Talk:ICON Aircraft

Assigned 700 positions?
What does The company has assigned nearly 700 positions mean exactly? They've sold 700 aircraft, they've had 700 enquiries, they have 700 deposits? Has the situation changed since 2011? Regards, Lynbarn (talk) 20:17, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Request edit
Wikipedia Editorial Community --

I wanted to note an inaccurate section on their page.

The section recently added that says, "At AirVenture 2015 the company attracted the concern of the aviation media for offering no media flights, not approving any media interviews or video shoots and indicating it wanted control and approval over all media reporting about the aircraft. Paul Bertorelli of AVweb and Aviation Consumer said "If Icon is showing the world how an LSA should really be built, it’s also showing the world how not to do marketing and communication. The reason companies come to AirVenture is to show what they’ve got and that includes unfettered press access to the products and the leadership of the company. If they can’t explain and promote themselves and answer the occasional hardball question in this venue, how will they do when the going gets rough with deliveries, customer service and the inevitable rough spots?"[15]"

This is more of a shame piece by them because they were denied a media flight, but the reason this is inaccurate is because ICON did, in fact, hold media flights during AirVenture 2015. If you'd like proof, here is an article done by Aviation Week's Fred George from Oshkosh 2015 (the EAA AirVenture air show is held in Oshkosh, Wisconsin, and is often more simply referred to as just Oshkosh): http://aviationweek.com/oshkosh-2015/pilot-report-splash-and-dash-aboard-icon-a5-oshkosh

This is a pilot report that Fred George on the flight, complete with photos of him in flight and quotes from when he spoke with Kirk Hawkins. We did approve interviews and photography, although not with everyone, due to a very busy week and schedule. We held a press event the Monday at Oshkosh, Wisconsin, as well, which was an open event that we invited all media to attend.

This is clearly inaccurate. And oddly enough, the article cited is the only one out there that discusses this situation.

Thanks in advance for your help.

107.193.81.9 (talk) 18:53, 20 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks for pointing this out, - Ahunt (talk) 19:28, 20 August 2015 (UTC)


 * I wanted to quickly update and follow up on the below entry. First off all, I appreciate the changes, albeit subtle, that were made. I am a little perplexed as to why a statement that is so subjective and opinionated is allowed, as it does not seem like it is one that is commonly found in Wikipedia entries.  But beyond that, I wanted to prove even further that there were more media that were given the ability to fly and interview at Oshkosh.  Their stories were just finally posted, which is why I am coming back now on this.


 * Here is one from Matt Thurber at Aviation Online News: http://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news/business-aviation/2015-10-05/hands-icon-a5-surprisingly-satisfying-airplane...you will see immediately a line he states that says "At AirVenture, Icon invited the aviation media to fly the A5; my demo pilot was Kirk Hawkins, CEO and founder of Icon and a former Air Force F-16 and American Airlines 767 pilot who also holds a master’s degree in mechanical engineering."


 * Here is another by Dan Johnson...from ByDanJohnson.com: http://www.bydanjohnson.com (September 29th post)...and video: http://www.bydanjohnson.com/index.cfm?b=1&m=2&ID=346


 * Again, I think this is more than enough proof to show that the below statement is not only just opinionated, but flat out false. As always, thank you and I very much appreciate your assistance. 72.43.136.243 (talk) 19:01, 6 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Okay thanks for bringing that up here. It looks like only AVweb got snubbed at AirVenture 2015. Not sure why, but I think that makes the whole incident and the points made in the AVweb editorial non-notable and so I have removed the whole paragraph. - Ahunt (talk) 19:51, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

FAA’s Temporary Exemption
''These are actions taken by the company, submitted to the FAA by the company, Icon Aircraft, signed by the CEO with supplemental data provided by the CTO to the FAA at their request. These are actions taken by officers of the company. The company, Icon Aircraft, petitioned the FAA and without doubt this pertains directly to the company. These are well documented facts that are clearly cited with leaders in the industry including the official Federal Aviation Administrations Exemption No. 10829 granting the temporary relief that expires on June 30, 2018.  I know you would like only positive things said about this company, but these are documented facts. By adding this information a complete well balanced picture is made available to the public. Not just a rosy picture of nothing but success that is portrayed now, but warts and all and I thing that is what the public deserves. If any information is incorrect please address it and I will gladly change it myself. '' This is the link to my short paragraph I created on the ICON Aircraft. I hope you see what I've written, it has not been taken down. Its under the heading of: FAA's Temporary Exemption. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ICON_Aircraft — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yolie417 (talk • contribs) 05:16, 30 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Your proposed text has now been removed by two editors. As far as your edit summary accusing me of biased editing goes, you should first note that I have added well sourced criticism of the company, such as this, you also need to read WP:AGF and not accuse people of things that aren't true.


 * The reasons I removed your text were:


 * This text seems to be about the LSA certification exemption for the aircraft and this doesn't belong in the article about the company, but would belong in ICON A5, where we already have a section about the granting of the exemption.
 * Your text was incomprehensible - it seems to be saying "don't buy this aircraft as they will all be grounded when the exemption runs out" but the point of the confused addition was very unclear.
 * Only one of the references you cited even mentions the A5 and that is the copy of the exemption. The rest are just quoting regulations and say nothing about the A5.
 * The conclusions you seem to be trying to reach, that the A5s will all be grounded when the exemption expires and can't be operated under any other category, is completely your own conclusion and a very good example of WP:SYNTHESIS. No ref cited says what you seem to be trying to say. We are not allowed under Wikipedia policy to take a bunch of refs and combine them to come up with new and original conclusions. See also WP:OR.
 * No reliable reference exists that agrees with you, in other words no one at Flying magazine, AOPA, AVweb or any other segment of the aviation press has noted your concerns. In particular AVweb has been quite critical of ICON (see link above) and would have noted something like this if it were true.
 * Your concerns about the A5s being grounded are based on a false understanding of how FAA exemptions work. First off all exemption to FARs are required to be of limited scope and limited duration, hence each requires an expiry date. If at the date the company is still building aircraft then the exemption will be renewed and the new version of the exemption will have a new expiry date.
 * Even if the expiry date is not renewed the existing fleet of A5s would still retain their existing C of As, as the exemption only allows the issuance of the C of As. The end of the exemption would leave the existing C of As in place, it would just not allow new ones to be issued.
 * The FAA is not going to fail to renew the exemption after all the work they did to issue it in the first place and all the sales and jobs that hang in the balance just to be malicious. Even if they did congress would intervene on behalf of the company and the owners affected.


 * In conclusion the points you seem to be making are just plain wrong, not supported by the refs cited and the inclusion of them would be original research and violate Wikipedia policy. If you can find a reliable reference, where the author makes the point that the A5s are all going to be grounded when the exemption expires then we can include this, otherwise we cannot. - Ahunt (talk) 12:03, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

The first time you removed my text you said it was because it was from a negative view point and not about the company.

And this was my response: These are actions taken by the company, submitted to the FAA by the company, Icon Aircraft, signed by the CEO with supplemental data provided by the CTO to the FAA at their request. These are actions taken by officers of the company. The company, Icon Aircraft, petitioned the FAA and without doubt this pertains directly to the company. These are well documented facts that are clearly cited with leaders in the industry including the official Federal Aviation Administration’s Exemption No. 10829 granting the temporary relief that expires on June 30, 2018.

It appears to me that you would like only positive things said about this company, but these are documented facts. By adding this information a complete well balanced picture is made available to the public. Not just a rosy picture of nothing but success that is portrayed now, but warts and all, and I thing that is what the public deserves the whole truth. If any information is incorrect please address it and I will gladly change it myself.

The reasons I removed your text were: 1.	This text seems to be about the LSA certification exemption for the aircraft and this doesn't belong in the article about the company, but would belong in ICON A5, where we already have a section about the granting of the exemption.

I disagree, it is action taken by the company therefore relevant.(see above)

2.	Your text was incomprehensible - it seems to be saying "don't buy this aircraft as they will all be grounded when the exemption runs out" but the point of the confused addition was very unclear.

3.	Only one of the references you cited even mentions the A5 and that is the copy of the exemption. The rest are just quoting regulations and say nothing about the A5.

Response: Every one of the references cited directly relates to Icon the company. I cite the exemption from the FAA multiple times because that is the highest authority in the land.

4.	The conclusions you seem to be trying to reach, that the A5s will all be grounded when the exemption expires and can't be operated under any other category, is completely your own conclusion and a very good example of WP:SYNTHESIS. No ref cited says what you seem to be trying to say. We are not allowed under Wikipedia policy to take a bunch of refs and combine them to come up with new and original conclusions. See also WP:OR. Response: The conclusion is simple, if the exemption is rescinded no aircraft would possess a valid Airworthiness Certificate and would be legal to operate. I cited the FAAs regulations.

5.	No reliable reference exists that agrees with you, in other words no one at Flying magazine, AOPA, AVweb or any other segment of the aviation press has noted your concerns. In particular AVweb has been quite critical of ICON (see link above) and would have noted something like this if it were true. Response: The absent of evidence is not evidence of absents. Many people believe Icon has entered onto a very slippery slope with this exemption. Show me reliable evidence from credible sources to the contrary. According to the language in the exemption it clearly states “This exemption terminates on June 30, 2018, unless sooner superseded or rescinded”. The FAA can rescind the exemption at any time.

6.	Your concerns about the A5s being grounded are based on a false understanding of how FAA exemptions work. First off all exemption to FARs are required to be of limited scope and limited duration, hence each requires an expiry date. If at the date the company is still building aircraft then the exemption will be renewed and the new version of the exemption will have a new expiry date. Response: “If at the date the company is still building aircraft then the exemption will be renewed and the new version of the exemption will have a new expiry date”  That is pure speculation of what a governmental organization, the FAA, will do in the future and not based in facts.

7.	Even if the expiry date is not renewed the existing fleet of A5s would still retain their existing C of As, as the exemption only allows the issuance of the C of As. The end of the exemption would leave the existing C of As in place, it would just not allow new ones to be issued.

Show me evidence in the regulations proving this fact. I have provided the regulations from the FAA and referenced them that prove my case and I am more than happy to defend my position.

8.	The FAA is not going to fail to renew the exemption after all the work they did to issue it in the first place and all the sales and jobs that hang in the balance just to be malicious. Even if they did congress would intervene on behalf of the company and the owners affected

Once again pure speculation, the government clearly included mechanism that would allow this exemption to be rescinded if they needed to in the future. This would make since because as of to date Icon has not sold and delivered their first aircraft. If this plane turns out to be a death trap I doubt the FAA would not rescind the exemption.

This sounds like an attempt to suppress well documented information and only allow a positive view point to be presented. There are two sides of the coin, this is the other. Do you have an interest in Icon Aircraft?

In conclusion the points you seem to be making are just plan wrong, not supported by the refs cited and the inclusion of them would be original research and violate Wikipedia policy. If you can find a reliable reference, where the author makes the point that the A5s are all going to be grounded when the exemption expires then we can include this, otherwise we cannot.

My conclusions are right, supported by references, cited, and the inclusion supports Wikipedia’s mission of dissemination of knowledge, not just providing one view point. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yolie417 (talk • contribs) 15:57, 30 September 2015 (UTC)


 * I have no connections to the aircraft or the company. If you reviewed my record on Wikipedia you would know, that as I have worked on over 10,000 aircraft articles over more than ten years here, including over 1800 new articles started. You really need to read WP:AGF and not make baseless accusations. I have already indicated here that I have added sourced information critical of the company, which you can read above on this talk page didn't make the company happy that it was included, so it is pretty obvious that I am not working for ICON here.


 * Incidentally "Wikipedia’s mission of dissemination of knowledge" is not correct. The criteria for including information is not the truth as explained there but verifiability, which you have not provided.


 * Please do not misquote me. You claim I said in my edit summary "it was because it was from a negative view point and not about the company", but my initial edit summary said "Reverted. This is about the aircraft not the company and so doesn't belong in this article. It is also far too editorial and misses WP:NPOV by a wide margin." That is still correct. The most recent other editor to remove your text said "far too much info, off-topic, POV, and unclear - please wait for a consensus on the talk page to include this". So we have a consensus on that.


 * You have provided no evidence for anything you have said, just a miss-connected bunch of WP:SYNTHESIS, drawing your own erronous conclusions from unrelated refs that do not mention the A5. The refs you have cited do not support your contentions in the least. To add this text you need to cite a reliable source that says there is a risk that the A5s will be grounded in 2018. Do you have one?


 * Having had this text removed by two different editors, the onus is on you to create a WP:CONSENSUS to include it. I don't think you have made any serious case for including this here, but let's see if any of the other editors watching this page agree with you that it should be included. - Ahunt (talk) 16:16, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

I made some correction in order to help clear up any confusion, I hope this helps. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yolie417 (talk • contribs) 16:15, 30 September 2015 (UTC)


 * No it does not at all. You are also now edit warring and will get a warning. If you keep this up you will be blocked from editing.


 * The current consensus is that this text does not belong here and you cannot edit war to get your own way. You need to remove the text and finish this discussion first. - Ahunt (talk) 16:17, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

NOTE: I have made a request for additional input from uninvolved editors at WikiProject Aircraft to help us come to a consensus on this matter. - Ahunt (talk) 17:01, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

You posted "An editor has proposed adding a new section of text to this article that he claims shows that all the ICON A5 aircraft are likely to be grounded in 2018 when the FAA LSA exemption for this type expires." That is not what I am claiming, please do not misquote me. I am saying that it is a tempory exemption with an expiration date, true; and that it can be rescinded by the FAA, also true. Claiming that Congress would step in is far reaching speculation at best. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yolie417 (talk • contribs) 17:18, 30 September 2015 (UTC)


 * I already explained that all FAR exemptions are legally required to be of limited duration and they are routinely extended. I am still waiting for you to post even one reference that shows that any reliable source thinks that there is any risk at all that the A5s will be grounded. - Ahunt (talk) 17:23, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi all. I have taken a quick look and there are several issues piling on top of each other here. In random order:
 * appears to be inexperienced at editing this encyclopedia and is not yet aware of how we do things here. Yes, this is the encyclopedia that anyone can edit - but it is a serious encyclopedia and it has an awful lot of house rules. It takes time to get the hang of how we work, please do not expect instant fluency.
 * In particular, Civility and assumption of good faith are in danger of breaking down. If they do, then it gets difficult to learn from - or to win over - the more experienced editors.
 * Underneath all that is some sensitive information that might or might not be suitable for this article. Might I suggest to Yolie417 that you post your proposed text below here, so the rest of us can see it in slow time and comment on it, without having to trawl through the article history logs. No promises, but a calm discussion here is the best hope for getting the right answer up there.

Hope this helps. &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 17:58, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

You are saying that there is no risk in the exemption being rescinded/not being renewed and I am saying the risk is real, verifiable, and written by the FAA. The references where already included, but here you go. I have supplies multiple references to the FAA that support my case that include:

1. http://www.aopa.org/-/media/Files/AOPA/Home/News/All-News/2013/July/FAA_ICON_Decision.pdf Page 1 2. http://www.aopa.org/-/media/Files/AOPA/Home/News/All-News/2013/July/FAA_ICON_Decision.pdf page 17 3. http://www.faa-aircraft-certification.com/display-of-airworthiness-certificate.html

4. https://www.faa.gov/aircraft/air_cert/airworthiness_certification/aw_overview/

5. http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?rgn=div5;node=14%3A1.0.1.3.9#se14.1.21_111

May be this will help. 1.	 Is there a risk of the exemption being rescinded, renewed, or superseded?

Yes, according to the FAA that addresses this directly. See page 17 the last sentence, http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?rgn=div5;node=14%3A1.0.1.3.9#se14.1.21_111 Yolie417 (talk) 18:06, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

2.	Can you operate an aircraft without an airworthiness certificate?

NO, Please see     https://www.faa.gov/aircraft/air_cert/airworthiness_certification/aw_overview/  or http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?rgn=div5;node=14%3A1.0.1.3.9#se14.1.21_111

I have been watching this with a chuckle, Yolie is absolutely right, this should be included because without this exemption the company would fail.Bsbuster2233 (talk) 18:21, 30 September 2015 (UTC)


 * I am concerned because the account was only created after the last edit by  and its first act was to revert an experienced editor in the article. It looks very much as if these are either the same person or close colleagues. I have posted suitable warnings about WP:SOCKPUPPET and WP:MEATPUPPET on their user talk pages. Let me say again more plainly, Wikipedia is a global enterprise and has been swatting smartasses who think they can fool us for decades. Duh! &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 18:58, 30 September 2015 (UTC)


 * FAR exemptions are required to have expiry dates and they are routinely renewed. You still have not provided any ref that shows that there is a serious risk of the exemption not being renewed. You aren't making your case here. You need more than to just keep pointing over and over to the exemption document that says it has an expiry date. As I noted before you need to cite a third party ref, like from the aviation media, or even a first party ref, like from the FAA or even the company that shows there is a concern here. Failing that you have presented nothing more than original research here and your own unsupported conclusions. - Ahunt (talk) 21:43, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice, and you are right I am very new to Wikipedia and don't have any idea of the procedures. That being said, what I am saying still has merit and is verifiable. I am posting a copy of the original so people don't have to dig through the history to find it. I am asking for outside help to take an honest impartial look at this and come up with a consensus. Thanks....How do you do that? FAA’s Temporary Exemption On July 24, 2013 the FAA granted Icon Aircraft Exemption No. 10829. This allows for the exemption of the following regulations: §§ 21.181, 21.190, 43.7, 61.23, 61.31, 61.89, 61.303, 61.305, 61.315, 61.317, 61.321, 61.325, 61.327, 61.403, 61.411, 61.415, 61.417, 61.419, 61.423, and 61.429 of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR).

More than half of the commenter were against the granting the exemption voicing strong safety concerns among others. The last sentence in the document states that “This exemption terminates on June 30, 2018, unless sooner superseded or rescinded.” http://www.aopa.org/-/media/Files/AOPA/Home/News/All-News/2013/July/FAA_ICON_Decision.pdf

Without further regulatory action this exemption will expire on June 30, 2018. At that time, all aircraft produced under this exemption would not be considered airworthy because they are too heavy to be a Light Sport Aircraft (hence the need for the exemption) by the FAA. FAR 91.203(b) states "No person may operate a civil aircraft unless the airworthiness certificate required by paragraph (a) of this section or a special flight authorization issued under § 91.715 is displayed at the cabin or cockpit entrance so that it is legible to passengers or crew." http://www.faa-aircraft-certification.com/display-of-airworthiness-certificate.html

Every aircraft produced under this exemption would be effectively grounded because it is legal to fly without a valid Airworthiness Certificate. According to the FAA “An airworthiness certificate is an FAA document which grants authorization to operate an aircraft in flight.” And must be carried in the aircraft at all times. https://www.faa.gov/aircraft/air_cert/airworthiness_certification/aw_overview/ Under current law the only way an aircraft can be mass-produced ready-to-fly other than an ultra-light or Light Sport Aircraft is by manufacturing according to Part 21.24 or 23 of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR). http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?rgn=div5;node=14%3A1.0.1.3.9#se14.1.21_111

Production under these regulations have many undesirable repercussions, but the most noticeable are losing the benefits of being able to operate as a Light Sport Aircraft and loosing this benefit would would require a more advanced pilots license, FAA Medical, and compliance with maintenance requirements like annual inspections by an FAA certified aircraft mechanic etc. The other repercussion of production under Part 23 is the extraordinary cost associated with a product to market. Here is an example of what it cost to certify an aircraft under Part 23. “At their worst, they are bafflingly complicated, shockingly expensive to comply with and seemingly arbitrarily enforced. I remember when Cirrus first moved to certify a new airplane, the SR20, nearly 15 years ago now, just how optimistic the company was about the process. Sixty million dollars and several years later, it had succeeded in passing the finish line and educating itself in the fiendish process that is certification.” http://www.flyingmag.com/blogs/going-direct/part-23-do-over#34VieImyhw4VKAgY.99 Yolie417 (talk) 15:57, 1 October 2015 (UTC)


 * I have already asked for impartial help in forming a consensus from experienced aviation editors at WikiProject Aircraft. That is the input you see above and also some discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Aircraft. As I noted you aren't making your case here. To gain a consensus you need to find a third party source that says that the expiry date on the exemption is likely to be an issue for the aircraft. If you can find anything written by AVweb, AOPA, EAA, Flying magazine or anyone else that is reliable then the editors here, including me, will support putting this in. Without that this doesn't amount to anything notable. As you can see you have gained no support for adding this so far. - Ahunt (talk) 16:21, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Actually, some one does support it. So I will put it back in, as he suggested. Is that ok? Here is what he said "The text on this should be worked into the normal sections and not given undue weight with a separate section. With that said, it looks a bit like forecasting. I suggest just stating something like "The ICON A5's FAA LSA exemption is to expire in 2018." and leave it at that. -Fnlayson (talk) 19:38, 30 September 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yolie417 (talk • contribs)


 * No it is not OK, one suggestion is not a consensus. You say that, "what I am saying still has merit and is verifiable ... I am asking for outside help to take an honest impartial look at this and come up with a consensus. Thanks....How do you do that?" You have just done it. The majority consensus at the moment is that no encyclopedic value has been shown - while it is true, it is trivial. You now need to learn about independent reliable sources by following this link: WP:RS, and then to come up with some which support an unusual significance for this particular case. It will also help persuade us to do more for you if you do not ignore experienced editors when we express concerns and instead tell us your true relationship to . &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 17:24, 1 October 2015 (UTC)


 * That remark was added as part of a larger discussion. If you read the rest of that thread you will see that that discussion currently ended with an agreement that there is nothing notable there, so, no you can't include it. The final comment so far there was "Thank you. That sounds pretty final." As I keep pointing out there is nothing notable that an FAA exemption has an expiry date. They all have to. You need to show that some reliable source that says that it will not be renewed.


 * Incidentally I have been going back over the exemption press coverage in AVWeb and Flying magazine and there is no indication there in any articles published that anyone has any concerns about the exemption being allowed to run out or the aircraft grounded. I have been looking and can't find any reliable ref that supports your contentions here. - Ahunt (talk) 17:32, 1 October 2015 (UTC)


 * I have now also checked the AINonline, AOPA and EAA stories, as well as all the Icon company press releases and the FAA site on the exemption and no writer has expressed any concern there that the exemption will expire or not be renewed. There is just no evidence to support your contentions. If I have missed a ref please do let me know and go ahead and post it. - Ahunt (talk) 17:46, 1 October 2015 (UTC)


 * That's far from a consensus. Hopefully, we will have others weigh in.Yolie417 (talk) 18:25, 1 October 2015 (UTC)


 * If you use a sockpuppet again - or muck us around in other un-encyclopedic ways - you risk having your editor privileges blocked. Just so you know. &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 19:44, 1 October 2015 (UTC)


 * User:Yolie417: I don't think you understand. Please read WP:BRD. You are proposing text that three editors here have rejected. You have to gain a consensus to include it (and that doesn't include sockpuppets). Unless a clear consensus emerges to include this text then it doesn't get included. So far no one but you thinks it should. As I have said several times, you aren't going to convince anyone that there is a risk that the exemption will not be routinely renewed unless you can provide a reliable ref that says that. I have searched for one and I can't find one. Unless you have one I suggest it is time to WP:DROPTHESTICK. - Ahunt (talk) 20:37, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Duplications and outdated information
Should this page exist? The Icon A5 page has much more up-to-date and accurate information.

Groogle365 (talk) 00:36, 25 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Yes, it should, it covers the company, while ICON A5 covers the individual aircraft type. This company may go onto design and build new types of aircraft. If you think this article is out of date then please feel free to update it. - Ahunt (talk) 01:09, 25 March 2019 (UTC)