. This wasn't the planes fault. It seems like Roy was doing things outside his skill level. Doesn't make it easier to accept that a guy that loved to fly made a fatal mistake.
In case you are wondering how the average reader views this "argument".. you are kicking arse.
Good review - doesn't change fact you have three crashes and two deaths in one year. Obviously something is amiss and it doesn't seem to be the plane itself but the way Icon is presenting the plane - as if it were akin to jet skiing
Air Facts Journal (for Pilots By Pilots etc) wrote:
'From the beginning, the company has behaved very differently than typical general aviation manufacturers, with slick marketing programs and bold promises. Their self-proclaimed mission is to “create products that not only deliver great functional benefit but also deeply inspire us on an emotional level.”...It’s particularly galling to some that ICON is so concerned about potential accidents or negative press, since their marketing shows nothing but low flying airplanes and aggressive maneuvers. The suggestion is that you can do anything you want in the airplane, just don’t blame ICON if something goes wrong."
"What’s going on at ICON?"
https://airfactsjournal.com/2016/03/debate-whats-going-icon/
Forbes shows the same "its a man toy" vibe
"Former fighter pilot and Icon founder Kirk Hawkins has entered the general aviation market with a two-seater that takes off on land or water, looks like a jet ski, performs like a small plane and takes just a few weeks to learn to fly.
“Aviation as most people know it has different mission and different motives, it’s unemotional transportation,” Hawkins told me after we flew a demonstration flight over Napa County in California, home to the company headquarters and manufacturing plant.
The A5, on the other hand is a “pure lifestyle product,” Hawkins said. Don’t think of it as another private plane, he says, but rather as the latest power sports vehicle -- and one that may drive fundamental changes in what people expect from aviation and even how pilots learn to fly."
"Icon A5, An Airplane For Non-Pilots, Hits Turbulence After Fast Start"
https://www.forbes.com/sites/christ...ome-turbulence-after-fast-start/#6e4de3461471
Not hard to see the problem even from general reading. You can see how a Halladay ends-up killing himself. Interesting plane (I mean "lifestyle product") - but it was pimped as a "I got this!" man toy. Hey you dont need lots of training and you can just go and mess around after a few hours. With marketing like that you can see why they jarred the market with is sales contract (that it eventually watered down) to cover themselves.
Maybe they should force self-flying planes along with the cars. I expect one will be in the Hudson soon
Again, you're playing fast and loose with reality.
The problem isn't with the A5 or the way it's marketed. The problem is the LSA / sport certification niche, itself.
There's no such thing as " a plane for non-pilots" and Icon never marketed the A5 in that manner. What they did do was build an aircraft for LSA certification and the federal government, under pressure from the aviation manufacturing lobby (the likes of Cessna, not Icon) has certified a "recreational pilot" licensing process that allows people with very little training to operate aircraft under restricted conditions - only during the day, no IFR, etc.
The rec pilot cert fails to account for the fact that you still have to do the same things in a LSA that you do in a larger aircraft, namely takeoff, maneuver safely and land.
Icon built the A5 to harmonize with some of that lack of experience. The plane is spin resistant. It can land on water. It has a ballistic recovery system. The instruments are simplified. The controls are simplified. It's slow.
The one thing that Icon - or any manufacturer - can't design for is the fact that anybody with the proper amount of coin can now buy an airplane with very little training.
You're going to see many more people off themselves in this manner. It has nothing to do with the planes and everything to do with the people. The previous fatal crash in an A5 was because the guy - who worked for Icon - flew the plane into a box canyon. That's practically a cliche in the aviation industry. It's right up there with flying into mountains and running out of fuel. It's aviation Darwinism. But it's not the fault of the manufacturers.
Last edited:
Played golf yesterday with my friend who’s an experienced pilot, both prop and jet.
He works for homeland security and also flies military officers around the country.
He saw the video and read the accounts of people saying he was doing strafing runs all afternoon five feet above the water.
Simply said he was performing a maneuver with zero margin for error, one down draft, one miscalculation and your history, it’s the opposite of how your supposed to fly an airplane
Aside from the fact that you wouldn't encounter a "downdraft" over open water absent the periphery of a thunderstorm, he's pretty much right.Low-level flight is, in fact, prohibited by FAA regulations - for the obvious reason. Doesn't mean that everyone doesn't do it. I used to love flying up the Delaware from Trenton to the Gap at 10 feet off the water. If you know where all the bridges and power lines are, you can do it safely. Sort of. Doesn't make it smart.
I've learned a lot from this; thanks to everybody.
Some questions:
What does LSA certification mean? Does it mean that every new air plane design must be approved by the Federal Aviation Administration? Can the FAA take away an approval if it later finds that an aircraf design is unsafe.
Is it the FAA that created the recreational certification?
Did Halladay only have a recreational certification? I thought he was an experienced pilot. Don't they have to have more than that?
What does a recreational certification allow someone to do? Without the recreational certification, what kind of license would someone need to have?
I've never served in the military, so forgive this question: what is a strafing run? From the video, it appears to be a maneuver in which a plane repeatedly drops down in altitude. This is usually done so that the plane can drop bombs, right? Can anyone beside military pilots legally do such a run?
Forgive all the questions, but I have an idea on how to use this in class. Thanks again to all.
Some questions:
What does LSA certification mean? Does it mean that every new air plane design must be approved by the Federal Aviation Administration? Can the FAA take away an approval if it later finds that an aircraf design is unsafe.
Is it the FAA that created the recreational certification?
Did Halladay only have a recreational certification? I thought he was an experienced pilot. Don't they have to have more than that?
What does a recreational certification allow someone to do? Without the recreational certification, what kind of license would someone need to have?
I've never served in the military, so forgive this question: what is a strafing run? From the video, it appears to be a maneuver in which a plane repeatedly drops down in altitude. This is usually done so that the plane can drop bombs, right? Can anyone beside military pilots legally do such a run?
Forgive all the questions, but I have an idea on how to use this in class. Thanks again to all.
LSA = "Light Sport Aircraft". It's an FAA certification that's intended to cover small (less than about 1300 lbs) aircraft to be flown by pilots with a sport / recreational license. There's a great deal of language around both concepts but in a very general sense LSAs are designed and manufactured to a less-stringent standard because their intended use is, by FAA rule, less intensive. The standards to which LSAs are designed and built conform to industry consensus, as opposed to strict type certification standards laid down by the FAA.
This doesn't necessarily make the LSAs less safe or less reliable. There are still certification requirements. But because LSAs are operationally restricted (can't fly at night, can't fly IFR, etc) there simply aren't as many requirements and so the certification framework can be cleaner.
A sport / rec pilots license is similar. Can't fly at night. Have to fly aircraft that meet LSA requirements (which, by the way, includes many smaller, older planes such as the Piper J3). Can't fly more than 50 miles from "home base". Can't carry more than a total of 4 people including the pilot.
The overall concept was to make flying more affordable to the masses. In the years since massive product liability suits became a regular thing, new entry has declined sharply. Lawsuits have driven the cost of airplanes to the point where they're all but unaffordable by an average person. The industry and the FAA view the sport category as a solution to that problem.
A strafing run, btw, is an old combat term that involves the use of guns. Since guns are line of sight, in order to strafe a target on the ground the pilot has to point the aircraft directly at it. Watch "Tora Tora Tora".
LSA = "Light Sport Aircraft". It's an FAA certification that's intended to cover small (less than about 1300 lbs) aircraft to be flown by pilots with a sport / recreational license. There's a great deal of language around both concepts but in a very general sense LSAs are designed and manufactured to a less-stringent standard because their intended use is, by FAA rule, less intensive. The standards to which LSAs are designed and built conform to industry consensus, as opposed to strict type certification standards laid down by the FAA.
This doesn't necessarily make the LSAs less safe or less reliable. There are still certification requirements. But because LSAs are operationally restricted (can't fly at night, can't fly IFR, etc) there simply aren't as many requirements and so the certification framework can be cleaner.
A sport / rec pilots license is similar. Can't fly at night. Have to fly aircraft that meet LSA requirements (which, by the way, includes many smaller, older planes such as the Piper J3). Can't fly more than 50 miles from "home base". Can't carry more than a total of 4 people including the pilot.
The overall concept was to make flying more affordable to the masses. In the years since massive product liability suits became a regular thing, new entry has declined sharply. Lawsuits have driven the cost of airplanes to the point where they're all but unaffordable by an average person. The industry and the FAA view the sport category as a solution to that problem.
A strafing run, btw, is an old combat term that involves the use of guns. Since guns are line of sight, in order to strafe a target on the ground the pilot has to point the aircraft directly at it. Watch "Tora Tora Tora".
Many thanks! Do LSA aircraft designs have to be approved by the government before a manufacturer can build?
No - that's the key difference. For a regular type certification the specific design has to be approved, as does the specific manufacturing process and what's known as the "MEL", or Minimum Equipment List. For SLAs to be certified the manufacturer merely has to provide an affidavit that the design and manufacturing process conforms to the industry standards as exist, currently, for the category.
Definitely. The FAA can, at any time, issue what's called an Airworthiness Directive to effectively ground a fleet until such time that specific changes are made.
**Edit**
I should point out that the FAA can't simply issue an order saying "we think this airplane sucks, nobody is allowed to operate them anymore." What they do, via the AD process, is order specific repairs, fixes or changes be made to the aircraft and, if the absence of said change renders the aircraft, in their opinion, not airworthy, they can make further operation contingent upon said changes. This is a special circumstance that involves the issuing of an Emergency Airworthiness Directive (EAD)
An example of this would be the EAD issued for all Boeing 787s upon discovery of a flaw in the onboard batteries that led to several fires. None of these incidents resulted in airframe loss prior to the EAD, however the circumstances were potentially serious enough that the FAA grounded the then new 787 fleet until Boeing implemented a fix.
Last edited:
The video doesn't show anything like an approach phase. He's going too fast.
The final descent in a light aircraft is typically conducted at low speed with the throttle at or near idle. You're basically gliding.