[Username Protected]

https://www.iconaircraft.com/how-the...VJfBMwThjyU-x4

I want provide a counter point / correction to the following quote:

"When the ICON Parachute System is activated from the cockpit, the rocket will fire, it will expose and break away the parachute egress, and then fully deploy the parachute. Once it starts unfolding, and moments after the lines become taught, the aircraft will become stabilized at a controlled, nose-down angle. This angle is intentional, mostly so the pilot’s and passenger’s feet can brace and take more of the impact, as opposed to landing parallel to the ground on essentially the seat of your pants. In this regard, an additional, unique feature to the ICON Parachute System is a switch that identifies when the rocket has been deployed. This switch will lower the landing gear or ensure it is down for an additional shock absorber."

1) No the aircraft will not be a nose down attitude. The aircraft main spar is at 154.75 in. This is where the front two lines for the parachute are attached. This is basically very near front of the flight envelope (153 in) and would only be there at max gross weight with two large people. So from a balance perspective makes no sense If anything the tail might hang slightly low in most cases, but will be balanced for the most part to a level position by the aft parachute line attached to the rear spar. You don't want the rear spar to take much load here its not that strong.

2) Having the aircraft hit nose down so your feet can take the impact would be bad and would defeat the the purpose of putting the gear down automatically the nose gear isn't designed to take that kind of impact.

3) Yes the gear does come down after the rocket fires, this interlock is tested during the production process. Back to #1 you want the main gear to take the brunt of the impact which is predicted to be at or around 1200-1300 ft/min. The main gear is designed to take that load and will do the majority of the cushioning of the impact. Best situation all three take the impact.

4) The front left spar attachment cable will tear out the the outer mold line skin from the right side of the engine plenum/airbox up and over the plenum and to the other side so it not just the parachute egress panel.

5) That graphic they used is something like 10 years old and there isn't a 4th line. Its a three point as the article actually correctly points out.

[Username Protected]

Couldn't agree more about your point of having a nose low attitude on impact would not be good. Bret, did Icon ever consider the honeycomb crush boxes under the seats like Cirrus installs? The math around G forces created on the human body is fascinating, finding mere inches of additional crumple zones makes an exponential difference in the G's experienced. Lastly, I still wish Icon would sacrifice one hull to fully test this.

[Username Protected]

I second that. It seems logical to take an old test aircraft and pull the chute. I would love to see what the propeller ends-up doing to the straps. Maybe the Primary Category aircraft will get tested!

[Username Protected]

I don’t think the prop will win on the Kevlar lines. A customer found out quite dramatically what happens to the prop when you leave a bluetooth speaker up on the center wing and then go for a flight. https://data.ntsb.gov/carol-repgen/a...ort/101380/pdf

If ICON ever considered the crumple seats I’m not aware of it. The aircraft has proven time and time again that it protects its occupants well. The three fatality’s in the company history were not survivable with any amount of safety features. So far there have been no back injuries that i’m aware of and pretty gnarly vertical descent impacts where folks just walk away un harmed.

As for parachute test sure it can be done but the results maybe good or may not be good, all situations will be different. There have been 5 gear downs in water ranging from a flipped over destroyed aircraft to suck the gear up and takeoff again and replace the nose gear door bracket. The testing could have been done but might have yielded one of those five results depending on how it was executed so the question on the parachute pull test becomes what conditions do you do it in? You probably are only going to do the test once. Results like the gear down in water could vary and either give you comfort or confirm your worst fear. Neither of which could be valid on the next go around. I’m not saying don’t do the test but the way you do it may matter significantly and the results may not be valid to the next condition.

[Username Protected]

1) No the aircraft will not be a nose down attitude. The aircraft main spar is at 154.75 in. This is where the front two lines for the parachute are attached.

How about during the deployment sequence?

I recently asked the same question to ICON and they sent me this:

Please review the feedback from our Engineers below.

The picture is just a rendering, but functionally it will still have the same effect. The aft attachment point is for stabilization to keep the aircraft at a slightly nose down angle during descent.

Attached is a picture of a typical deployment sequence of a parachute for a high wing plane. The aircraft will pitch up, decelerate, and then pitch nose-down for landing.

The aircraft will also drop the landing gear automatically when the rocket is fired to aid in absorbing landing under parachute.

[Username Protected]

As for parachute test sure it can be done but the results maybe good or may not be good, all situations will be different.

For any given aircraft weight / air speed hopefully the deployment sequence should be repeatable? The vast majority of Cirrus chute pulls have been successful; a handful of failures revealed issues with the system and some were deployed outside the envelope. It would be comforting for owners if we had a test done in A5 but seems logistically challenging.

[Username Protected]

For any given aircraft weight / air speed hopefully the deployment sequence should be repeatable? The vast majority of Cirrus chute pulls have been successful; a handful of failures revealed issues with the system and some were deployed outside the envelope. It would be comforting for owners if we had a test done in A5 but seems logistically challenging.

Maybe it would be repeatable, maybe not, you have to have more than one data point to determine that, one data point isn't a trend. Cirrus has that trend data now since they have so many parachute pulls. ICON has some trending data on the gear down in water since it has so many of those. What I'm trying to say is only one test will not raise or lower my comfort level as its only one data point. And one data point isn't a trend. To be honest I see no reason why the parachute system won’t work successfully in most cases for the A5. It’s a last ditch effort anyway at least that’s how I looked at it.

As for the nose down, that may be the way that graphic shows. There are plenty of other aircraft have have parachutes that come out of the tail and the aircraft hangs nose down. My point is based on what I know of the attachment points and the CG of the aircraft in the operational envelope. The rear leg of the parachute system would need to be substantially shorter than the mains to force the nose down. This would impart a lot of load into the rear spar attachment. I have hoisted a lot of A5's using the main spars and the hoisting system and can tell you that it will sit tail low if unoccupied or slightly level if the aircraft is balanced within the envelope from those points. The rear cable is really only there to stabilize the plane once under canopy not to take a tremendous load by forcing it to be nose low.

For what it’s worth the Cirrus comes down basically level as well.

[Username Protected]

As for parachute test sure it can be done...

I think the only reason Cirrus had the famous test video and did that test at al was because it was certified with the 'chute in lieu of spin testing. I am guessing here, but I think the spin-resistance of the Icon was part of the certification testing and the certification therefore didn't use the 'chute in lieu of spin testing, so therefore no need to do an actual test as part of certification. Assuming that is correct, for the purposes of certification that would mean the 'chute didn't have to actually work, because the plane already can't stall spin.

[Username Protected]

One last point on the parachute. The effectiveness of a parachute of any type is proportional to the weight it's supporting. If I ever find myself under the Icon parachute, and time permitting, I think I will open the windows and chuck them overboard, then grab everything and anything I can in the cabin and chuck those overboard (unless I am over a pre-school during recess.) Maybe even try to rip the panel off and chuck it. The point being, get as light as you can for the most survivable impact. Maybe we are talking micro-differences, but what else are you going to do while waiting for the earth?

[Username Protected]

what else are you going to do while waiting for the earth?

Call everyone that I can with a mayday, for starters?! Go through my emergency checklist. Make sure the engine is off, the key is out, and prior to impact, turn the Master off. Pull out my Spot and hit SOS. Turn the ELT on. Get my phone and anything as a survival tool onto my person so if I exit hastily I have them already, including something to cut my belt free if necessary. Get a life jacket on if a water landing is likely.

If an encounter with foliage is likely, I might appreciate having the windows in. One could remove them for faster exit if the canopy got twisted and won't open, but more likely than not with how easily the windows remove, they can be removed after impact if necessary for egress. If in a remote area without immediate rescue probability they could come in very handy to have around later to enclose my cockpit (shelter) rather than be scattered over a half the countryside, hoping they didn't also land on someone's head or moving vehicle and cause damage or death because I violated the FARs and started throwing things out of an airplane carelessly to get rid of 10 or 20 of 50 pounds of stuff in a plane/parachute combo designed for up to 1680 pounds

I think that's a good start of a list in less than two minutes of typing as it comes to me. I don't know about you but my plane isn't full of pots and pans like Wyle E Coyote's backpack. It's full of really useful things like life jackets, a telescoping paddle, rope, towel, usually some kind of hydrating beverages, backup batteries for my personal electronics, handheld radio...

[Username Protected]

Looking at the pictures of what just a simple bluetooth speaker accidentally left on wing did to a spinning props, I'm assured the kevlar cables will break blades off the same way. I was surprised when I learned they haven't done a live test. Didn't Cirrus have to do one?

[Username Protected]

Looking at the pictures of what just a simple bluetooth speaker accidentally left on wing did to a spinning props, I'm assured the kevlar cables will break blades off the same way. I was surprised when I learned they haven't done a live test. Didn't Cirrus have to do one?

I believe this video is the Cirrus certification test deployment (or at least one test they did as part of the certification):

[Username Protected]

Cirrus had to test it as they used it to certify an airframe that doesn’t recover from a spin in the required turns.

ICON was required to install in for USA customers so they could obtain the exemption to the 1430 lb amphibious weight limit on an LSA. They had to install enough safety systems on top of the spin resistance, the AOA system and parachute was enough to gain the exemption. There was no requirement to test in flight. It has been tested on the ground, the attachment points tested on the ground. I think cirrus among many others have shown that they work just fine when needed.