Roy Halliday Dies
- Thread starter ToSlow
- Start date
That plane (Icon A5) is quickly shaping up to the the supersport of the air. They've built 7. One crash killed the test pilot and head engineer (trying to fly low and fast through a canyon without success). Now Halladay has crashed another. He got it October 13, tweeted this Oct 31 "I keep telling my dad flying the Icon A5 low over the water is like flying a fighter jet! His response..... I am flying a fighter jet!!" and crashed it into the ocean today. Maybe it's not related to the tweet, but the old bold pilots lesson is at the front of my mind.
The plane looks like it is damn fun to fly, but obviously people are pushing it beyond safe limits. The initial list price was $139K US, now they are in the ballpark of $350K. Between that and the insurance premium going to the moon (what other plane ever made had a 25% fatal crash rate), that may be the final nail in the coffin that is Icon.
The plane looks like it is damn fun to fly, but obviously people are pushing it beyond safe limits. The initial list price was $139K US, now they are in the ballpark of $350K. Between that and the insurance premium going to the moon (what other plane ever made had a 25% fatal crash rate), that may be the final nail in the coffin that is Icon.
There's video on TMZ of the aircraft prior to the crash. The story said witnesses saying "was going from 100 feet in the air down to 5 feet and then back up again ... repeatedly." The folks holding the camera can be heard saying "What the ****", "woo, he is lowww" as he's doing this.
So yeah, I'd agree with the "supersport of the air" analogy. The test pilot died in a canyon, Halliday stunting at low altitude, both pretty risky behaviors. At least Halliday did it over the ocean instead of over a populated area :/
J_F
Guest
plane has been marketed for exactly that type of behaviour
too bad, and irresponsible to encourage that, as it sounds like
a great little plane otherwise
watched a video yesterday of his delivery day for the plane
wife was with him, talking about how she fought the purchase
wish she had fought harder, widow and 2 kids with no dad
very sad
too bad, and irresponsible to encourage that, as it sounds like
a great little plane otherwise
watched a video yesterday of his delivery day for the plane
wife was with him, talking about how she fought the purchase
wish she had fought harder, widow and 2 kids with no dad
very sad
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5062213/Roy-Halladay-fly-Icon-A5-crash.html
Language NSFW
I got my private pilot's license on Cessnas and owned a Piper. Flying is a discipline and altitude is your friend.
Flying at 140 MPH is usually boring if you maintain proper altitude because you're thousands of feet up and the sensation of speed diminishes with distance. I find motorcycles far more interesting.
There is some talk that the manufacturer pushes the fun factor with these things. I don't know who is responsible for the damages due to any such slanted point of view.
Is Icon any more responsible for their plane than Honda is for liter bikes or Chevy making Corvettes?
Language NSFW
I got my private pilot's license on Cessnas and owned a Piper. Flying is a discipline and altitude is your friend.
Flying at 140 MPH is usually boring if you maintain proper altitude because you're thousands of feet up and the sensation of speed diminishes with distance. I find motorcycles far more interesting.
There is some talk that the manufacturer pushes the fun factor with these things. I don't know who is responsible for the damages due to any such slanted point of view.
Is Icon any more responsible for their plane than Honda is for liter bikes or Chevy making Corvettes?
Last edited:
I don't blame icon anymore than i would say makers of ss bikes are guilty. The manufacturers make fun toys, the person in control is responsible for having fun while staying alive. All of this assumes that it was pilot error and not a problem with the plane which seems likely given what is known.
Very sad, indeed.
I'll take up a good old-fashioned, super-reliable Cessna 182 over an A5 any day.
Fly one of those the same way Halliday appeared to be flying his Icon and you'll end up just as dead.
For the pilots on the board, assuming that he hadn't crashed aren't there license implications for flying like that? IIRC, a student out of Buttonville got a regulatory beat down for buzzing his girlfriends house in Markham a few years ago. Halliday was out over the gulf, so maybe it's a free for all out there?
When I got my license there were designated areas for stunt practice and it is illegal to stunt over populated areas. We went to the stunt areas to practice spins and stalls.
Even when flying visual flight rules there are altitude designations based on direction of flight.
I'm not sure of the American situation other than they have a ton of military no fly zones and I stopped flying before 911.
In terms of US law I believe this would apply though am not sure:
"14 CFR 91.303 - Aerobatic flight.
§ 91.303 Aerobatic flight.No person may operate an aircraft in aerobatic flight -
(a) Over any congested area of a city, town, or settlement;
(b) Over an open air assembly of persons;
(c) Within the lateral boundaries of the surface areas of Class B, Class C, Class D, or Class E airspace designated for an airport;
(d) Within 4 nautical miles of the center line of any Federal airway;
(e) Below an altitude of 1,500 feet above the surface; or
(f) When flight visibility is less than 3 statute miles.
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.
[Doc. No. 18834, 54 FR 34308, Aug. 18, 1989, as amended by Amdt. 91-227, 56 FR 65661, Dec. 17, 1991]"
https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/14/91.303
It wouldn't appear that being out over the open water would make a difference if (e) applies.
This, basically. Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.
As for the law, you are allowed to perform aerobatic maneuvers (which, dumb or not, this would be classified as) so long as you are not "over a populated area".
The lake seemed to have quite a few boats on it, but there could be an argument that it wasn't a "populated area", especially considering the plane in question is an amphib.
I don't think anyone got the exact crash on video so it's hard to say if this was pilot error or mechanical failure, but whatever it was, the way he was flying could have led to both. I've heard of this plane being referred to as the "Jetski of the skies", and yes, it seems it was marketed towards this sort of flying.
If the company doesn't yank the model as a result of this, well, I doubt they'll market it that way anymore, let's just put it that way.
Blackfin's post is US law, it is not directly applicable here. Although our laws are similar, see below, there are differences.
I sifted through the CAR's (Canadian aviation regulations) And found the relevant Canadian laws.
Aerobatic Manoeuvres — Prohibited Areas and Flight Conditions
602.27 No person operating an aircraft shall conduct aerobatic manoeuvres
(a) over a built-up area or an open-air assembly of persons;
(b) in controlled airspace, except in accordance with a special flight operations certificate issued pursuant to section 603.67;
(c) when flight visibility is less than three miles; or
(d) below 2,000 feet AGL, except in accordance with a special flight operations certificate issued pursuant to section 603.02 or 603.67.
Aerobatic Manoeuvres with Passengers
602.28 No person operating an aircraft with a passenger on board shall conduct an aerobatic manoeuvre unless the pilot-in-command of the aircraft has engaged in
(a) at least 10 hours dual flight instruction in the conducting of aerobatic manoeuvres or 20 hours conducting aerobatic manoeuvres; and
(b) at least one hour of conducting aerobatic manoeuvres in the preceding six months.
The second section specific to passenger regulations wouldn't apply, however I included them just for reference.
As for the part that does apply, I don't think he'd be in violation of "A" because a lake wouldn't be classify unless it as literally littered with boats for a gathering or something.
However, arguably, he could be in violation of section D, but the fact he was flying an amphibious aircraft could muddy those waters, although I still think a charge would stick as his flight characteristics were hardly indicative of any normal takeoff or landing, he was clearly hotshotting.
The two exceptions that are listed basically deal with special events or airshows, so they would not apply either.
I sifted through the CAR's (Canadian aviation regulations) And found the relevant Canadian laws.
Aerobatic Manoeuvres — Prohibited Areas and Flight Conditions
602.27 No person operating an aircraft shall conduct aerobatic manoeuvres
(a) over a built-up area or an open-air assembly of persons;
(b) in controlled airspace, except in accordance with a special flight operations certificate issued pursuant to section 603.67;
(c) when flight visibility is less than three miles; or
(d) below 2,000 feet AGL, except in accordance with a special flight operations certificate issued pursuant to section 603.02 or 603.67.
Aerobatic Manoeuvres with Passengers
602.28 No person operating an aircraft with a passenger on board shall conduct an aerobatic manoeuvre unless the pilot-in-command of the aircraft has engaged in
(a) at least 10 hours dual flight instruction in the conducting of aerobatic manoeuvres or 20 hours conducting aerobatic manoeuvres; and
(b) at least one hour of conducting aerobatic manoeuvres in the preceding six months.
The second section specific to passenger regulations wouldn't apply, however I included them just for reference.
As for the part that does apply, I don't think he'd be in violation of "A" because a lake wouldn't be classify unless it as literally littered with boats for a gathering or something.
However, arguably, he could be in violation of section D, but the fact he was flying an amphibious aircraft could muddy those waters, although I still think a charge would stick as his flight characteristics were hardly indicative of any normal takeoff or landing, he was clearly hotshotting.
The two exceptions that are listed basically deal with special events or airshows, so they would not apply either.
Not necessarily, aviation is one of the most heavily regulated and safety centric industries in the world, and although famous people get more media attention in situations like this, it doesn't necessarily mean that Joe Blow having an accident in a specific type of aircraft would not attract an equal amount of attention from the safety regulators and the law, if not (obviously) the media.
