Quoting ICON about low altitude flying

[PilotDAR]

I have read the following, written by the people of ICON:

Soft-Deck Maneuvering
The use of a soft deck is central to ICON's Lowalt flying philosophy. The idea is that when in the low altitude environment, the PIC should shift a significant portion of their attention to terrain and obstacle avoidance (like towers, power lines, etc.) while also maneuvering more benignly. This conscious shift should be observed below a prescribed altitude or "soft deck." While good judgment and airmanship always takes precedence over any guidelines, the following maneuvering limits should generally be observed:

Above Soft Deck: Normal, non-aerobatic maneuvering (+/- 60° bank +/- 30° pitch)*
Below Soft Deck: Benign maneuvering (+/- 45° bank +/- 10° pitch)

*60/30 is a reference. The current FAA definition is ambiguous. In the past, the definition of aerobatic included these 60/30 limits. FAR 91.303 currently states "For the purposes of this section, aerobatic flight means an intentional maneuver involving an abrupt change in an aircraft's attitude, an abnormal attitude, or abnormal acceleration, not necessary for normal flight." Today, parachute FAR 91.307(c) still states, "Unless each occupant of the aircraft is wearing an approved parachute, no pilot of a civil aircraft carrying any person (other than a crewmember) may execute any intentional maneuver that exceeds- (1) A bank of 60 degrees relative to the horizon; or (2) A nose-up or nose-down attitude of 30 degrees relative to the horizon."

ICON Soft-Deck Training Qualifications

Standard (300' AGL): Appropriate for all ICON graduates. ICON SPL, TXL, TXS, ICON IP, or higher
Advanced (100' AGL): Requires advanced ICON Lowalt training and ICON check ride

It worries me, am I understanding what is written as it is intended? For a "Standard graduate" ICON pilot, that pilot might consider maneuvering +- 45 in bank, and +- 10 in pitch below 300 feet in a water flying environment?!! The bank angles worry me, the pitch angles worry me a lot! I'm not even thinking about the "above soft deck limits" just yet!

Yes, I know that very skilled and well trained aerobatic pilots can prove their skills in this type of maneuvering, so it is possible to fly with some measure of safety. However, to me, mixing that type of extreme maneuvering with varying terrain, and perhaps the loss of good situational awareness due to a water only reference, would demand even more skill than the advanced aerobatic training over a more planned and benign surface. Would I accept this type of maneuvering during water training? Never! I cannot train a water pilot to fly with an adequate reserve of safety with such extreme attitudes and low altitude. If the pilot has flown into a circumstance where such maneuvering is required, that pilot has blundered a long way back - more training to avoid those conditions much further back. If the pilot is flying that maneuvering for their own entertainment, they're in the wrong type of plane, and wrong environment.

After where it has been written:

While good judgment and airmanship always takes precedence .....

it seems to me that all that is written is really poor judgement and airmanship. Don't think of this type of flying as acceptable, particularly if you would like to impress an employer with your professional attitude!

[Cat Driver]

It worries me, am I understanding what is written as it is intended? For a "Standard graduate" ICON pilot, that pilot might consider maneuvering +- 45 in bank, and +- 10 in pitch below 300 feet in a water flying environment?!!

I am close to a loss for words to comment about the above.

So to make it simple I will say this.

That is unsafe and can be fatal.

[digits_]

I'm not so sure what the problem is? They are allowing it, that doesn't mean it's mandatory or that you have to do it over water?

[C.W.E.]

Soft-Deck Maneuvering
The use of a soft deck is central to ICON's Lowalt flying philosophy.

ICON Soft-Deck Training Qualifications

Standard (300' AGL): Appropriate for all ICON graduates. ICON SPL, TXL, TXS, ICON IP, or higher
Advanced (100' AGL): Requires advanced ICON Lowalt training and ICON check ride

Interesting, I never heard of soft- deck training.

However I do know that in Europe we were restricted to no manoeuvring below two hundred feet above the surface during air show displays.

They were very strict with that rule and used radar units to monitor our flying.

If any part of the airplane went below the two hundred foot floor we immediately got a warning on our radio, if we went below it again we were told to leave the area and our display license was suspended until a full hearing was held and they could cancel out airdisplay authority document permanently.

For those of you who are interested before every air show all the pilots were required to attend the pre show safety meeting that covered that days program.

The meetings were between one and two hours depending on how big the show was and they made it clear that going below the display floor was not tolerated and would be dealt with immediately.

[AuxBatOn]

They are advocating and endosrsing dangerous maneuvers. I don't have issues with AoB at all, but below 1,000 ft, unless landing, I never use more than 1 degree ND per 100 ft above my min altitude.

These numbers are not soft deck numbers, they are hard deck numbers as in thou shall not venture below that altitude. Below 1,000 ft, primary task shall be to avoid the ground. There is time for mission tasks, but no more than 3 seconds at a time at 300 ft. At 100 ft, just avoid the ground. Don't turn more than 180 degrees at the time and never conduct descending turns. In the turns, look ahead and into the turn.

The terminology is based on military terminology but wrongly employed. The floor is an altitude under which you cannot go below. The transition is an altitude below which unlimited maneuvering (ie: dogfighting) shall not be conducted. If dogfighting starts above that altitude, the transition altitude, it becomes the hard deck for the duration of the engagement. If you go through it as you are fighting, you are dead, as if you hit the ground, Otherwise, you can go below the transition but you are now in the "limited maneuvering regime" (terrain clearance becomes your primary task, 180 degree turns at most, no high AoA maneuvering, mantaining a minimum speed)

We also have a soft deck, which is above the hard deck that becomes a warning that you are approaching the hard deck and that sustained high AoA maneuvering is prohibited.

Generally speaking, the floor is 1,000 ft AGL for tactical missions (250 ft AGl for low level awareness training or 100 ft AGL for minimum altitude capable training), transition altitude is 5,000 ft AGL and soft deck is 10,000 ft AGL.

We have rules and procedures to keep us safe in the transition and and during flight in the low level environment which are far more evolved than what is proposed by that company....

All buzzwords to sound cool and sell aircraft, at the expense of people's lives...

[PilotDAR]

They are allowing it, that doesn't mean it's mandatory or that you have to do it over water?

ICON appears to me to be endorsing low altitude flying, and aggressive maneuvering. In this they are providing "limits", which in my opinion, if needed, mean that the average pilot is way too far into trouble already. If flown for entertainment, that entertainment should be flown at a much higher altitude to allow for upset recovery.

Yes, I might fly a 45 degree bank turn base to final, at 300 feet-ish, if I needed to tighten a turn, but I would not plan it that way to begin with, and it would not be for "maneuvering", but rather to align to my intended landing surface, which means that I have a suitable visual reference to maintain. If I've had to make a 45 degree bank to final, I obviously let something get away from me already, and I really should be considering going around, rather than pressing further into a compromised maneuver, because ICON said it was okay.

Water, particularly with no near features of shore or vessels, can be a very poor visual reference for attitude. If there is no distinct horizon in the field of view, much worse. Planning such aggressive maneuvering at such a low altitude, where, particularly during a turn, it could be expected that sight of shore or the horizon might no longer be clear, is simply dangerous. It can be done, and "got away with", but should never be trained nor accepted as normal flying - there's no good reason to do it!

[photofly]

I'm not so sure what the problem is? They are allowing it, that doesn't mean it's mandatory or that you have to do it over water?

The company is recommending (and selling aircraft based on) a protocol for very low time pilots that is significantly less restrictive than the limits set and strictly obeyed by experienced air show and military pilots.

Doesn’t that raise your eyebrows?

[Eric Janson]

I'm not so sure what the problem is? They are allowing it, that doesn't mean it's mandatory or that you have to do it over water?

This far exceeds the capabilities of most of the people that will be flying the aircraft - they will get themselves into situations that they will be unable to get themselves out of. Couple of high profile crashes with this aircraft prove the point.

Kind of like flying a C-172 to the North Pole - it may be allowed but doesn't mean it's a smart thing to do.

[digits_]

I'm not so sure what the problem is? They are allowing it, that doesn't mean it's mandatory or that you have to do it over water?

The company is recommending (and selling aircraft based on) a protocol for very low time pilots that is significantly less restrictive than the limits set and strictly obeyed by experienced air show and military pilots.

Doesn’t that raise your eyebrows?

A little, yes, but no more than reading theoretical max ranges that would crash the plane if you flew them or max cruising speeds you only achieve with unrealistic power settings.

I don't have a manual with me, but I don't think a 172 or 152 has such limitations. However I admit I never looked for them. Which, objectively, would make this airplane safer as it prohibits at least some of the high risk flying.

The only people affected by this promo would be those who are looking for an airplane to do such flying. Those might actually be safer getting this plane and do the training than buy any other plane and try it yourself.

@PilotDAR
You gave an example yourself where 45 degrees would be acceptable. They don't claim you can bank 45 degrees at any location at any time.
Also, if you fly low level and want to climb again, depending on speed and plane type, 10 degrees pitch up does not seem excessive. I never flew that plane though, so maybe it is for this one? Don't know but I'd be surprised.

@Eric

[AirFrame]

This kind of flying killed their ex-military, high-time, extremely-qualified, test pilot. What do they think it will do to the average Joe baseball player? Oh, wait, that's already been answered...

[photofly]

A little, yes, but no more than reading theoretical max ranges that would crash the plane if you flew them or max cruising speeds you only achieve with unrealistic power settings.

Those are airplane engineering limits, not pilot skill limits.

Nobody has a training program where pilots are encouraged and trained to fly to the extreme ends of the aircraft range. Quite the opposite in fact. And no danger comes about when a pilot follows an "unrealistic" yet permitted power setting to get a maximum cruising speed, whether they succeed or not.

[PilotDAR]

You gave an example yourself where 45 degrees would be acceptable.

Perhaps acceptable to me, and to the airplane owner - me. I would be very surprised to hear that the provider of an aircraft to a pilot would accept this. I think that if a pilot flew a 45 degree banked turn below 300 feet during a checkout, a rental to them would be declined. Certainly, were I to be training a pilot and they did that, the training would stop until I was assured that it would not happen again. Because I also said

If I've had to make a 45 degree bank to final, I obviously let something get away from me already, and I really should be considering going around, rather than pressing further into a compromised maneuver,

And even that would be worrisome during a checkout, but the decision to go around would be the better decision to be seen to be made.

To do it because it was entertaining, and the aircraft manufacturer condoned it, would be a very poor decision.

[5x5]

Any talk about their promotion of low flying not being a problem because they aren't saying "you have to do it" is disingenuous at best. They are encouraging it very strongly. After all they are essentially selling it as a seadoo that flies with easy (i.e limited) training. And who's ever seen a seadoo rider do anything foolish?

This company is simply reprehensible in its marketing, IMHO.

[RatherBeFlying]

Flying gliders we commonly bank 45° turning final at 300'. Up our sleeve is that non aerobatic gliders rarely have the elevator authority to reach the stalling angle of attack at that bank angle. It's the shallow banked turns "helped" with rudder that do in glider pilots.

The other thing you learn thermalling with gliders at 40 kt in a 45° bank is that the glider opposite you is quite a way off.

The turning circle at 90 kt is a whole lot bigger.

At low level the wind can do all sorts of nasty tricks downstream of obstacles. A vortex can give you a shear double the wind aloft. If you are fortunate enough to survive a low level encounter with one, trust me, you will do your best not to be caught in another one.

Thankfully airports tend to be located where it's flat for miles around. A large building, ridge or line of trees upwind can upset the applecart in the blink of an eye.

[pelmet]

I recently flew into the Vacaville airport and got a tour of their factory. Their newest promotion to sell aircraft is a good business idea....fractional ownership. You can buy a part share, pay a monthly management fee, and the hourly operating fee. They will take care of the rest for you. Owning an American aircraft may present some difficulties for a foreigner but if it can be worked out, a snowbird could have an aircraft based in Florida for them ready to go in the winter and taken care of for them in the summer. Maybe in the summer, you could have another one in Minnesota or Maine.