Fatal ICON A5 crash

Based soley on the empirical evidence of the number of accidents and fatalities versus hours flown this is one of the least safe planes ever made.

My opinion is that it is not the aerodynamic design that is the problem but rather the mission it was designed for. Watching the idiotic stuff they do in their videos is proof of that.
 
James you have completely missed the mark and the point of what is being said. You have brought up a ton of points I haven't argued and are making your own arguments that have no bearing or relevance on the discussion. No problem man, I'm not here to tell anybody they have to agree with me. I'm just here for the discussion. Me and you clearly have nothing else to discuss on the topic, and that is ok.

Also, to say aviation isn't dangerous depends on how much you value the definition of dangerous. Being a pilot is the 3rd most dangerous profession in the entire country. And general aviation is on par with riding motorcycles in fatalities, and there are many people who think riding motorcycles is dangerous and a fools errand.

Compared to other professions and hobbies I can't think of many that are more dangerous.
 
Last edited:
Salty said:
Based soley on the empirical evidence of the number of accidents and fatalities versus hours flown this is one of the least safe planes ever made.

My opinion is that it is not the aerodynamic design that is the problem but rather the mission it was designed for. Watching the idiotic stuff they do in their videos is proof of that.
Click to expand...
Nailed it.
 
Salty said:
Based soley on the empirical evidence of the number of accidents and fatalities versus hours flown this is one of the least safe planes ever made.

My opinion is that it is not the aerodynamic design that is the problem but rather the mission it was designed for. Watching the idiotic stuff they do in their videos is proof of that.
Click to expand...

Salty said:
Based soley on the empirical evidence of the number of accidents and fatalities versus hours flown this is one of the least safe planes ever made.

My opinion is that it is not the aerodynamic design that is the problem but rather the mission it was designed for. Watching the idiotic stuff they do in their videos is proof of that.
Click to expand...

This is an absolute contradiction. The "mission" has no relevance to the safety of the airplane itself as the mission can be whatever the pilot decides. This is completely unfair to the plane.

That being said, I agree 100% the "mission" or marketing of the plane is absolutely more dangerous if the pilot follows through with the marketing of the plane.
 
TexDeuce said:
This is an absolute contradiction. The "mission" has no relevance to the safety of the airplane itself as the mission can be whatever the pilot decides. This is completely unfair to the plane.

That being said, I agree 100% the "mission" or marketing of the plane is absolutely more dangerous if the pilot follows through with the marketing of the plane.
Click to expand...
The plane was designed to do what their marketing shows it doing. That's the point I clearly made that you missed.
 
If Icon is losing airframes and lives at this pace with experienced and professional company pilots at the stick, it will be interesting to see what happens when the average Joes start taking over the hour count.

I do think it's incredibly early to start ringing the "safest plane ever" bell based on a stall speed and a chute. There are many flight characteristics and performance corners we haven't seen yet.
 
TexDeuce said:
f someone said they wanted the safest two seat cruising plane that they could find to fly as safe as possible in low risk flight, how could you tell them anything but the A5?
Click to expand...
C172.
 
Salty said:
The plane was designed to do what their marketing shows it doing. That's the point I clearly made that you missed.
Click to expand...
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.
 
All planes are designed to fly and no planes spontaneously stall or spin, so every plane is by that strict measure extremely safe. You are right, the safety of the plane is solely dependent on the pilot flying it. Different types of planes however are known to get their pilots into trouble.. look at the early Cirrus accident rate stats, Piper Aerostar, and there are plenty of other planes that can get their pilots into trouble. I believe that what @Salty is true, the Icon is one such plane that can get its pilots into trouble. We've seen two accidents so far from a very small fleet being flown by some very skilled pilots, I can only imagine a brand new 20 hour person trying to fly this thing through canyons and only a few feet off the water and ground...
 
Rotero said:
C172
Click to expand...
The stats posted on the other page and linked by the poster above would seem to support that yes this is indeed one of the safest place out there. This sturdy little plane trucks along with a very good record despite many decades of abuse from students and low time pilots.. and despite how relatively low tech it is
 
denverpilot said:
No. But it's second from the bottom.

https://www.pilotsofamerica.com/com...common-ga-aircraft.103339/page-2#post-2293007
Click to expand...

Tantalum said:
All planes are designed to fly and no planes spontaneously stall or spin, so every plane is by that strict measure extremely safe. You are right, the safety of the plane is solely dependent on the pilot flying it. Different types of planes however are known to get their pilots into trouble.. look at the early Cirrus accident rate stats, Piper Aerostar, and there are plenty of other planes that can get their pilots into trouble. I believe that what @Salty is true, the Icon is one such plane that can get its pilots into trouble. We've seen two accidents so far from a very small fleet being flown by some very skilled pilots, I can only imagine a brand new 20 hour person trying to fly this thing through canyons and only a few feet off the water and ground...
Click to expand...

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 theoretical behavior of the pilot. Which is a legit discussion but one entirely separate from the point I am making about the plane.

And no, not all planes are created equal. Some are not very forgiving and some are very forgiving.
 
denverpilot said:
No. But it's second from the bottom.

https://www.pilotsofamerica.com/com...common-ga-aircraft.103339/page-2#post-2293007
Click to expand...

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 factual logic when looking at the flight characteristics and safety features of the A5.
 
TexDeuce said:
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 factual logic when looking at the flight characteristics and safety features of the A5.
Click to expand...

Yeah, it'll do great in high winds and other weather a 172 scoffs at. It's an LSA, man. It's going to be plenty safe other than that whole "really light amphibious aircraft" part.
 
TexDeuce said:
Is this a joke?
Click to expand...
Of course not.Let me put it this way: "If my son said he wants the safest two seat cruising plane that he could find to fly as safe as possible in low risk flight, what IMHO I will tell him?" :
1. C172
2. PA28
.
.
.
.
.
99. A5
 
Last edited:
denverpilot said:
Yeah, it'll do great in high winds and other weather a 172 scoffs at. It's an LSA, man. It's going to be plenty safe other than that whole "really light amphibious aircraft" part.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Last edited:
Rotero said:
Of course not.Let me put it this way: "If my son said he wants the safest two seat cruising plane that he could find to fly as safe as possible in low risk flight, what IMHO I will tell him?" :
1. C172
2. PA28
.
.
.
.
.
99. A5
Click to expand...

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 chooses to fly the plane like they do a Cessna without amphib landings and low level stunts, the A5 (on paper) is the safer plane. If it holds up to more testing.
 
I love me some danger boysssss - can I get an AMEN???!! Anyone wanna come up and drag some wing tip on a nice low knife edge pass?
 
TexDeuce said:
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 chooses to fly the plane like they do a Cessna without amphib landings and low level stunts, the A5 (on paper) is the safer plane. If it holds up to more testing.
Click to expand...
As of now, on paper, this is one of the least safe planes out there. For full disclosure, are you on the payroll?
 
The marketing force is strong on their site.

Below are sequential screenshots with captioning. That lake on the last shot looks familiar.

https://iconaircraft.com/news/safety-a5-spin-resistance-development/

2ev41ao.png

24b0ztk.png

160plqe.png
 
Well, at least their marketing is accurate.

The A5 did give a very experienced pilot the confidence to fly low into a box canyon.

Now he's dead.

I'm sure that if Icon starts delivering planes, the A5 will give many newbies (like me) even greater confidence to take risks.

I wonder if their marketing guy used to write tobacco ads.....
 
Salty said:
As of now, on paper, this is one of the least safe planes out there. For full disclosure, are you on the payroll?
Click to expand...

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 a lively discussion especially when people disagree. It's good to hear different viewpoints even if some are Straw man's. We'll see how everything plays out and hopefully no more serious mishaps.
 
Last edited:
Salty said:
As of now, on paper, this is one of the least safe planes out there. For full disclosure, are you on the payroll?
Click to expand...
How many of the mishaps reported so far have been established as being due to the plane instead of the actions of the pilot? (Not arguing, just asking.)
 
Rotero said:
Of course not.Let me put it this way: "If my son said he wants the safest two seat cruising plane that he could find to fly as safe as possible in low risk flight, what IMHO I will tell him?" :
1. C172
2. PA28
.
.
.
.
.
99. A5
Click to expand...

:confused2:
 
This is getting a bit crazy. An airplane is now capable of encouraging people to make poor decisions or being overconfident?

One thing I am observing is that people appear to be comparing the Icon to landplanes, and the accident rate and environment in which they operate. How many of the posters here actually have time in a seaplane?

If one was going to compare the Icon and its accident rate to something I'd suggest comparing it to other seaplanes, and maybe restrict it to amphibious seaplanes. Note that both accidents occurred on or near the water, not land. Insurance companies view seaplanes as a higher risk than landplanes, so that leads me to believe that the accident rate and/or claim rate is higher for them. That may also insinuate that the environment in which they operate is less protected than land operations landing and departing established runways, which I would agree with.

Also note that to obtain sport pilot privileges in a seaplane requires minimal flight experience, assuming you already hold a pilot certificate. This could present a problem down the road for buyers and the accident rate, and it could also be part of the problem with the two accidents so far. Does anyone know how much seaplane time the pilots in the accidents had?
 
Rotero said:
Of course not.Let me put it this way: "If my son said he wants the safest two seat cruising plane that he could find to fly as safe as possible in low risk flight, what IMHO I will tell him?" :
1. C172
2. PA28
.
.
.
.
.
99. A5
Click to expand...

Uhm, aren't we overlooking the fact that the 172 has FOUR seats?
 
N659HB said:
Doesn't mean you can fill them all and fly "safely."
Click to expand...

What's that got to do with how many seats it actually has? There's no guarantee that you can fly safely if there are only two occupants, either.
 
TexDeuce said:
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.
Click to expand...

Sweet baby jesus!

It's a friggin amphib!!! A F104 star fighter is also safer for a student pilot, because there's nothing in the contract that says you ever have to advance the throttle more than 1/10th of an inch lol.

It was built to operate on water, that adds a whole nother dimension to flying, as an amphib that a dimension on top of that.

Saying it's safer than a 172, just so long as you don't go on water with it, WHAT YOURE SAYING IS it's safer if you don't use it for what it was built for.



PPC1052 said:
Uhm, aren't we overlooking the fact that the 172 has FOUR seats?
Click to expand...
Lol, ether your part of a family of bolemic midgets, or you never flew, or did a w&b on a 172 ;)
 
Tex, James, try this hypothetical:

If Bob Hoover were to fly each plane in the manor in which the plane was designed to be used, in which plane would he have lived longer?

Discounting suicide of course as a result of having to fly either...
 
deonb said:
Tex, James, try this hypothetical:

If Bob Hoover were to fly each plane in the manor in which the plane was designed to be used, in which plane would he have lived longer?

Discounting suicide of course as a result of having to fly either...
Click to expand...

This argument is funny to watch. I can see both sides but some of you seem to be talking past each other. Your post sums up one side of it and the following would sum up TexDeuce's argument:
"If Bob Hoover were to fly each plane in the exact same manner (presumably in the manner that the C172 is typically operated, since you couldn't operate the C172 in the full envelope of the Icon) , in which plane would he have lived longer?"

Sure, its a hypothetical and some of you will say "but they won't be flown in the same manner" and that's fine but that isn't the point TexDeuce is making. He's just saying the hardware itself (not talking about the pilot) has more intrinsic safety elements than other types. That's it.

* of course that presumes that some major design flaw does not come to light but so far there is no evidence of such.

BTW- I don't really have a point of view on this debate, just trying to clarify it for others.
 
deonb said:
Tex, James, try this hypothetical:

If Bob Hoover were to fly each plane in the manor in which the plane was designed to be used, in which plane would he have lived longer?

Discounting suicide of course as a result of having to fly either...
Click to expand...


I don't have a crystal ball, nor do I know if he had any seaplane time.

That said, in one you're landing on a ever changing runway, which was likely never intended to have a plane operate out of it before, in the other you're mostly landing at airports and airstrips which were purpose built for aircraft ops. Where the ground is not moving and is solid.

There is a reason float insurance is so dang expensive, and why many amphibs don't even carry insurance

Look I obviously love float flying and amphibs, that said it's a type of flying where if you aren't on your game, if you aren't wind aware, if you don't research you landing areas, and that info isn't just in some AFD, if you don't do good survey passes, etc etc, it will bite you WAAAAY faster than a land plane, and if it bites you, it's not likely to be at a airport where you're more likley to get help, it'll be in the middle of a lake in the middle of nowhere.

Little tidbit to leave ya with

Land plane gear position oops

Amphib gear position oops
 
Last edited:
RudyP said:
This argument is funny to watch. I can see both sides but some of you seem to be talking past each other. Your post sums up one side of it and the following would sum up TexDeuce's argument:
"If Bob Hoover were to fly each plane in the exact same manner (presumably in the manner that the C172 is typically operated, since you couldn't operate the C172 in the manner with the full envelope of the Icon) , in which plane would he have lived longer?"

Sure, its a hypothetical and some of you will say "but they won't be flown in the same manner" and that's fine but that isn't the point TexDeuce is making. He's just saying the hardware itself (not talking about the pilot) has more intrinsic safety elements than other types. That's it.

* of course that presumes that some major design flaw does not come to light but so far there is no evidence of such.

BTW- I don't really have a point of view on this debate, just trying to clarify it for others.
Click to expand...

Put the 172 on floats and I could see it being a more fair comparison.
 
James331 said:
Lol, ether your part of a family of bolemic midgets, or you never flew, or did a w&b on a 172 ;)
Click to expand...

It's still got four seats! It ain't a two-seater, even if you can't fill all the seats (with adult males) and full fuel. I have had four adults in my 177 (though not with full fuel). Same thing.
 
Let's fly it low and slow, and do steep turns over the lake! It's 100% safe because it has an AOA indicator and a chute!

Even though when 'low and slow' the chute is probably out of its envelope, and because the AOA won't ever jump to critical suddenly when you do slow steep turns at low altitude.

That last image that @ElPasoPilot posted is almost criminal marketing.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top