Reacting to a public backlash, the maker of the A5 light sport amphibian has crafted a new customer contract that eliminates nearly all of the onerous requirements in the original but still protects the company from the threat of lawsuits.

Reacting to a public backlash that erupted after Icon Aircraft began circulating a 40-page purchase agreement that the company asked buyers of the A5 light sport amphibian to sign before they took delivery of their new airplanes, the California manufacturer has replaced the contract with a far simpler document that removes nearly all of the most onerous requirements contained in the original. Icon also announced a major reduction in production for 2016, from 175 airplanes originally scheduled to roll out of the factory to 20.

The new contract, running to just 11 pages, eliminates language that some buyers viewed as potential deal-breakers. Gone is a 30-year life limit on the A5’s airframe, as well as mandatory cockpit audio and video recorders, transfer fees Icon sought to charge for selling the airplane on the used market, the right of Icon to repurchase an airplane if an owner tried to resell it within 12 months of initial purchase, and a “responsible flyer clause” that asked the owner to fly “responsibly and professionally,” a provision many saw as subjective and difficult to enforce.

Plenty of the original contract language remains, however. Icon will still require buyers to agree not to sue the company after a crash in which the company isn’t found liable by the National Transportation Safety Board; maintenance and repairs still must be performed by factory-approved shops; flight data recorders will still be installed in all A5s (but with an expanded privacy policy); and customers agree to require that anyone they sell the airplane to undergo Icon factory training or pay Icon a $5,000 fee (money the company says it never hopes to collect).

Icon is also setting a cap on the first required 10-year airframe overhaul of $15,000. After that, airframes must still be overhauled every 10 years, with no cap on cost and no limit on the number of overhauls. As long as an Icon-approved mechanic deems an A5 airworthy, it can continue to fly.

As for the production slowdown, Hawkins described it as a "one-year delay," saying that the company would also reduce its cost structure and workforce, even as it secures new capital for manufacturing improvements.

“The unfortunate fact of the matter is that Icon had an overly aggressive production schedule for 2016,” said Hawkins. “We are working hard to find the balance between high-rate production and our exacting standards for quality, performance, and affordability. While the A5 is extremely well-engineered and an amazing aircraft to fly, frankly we need to improve its manufacturability. We’ll have to slow down and walk before we run.”

http://www.flyingmag.com/icon-throws-ou ... OTQ2NzIwS0

I hope the Icon makes it, but for the money they want, I'm not signing any agreement like they want. No friggin way.

I'll get a Searay instead.

I just read about that today. I had no idea the Icon came with so many strings attached. I see some of them keeping them out of a courtroom, but some are money grabs. These mandatory overhaul periods on calendar time are one of them, also only allowing a service center is a second one. Look at how much it cost to repack a BRS chute if BRS does it and how much Cirrus collects. Last time I looked Cirrus charged about 2.5 times more. The transfer/training fee of 5000 is ridiculous too. While I am in full support of a pilot getting training in a new aircraft, I do not think the factory should have their wallets open in the used aircraft market. I agree with Larry, for the money involved, Id go with a Searay. No airframe overhaul, no fee charged on resale for ''training,'' Experimental avionics. Just a lot less BS involved in a Searey.

I think the captains will soon be jumping ship.... All the flavor is chewed out of this gum.
I pray I'm wrong.

Key points about the program:

"major reduction in production for 2016, from 175 airplanes originally scheduled to roll out of the factory to 20"

"the company would also reduce its cost structure and workforce, even as it secures new capital for manufacturing improvements"

Key points about the plane:

"maintenance and repairs still must be performed by factory-approved shops"

"flight data recorders will still be installed in all A5s (but with an expanded privacy policy)"

"customers agree to require that anyone they sell the airplane to undergo Icon factory training or pay Icon a $5,000 fee"

"Icon is also setting a cap on the first required 10-year airframe overhaul of $15,000 ... After that, airframes must still be overhauled every 10 years, with no cap on cost and no limit on the number of overhauls"

Are there any other manufactures who have similar contracts to purchase their planes?

I'll be quite honest. I wouldn't buy an A5 based on the contract. I don't care how great the plane is. Icon has contractually married your check book for the next 10 years minimum. That is just insane.

Some folks will sign Anything!

I have seen so many bite the dust:

Kestrel

Columbia

Lower production, the airframe is produced from another vendor..




GB

I know I certainly told them I wouldn't sign that contract. I await the next one...

-jason

A question for the legal staff -- Aren't NTSB findings inadmissible in court? Wouldn't that make Icon's provision that you can't sue them if the NTSB doesn't find them at fault unenforceable? How can they prove you violated that provision if they're not allowed to introduce the NTSB findings?

no, just wait for the bankruptcy and then you can deal with whoever comes in and buys the tooling and type certificate for next-to-nothing. It's the tried-and-true method of general aviation startups.

I have not read the contract just the posts but $15,000, after 10 years, seems pretty cheap for an airframe overhaul. I must be missing the finer print.

It's a volmer reincarnated out of composite, IOW far fewer parts. What is there to "overhaul" and how much could it posssibly cost?

I have never been anywhere near a law school, but I thought it was an article of faith that most liability can't be "contracted" away. Especially since the signatory to the contract is likely not going to be the party doing the suing.
Am I mistaken?