Plane registered to Roy Halladay crashes in Gulf off Florida

[PilotDAR]

It is true that an unexpected change in wind direction, the use or not of flaps, or the misunderstanding/awareness of stall speed may be factors in an accident. However, if any of those factors become causal in that accident, the pilot had already got themselves into a really bad place.

Pilots flying water aircraft must approach any over water or maneuvering type flying with a very different mindset than "land" pilots. There is a misconceived sense of freedom flying over the water, seemingly away from "airport" or other airspace which is overseen, allowing some freedom in maneuvering which is not there for landplane pilots - wrong! It is alarmingly easy to misjudge distance/altitude/attitude over water, or in canyon environments. 300 feet is nothing to an error in judgement, easy miss. Maneuvering an aircraft to within 300 feet of anything beyond the centerline of a runway is sadly difficult for most pilots. So a pilot who flies into a situation where his required precision for separation is 300 feet is a fool. They're already in too deep to receive the benefit of wind awareness, flap position, or stall speed awareness.

Stall speed is G dependent. A pilot who gets them self into trouble maneuvering in a tight area, or low altitude is going to pull. Pulling increases G, and stall speed. I defy a pilot to tell me the stall speed of their aircraft while they are pulling G, and not having a G meter - guesswork at best, complete unknown more likely.

It is not possible to prevent an accident by assuring that the pilot is aware and attentive to the winds, flap position, or stall speed, and yet they're ignoring the danger of their confined maneuvering environment. The pilot is going to have the accident anyway. A confined maneuvering environment may be simply low altitude, and nothing more. I do not have a table for a "safe" bank angle for 300 feet altitude, but 45 degree is not it for a low experience pilot. The fact that an aircraft manufacturer seems to normalize it does not make it safe. Enough training to begin to make a pilot safe doing this would most likely make that pilot afraid of doing it!

So, new, low experience pilots, particularly of water aircraft , do not think that you can low fly and maneuver at low altitude, and into canyons - doing that is dangerous. There are a number of accidents to prove this, and although the reports might mention winds, flap position, or stall speed, it is unlikely that these are causal factors, but low altitude ('could be because of low ceiling), confined areas, and aggressive maneuvering are often reported as factors. Pilots who survive, spend a lot of time overflying landing or maneuvering areas at altitude, and formulating safety plans. They conduct any maneuvering at a suitably high altitude, fly something like a circuit to approach for landing, and do not fly near the stall speed, much less increase it by pulling G.

There may be something like a jetski with wings, but such a machine has no business being maneuvered in three dimensions like a jetski. A pilot who flies such an aircraft as though it is a fighter is immature. If a pilot would like to fly aggressive maneuvering, there are aircraft designed for that - they don't land on the water. Pilots must make their choice: Low maneuvering, cautious at all times, careful landing on the water, of tumbling in the mirth at altitude in a plane designed to do it, with a G meter!

[Cat Driver]

Pilots must make their choice: Low maneuvering, cautious at all times, careful landing on the water, of tumbling in the mirth at altitude in a plane designed to do it, with a G meter !

Or even better a AOA indicator.

[CL-Skadoo!]

That's the answer right there.
Unfortunately...
Do you think many pilots these days know what that is or the implications of having such a magical instrument?

[Cat Driver]

Good question.

I sure hope aviation training has not slipped so low that the basics of aerodynamics are not taught.

[Heliian]

The AOA indicator is front and center on the a5 panel. I think they even mentioned it earlier in development as a key safety feature.

[PilotDAR]

No cockpit indicator assures that a pilot who has placed the aircraft in a precarious situation will safely escape that. It may serve as a good oh sh*t when the pilot realizes that there is no reserve to pull into to save the day. But, by that point, their eyes are out, very big, and searching for a path out - which may not exist. These accidents are airmanship issues, not the failure of an airplane. Possibly, the low flying culture seemingly promoted by Icon lured these pilots into the situation, but ultimately, there are safe flying techniques available to pilots to prevent these unsafe situations. It seems that these good airmanship techniques were not being employed.

[waterdog]

Black box data is out from the initial report of the NTSB.

3.3 meters off the water at 170 km/h before he goes into a steep climb and then looks like he stalled it and spun it in.....

Here is the link.
http://www.cbc.ca/sports/baseball/mlb/r ... -1.4411166

[CpnCrunch]

I think Icon have only themselves to blame for selling this thing as a jetski with wings to low-time pilots and saying it's ok to fly it low. They really need to make the thing un-stallable if they want to do this. Although even then, someone is probably still going to crash it into a wire.

The Warrior/Archer wing is pretty stall proof, but I'm not sure what happens if you do a 45 degree climb.I suspect it isn't going to drop out of the sky. Or there's the Ercoupe, which apparently was un-stallable. Not quite as cool as the Icon though.

[PilotDAR]

there's the Ercoupe, which apparently was un-stallable

During my days of adventure, I deliberately stalled and spun an unsuspecting Ercoupe. It's not easy to do, and you obviously can't hold it into the spin, but I got it to drop a wing. However, I had to maneuver it abusively steep climbing turn type stuff - sorta like I think I have seen in Icon flying....

It is responsible flying which is required - a good pilot attitude should assure good plane attitude.

[pelmet]

there's the Ercoupe, which apparently was un-stallable

During my days of adventure, I deliberately stalled and spun an unsuspecting Ercoupe. It's not easy to do, and you obviously can't hold it into the spin, but I got it to drop a wing. However, I had to maneuver it abusively steep climbing turn type stuff - sorta like I think I have seen in Icon flying....

It is responsible flying which is required - a good pilot attitude should assure good plane attitude.

I have flown an Ercoupe. It barely has any up elevator deflection. That being said, the instructor warned me about avoiding a high sink rate on final by keeping some power on. I suppose a high sink rate landing short of the runway that is not officially a stall might have similar results.

[pdw]

he goes into a steep climb and then looks like he stalled it and spun it in.....
Here is the link.
http://www.cbc.ca/sports/baseball/mlb/r ... -1.4411166

There's the reference in there again ... said it felt "like flying a figher jet" (mentioned a few times already / keeps coming up). Lucky stroke ...I've rechecked wx-records for the decreased performance shear event going on right there / right at noon .. closest working wx-station is Gulf Harbor Villas ONLY 2-3 miles east of the accident; easy to check/confirm for all to see. (The report gives KPIE weather 17NM southeast .. calm .. ... but that is too far away for the shear reference. The true numbers are pretty strong ... actually ...

Intrigued by this recurring fighter jet comment, I took another look at the fighter (TSB report) that tilted/spun also from 300agl July 23 2010/noon in practise for Lethbridge airshow (you know .. that moonwalk thing they like to do) :
The report says/records the F18 pilot (in that spilt second) had thought the initial sink maybe wx-related. I'm beginning to think he is correct to a point ... if an F18 fighter is also capable of doing that from 300ft when so close to its stall speed in similar screwy component conditions ...

Forget the Ercoup .. IMO we're now comparing a possible fighter jet maneuvre ...

[CpnCrunch]

The report says/records the F18 pilot (in that spilt second) had thought the initial sink maybe wx-related. I'm beginning to think he is correct to a point ... if an F18 fighter is also capable of doing that from 300ft when so close to its stall speed in similar screwy component conditions ...

Forget the Ercoup .. IMO we're now comparing a possible fighter jet maneuvre ...

Well it was actually caused by a stuck boost piston:

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/na ... le6220481/

I guess that pilot had been reading too much avcanada and he thought his F-18 had just crashed due to some variable tailwinds. Nothing to do with this accident though...

[pdw]

It wasn't as simple as the spin in the news, but in the report ... the "piston" failure made the escape with AFB impossible once things went wrong at 300ft agl and had to abort. Wx-data too sparse to show what exactly going on (as per the wx-comment by the F18 pilot written into the report).

I think its right to take the closer looks to understand how exactly this happened there over the ocean ...

EDIT: (for "RookiePilot" below).
That's simply my attempt at due-diligence in not wanting to mis-identify the actual accident sequence .. for fear that's also going to risk hurting a "new pilot" who mis-reads .. where a unique shear-signature gets completely igored in a synopsis.

It's true, the 'burning around low over the water in all directions' (PIlotDar et al) is something to avoid all by itself ... something that so obviously led into this accident .. something that perhaps even every aspiring pilot might so wrongly be dreaming about, or have dreamt about doing, at one point or another ..

The best/closest shear indicator info for this accident time/location (on shore nearest the accident):
Surface WX-Station # KFLNEWP065 (Gulf Harbor Villas component)
11:58am - North at 8.7km
12:04pm - West at 4.3km
12:16pm -South at 10.8km
(air temp difference up to 10F )

[rookiepilot]

It wasn't as simple as the spin in the news, but in the report ... the "piston" failure made the escape with AFB impossible once things went wrong at 300ft agl and had to abort. Wx-data too sparse to show what exactly going on (as per the wx-comment by the F18 pilot written into the report).

I think its right to take the closer looks to understand how exactly this happened there over the ocean ...

PDW. Sometimes things other than weather cause accidents.

[PilotDAR]

Sometimes things other than weather cause accidents.

Agreed. In four decades of flying, I never thought to myself, "wow, that was close, that changing wind nearly got me". I have experienced varying winds, and I have errantly landed downwind. I just kept flying the plane, and it all worked.

Of course, the accident pilot would love to say to the investigator "Oooo, a totally unexpected tailwind caused the accident", but that does not mean that was a factor. The Icon accident under discussion was the result of a jetski pilot, flying as though he were zooming around the lake in all directions. The previous Icon accident was not a lot different - the experienced pilot, for whatever reason, ignored some of the basic wisdom of water flying and maneuvering, and succumbed as so many other have before. These accidents become recent, memorable events, useful for training:

"Hey, new pilot, these medium and high time pilots died doing very similar low altitude flying. What are you going to do differently?"

I hope new water pilots are really nervous about blundering into these circumstances, crashing and dying - I am! I'll observe the winds, fly with adequate caution and reserve of safety, but I won't be blaming the winds, should I have an accident (well, one where I was flying!).

[Cat Driver]

How is your recovery coming PilotDAR?

[pdw]

but I won't be blaming the winds

No. Definitely not.

EDIT:
Getting stung by shear, is usually from distraction ahead of time IMO (by 'unecessary antics' etc / maybe not paying attention). Accidental stall/spin at Low Level partly resulting thru faster bleedoff of IAS (helped in-part by the negative shearzone / decreased performance) is maybe one in a hundred accidents, but only hear about those when serious or fatal.

The bug bite, becomes a distraction as/after it happens when also very wide awake at attention. Maybe also 'one in a hundred' except that beesting victims will talk about it / report .. so it makes a story / report; the fatal crashes with those, unlike the total occurrances overall, are infrequent.

ps: -- wind is defined as 5kts or more one direction
-- shear is 2 directions whether or not "windshear"
--9kts shear (4 1/2 kts component either direction) is not peanuts for a steep ascent thru it as shown by NTSB again in this case ... yet is not a "windhear" per say .. Please correct me if I'm wrong on that.

The rapid speed it is seen pitched up thru that mild shearzone from the positive/low side of a lighter transition (from a cooler north component) to the opposing negative/high side (into the warmer southerly component) is still the issue here, I'm very sure of that.

[Cliff Jumper]

but I won't be blaming the winds

No. Definitely not.

?????

PDW how can you respond with that statement? .....you 'blame' the wind every time.

In almost every case you discuss it's about as likely a factor as bees. Yes, bees.

Theoretically the pilot of this accident could have been attacked by a swarm of bees, which caused the accident.

Do you think that is absurd? You should if you don't. It's not impossible mind you, it's just completely absurd.

If I were to come on here, on every accident thread an spout my theory about bees, what would you think of me?

[AirFrame]

If I were to come on here, on every accident thread an spout my theory about bees, what would you think of me?

Maybe he'd just tell you to buzz off...

[pdw]

I've seldom used the w word

IMO learning from a report could be compromised where an 'occasionally contributing factor' that is too rarely obvious to prove, and also often not easily traceable from wx-records, remains untapped as one more significant supporting reason why it is such a bad idea going so steep at low altitude.