Icon A5 Purchase Contract Details - Just Awful

Jim Campbell is often referred to in very negative terms, and his style of “reporting” can be very opinionated to say the least. When he bites into something he doesn’t agree with then all sorts of crap can spew forth. It’s up to the readers to level the drama and read with a grain of salt.

But that said, it’s worth a courtesy review of the article. The basis of the article is probably fairly correct. We've known for awhile that the performance doesn't match a Searey, but the form over function has sales appeal to the non-pilots of the world. That all being said, even as it is, once out there it should help bring GA into the limelight more than it is now. Hopefully it will all be positive.
 
It would be great, if it could be had for a reasonable price.
 
Campbell is a nutcase but if the quotes in that article are actually from the purchase agreement, that seems a bit ridiculous. Not sure if that's standard for new aircraft or not, but I wouldn't buy one just based on that. Flight data recorder and/or camera? LOL. Get lost Icon. Quarter of a mil and you're going to tell ME what to do. I'd buy a Searey.

He does raise a good point. Aside from the "first delivery", has anyone actually received an airplane yet? A year is approaching.
 
Why would anybody agree to waive all liability against the company (unless you pay an additional $10k), have a flight recorder that you can't tamper with that gives all its info directly to Icon, have the terms of resale to another owner dictated by the company (and includes a $2k kickback to Icon in the transfer), and not be able to ever change the airplane to E-LSA to get away from any of this?

It reads more like a software license than a purchase agreement for a vehicle.
 
fiveoboy01 said:
He does raise a good point. Aside from the "first delivery", has anyone actually received an airplane yet? A year is approaching.
Click to expand...

I don't think anyone has gotten delivery except the first EAA delivery at Airventure last year, which as noted was taken back to the factory after Airventure, just days after the "delivery".
 
bullwinkle said:
I don't think anyone has gotten delivery except the first EAA delivery at Airventure last year, which as noted was taken back to the factory after Airventure, just days after the "delivery".
Click to expand...

It was pretty obvious that the first delivery was just a stunt, considering the "recipient".
 
Well if you don't like the contract,don't buy the aircraft. Seems like a very expensive toy,with too many restrictions. Out of my league.
 
Anymouse said:
Just curious, has Icon ever advertised with Campbell?
Click to expand...
No, the ACTUAL question is, "Has Campbell ever run advertising for Icon?" Just because there's advertising on ANN doesn't mean the company is paying for it or ever paid for it. Note the five lawsuits in the 2000s, where Campbell claimed companies violated a supposed verbal contract to advertise. Note, also, that Campbell made the same claim regarding Cirrus a few years back.

In the Cirrus case, Campbell claimed (online) that Cirrus owned him $700,000 for unpaid advertising. In the written agreement about the plane, Cirrus expected $5,500 a month payment. Campbell claimed that advertising was supposed to cover that. Campbell's claim of an unpaid $700,000 bill meant that he'd run free advertising for them for over ten years.

So if there had been Icon advertising on ANN, that doesn't mean there was an agreement...other than being nice to Campbell. The Cirrus case is a classic example of what happens when a company stops being Jim Campbell's friend.

Read the Icon agreement, come to your own conclusions. But don't believe anything Campbell says about "private sources say..." or "industry insiders report...."

Ron Wanttaja
 
Last edited:
Wow, f' that.

So...

It's a 20 year, 4,000hr airplane, after that it turns to a pumpkin and you have to toss in in the garbage

It records everything you do including audio and video, which is all the property of icon, so better not only not break any FARs, but best to not say anything you wouldn't want the outside world to hear, WHILE IN THE COCKPIT OF YOUR OWN PLANE.

You have to give icon money if you sell your used icon to someone else, thought the government was the only one in the racket.

You have to waive your rights to sue unless you pay them more.



And all this and more can be your for a cool $250,000+
I really liked that little plane, but based just off the short airframe life and the breach of my privacy with their video recording black box, I'd just get a carbon cub if I were in the little amphib market.
 
I agree with Ron. When that site goes on a rant against a potential or former advertiser you have to take everything you read with a pound or two of salt.

Edited to add:

I found this on the web. The report may be accurate, based on this guy who wants to sell his position.
 
James331 said:
Wow, f' that.

So...

It's a 20 year, 4,000hr airplane, after that it turns to a pumpkin and you have to toss in in the garbage
Click to expand...

I think it's a 6000 hour plane. The limit is at 2000hrs past the second inspection, each inspection is at 2000hr. Still pretty low limit. And all your other points make sense to me.
 
I stand corrected, so probably for most GA type planes yearly hours, easier to just say it's a 20 year plane.

Lots of money for a disposable GA plane.
 
wanttaja said:
No, the ACTUAL question is, "Has Campbell ever run advertising for Icon?" Just because there's advertising on ANN doesn't mean the company is paying for it or ever paid for it. Note the five lawsuits in the 2000s, where Campbell claimed companies violated a supposed verbal contract to advertise. Note, also, that Campbell made the same claim regarding Cirrus a few years back.

In the Cirrus case, Campbell claimed (online) that Cirrus owned him $700,000 for unpaid advertising. In the written agreement about the plane, Cirrus expected $5,500 a month payment. Campbell claimed that advertising was supposed to cover that. Campbell's claim of an unpaid $700,000 bill meant that he'd run free advertising for them for over ten years.

So if there had been Icon advertising on ANN, that doesn't mean there was an agreement...other than being nice to Campbell. The Cirrus case is a classic example of what happens when a company stops being Jim Campbell's friend.

Read the Icon agreement, come to your own conclusions. But don't believe anything Campbell says about "private sources say..." or "industry insiders report...."

Ron Wanttaja
Click to expand...

Pretty much what I was getting at.
 
JimNtexas said:
I agree with Ron. When that site goes on a rant against a potential or former advertiser you have to take everything you read with a pound or two of salt.

Edited to add:

I found this on the web. The report may be accurate, based on this guy who wants to sell his position.
Click to expand...

So, let me see if I got this right. Despite the fact that only one plane has been delivered so far, a guy that's #145 on the waiting list has to pay in full by the end of this year? That's a lot of airplanes to be delivered between now and then. Who's running the company? Jerry Airola?
 
And a November 2016 delivery for #145?

I don't see that as likely to happen.
 
Campbell may be a nut, but from a copy of the contract a friend of mine who holds a position had me review, it's absolutely correct, and quite frankly unbelievable.
 
OTOH, regarding hours, the aircraft I've owned are all under 5000 hours at 50-60 years old. A lot of aircraft really don't see that much airtime and many new aircraft have life-limits on them as well.
 
JimNtexas said:
I found this on the web. The report may be accurate, based on this guy who wants to sell his position.
Click to expand...
About 15 years ago, I did an article on kit airplane purchase agreements. I found many of the clauses mentioned above...but not all in the same place. And ICON apparently added some doozies.

The question is...why is this coming up now? Icon has been selling production-line positions based on this agreement for what, three years? Why hasn't this come out before? Surely someone backed out based on the clauses quoted; surely someone else was looking to buy someone else's position in line before this.

Icon is selling a airborne jetski for a quarter of a million dollars; are people who have THAT much money to burn THAT casual about the contracts they sign? Are they that unfamiliar with aviation that Icon was able to tell them, "Oh, no, this is just a standard industry contract"?

It has to be something like that. Icon has been controversial enough that something like this would have been fodder for discussion a long time ago.

Ron Wanttaja
 
RyanShort1 said:
OTOH, regarding hours, the aircraft I've owned are all under 5000 hours at 50-60 years old. A lot of aircraft really don't see that much airtime and many new aircraft have life-limits on them as well.
Click to expand...

And the icon is also limited to 20 years old, the aircraft you owned would have had to be sent to the scrap year 4 decades ago!



wanttaja said:
...
Icon is selling a airborne jetski for a quarter of a million dollars....
Click to expand...

God that statement is like nails on a chalk board for me, do you know what a jet ski is?

I've ridden some hot rod jet skis, non of them could fly, could cover the range of a icon, held their value worth a chit unless they were used and bought for a grand or so, could land on a airport, etc etc etc.

Yeah it's a "flying jetski" just like a 172 is a Honda Civic, a doctor is a fancy butcher, a engineer is a overblown framer, a yacht is a fancy floating board, and so on.

The icon is a little 2 seat amphib, trying to meet LSA regs, frankly I like the design and bet it could be a real winner with the LSA chains taken off and if they didn't have that deal ending contract and black box crap and limited lifespan.

As for the price, dude people spend over $70k on new escalades which are luckily to be worth half that in a few years, they are made from cheap steel, don't float and don't even fly, some folks even just drop their planes off at places like signature for "call me when it's done" annuals and blindly stroke checks, lots crazier ways to blow money.
 
Last edited:
James331 said:
Wanttaja said:
Icon is selling a airborne jetski for a quarter of a million dollars....
Click to expand...

God that statement is like nails on a chalk board for me, do you know what a jet ski is?
Click to expand...
Yep. The Icon is *marketed* like a jetski. It's an poor choice for the money if the goal is to fly any real distance (speed limited like any LSA, but costs ~twice as much), it has limited payload capacity (like any LSA, but it costs ~twice as much), and the training required to legally operate it is only 20 hours. It's marketed to those who have so much money they can just dash off and buy one (like the jetski). They don't care about the airframe limit, as they'd junk it as soon as they get bored with it, anyway.

Ron Wanttaja
 
wanttaja said:
Icon is selling a airborne jetski for a quarter of a million dollars;

Ron Wanttaja
Click to expand...
FastEddieB said:
I think it's 30 years...

2 airframe overhauls at 10 and 20 years, and kaput 10 years after that second one.
Click to expand...

Just read it again, think you're right


wanttaja said:
Yep. The Icon is *marketed* like a jetski. It's an poor choice for the money if the goal is to fly any real distance...
Click to expand...

Well in that case it's the same as most any amphib, A5 to 185s to DHC2 and twotters.
 
James331 said:
And the icon is also limited to 20 years old, the aircraft you owned would have had to be sent to the scrap year 4 decades ago!

God that statement is like nails on a chalk board for me, do you know what a jet ski is?

I've ridden some hot rod jet skis, non of them could fly, could cover the range of a icon, held their value worth a chit unless they were used and bought for a grand or so, could land on a airport, etc etc etc . . .
Click to expand...

I dunno, I've ridden a Kawasaki 310X a few times and if you strapped some wings on it, it'd probably fly! Screaming across the water at 70+ sure makes it feel like flying. :)
 
Some of the stand ups are a blast, still flying low level along a shore line by islands is hard to beat, hop up fly a few minutes and splash down in another lake or river, access places most folks can't go without days of hiking, whole nother level in my opinion :)
 
I read somewhere that most amphibs/floats have been involved in some type of landing incident in their lifetime, so most likely the limited lifetime really isn't an issue......sarcasm intended.
 
James331 said:
Well in that case it's the same as most any amphib, A5 to 185s to DHC2 and twotters.
Click to expand...
Tch. How many moose can an Icon carry, vs. a 185?

LSAs are either trainers or personal sport vehicles. Not that people can't use them for transportation, it's just that there are more cost-effective approaches if the only consideration is utility. The Icon is designed to look sexy and support being tucked into a hangar on a yacht. It does both admirably, but that doesn't make it a Beaver replacement.

Ron Wanttaja
 
Getonit said:
I read somewhere that most amphibs/floats have been involved in some type of landing incident in their lifetime, so most likely the limited lifetime really isn't an issue......sarcasm intended.
Click to expand...

That's what we have A&Ps for ;)
 
You can literally write whatever you would like in a contractual agreement. However trying to enforce some of those might prove extremely challenging. Extorting money to release from liability would get tossed out in a minute, especially if there was any negligence involved. Because having the legal ability to 'sue' isn't something you buy... also you can't sign away negligence... example you go sky diving and sign a form saying you understand the risks and will not hold them liable for any injury.... well they just take you up in the plane and throw you out, and your rig fails because it wasn't packed with an actual parachute.... you die... you're family can sue no matter what you signed.

You can't push your contractual agreements off to another buyer and have him agree to them even if he said he does agree.. The original purchaser has a contract obligation with the seller, the 2nd hand purchaser would have to have another contract agreement with the Icon company AND one with the seller. In fact the 2nd buyer could still hold Icon liable for their product above regardless.

Too me it seems they had a very cheap attorney draft up some very one sides terms to try and mitigate their exposure risk, but in the end it looks very restrictive and completely nonbinding.

Anyhow the automatic $40 an hour depreciable value on a 6000 hr lifetime frame is enough to keep me away from this baby composite plane.
 
JimNtexas said:
I agree with Ron. When that site goes on a rant against a potential or former advertiser you have to take everything you read with a pound or two of salt.
Click to expand...

The ironic thing?

I was thinking of the Icon sales contract, and thought, "What kind of person buys a quarter-million dollar airplane WITHOUT reading the contract?"

...and realized the answer was "Jim Campbell." *Exactly* how he go into trouble with Cirrus.....

Ron Wanttaja
 
For that kind of Money I would buy an Ovation 2 and I would rent a seaplane once in a while.
 
wanttaja said:
About 15 years ago, I did an article on kit airplane purchase agreements. I found many of the clauses mentioned above...but not all in the same place. And ICON apparently added some doozies.

The question is...why is this coming up now? Icon has been selling production-line positions based on this agreement for what, three years? Why hasn't this come out before? Surely someone backed out based on the clauses quoted; surely someone else was looking to buy someone else's position in line before this.

Icon is selling a airborne jetski for a quarter of a million dollars; are people who have THAT much money to burn THAT casual about the contracts they sign? Are they that unfamiliar with aviation that Icon was able to tell them, "Oh, no, this is just a standard industry contract"?

It has to be something like that. Icon has been controversial enough that something like this would have been fodder for discussion a long time ago.

Ron Wanttaja
Click to expand...

According to my friend the "ICON PURCHASE AGREEMENT AND AIRCRAFT OPERATING AGREEMENT TERMS" came in advance of him taking delivery of the aircraft. It wasn't part of the contracts signed for the deposit. My understanding is he was among the first 100 position holders.

The interesting thing is that after my friend told Icon that the terms were under no circumstances agreeable, they willingly offered him his deposit back plus a [nice chunk of change that could overhaul most of our engines]credit to give up his position, which he inevitably agreed to. I image with the order backlog they'll sell "his plane" for many thousands of dollars more than his locked in price plus the extra credit.

The whole thing is dodgy because no one is going to go through the trouble of suing a company that hasn't even delivered the plane, and no one is going to buy the plane used even if the provisions in the contract are unenforceable. To me it sounds like the company got greedy knowing their first 100 customers are going to make a lot more money than they will.
 
My first impression when I read the linked spew was that they had shined him on when he tried to get a demo hop, with predictable results. I'm as cautious of his motivations as I am of his assessment of the agreement.

Nauga,
and his delightfully linear phugoid
 
Last edited:
Looks like John Deere wrote their contract.
 
nauga said:
My first impression when I read the linked spew was that they had shined him on when he tried to get a demo hop, with predictable results. I'm as cautious of his motivations as I am of his assessment of the agreement.

Nauga,
and his delightfully linear phugoid
Click to expand...

His motivation is irrelevant, the purchase contract words are right there and so far no one has refuted them as fabricated.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top