ICON Deaths
 

I see that one of the test batch of ICON's has crashed in the US.

The pilot was one of the test team (2 POB, both deceased) - kind of blunts the safest, can't spin, you only need 25 hours training stories.

You can kill yourself in just about anything that moves, airplane are no different - never been too impressed with the low level swoopy turn video ICON put out - always thought "asking for trouble".

I understand they clipped the shoreline of a lake.

So sad, thinking it will push back the delivery of airplanes even longer - should give some potential owners some pause for though too.

Err what's an 'ICON'?

Googlies is your friend----and mine.

Ebbie, I had the very same thought. I've watched their demo videos, and pilot review videos from journo-pilots, and they all seemed to involve significant maneuvering at very low level. The flights seemed to me to be unnecessarily risky. It seemed to me that eventually that would bite them.

Very sad.

That said, I'm but lowly self-loading freight, so my opinion should be taken with a very large amount of salt...

ICON is a US company that makes an airplane called the A5.

It is light sport (but got exemptions to up the weight limit massively on the grounds that the airplane cannot be stalled and also cannot be spun).

It is an amphibian - so water and land.

It has been in just about every aviation publication for the past decade, also just about every newspaper at some point.

They push the idea of 'only 25 hours' to learn to fly it and, the, thing I have always found worrying, have what I can only describe as "sexy" marketing videos that will show one (or sometimes two ICON's) engaging in what look like very fancy low level pseudo aerobatics at about 200/300ft and lower. A look and feel similar to what a marketing man would done for sports car adverts thirty years ago.

The ICON is a very slick product - but had hot problems - the customers' deliveries (I believe none to date) are years past the promise - they hit headlines a year or so ago with a rather onerous sales contract - basically the owner didn't get to own the airplane in the way one may have expected - ICON got to say what happened to it.

This accident (about four days ago) happened immediately after the airplane was seen doing the sort of low level daredevil manoeuvres shown in their adverting/promotional videos - I understand it clipped the shore line (goes to show how low it was and then pitched down and broke into three pieces.

Just thinking that it has probably finished foo the company - I understand that the 1,500 orders they once had are now just a couple of dozen and that was before this incident.

A couple of weeks back there was another right off accident in an ICON (not deaths of serious injuries) - both airplanes were flown by pilot very experienced pilots generally and in the ICON specifically.

To be fair on the aircraft, it's not its fault if someone flies it into the water at speed. It never hugely appealed to me, but I'm sad for the pilots who died, and sad if the project also dies as a result.

It's not a helicopter after all.

In terms of value - I've had two Lake Amphibians and a 200hp version in good condition at $55k is much more capable than the A5 which costs 4x more. For the price of an Icon you could probably find a Seafury version of the Lake.

No doubt its slick and sexy, but the performance numbers made it look like a toy to me.

I agree with Irish Seaplane on this. Though, some people have the money, and want a toy. That's great, as long as they treat it as a life or death toy, and fly it seriously.

Water flying has many differences to land flying, with a major one being apparent freedom from the norms of an airport. Indeed, low flying with turns may be required to locate a suitable landing spot. But that freedom (from the airport manager watching what you're doing), does not chance the laws of physics and flight - botching it up is still possible, and much more likely fatal (add drowning and remoteness to the risks not present at most airports).

This event is extra sad, in that it was probably not the airplane's failing, but now a reasonable (albeit, somewhat "toy") program is less certain.

Not in the UK it hasn't.

A friend of mine who owns a Lake says, "Sooner or later you will prang a seaplane." Even if you fly into the same lake every day there can be barely hidden rocks, or tree tops in the case of reservoirs (which most lakes round here are).

Of course aggressive low level manouvering is a bad idea in any aircraft.

Reminds me about a discussion of micro light safety with some hard core flex wing guys.

My comment "Yup they go just fast enough to kill you" wasn't well received.....

Chevrron

https://www.theguardian.com/business...tmas-catalogue

New futuristic seaplane ICON A5 that can hit 120mph will go on sale for £110,000 | Daily Mail Online

The future of travel, from villas beneath the sea to journeys into space

If you want more - it's spelt g-o-o-g-l-e

'nuf said eh, geezer!

They also tell you that there's a pretty good chance you'll still be alive afterwards. (Unless your chosen method of pranging it is to land an amphibian floatplane on water with the wheels down. I've decided I'm not going to try flying one of those.)

In my other life as a Reservist in the Canadian Armed Forces, one of my friends was a US Navy A6 Bombadier/Navigator. They use to fly up narrow valleys in cloud with only his Radar to keep them hitting the rocks.

I asked him what speed they were going and the answer was "usually over 380 kts". The significance of that was a Navy Medical study had concluded that if you hit at over 380 things happened so fast you never felt a thing as the nerves could not get the message to the brain before you were reduced to goo.

I do not agree with this quote. I know lots of very high time float/seaplane pilots who have never had an accident. The difference is that flying off the water demands more personal discipline,attaining/maintaining pilot skill and good proactive pilot judgement than going airport to airport.

If you are willing to make the effort there is no reason flying off the water should be more dangerous.

Doesn't mean that they won't in the future.....:E (Provided they're still flying of course!)

It follows the usual adage for retractable gear pilots!

"There are only 2 types of people flying retractable gear aeroplanes, those who are yet to land gear up, and those who have and will again land with the gear up"

(Not necessarily the fault of the pilot)

Which is an urban legend perpetuated by wannabe retractable gear private pilots.

https://socioecohistory.files.wordpr...*_detector.gif

In this case, I think they flew into some land at speed, rather than the water. Of course, that is a distinction without a difference...

But I agree that the fault here likely does not lie with the aircraft, but more likely with the pilot (and possibly the company culture).

Looking at the video from news7 chopper, if you look to the left of the aircraft and canopy, you can see an exact imprint of the nose, forward fuselage area in the mud - looks like flying left to right, high speed - ie not water landing, probably "showboating" and left wingtip caught something solid and hard, slammed into mud bank, and then slewed back to where it is resting, possibly with a full 360 on the way looking at the way the fin has wrapped itself around. When you look at all the videos on the ICON website, they have a full blown "showboating" mentality for trying to sell the "awesome" machine.
Im a position holder..... but not holding out much hope now to be honest!!