Icon A5 Dunked...

FastEddieB said:
From ICON:

In the coming days, you may hear about a mishap involving an A5 that occurred over the weekend in South Florida. I wanted to reach out so you'd hear the facts directly from us.

During flight operations of two A5s down in Miami, Florida, this Saturday, 1 April (no joke), one of the A5s experienced an extremely hard landing that resulted in hull damage that caused the aircraft to take on water. Both the pilot and passenger were uninjured. While the aircraft subsequently submerged up to the wings, it remained afloat and was towed approximately eight miles to a marina where it was loaded onto an A5 trailer and transported back to ICON. The situation is still under thorough review by ICON, but all initial information suggests pilot error.

As you might imagine, towing a partially submerged A5 into the closest marina attracted a lot of attention for many reasons. Attached is one of the photos that was taken. I'm guessing this will be as painful for you to look at as it was for me. After more than 3,500 A5 flight hours in 20+ aircraft over many years, including an extensive development program, this is the first situation like this we've experienced.
Click to expand...
What is the source of this message? Twit? FecesBook? MyFace? This does not sound like any official release.
 
The hard landing does explain why an amphibious aircraft was submerged up to the wings.
 
I thought that aircraft could not be moved until the FAA came to investigate? (Perhaps they did, though I've not seen it mentioned.)

Glad nobody was hurt, but it does feel like Icon was quick to say that it was pilot error that caused the hard landing and hull breach.
 
BigBadLou said:
What is the source of this message? Twit? FecesBook? MyFace? This does not sound like any official release.
Click to expand...

I saw it first on another forum, then the exact same text on Facebook, but I'm not recalling the source.

edited to add:

33664075962_2758088795_z.jpg
 
Last edited:
Good to know if you do break the hull, hole the hull??, on landing the plane will still float. But with the cockpit, and presumably your head if its not out, submerged. So its like the car in the 007 movie that turns into a sub, only this version is cooler, cause it flys and turns into a sub.
 
A landing hard enough to sink the hull but not injure the occupants. I'm sure they'll spin that as a feature, but it seems like I should at least get a sore neck if I hit hard enough to sink the plane.
 
Seems like hating on Icon is a thing that a lot of people are into. But why? They think outside the box and have developed a very innovative product. GA needs that, and I wish them only success.

As for a landing that was bad enough to cause damage, it could happen to any aircraft, land or sea. Icon has said it was pilot error, which means their pilot probably already admitted as much. But we don't know the circumstances that lead to it. As with most accidents, chances are there was some series of errors and/or distractions that lead to the end result. Speculating with so little information available is kind of pointless.
 
Nah.. Just like Cirrus haters, no reason other than jealousy of people who have the means to own one.
 
flytime said:
Seems like hating on Icon is a thing that a lot of people are into. But why? They think outside the box and have developed a very innovative product. GA needs that, and I wish them only success.

...
Click to expand...

Not trying to 'bash' ICON, and I realize it combines some interesting but well known technologies. What I can't figure out is what is innovative about it? Other than the very well developed promotion and marketing campaign.
 
flytime said:
Seems like hating on Icon is a thing that a lot of people are into. But why? They think outside the box and have developed a very innovative product. GA needs that, and I wish them only success.

As for a landing that was bad enough to cause damage, it could happen to any aircraft, land or sea. Icon has said it was pilot error, which means their pilot probably already admitted as much. But we don't know the circumstances that lead to it. As with most accidents, chances are there was some series of errors and/or distractions that lead to the end result. Speculating with so little information available is kind of pointless.
Click to expand...
You must still be filling out your 40 page contract and still excited to be bent over by that fraud of a company who are selling the dream of owning a plane instead of selling actual aircraft?
Just asking....
 
I'm sure grown ups can make their own decisions on how to spend their earned money. If someone doesn't mind a 40 page contract or waiting for their aircraft to be delivered, who cares? Why is someone bending over? Same was said about Cirrus. Tell me, have you ever designed and built an aircraft from scratch? Just asking.....
 
mirage00 said:
I'm sure grown ups can make their own decisions on how to spend their earned money. If someone doesn't mind a 40 page contract or waiting for their aircraft to be delivered, who cares? Why is someone bending over? Same was said about Cirrus. Tell me, have you ever designed and built an aircraft from scratch? Just asking.....
Click to expand...
Actually, I am building one from scratch as we speak and yes I am doing much of the design work myself. So put that in your pipe.

I have no issue with someone putting money on a plane, I FO have an issue with a company screwing their customers twice over by making them sign their rights away and then not delivering aircraft as promised.
What is your opinion of ponzi schemes?
 
flytime said:
Seems like hating on Icon is a thing that a lot of people are into. But why? They think outside the box and have developed a very innovative product. GA needs that, and I wish them only success.
Click to expand...

GA needs far LESS of what they have to offer. Already plenty of ripoff artists in GA over the years.
 
I'm not so convinced this is a classic Ponzi so much as yet another example of a group of aviation romantics and neophytes seriously underestimating the actual time and investment needed to design, test, certify and tool up to produce a brand new clean sheet design.

I don't actually believe it is economically possible in this day for a stand-alone start-up company to create a new certified small piston GA airplane for the private (non-commercial) buyer. The sales unit volumes needed to overcome the smaller margins in the piston market to pay for the $millions in development & certification costs are just not there. The market just isn't big enough.

The LSA rules were an attempt to address that, and seems to have had some success. But Icon seemed to be trying to build the Rolls-Royce of the LSA world, with a commensurate price. I don't think there's a big market at that price point for a Rotax machine.

ICON was probably trying to raise capital two ways; deposits from future deliveries + private equity, which needed some actual demonstrated orders/deposits to support the sales forecasts that were being pitched to them. I think ICON came up short despite its slick marketing campaign.
 
Last edited:
Icon should have just started making a basic plan at a basic price without all the ********. Then they could have worked on their grand design while working out all the kinks. Instead of starting out with a ford sedan they went right for the Mercedes.
Still, they have proven they have no desire to actually produce anything for their customers, or the few customers that are left. I guess they don't teach that anymore, that the customer is always right.
 
It's not a complicated machine, and might have been produced as a kit (and might still by owner #2 of the assets, if and when that happens).
But I think Icon saw its target market as people looking for another toy to add to the collection, sort of a high performance jet ski with wings.
 
Is it possible they hit something in the water? A log floating in the water doesn't have a lot sticking out of the water to see (most of it is underwater, like ice), but can cause a lot of damage to something hitting it at speed and can breach the hull of a boat. I've seen a lot of odd things in the water I wouldn't care to hit besides logs- beer kegs, for example.
 
Cap'n Jack said:
Is it possible they hit something in the water? A log floating in the water doesn't have a lot sticking out of the water to see (most of it is underwater, like ice), but can cause a lot of damage to something hitting it at speed and can breach the hull of a boat. I've seen a lot of odd things in the water I wouldn't care to hit besides logs- beer kegs, for example.
Click to expand...
Too bad they didn't hit a raft full of kardashians
 
GRG55 said:
It's not a complicated machine, and might have been produced as a kit (and might still by owner #2 of the assets, if and when that happens).
But I think Icon saw its target market as people looking for another toy to add to the collection, sort of a high performance jet ski with wings.
Click to expand...
I firmly believe they started making so much money off of the hype and investments that when they got around to looking at sales profits they had a major reconsideration and decided to just string it out as long as they can, which is how we got to where we are now. They have made more money not selling a product that they would by selling the product. Soon they will sell off the assets and rights and we will start chapter two of this horrid saga.
 
rtk11 said:
I thought that aircraft could not be moved until the FAA came to investigate? (Perhaps they did, though I've not seen it mentioned.)

Glad nobody was hurt, but it does feel like Icon was quick to say that it was pilot error that caused the hard landing and hull breach.
Click to expand...

Except as necessary to secure the wreckage from further damage which in the case of a plane in water would make sense. It's in NTSB 830 somewhere.
 
Last edited:
rtk11 said:
I thought that aircraft could not be moved until the FAA came to investigate? (Perhaps they did, though I've not seen it mentioned.)

Glad nobody was hurt, but it does feel like Icon was quick to say that it was pilot error that caused the hard landing and hull breach.
Click to expand...
of course they are going to blame everything or anyone to protect their image, they are still trying to gain investors and future customers for their widget. It is very quick to start assessing blame when the toy is still draining water sitting on the dock.
 
Acrodustertoo said:
I firmly believe they started making so much money off of the hype and investments that when they got around to looking at sales profits they had a major reconsideration and decided to just string it out as long as they can, which is how we got to where we are now. They have made more money not selling a product that they would by selling the product. Soon they will sell off the assets and rights and we will start chapter two of this horrid saga.
Click to expand...

My understanding is they only received cash deposits. At OSH 2015 I think the deposit was only $2500 for a production position. Can't see ICON having raised very much from deposits.

Regardless, wouldn't be the first new, ambitious aviation start up that left their customers grounded.​
 
GRG55 said:

My understanding is they only received cash deposits. At OSH 2015 I think the deposit was only $2500 for a production position. Can't see ICON having raised very much from deposits.

Regardless, wouldn't be the first new, ambitious aviation start up that left their customers grounded.​
Click to expand...
You are correct, they offer one price when they sucker you in for a deposite, then send you a forty page contract stripping you of everything that ownership implies and oh by the way the price just went up 100K!

We see this every year, these companies come out with a slick picture of a plane or a new engine that is going to revolutionize aviation as we know it and you never see them agin other than when they are see,ing more money's
 
I was an early supporter of Icon and thought it was a pretty cool design. But even early on, I had a feeling they were over promising and might under deliver. This they have done. Still that isn't what has really soured me on them. I know that often happens. What soured me was the everclimbing price, the BS contract and then moving production to Mexico. I still want to fly one just to see what they are like and to say that I flew one but I am no longer a big fan.
 
I think of many of these vapor-ware planes like the companies who came out of the woodwork several years ago with grand schemes to make civilian spacecraft. They cool 3D renderings, charts and ****. They all disappeared, probably with bags of investor money. Burt and his gang just built a craft that actually went into space. No big "presentations" until they were ready to fly.

If you really want to build a plane, build it, fly it and then market it. These yahoo marketing guys like to whip up some 3D renderings and videos, take a bunch of deposits (monies gotta come from somewhere to actually build it) and then, maybe (rarely?), deliver a plane that might be 1/2 as good as the original spec sheet.
Icon is one of these types. Thats why some of us hate on them, among other reasons.
 
EppyGA said:
Threw the pilot under the bus without hesitation. :D
Click to expand...

Yep, they also employed the "we're the only source you should trust" baloney that seems popular in the news these days.

Right, we need to get the "facts" from the company with a vested interest, as well as a history of wild claims and crazy contracts.
 
Zeldman said:
Must not have been soft water....
Click to expand...

Cockpit tape:

"Bob, it's been awhile since I've flown IFR, but how dense is a cloud if we've got water coming into the cockpit...and how'd these fish get up here?"
 
GRG55 said:
I'm not so convinced this is a classic Ponzi so much as yet another example of a group of aviation romantics and neophytes seriously underestimating the actual time and investment needed to design, test, certify and tool up to produce a brand new clean sheet design....
Click to expand...

Reminds me of the way people underestimate the difficulties every time there's a thread on artificial intelligence.

By the way, is it spelled "Icon," or "I con"? ;)
 
jsstevens said:
If it was from Apple it'd be iCon. ;)
Click to expand...
Blasphemy. How dare you speak ill of the one know as Saint Jobs. He single handedly invented technology. (or at least wrapped in smooth black/white/gray plastic and made it so much easier to use with no on/off switch and fewer buttons.)
 
ChemGuy said:
Blasphemy. How dare you speak ill of the one know as Saint Jobs. He single handedly invented technology. (or at least wrapped in smooth black/white/gray plastic and made it so much easier to use with no on/off switch and fewer buttons.)
Click to expand...

Sounds like you just described the elusive A5.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top