Jump to content
  • Welcome to Recreational Flying!
    A compelling community experience for all aviators
    Intuitive, Social, Engaging...Registration is FREE.
    Register Log in
Sign in to follow this  
dlegg

ICON A5 Legalities

Recommended Posts

Add to the fact that ICON are building a composite airframe factory for the A5 in Tijuana Mexico, Mr Trump will put a charge on the components coming back into California to pay for the wall., so the price will go up again.

 

I received the survey, also finding the questions weird.

 

I was hoping that there would be one on display at Avalon Airshow. Maybe in 2019

 

Regards RW

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Add to the fact that ICON are building a composite airframe factory for the A5 in Tijuana Mexico, Mr Trump will put a charge on the components coming back into California to pay for the wall., so the price will go up again.

I received the survey, also finding the questions weird.

 

I was hoping that there would be one on display at Avalon Airshow. Maybe in 2019

 

Regards RW

Hey rotor don't spose you saved any of the survey on your comp I thought of it after and tried to go back in and access was closed in typical ICON style.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hi DocClicked on the link and got the same message as you.

 

So nothing saved

 

Regards RW

ok thanks rotor can I ask you if you are a SPAA member if not join up and join the aussie seaplane community to get all the latest seaplane news in AUS there are six of us SPAA members on the ICON order list so be lucky number 7 come on.

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sad news from the icon Facebook page

 

Here is the statement ICON Aircraft CEO Kirk Hawkins sent to our customers about today’s accident:

 

“It is with great sadness that I write this. Earlier today, two ICON Employees were killed in an A5 accident while flying at Lake Berryessa, CA. We have no details on the cause of the accident right now and the names of the victims have not been released publicly. The NTSB and FAA have been notified and ICON will be working closely with them to fully support their investigation....

 

See more

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In my opinion It all sounds very fishy, I would not be surprised to see the whole thing collapse with enormous losses. What's that system called whereby the new deposits pay the owner and his mates while everybody admires the new aircraft

 

( read; suit of clothes) and "production delays" prevent the company from actually making anything at all? Oh yes, Ponzi

 

 

  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is a very, very old saying: 'A Fool and his Money is soon parted."

 

The modern version of Fooling, is a major virtual product presentation using CAD graphics and CGI presentations of something that does not exist, with a major surplus of words such as: 'breakthrough', or 'new vision', or other similar blather.

 

All designed to seduce you from your usual prudence.

 

Recreational Aviation potential aircraft purchasers would be so much better served if there were reliable aircraft testing reviews ( and NO, not Dan Johnson, he's a BS merchant) that they could use to make their decisions. Sort of a 'Choice' panel of reviewers.

 

George Markey - one of the most experienced 'small' aviation exponents we have had ( RIP, George, and many of us will hope you remain RIP, you old bugger..) once remarked to me that 'aircraft buyers buy the paint job, not the aircraft underneath it'. For all his iconoclastic and abrasive nature, he had that one right: some Rec. Av. owners ( and a whole lot of GA owners) look at the piccies, the advertised specs, and make their decision. If they had been exposed to the FACTS of testing etc., such dangerous abortions as the Lancair 320-360s would never have gained a customer.

 

IMHO, the Icon is a con-job. I agree that it LOOKS like a great thing - but about 150% overpriced.

 

 

  • Like 1
  • Agree 2
  • Winner 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As mentioned above the fourth Icon has had an accident, sadly this time both occupants were fatal.

 

The Pilot was the Chief Development pilot which is of concern, he has been flying them from day one and a track record prior to that of aircraft development. That would tend to make one think of the possibility of a serious failure out of his control.

 

 

  • Informative 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Another accident with an A5 occurred on 2nd April, 2017. NTSB GAA17CA213. Aircraft was reported as having a heavy openwater landing. Two in a row!

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Icon are going from spruikers to a real aircraft company and that means dealing with accidents. Senior test pilot death is a pretty serious event in any aircraft company

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This event ( and I would add my condolences for the poor victims) has very large potential ramifications.

 

ICON managed to wangle out of the FAA an exemption to the basic limit to MTOW for LSA aircraft to allow it to meet the spin requirement characteristics - on the basis that their 'improved' design for meeting the spin requirement characteristics provided greater safety. AFAIK, no other LSA aircraft has had this dispensation, so all the rest have had to meet the spin requirements and provide adequate safety within the LSA rules. There is already an additional weight allowance if a BRS is installed to 'add' safety.

 

HOWEVER: the fact that the basic design of this aircraft could NOT meet the spin requirements, then it is evident that the basic design had flaws that could not be rectified within the LSA rules. Here is the subtext: the basic design needed additional MTOW to meet the aerodynamic requirements that every other LSA manufacturer has to meet and the MTOW increase did nothing to add occupant safety.

 

Given the circumstances of the accident, it is probably unlikely that we will get a definitive answer as to whether the fatal consequences were a result of a pilot-error induced out-of-condition arrival with the surface or an aerodynamic problem resulting in that arrival.

 

The potential outcome of this accident is, that for any manufacturer to propose an increase in MTOW for their LSA-class aircraft on the basis of safety, they will have a more difficult path. That is a major pity for the improvement of occupant safety. In the automobile world, we have seen vehicle weights increase significantly with the introduction of stronger cabin strength, air-bag inclusion, side intrusion bars, roll-over protection etc.

 

I suspect the FAA reaction to this accident will take some time to eventuate, but I also suspect that it will retreat to 'behind the standard', and that does not bode well for improvements to occupant safety of LA aircraft.

 

 

  • Informative 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
on the basis that their 'improved' design for meeting the spin requirement characteristics provided greater safety.

and the MTOW increase did nothing to add occupant safety.

But retained there obviously heavy electric wing fold system and other comforts. Yeah, we know the real reason for the weight increase.

 

If I had been one of the manufacturers of the 200 LSA models on the market that have had multi millions of dollars and hundreds of thousands of man hours thrown into them combined to meet the LSA rules, I would have been livid, and I'm surprised there hasn't been a lawsuit over it from one of them.

 

Ironically it might just be a lawsuit now over this that stops them in their tracks.

 

 

  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wonder if fog had anything to do with the crash? SF Bay area is well known for fast moving fogs

 

 

  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hard to believe the company would not have had at least a few cameras running during all test flying. Very poor test program if not these days.

 

They could shed light on the cause hopefully and save the next potential pilot!

 

Here's hoping so anyway.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I became very interested in this plane as a result of all the media coverage surrounding the most recent accident in Florida. I scheduled a 1.5 hour introductory flight and paid the $595 fee. I knew they were going to require some kind of waiver but I was not prepared for what they demand. To take the flight you have to agree to not only waive all rights to sue them under any circumstances, but also indemnify them for any loss whatsoever including their own negligence. They offer $1MM liability with the fee but there is a $10K deductible you would be responsible for. I'm not a lawyer. I'm not a fool either. If you want a test ride you are exposed to a lot more risk than you can imagine if you didn't read and understand the waiver. I protested. They eventually responded that they would not accept any changes. I cancelled the flight. Too bad. It looks like the company lawyers are in control and held accountable only on the basis of the risk they would not accept. I'll look elsewhere but i like the plane and concept. A lot.

 

 

  • Like 1
  • Informative 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And another one bites the dust

 

Seaplane sinks in water off Sanibel Island

 

So from about 10 actually flying, 3 have gone down, thankfully no one reported hurt in this incident.

 

Maybe the pilots should revert to just flying them normally and not pretending they are 'Jetskis of the air'.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Visited their stand at Oshkosh 2015. Thought it all a froth and bubble show with no substance, full of media and sales hype. Nothing since has changed my mind.

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry, correction.

 

That's 4 that have gone down, not 3.

 

Independents who fly them (normally) say they fly nice, I think it's the type of flying people are attempting that they are pushed as being suitable for that's causing the grief.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don’t disagree about the froth and bubble of the promotion (I looked at their display at Oshkosh 2014) and felt the same. Nice aircraft but I remember quoting that the ICON display seemed very shiny and sparkly ( like the mirrors in “smoke and mirrors”)

 

The legality stuff sounds crazy. And the last price blowout I read I think just seals the coffin on them.

 

However to play devils advocate. Of The ones that went down weren’t two (as best as has been released so far) pilot error. ( the ICON manager or whatever position he held - didn’t they fly into a box canyon and stalled it trying to make a tight turn out? And the pro sportsman guy - although he wasn’t actually seen hitting the water he was seen immediately before it hooning doing beat ups at extreme low level with climbs a steep turns. Blood levels of amphetamines or cocaine I forget which in blood samples.

 

This latest one just says it sank. Looks intact otherwise. Maybe got swamped while moored. Or maybe hit a submerged log or something and holed it. That’s hardly the aircraft design or manufacturers fault. Anyone know how it sank?

 

I think Bexs comment that the people who have them need to not treat them as a jet ski is very true.

 

 

  • Like 1
  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later for your post to be seen If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...