Recent content by TexDeuce

Yeah I agree. I would say that is a pretty good analogy.

If it turns out it is all pilot error, why should Icon the company take the hit? It turns out the prior fatality was a bad miscalculation in a canyon not having enough room to maneuver. On paper the Icon A5 is one of the safest airplanes ever made. If it turns out the plane isn't at fault it...

I haven't kept up with the other Icon crash with the chief instructor. Did it seem low level maneuvering in the canyon without enough clearance was the reason? Was that the only other A5 fatality?

He was posting on his Twitter about receiving his A5 and really pretty pumped about it. Has a wife and kids too. Jesus.

Has Icon said anything else or have they been tight lipped?

My buddies dad is the same way. Former military pilot and retired from United Airlines. He thinks the GA planes are suicidal and too dangerous and flat out refuses to fly in them. He thinks motorcycles are too dangerous as well and I would say GA is probably about as risky when it comes to your...

^^^^^^ I couldn't have said it better myself. You get it. Good post. James - I really don't need to respond as you are arguing against points I am not making so there is not much to be said on that. I don't disagree with what you are saying but it is a tangent not relevant to the point I am...

Lol. Nope, not on the payroll. I think we have discussed my point enough for now. There are good points being made that I absolutely agree with but they are a separate issue from the plane itself and the point I am making. Bottom line, let's not condemn the actual plane itself just yet. I enjoy...

I'm not saying now. I'm saying IF no structural or flight issues are found with the A5. The flight characteristics and safety features beat a 172. If pilots continue crashing the A5 doing low level stunts and they are found to be pilot error, that has no bearing on the plane. If someone...

I've already said adding the amphib part obviously adds more risk. Is there something in the contract saying you can only use it as an amphib? Again the pilot behavior is being projected onto the plane itself and the strawman arguments continue pouring in.

The 172 is a very safe plane and has a great record. But *if* the A5 proves to not have any structural or flight issues then the 172 would in no way be safer than the A5. If what people are saying is true that have flown it. That isn't denigrating the safety and record of the 172. It is just...

Any amphib plane will get their pilot into trouble if they buzz around at 15 feet AGL pushing the plane to the limit at 20 hours. That has absolutely nothing to do with the plane itself and is solely on the pilot choosing to fly like that. Again, nobody is addressing the plane itself. Only the...

I played Microsoft Flight Sim once and I stayed at a Holiday Inn Express last night.

Is this a joke?

The plane was designed to fly. What is done with the plane is up to each individual. Your argument has no valid reasoning with the point I make about the plane itself.