The amount of better choices than the Icon A5, for the same or less money, is amazing. There must be a utopia of bodies of water with small waves, sandy beaches coupled with nice smooth flying conditions somewhere in the world where people are going to use them. The crash videos are cringe-worthy stuff.
WilliamF wrote:
The amount of better choices than the Icon A5, for the same or less money, is amazing
People don’t buy planes with the head, they buy with the heart (otherwise to be honest, none of us would buy a plane in the first place!)
Funnily enough I bought my TB20 because Socata’s salesman was the only one who talked straight. The Diamond UK and Cirrus UK salesmen just talked arrogant bull. So quite apart from the aircraft itself, it was a no-brainer 
I am surprised how far the Icon managed to travel on its marketing hype, given that it can operate only from fairly smooth water, of which there is obviously little in the whole world. It is basically just bits of lakes or rivers, on calm days.
There is a surprising number of lakes in the US and Canada, relatively small. I was actually surprised to see how many jetties there were on small lakes, and wondered what they were used for – but it was the Midwest and people probably get bored easily there.
Peter wrote:
fairly smooth water, of which there is obviously little in the whole world. It is basically just bits of lakes or rivers, on calm days.
Tons of it here in the US. Many, many reservoirs and lakes. Obviously you wouldn’t want to land the Icon in the Pacific, though – I guess that might well ruin your day.
172driver wrote:
Tons of it here in the US. Many, many reservoirs and lakes.
I’m told the issue in the US is more legal than physical: jurisdiction is not with FAA, making legality of aircraft operation subject to obtuse state and local law. Every operation needs investigation to determine legality, although FAA couldn’t care less as long as the FARs aren’t violated.
Silvaire wrote:
I’m told the issue in the US is more legal than physical: jurisdiction is not with FAA, making legality of aircraft operation subject to obtuse state and local law.
Yes, that’s what I also heard. I don’t fly seaplanes, but the rules seem to be very local.
Silvaire wrote:
I’m told the issue in the US is more legal than physical: jurisdiction is not with FAA, making legality of aircraft operation subject to obtuse state and local law.
I thought that in the US the states have no power to legislate aviation?
Airborne_Again wrote:
I thought that in the US the states have no power to legislate aviation?
AFAIK it’s not the aviation part, it’s once you are on the ground, or rather, water. @Pilot_DAR might know more about that.
I think it goes something like this – the US Federal Government regulates aviation, not the states or local governments, but FAA does not regulate land use or trespassing. Obviously, for most flying in the US that is not an issue because Federal grant money goes to the airports (typically owned by local governments) with strings attached – meaning airports have to be open and unrestricted. In the case of operating from a sizable body of water (also typically owned by local governments) there is no FAA money and therefore no strings to prevent the landowner from restricting aircraft operations. Also, in the case of a privately owned body of water, there may be local government imposed restrictions in place for ‘environmental’ reasons (e.g. ostensibly to protect the water supply), but if that is not the case there is nothing to prevent aircraft operations. FAA doesn’t care where you land as long as its safe in accordance with the FARs.
This link provides more specific information. Obviously if you travel to the right places there are plenty of sea planes – Lake Hood in Anchorage AK has 750 resident aircraft.
