Icon "teething" problems.

[Frank Giger]

I'm glad the thread on the fatal crash of the Icon A5 has been focused on condolences for the families of the pilot and passenger, as that's what we should always talk about first.

So, now, let's talk Icon A5.

They haven't delivered any that I'm aware of, and they halted production from a projected 200+ down to 20 due to "manufacturing stream" troubles.

I'm beginning to suspect that it's not just a tool and die issue.

Both the incident where a hard water landing caused the hull to crack and nearly sink the airplane and this latest accident had Icon pilots on board. These folks weren't the "I like my jet ski, lemme get one that flies and take their air driving school!" demographic Icon has pitched to that hotdogged their way into a dock or a forest.

They were all experienced pilots - and more importantly about as skilled with this particular aircraft as anyone on the planet.

Two isn't a great sample size; however, it could be that the Icon just isn't as robust a system as they'd like it to be.

What says our EAA panel of contributors here?

[Bill Berson]

Well there was much said about the special weight exemption for stall/spin resistance.
Does it have a crashworthy cockpit?

[Floatsflyer]

I want to take your "teething" metaphor much further along. A toddler's teething usually ends around age 3. For those that care to know, Icon was established in 2005 and debuted the A5 prototype to much hype and fanfare during a glitzy Hollywood type premier in Los Angeles in Spring, 2008. They came to Oshkosh the same year. Since then, over a period of 9 years, it's been nothing but slick marketing, scary, dangerous talk about how easy it will be to get a license and how easy it is to fly this jet ski with wings and a greater degree of disingenuous hype without any production aircraft being produced or delivered. As well as multi millions of dollars from private equity rounds spent with literally nothing to show for it.

The company and the egomaniacal, self-aggrandizing CEO that leads it are well beyond the teething stage now. At 9 years and counting they are well into the bed wedding and thumb sucking stage and the parents are desperately seeking professional help to stop this behaviour before it enters adolescence.

The history of this company and it's good and mostly bad deeds have been well documented by me and many others in other threads on this Forum/other forums and in aviation publications so no need to rehash. But now when recent tragic accidents are added to the equation of a long 9 year established presence where no airplanes have been produced and delivered, the public perception(and possibly the financiers perception as well) will enter a new negative stage where doubt will threaten the very existence of the company.

I'm no Nostradamus, but I do believe Icon is doomed to repeat the fates of predecessors like Eclipse, Bede, Dreamwings, Adams and too many others. Investors will lose millions; high paying, highly educated employees will lose jobs; the cities that bought into the hype and provided tax incentives for manufacturing factories being built in exchange for well paid assembly and admin jobs for their citizens will lose out; and the 100 deposit holders who put down $100K non- refundable deposits each to be first in line for delivery many years ago will be that much lighter on their assets sheets. The almost 2000 deposit holders who put down $2-$5K will get them back as they are supposedly in bank escrow.

I believe that Icon will be the biggest fail in genav history after Eclipse($1.4 billion).

[Bob Dingley]

I wonder if ICON has a shrine to Jim Bede in a back corner of their hangar.

[Floatsflyer]

I wonder if ICON has a shrine to Jim Bede in a back corner of their hangar.

Not too far fetched because Vern Raburn, former Founder, President & CEO of Eclipse, is on the Icon BOD.

[rwanttaja]

Don't hold back, Floats, tell us how you REALLY feel...

Ron "Is it warm in here?" Wanttaja

[Marc Zeitlin]

So, now, let's talk Icon A5... I'm beginning to suspect that it's not just a tool and die issue.A little background - you can see my resume' at:

https://www.burnsideaerospace.com/resume/

suffice it to say that I worked for ICON as manager of the Lead Systems Engineer (everything that wasn't structure) for a year - basically, 2012 and a bit of 2013. I am also a stockholder, although even if it succeeds beyond anyone's wildest dreams, all the stock I own wouldn't pay off the mortgage on an average house, so what I write here is not written out of some large financial interest. But full disclosure, nonetheless. I'm not going to respond to the statements here by people who don't seem to have full knowledge of what's going on or of the people involved - wrestling with... well, you know.

I was friends with Jon Karkow, and did some substantial work on his highly modified Long-EZ last year, before he took it from Tehachapi up to Vacaville. I knew him reasonably well and talked to him a lot about what was going on at ICON for the 3 - 4 years after I left (and my hangar at Tehachapi was right next to the ICON hangar(s) in Tehachapi before they left last fall, so I was in constant contact with all the folks there).

The issues with ICON (and there have always been many) have certainly involved tooling, but are/were hardly restricted to that, and for the most part, those have been solved. I left because of management issues - I wasn't happy with the company infrastructure and the high level micromanaging of all aspects of the development process. I believe that the aircraft could have been developed and shipping years earlier with some changes to company philosophy and infrastructure design, as well as production ramp-up planning. But that's all water under the bridge - they are where they are, and I really want them to succeed because I believe that ICON is one of the last chances to revitalize aviation in the US by bringing non-pilots into the fold. If they don't succeed, we're far more likely to look like Europe, from a GA standpoint, in 20 years.

To specifics...


Both the incident where a hard water landing caused the hull to crack and nearly sink the airplane and this latest accident had Icon pilots on board. These folks weren't the "I like my jet ski, lemme get one that flies and take their air driving school!" demographic Icon has pitched to that hotdogged their way into a dock or a forest.My understanding (2nd hand, but through one of their other test pilots) is that the first "crash" you reference was not a flight issue at all, but was a "poor judgement during water handling" issue, which caused the aircraft to swamp, take on water and sink. Again, according to folks who should know, it was NOT a crash, and NOT during flight or a landing.


They were all experienced pilots - and more importantly about as skilled with this particular aircraft as anyone on the planet.I don't know who the first pilot was, so I can't comment on the particulars there. But I DO know Jon, and as you say, no-one had more time/experience in A5's than Jon, as he had been essentially the only test pilot for the first 6 years of development.

And like the old saying, "familiarity breeds contempt", one can imagine that as someone gets more familiar with something, they may get complacent about following all the rules and may push limits more than they should. I don't know if this was the case in either or both of these, but I can certainly imagine that it could have been. One with only the loss of the plane, the other...

How do folks with 1000's of hours in aircraft type sometimes land with gear up? I don't know, but it happens.


Two isn't a great sample size; however, it could be that the Icon just isn't as robust a system as they'd like it to be.Knowing what I know about the development and testing process, I can say that the ICON A5 is more highly developed, designed and tested than any LSA aircraft out there, and is a robust aircraft. Is it perfect? Of course not - no mechanical thing is, and there WILL be issues found with it as more are shipped and flown.

The issues ICON has had with lack of shipments has had to do with MFG issues - the inability to assemble an aircraft for a price which would allow them to start making $$$. Part of the problem was supplier driven, and with the setup of the factory in Mexico (which I was informed by Jon just a couple of weeks ago was working out extremely well - he was very impressed by the quality of the people and how hard they worked) ICON is starting to address this issue.


What says our EAA panel of contributors here?I say that whatever issues I have with ICON's management and strategy, it's being driven NOT by personal gain or aggrandizement - no-one works harder than Kirk Hawkins, and few have devoted more of their life to a project over a longer period of time for a vision than he (and other management folks) have. I DO have issues with the company - I left because of those issues. Those issues were not driven by bad intent, but by honest mistakes and errors in judgment. It's easy to throw stones when you don't know what's going on...

I want them to succeed - I believe that they have an EXCELLENT product which I had a very small part in developing and I believe that once they start shipping A5's, people will see that.

My $0.02.

[Frank Giger]

Thanks, Marc!

My understanding is the incident involving swamping the cockpit included cracking the hull. I don't know much about composite hulls on water, and so needed to know if it's that unusual. If it had simply swamped, well, that's just the combination of the adventures of aviation and the hazards of boating. Maybe you know more about it, like if the hull cracked in recovery efforts.

The accident seems to be the aircraft striking a steep bank (from pictures, which might be out of context). I'm really, really hesitant to chalk that up to pilot error. Something else was going on there. We'll have to wait for the NTSB to find out.

I'd like to see the Icon succeed, if only because we need a small aircraft company to shake things up and spark GA.

They've made some very odd decisions through the development of the A5, though, that makes me wonder where the hype ends.

[edit] Please note that I used the words incident and accident when describing both "crashes." One is an oopsy, which might mean nothing at all (other than a high repair bill), and the other an investigation.

[martymayes]

I'm still curious where the insurance premium for a $250,000 amphibious LSA is going to level out at. I just don't see the Icon as the product that will have a landmark impact on GA.

[mikey]

I love the design of the airplane itself, but I wonder at the end result if and when they ship aircraft and those planes start operating in the public domain. I am concerned whether the mindset of those operating the plane will be of the proper frame to operate it responsibly and with the degree of caution it demands. Frank said it quite well (to my mind) in the initial post...."I like my jet ski, lemme get one that flies and take their air driving school". If I remember correctly, the AOPA article about the Icon said that some 70% of deposits were from people without pilots' licenses. If correct, that is a big number. I find a quote from the Icon website interesting..."Limits. Boundaries. Borders. You've spent your whole life ignoring them. Don't stop now." I know that is advertising hyperbole, but aviation (and that IS what we are talking about here) is pretty well chock full of limits, boundaries, and borders. Have to wonder how many new customers will say "wtf is this?" when faced with aviation ground school, and all it entails. Have to wonder at the possible mayhem when they start showing up at the local lakes. Could be all wrong on this, but I've been around long enough and seen enough to know there is big time potential for this to get ugly.

[Marc Zeitlin]

[QUOTE=Frank Giger;62368]My understanding is the incident involving swamping the cockpit included cracking the hull. I don't know much about composite hulls on water, and so needed to know if it's that unusual. If it had simply swamped, well, that's just the combination of the adventures of aviation and the hazards of boating. Maybe you know more about it, like if the hull cracked in recovery efforts.No, there certainly seems to be a disconnect between what I was told and what was in the newspapers. Very hard to say exactly what's reality until a full report is out. Given ICON's visibility, I assume that the NTSB will do a real investigation - not the usual EAB stuff done by folks that aren't familiar enough with the aircraft to be able to accurately determine what occurred. If the hull actually cracked from a mere hard landing - one that wasn't hard enough to damage the folks inside, that's probably an issue that will need to be addressed.


The accident seems to be the aircraft striking a steep bank (from pictures, which might be out of context). I'm really, really hesitant to chalk that up to pilot error. Something else was going on there. We'll have to wait for the NTSB to find out.So the A5 will not spin, HOWEVER, if forced, it can "depart" and enter a spiral dive. Aerodynamically, that's a very different thing from a spin, but it's still descending nose down while turning around. Recovery is different than from a spin, and it's difficult to get it to depart, but it is possible. One theory that has been proposed to me (and which I believe is one of many possible explanations that fit the evidence shown in the public pictures) is that _IF_ there was some demonstration of the "non-spin" capabilities of the plane (which I've experienced) that occurred at relatively low altitude, a spiral dive occurred. Without the altitude to recover, a vertical-ish impact with the steep bank of the lake could occur. Given the angle of the right wing, which was twisted forward and down, and the broken left wingtip which was broken aft, as well as the demolished nose of the plane, a nose down spiral dive to the right could be one possible explanation for the extant damage. Hardly the only possible explanation, but one.

The pilot error, in this case, would be in engaging in this demonstration at low altitudes. Without any witnesses to indicate what the plane was doing before it struck the bank, though, it'll take some investigative work by the FAA/NTSB/ICON team to determine what the plane was doing when it struck the ground and in what attitude.


I'd like to see the Icon succeed, if only because we need a small aircraft company to shake things up and spark GA.Absolutely. The industry is dying, and not slowly, either.


They've made some very odd decisions through the development of the A5, though, that makes me wonder where the hype ends.Yep. Hence my not working there after the year I did work there. They have certainly shot themselves in the foot a number of times. I would done things very differently had I been appointed emperor, but sadly, that didn't (and hasn't, and certainly won't) occur. And there's no guarantee, even with my amazingly superior intellect (that's a joke, son), that anything I would have done differently would have made a damn bit of difference, since the issues might be depending on the goal, not the path. We must always question our own certainty about any opinion we hold...

[Bill Berson]

Only 10 takeoffs and landings is required to get a Sport Pilot Certificate and take a passenger.
FAR 61.313.https://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/retrieveECFR?gp&r=PART&n=14y2.0.1.1.2#se14.2.61_1313

I don't think the FAA planned the rules with this in mind. With retracts it's almost a complex aircraft. Yet the limited hours of Sport Pilot training to non-pilots is heavily marketed by the company. I suppose the company might require more than 10 landings minimum before purchase. But can they require same of a second hand buyer?
Seaplanes are a tiny niche. I can't see any seaplane ever saving private aviation.

[martymayes]

Still have to pass a practical test so the reality of training until adequate proficiency is attained will present itself eventually.

I agree - an LSA seaplane is a niche market under the very large GA banner.

Long term, might have to accept the fact that there is not enough interest for a manufacturer to profitably produce a very light airplane anymore, that is those with a gross weight under 2000 lb. Doesn't mean the entire GA industry is going to die and disappear. Last time I checked, Cirrus sells planes like hotcakes and the Cessna 172 is still being produced but if someone wants something smaller, under 2000 lb gross wt, they might have to build it themselves from a kit or buy one that some other individual built.

[Marc Zeitlin]

Long term, might have to accept the fact that there is not enough interest for a manufacturer to profitably produce a very light airplane anymore, that is those with a gross weight under 2000 lb.Agreed. That might be the case. But with about 1800 aircraft on order, ICON has a few years of backlog to determine whether it is or not.


Doesn't mean the entire GA industry is going to die and disappear. Last time I checked, Cirrus sells planes like hotcakes...If your definition of "like hotcakes" is 300 units/year. I'd argue that's more like 1/12 of Lamborghini's sales in a year, and it's not like Lambo's are taking over the car market. When the largest single piston aircraft MFG is smaller by an order of magnitude than one of the smaller car MFG's, that doesn't bode well for the popularity of GA flight.


and the Cessna 172 is still being produced...As are many others aircdraft, but only 700 - 750 piston engine GA aircraft were sold in the US last year. That is NOT a number that bodes well for GA in the years to come, and there are about 1/2 as many active pilots in the US as there were 20 years or so ago. There are somewhere around 1 pilot for every 1000 US citizens. Not a happy thought.

The object with ICON is specifically to bring new folks into aviation - selling to existing pilots is a niche business at best. If new markets can't be developed, then we're dead in 20 years as a viable community.

My $0.02.

[martymayes]

The object with ICON is specifically to bring new folks into aviation - selling to existing pilots is a niche business at best. If new markets can't be developed, then we're dead in 20 years as a viable community.

Therein may lie a fundamental flaw in the plan. Looking at history, a large number of light planes were produced at the end of WWII in anticipation of the "new market" for light planes and pilots. We know how that turned out. I can't think of a single example where "large" numbers of people were drawn into aviation because of a new model plane being introduced, "large" being relative. I see it as a tough sell. Percentage of the young digital population that can afford a flying jet ski seem to be more in the risk adverse category, more interested in saving/preserving lakes and waterways from from those cowboys and their "annoying machines"

Looking again at reality, might have to accept that the light aircraft segment of GA is not and may never be a mainstream activity. At least not until we get to the George Jetson era. If demand for light planes suddenly appeared, I think supply would increase to fill the void and it won't take Textron 10+ yrs to bring a product to market.

I hope they do eventually build and sell the A5. I'd like a ride in one because I'll never own one.

[Floatsflyer]

I hope they do eventually build and sell the A5. I'd like a ride in one because I'll never own one.

Lucky for you Marty, Icon can continue NOT to build, sell or deliver anything in order for you to ride in one without the hassle of ever owning(a thing?) one. These guys think of everything. They have opened 2 flight centres, in Vacaville, Cal and Tampa, Fla, where the general public can book a flight and fly one.

Caveat though. I'd call ahead. The two accidents may have depleted the available fleet.

[martymayes]

Lucky for you Marty, Icon can continue NOT to build, sell or deliver anything in order for you to ride in one without the hassle of ever owning(a thing?) one. These guys think of everything. They have opened 2 flight centres, in Vacaville, Cal and Tampa, Fla, where the general public can book a flight and fly one.

Caveat though. I'd call ahead. The two accidents may have depleted the available fleet.

lol, I'll have to read the fine print. Some other aggressive airplane sales companies check your credit before the give a demo ride.

[Frank Giger]

LOL on the FAA minimums for Sport Pilot requirements.

No pilot that is starting from scratch is going to complete training - let alone pass a check ride - with just ten full stop landings.

I got my ticket with 26 hours, and I thought I was pretty darned good (passed that check ride no sweat). But I had a helluvalot of landings. And a great instructor.

[Cary]

I met several of the Icon folks at OSH, at the SPA Corn Roast a couple of years ago. Nice people, dedicated, ambitious--all the positive traits I can think of but one, practicality. That's the fly in the ointment.

That lack of practicality is most demonstrated in the advertising that Icon has had since the beginning--the jet ski of the air sort of thing is a pretty accurate metaphor. And I find that really bothersome. Sure, there are cowboy types that fly other airplanes much like Icon advertises, but for the most part, flying somewhat conservatively, even in a very fun environment, is the answer to anyone's desire for a long life in aviation.

Maybe at my age, I'm getting to be fuddy-duddyish, because I certainly did some super dumbbell things as a younger pilot. But that old saying, there are old pilots and bold pilots but no old bold pilots, is more than just a little accurate. Many pilots who do the hi-jinks that the Icon ads portray won't live to tell their grandkids about it. Sure, some will. But at this point in my life, I would not fly an airplane like the videos on the Icon website show. And I would not encourage others to do so with statements like:

Limits. Boundaries. Borders. You’ve spent your whole life ignoring them. Don’t stop now.

You know that stuff that’s missing from your life? Speed. Exhilaration. Pure excitement. Look no further.

Assume that deliveries actually do happen, I think that when buyers take delivery and discover that it takes more than a few hours and landings to safely fly the A5, there will be a groundswell of backlash. People who can afford such an airplane don't take kindly to being misled, and I think that's exactly what Icon has done--the potential buyers just don't know that yet.

Cary