ICON A5 trouble in the Bahamas
2024 ж. 5 Нау.
57 249 Рет қаралды
As unique as the ICON is, anytime you are around the public they will surely film...the good, the bad, and the ugly.
@SailingSisu
As unique as the ICON is, anytime you are around the public they will surely film...the good, the bad, and the ugly.
@SailingSisu
I saw the same thing happen on lake Powell with the same type of aircraft. The pilot tried twice to get airborne and porpoised into the water bringing him to a stop. I went to him and asked if he needed help and that I was a pilot and an accident investigator and the density altitude was way too bad for him to try to take off. he elected to go back into the beach and wait. That's much better than dying.
Yep, plenty of reports about all types of planes a high density altitudes having issue. Physics is physics. Wait until cooler.
You have love that strong South African accent , like he say small plane.
Once a float plane lands it becomes a sail boat and not a very good one
Yep, Combo of motor and sailboat.
Never take off downwind. Planes take off into wind for a reason. Go get some basic flight training.
WTF are you talking about? He took off.,… into the wind. What he could do, was come ashore in a manner that he wanted to.
I'm an ATPL Pilot. Took off today in a 737 with a tail wind. It's far more common than you think
Go get some basic reading lessons. He was overheating going downwind to turn around and take off into the wind.
What made you think he took off downwind?
Boats on a mooring will soon point into the wind. Each boat and even the inflatable are facing the wind. Tank top flutter then hair blowing are other clues.
If you think a boat or aircraft is high maintenance, then try combining the two.
It actually isn’t that bad, but that can be said about most recreation vehicles, boats, planes, RVs, etc…
В общем дрова, по факту получились....😂
Thanks for the reply
The wave heights in the ocean are always going to be problematic for that underpowered flying boat.
Ocean wave height is a problem for any plane in LSA or small GA class. Even PBYs had limits. Power though is fine for its mission, especially with 4-blade prop.
Similar light sport sea planes with the same engine: -weigh less -have the prop in “cleaner” airstream -have a water takeoff roll of half or even less of what the icon has, which is particularly important with waves. Plane is underpowered.
@@xpeterson Plane engine, especially with 4-blade prop, has power fine for it's mission. Was never designed to be a rocket ship. If you could fly one you would see. As with any LSA amphibious, they are so light, high sea state (over 12in) is not good no matter the engine.
@@IconicFlight no one is looking for a rocket ship, just something that gets them off that water faster, over less distance, and with less speed in order to avoid some of those waves and/or impact them less. These planes in the video had to back up and take a running start of 1000ft just to get off the water, which took them well away from the calm waters in the wind shadow of the shore. I cant count the amount of times I have taken off on calm water where boat wakes were close enough apart that a 350ft T/O distance seemed too long...
He’s trying to turn the plane to taxi but the plane is weathervaning into the wind. Too windy and too rough for that little plane.
Exactly. Instruction books warn to not fly seaplanes in winds 12mph and above. They are simply no longer maneuverable on water.
LSAs all have limitations due to size, but it would also depend on direction winds are blowing and your takeoff run. 12” waves are a limitation. 12kt direct cross wind for landing is max “demonstrated”, but like with other planes, that is not necessary max it can do depending load, geography and pilot skills.
@@IconicFlightah, yes… we always throw in that last little enticement that leads to many, many accidents, “depending on pilot skill”. It should really be depending on pilot ego. So many hear “skill” and think “challenge accepted”. But being skilled in operating outside the normal performance envelope is by definition unlikely. And putting oneself there in order to gain that skill, judgement and establish new limits requires exposing oneself to unnecessary risks. It would be nice if more of us avoided the trap of thinking that our pilot skill will somehow get us out of extreme situations. The term is luck. And the old adage applies.
@@57Raz totally agree, “No old bold pilots”. I’d never suggest to exceed a max demonstrated crosswind limitation unless you want to be a test pilot. Plane may be able to do it, but can you? My motto is, wide margins and always have an out…
Most of the bad press on this aircraft is due to bad pilots. Or using it like a gymnasic event. If they would just FLY THE PLANE like it's designed it can bring great pleasure
IMHO, the Icon is a great aircraft, piloted by not-so-great pilots. Icon's history is stellar. Every crash has been due to pilot hotdogging.
negative, bad safety record
@@tomtom6319 not true. If you read all the NTSB reports, pilot error is the cause each and every time. Please fly one and you will See how safe the design is.
NOT TRUE IN ANY RESPECT! DO MORE RESEARCH FOOL. They are a complete train wreck.
@@IconicFlight 89.4% of all crashes are pilot error according to the NTSB. The terrible design of this increases the chance for pilot error substantially. Some of us remember how the company thought all there was to designing the plane was to copy the Avid in carbon fiber. But their highly educated sales staff of non-aviation related young women with big boobs sells the aircraft to the uneducated....
LSA Aircraft like the Icon A5 need only a recreational certificate to fly them. Despite that, the first pilot was wise enough to use ground effect before gaining more altitude over (the warmer) Land. Less drag once leaving the water, a cushion of more stable air below the aircraft.
Agree!
I wouldn't expect any A5 pilot to know what DA is.
Decision Altitude?
I’m sure it takes off well from a glassy smooth lake with no wind. 😂
It’s fine up to 1ft swells and 12kt xwind. Even in a ski boat, you would not have as much fun in that seastate.
They’re pretty cool airplanes, albeit a little underpowered as many LSA are. I would NEVER put it, or any other seaplane, on the saltwater. I’ve lived on the gulf coast for 50 years and I know what saltwater does to steel and even aluminum. Unless every single bolt, screw, hinge, cable, (unless every single piece of hardware is stainless steel) you’re gonna have problems.
Really, for its mission the power with the 4-blade prop is more than enough. Definitely not a rocket ship, but was never designed to me. Yep, saltwater is wicked. Good thing is, most of the plane is made of materials that don't corrode. Body is carbon fiber not metal. The few components (some landing gear linkage, water rudder linkage, etc..) can have corrosion resistance put on them to inhibit corrosion, but proper care is to wash plane really good after any saltwater day. The many folks who live on the coast do that and have good results.
the narrator sounds like Noralee of itchy boots
Not quite but close. Noralee is Dutch and I would say that the narrator is South African.
South africans.. sailing Sisu is their YT channel..
No clue
It appears he has full flaps. Is that the setting for take-off on water?
Yes, full flaps is normal water takeoff.
Pilot inexperienced/not smart enough to realize that the wind and sea state were too much for that aircraft. They could have just shut the plane off, and sailed/drifted downwind (as they should have been trained) to the point where they had enough distance for a takeoff.
It was doable if the weight was within limits and proper technique. That second plane even modified their engine and was heavier. Probably why it overheated.
Whatever, he took off just fine. He wanted to come ashore, but the conditions weren’t allowing him to do it in the manner he desired.
@@thomasrudder9639yep, his takeoff was fine, and shutting off engine that is overheating is the proper technique. No clue what he was trying to do taxiing between the boats.
this is exactly why the single-prop accident statistic is so high, people can get aircraft out of these out of the box, do a few weeks PPL and then mess up in the very basics of flying/ overestimate their skills and/or what their aircraft can do
That can definitely happen, and it does at all levels of skill. You have the newbie that do that, but you also have extremely experienced folks over estimate their skills in a situation and have an accident. ICON does not let you just take the keys and go. In addition to a person getting their PPL or LSA with seaplane, you must do an owner 1-1 with the company instructors. All throughout training, safety, compliance and good judgement are stressed, as well as teaching you how to fly the plane. Insurance typically requires rechecks and min flight time to be allowed solo. All for safety. As with a new automobile driver, new pilots make mistakes. Funny thing, the accident statistics show it’s not the new folks flying LSAs are the issue, most LSAs accidents are older experienced PPL or higher folks step back into an LSA. FAA is studying this to find reason. In any case, good aero decision making is the key to safety.
Maybe they ran out of fuel waiting for the wind direction to change.
Actually, they overheated and had to stop and cool down.
I don't know much about them but they seem under powered or overweight?
You read it is under powered in comments, but it's posted by people who have never flown one, especially with the new 4-blade prop, or are trolls sponsoring/backing another maker. Their loss to see for themselves how nice and fun this plane is (like a Piper Cub). Takeoff delay here was technique and probably overweight. That will increase your takeoff run. Second one was an experimental version with a soup'd up engine that overheated with all the high RPM taxiing. Once they cooled off, they were on there way...
Also, he was trying to take off downwind....that is a NONO....,DUH.
How do you know he took off downwind?
Nope. Boats at anchor are pointing into the wind.
I cringe to think what the salt spray is doing to that poor airplane.
Yep, lots of ploughing taxiing can wear the prop leading edges. As for the plane itself, you just need to wash plane down daily. No many corrodible parts, but they should have corrosion treatment on them if you live in saltwater areas.
@@IconicFlight You’re kidding, right? I worked at sea for twenty years and can tell you that salt spray gets into everything. The engines intake air for starters, flight controls linkage…
@@lowandslow3939 Oh no, it gets everywhere, but only a few components on ICON A5 are actually made from corrosible materials. Carbon fiber you just soap and water clean. EVERYTHING gets sprayed down. Some folks use something called an IONIC water sprayer to get things cleaner. ICON Service provides a prevention program where the few parts that do corrode get covered in protective film (has to be repeated every 6mo if you are in salt environment).
What? A jetski with wings? What could possibly go wrong….?
It’s so much fun. You ought to try it so you will see!
Roy Halladay died in the same exact kind of aircraft .
But to qualify he was "well medicated", and was performing "aggressive aerobatics" at extremely low levels.
Yea, he unalived himself semi-intentionally.
@@seandraper2848 ok, well the chief engineer that designed the aircraft was clean, sober and knew more than anyone on the planet and he died in one too.....
@@randolphbean1108, he was also the test pilot, took the plane into a blind canyon and flew it into terrain. NTSB found no fault with the plane in that case, 100% pilot error.
@@seandraper2848 the problem being that if even the guy who designed it didn't know the limits of the airframe, how would low time, new pilots cope with them? Not to mention he killed a new hire employee with himself. He was known to fly this canyon to show off, but the airframe response is different with a passenger. NTSB found no mechanical issues, but said nothing about DESIGN issues.
I question second the pilots judgment
Rushed it and over heated motor. FYI- motor on that plane was a modified upgrade from original to have more HP. I wouldn’t be surprised if he was heavy too.
what do you expect from a $400,000 jetski with wings
It's a pretty awesome plane! Come fly it and you will see. :) That engine in second plane was actually modified to be a larger ROTAX 914,915 or 916. More power, more heat trying to plough turn in strong winds. He did the right thing shutdown down to cool off. Then he took off fine.
Filed bankruptcy
Actually CH11 reorg of finances companies use. Like many companies, almost all the airlines and Vans Aircraft (maker of the RV planes). They are open, selling and supporting.
Pilot should take some refresher lessons or consider a differnt way to spend his time. He demonstrated a total disregard for the laws of flight.
What laws of flight did he disregard?
Their own test pilot killed himself and a new hire in the A5. Hawkins' dream turned out to be an overpriced nightmare. Over promised, under delivered.
Yeah, that was a very tragic story and he made a Mistake thinking he was in a different finger of the lake, It goes to show you no matter how experienced you are you can still make a mistake. Do you remember when the famous test pilot Scott crossfield flew his Cessna 210 into a thunderstorm. Sometimes your experience can get you into trouble. I would hardly call the icon of nightmare, and if you fly one, you would see that it delivers everything as promised And meets the mission for what it was designed for.
@@IconicFlight I was placeholder #1640 for nearly two years. The stupid price hikes killed the promise. Kirk totally blew it. The mission was an affordable LSA. Mission failed. Promise? What promise?!? Now rich folks with no skills kill themselves with it. Tragic.
@@RARenfield I agree new planes are really expensive. Premium LSA‘s are going to easily cost you 300k+. A new Cirrus is 1.3 million, and a 182 is over 900,000. Of course, those are entirely different missions. Now, you can get an LSA that are more along the lines of a manufacturer built kit plane that are much more inexpensive. That is the beauty of the market with the diversity of missions and price points. I’ll agree with you on one thing, that initial price point was too low and wishful thinking. Would not be the first time in history that a new manufacture underestimated the cost of production, and distribution.
@@IconicFlight All true. However IMO Icon should've honored the quote for those of us who put down the deposit. Their "underestimation" was a primary selling point that also happened to be a big, fat juicy lie. The initial price point will now get you a 1/4 ownership. 🤣 It wasn't my fault, it was Kirk's. So eat the difference, Kirk, and call it the price of the education you should've had. That it is not the first only confirms this was an avoidable misrepresentation, driven by ignorance and hubris.
@@RARenfield heck, even Vans right now is having to up costs on buyers who are in the middle of kits. It sucks, but unforeseen cost and issue change the financial landscape. I personally have no doubt their passion to price as they planned, but then reality set in. After that supplier issues, COVID and California lockdown piled on. Not to mention the entire new plane market prices had to go up too (I love Cirrus, but I can’t afford 1.3mil, but other can). I’ve seen used one in the mid 200s, that’s always an option. I am really sorry you had to pull out, just glad you got your money back.
Need a Kodiak on floats not a over priced under powerd Jetski with wings , the airplane was a gemic and few folks paid With their lives
Kodiak is a nice plane indeed! Of course, they were built for a completely different mission and it’s not a light sport. The rest of your comment is quite nonsensical. I think if you were to actually fly an icon, you would understand.😂
@@IconicFlight na i'm good i rather have a 206 on flaots they the same price i dont need light sport i can have medical I'm not 89 years old and i should be flying where you light sport dude shouldn't be flying !
@@zackriden79 Oh, yeah at 2:06 on floats is very impressive. A completely different mission but I assure you a brand new 206 on floats is over $1 million. Of course you can buy one that’s 50 years old and it’s much more affordable. I would consider a 206 or a Malibu for the long range family mission. My dream plane would be an albatross, but no matter what I do I cannot figure out the justification for it 🤣
@@IconicFlight didnt you just fly for bankrupt if your that fucking good of an airframe you wouldn't be going belly up I'm dont aguring with you the plane was bullshit
Looks hopeless - I no longer want one
They were fine, just overheated. They installed a larger motor which generates for heat plough taxiing. They actually did the right thing stopping motor and letting it cool. Standard ROTAX procedure, or any plane engine overheating.
The A5 is a death trap.
Please elaborate?
Not any more than any other lsa
Under powered ,way over prices flying death trap,already killed chief pilot and engineer, give this air borne buzzard a wide berth if you want to live!..............
@@zeke2566 Nah, power is fine for its mission. All accidents have been pilot error. Plenty safe. You obviously haven’t flown one to know how nice it is. Hope one day you get the chance.
@@IconicFlight under powered death trap and you know it,s- sponsons block air flow to tail resulting in total loss of control and death,been certified in tests proven just a terrible design all around!
those are known death trap planes, absolute junk
Actually very safe and fun plane for the mission designed for. Like a Piper Cub- low, slow and fun!
You’re wrong as wrong can be.
@@thomasrudder9639 if you would state facts, I’d love to know why you think that.🤔
Any body woth a brain wouldn't buy this crap, shows you can have money but bo brain to use it wisely
Wow, are you misguided! 🤣 as I tell people, you just don’t understand until you fly one. Now, if your mission is to fly 1000 miles on a tank of gas and carry six people, it obviously is not the plane for you. My dream plane is an albatross!
engine is too small
Sea state is too high! 😳😱
Engine is fine for the mission it was designed for. Stay within weight and other limitations, it flies great. 4-blade prop really helps take performance too. The second plane had modified engine to a larger HP Rotax and was no longer an LSA but experimental.
No it’s not
@@thomasrudder9639 Right, it is no longer an LSA but experimental when you swap engines.
@@IconicFlightyeah, that's why for 11 years Icon pushed to change LSA rules for their benefit alone, because they couldn't design it within parameters.
A very unsafe plane!
Bullshit!
Not at all, very safe. Please come fly one so you understand.
@@thomasrudder9639 after 60 yrs of flying everything, DPE for 40 and a test pilot....unsafe airplane! Just like the R-22 series.....look at the accident reports etc.......I hope you drive a car only?
@@IconicFlight Thanks for the offer....but will decline.......good luck
@@Nick-cd4kd No clue about your credentials, but if you read the NTSB reports (not sure you have), you would see the plane has never been the issue. And if you were a DPE, you understand, and even graded your candidates in, the importance of good aerodecisionmaking. That is were the errors have been and why ICON stresses even more the importance of good decision making. As a test pilot, you would surely understand the safety consideration of a plane meeting Part 23 spin resistance. Demo it yourself. Plane is incredible safe and I would encourage you to go fly one. As a DPE, ICON has a free (or low cost) course for DPEs, you ought to take it and see. As for the R22, I can't speak to that since I don't fly helos.
Useless plane from a so called "designer"
It’s an awesome safe plane and you should fly one to understand for yourself.
Underpowered 100hp 👎
Not really, especially with the 4-blade prop. Not sure where you get your number from, but it has great performance for the mission it serves. I am assuming you have never actually flown one. If have had, you would know that the ICON at the end of the video the ICON has been modified experimental to be a 915 or 916, well above 100hp.
Totally agree. The ICON A5 should have a Rotax 915iS, putting out 141hp, instead of the 912iS 100hp. Especially considering the outrageous price tag of $385,000!
@@skypilotacethat would be nice, but everything is a trade off. Add heavier engine with obviously more power, then you must deal with higher fuel burn, less range or bigger fuel tank, cg changes, useable load reduction. Fly it and you will see, stay within operating range it was designed for, it performs awesome. Yes cost is high compared to used market of 30yr old planes, but premium loaded light sports are in the same price 300-400k range. Kit modeled planes are cheaper, but you have to be honest, they are not as finished (and I am not saying there is anything wrong with them). That's fine because market selection at various price points is a good thing. Don’t forget, a new Cirrus is 1.3mil. The Vickers looks awesome and I have been waiting years to see one. Vickers is learning it is harder to go from design to production, just like ICON. Hopefully Vickers can take advantage of the ICON lessons learned. Hopefully MOSAIC changes will really open LSA market up to new designs. We’ll see.
@@IconicFlight especially with the engine in the back that would really be bad for the CG. I’m so used to Skyhawks I wasn’t even thinking of this.
@@matthewhedge8955 c172 are always the good old standard, but actually the engine in the back is nicer- Much better view out cockpit and quieter. CG with rear engine is not an issue, you just work that into the design. It’s hard to fully grasp ICON until you fly an ICON.
ICON Bankrupt again no surprise the company was poorly managed and Hype marketed from the start it may never recover from such a bad start.🔥💲🔥hundreds of millions burnt for 200 under powered overweight planes. Icon=🔥💲🔥
It’s a Ch11 reorg. They are still operating building and supporting a great plane. Like many startups they unestimated development costs, and as they started getting planes out the door, California COVID restrictions shut them down for awhile. It happened in business work (you can google all companies that have gone through ch11 and are fine now). Currently the immensely popular Vans Aircraft is in Ch11, and Progressive Aerodyne has closed operations. Again with all your negativity, you obviously have an LSA you prefer, do share? A broad diverse market is a good thing.
@@IconicFlight Nice plane for the mission. But for most pilots, the Useful Load wirght is too small. you can't haul around two people, and add sufficient amount of fuel to go anywhere. Nice plane anyhow.
@@michaelspunich7273 you are correct, the original 430 pound useful load was at the low end of the range for amphibious LSA’s, but now with the new weight mod increase my plane will have 500 pounds useful load which is plenty or two 200 pound people and almost 3 hours of gas. I don’t know about you, but I have a two hour bladder :-)
@@IconicFlight The two hour bladder defense... fair enough! Have them clean house, and keep going!