Event CEN19LA242

Factual narrative

On July 27, 2019, about 1320 eastern daylight time, an amphibious, light sport Icon Aircraft Inc. A5 airplane, N663BA, sustained substantial damage during an impact with trees and water shortly after departure from Littlefield Lake, Lake, Michigan. The airplane was registered to and operated by Icon Aircraft Inc. as a 14 Code of Federal Regulations Part 91 business flight when the accident occurred. The airline transport pilot sustained minor injuries, and the pilot rated passenger sustained serious injuries. Visual meteorological conditions prevailed, and no flight plan had been filed. According to the pilot, the purpose of the flight was a sales demonstration flight with a client. When he arrived at Littlefield Lake, he estimated the wind to be about 8 to 10 knots from the southwest. After landing, he water taxied to the client's lake shore home, and the client boarded the airplane. After plow taxing the airplane to the selected departure area, he said the wind had increased, and he estimated the speed to be between 12 and 15 knots. He said when he started the takeoff run, he saw three small wakes, consistent with those from wave runners, which helped propel the airplane into the air. He said that the airplane took off on the first attempt and the takeoff was normal and "there was nothing wrong with the [air]plane at all." He stated that when they got to the shoreline, they were about 50 to 60 ft above the treetops. His plan was to execute a right turn to stay over the lake in the event of an engine failure. Before starting the right turn, he looked at the angle of attack indicator and it indicated one needle width below the top of the green, and he estimated his speed between 55 and 60 knots. He initiated a 10° turn to the right to stay over the lake, and it felt like they "hit a wall." The airplane descended rapidly, clipped a tree, and impacted the water. The pilot rated passenger, who was seated in the left seat at the time of the accident, stated that "the weather was not the best" and that the wind was shifting 180°. He said he told the pilot-in-command (PIC) this sentiment, and that it took four takeoff attempts to get airborne. After the second attempt, he said he told the PIC that it would not break his heart if they did not go. He said that the airplane felt very sluggish and acted as if it did not want to come off the water. When the airplane transitioned off the water, he estimated they were about 100 ft from the trees, headed straight toward them, and the airplane "felt very heavy." He said the PIC told him that the airplane had 485 lbs of useful load available and the fuel level was at ¾ of a tank. A post-accident weight and balance calculation, based upon the most recent available weight and balance and information provided to a Federal Aviation Administration aviation safety inspector, revealed that the airplane was about 57 lbs over maximum gross weight and outside of the weight and center of gravity envelope limits contained within Pilot's Operating Handbook (POH). The POH lists the maximum takeoff weight as 1,510 lbs and contains the following warning: "Warning: It is the responsibility of the pilot to make sure the airplane is loaded properly. Operation outside of the approved weight and balance limitations could result in an accident and serious or fatal injury." A witness to the accident stated that they saw the airplane make three takeoff attempts before the airplane became airborne. The pilot wrote in a post-accident email "Plow taxing [sic] takes place at approximately 3,800 rpm, so it would likely be perceived as an attempted takeoff. Full takeoff power, however, is approximately 5,300 rpm." Data retrieved from the airplane's Digital to Analogue Converter (DAC) revealed that the flight began about 1309 at the passenger's lake shore residence. After departing the passenger's residence, the airplane water-taxied northeast, exiting a cove that linked to the main lake. The airplane taxied about 5 minutes and 35 seconds with the engine speed less than 4,000 RPM. About 11 minutes and 10 seconds after departing the residence, the engine speed began to increase until it peaked about 5,292 RPM about 1314:47. At this time, the flaps were indicating 0°, the indicated airspeed was recorded at 26.34 knots, and the airplane was on a 125° ground track. At 1314:49, engine RPM began to decrease, and the ground track indicated a turn toward the south. At 1314:52, the flaps were lowered to 30°, and the airplane continued the turn toward the north. After traveling north for about a minute around 4,300 RPM, the airplane began a turn toward the west. The westerly track continued for about a minute before the airplane turned toward the southeast. While in the turn, with the flaps set at 30°, engine RPM began to increase to 5,140 RPM. At 1317:52, the recorded indicated airspeed peaked about 37 knots. The engine speed remained above 5,000 RPM until 1317:57. As the RPM decreased, the ground track began to indicate a more easterly track. At 1318:57, the engine speed again began to increase, and the ground track began to indicate a turn back toward the southeast. The turn continued as engine speed and airspeed began to increase. At 1319:29, the engine speed indicated 5,021 RPM, the recorded indicated airspeed was 45.32 knots, the ground track was about 219° and altitude began to increase. At 1319:34, the indicated airspeed started to oscillate between about 40 to 53 knots. At 1319:40, the highest airspeed of the flight was recorded at 54.64 knots. At 1319:42, the highest GPS altitude recorded was about 947 ft mean sea level (MSL). The lake level was recorded at approximately 906 ft MSL. The last line of data was time stamped 1319:45. At that time, the engine speed was 4,839.59 RPM, the indicated airspeed was 28.69 knots, the airplane ground speed was 39.4 knots, the ground track was 353°, and the wing's angle of attack was 20.54°. A review of video of the accident flight posted on social media from witnesses showed the airplane in a nose-high attitude with the flaps extended as it approached trees during the initial climb. As the airplane reached about the midpoint of a stand of trees, the angle of attack appeared to increase and the nose dropped. The right wing then lowered and impacted one of the trees. The airplane subsequently descended rapidly into the water. The pilot was conducting a sales demonstration flight with a pilot-rated passenger on board. He reported that, when he started the takeoff run from a lake, three small wakes helped propel the airplane into the air. He stated that the airplane took off on the first attempt, the takeoff was normal, and "there was nothing wrong with the [air]plane at all." He added that, after initiating a 10° right turn to stay over the lake, it felt like the airplane "hit a wall." The airplane then descended rapidly, clipped a tree, and impacted water, which resulted in substantial damage to the fuselage and wings. The pilot-rated passenger said that it took four takeoff attempts to get airborne and that the airplane felt very sluggish and acted as if it did not want to come off the water. Postaccident weight and balance calculations revealed that the airplane was about 57 lbs over its maximum gross weight and outside of the weight and center of gravity limits contained in the pilot's operating handbook. Data retrieved from the airplane's onboard digital-to-analogue converter were consistent with three takeoff attempts, with the airplane becoming airborne on the third attempt. A review of video of the accident flight from witnesses showed the airplane in a nose-high attitude with the flaps extended as it approached trees during the initial climb. As the airplane reached about the midpoint of a stand of trees, the angle of attack appeared to increase and the nose dropped. The right wing then lowered and impacted one of the trees. Source: NTSB Aviation Accident Database Retrieved: 2026-02-12

NTSB Findings

Hierarchical cause / factor breakdown from the FAA bulk avdata database. Each finding tagged C (Cause) or F (Factor).

• C Personnel issues-Action/decision-Info processing/decision-Decision making/judgment-Pilot
• C Personnel issues-Task performance-Use of equip/info-Aircraft control-Pilot
• C Aircraft-Aircraft oper/perf/capability-Performance/control parameters-Angle of attack-Capability exceeded
• C Aircraft-Aircraft oper/perf/capability-Aircraft capability-Maximum weight-Capability exceeded
• C Aircraft-Aircraft oper/perf/capability-Aircraft capability-CG/weight distribution-Capability exceeded
• — Personnel issues-Task performance-Planning/preparation-Weight/balance calculations-Pilot
• — Environmental issues-Physical environment-Object/animal/substance-Tree(s)-Contributed to outcome