Has Icon delivered the mounds of data the FAA requested?
icon just announced a nice AOA indicator.
http://www.iconaircraft.com/news/ico...oa-system.html
Has Icon delivered the mounds of data the FAA requested?
icon just announced a nice AOA indicator.
http://www.iconaircraft.com/news/ico...oa-system.html
Yes. Everybody is waiting on the FAA to do something.Originally Posted by Ylinen
I hope they didn't invent this all by themselves. There are lots of companies out there that make these things already. Of course, I don't need to mention the additional weight they are adding to put this feature on the plane.
Well, they donˊt, but still lots of real work to get it on the aircraft. That is not just a simple gauge.
Is it more complicated than this one? Or this one?
Doesn't seem too complicated to me. Two specialized static ports and either a gauge or a small air data computer connected to an indicator. Or build the ports into your pitot tube like Dynon does. That's pretty much all there is to it.
Yes, it's far more complicated than that, which is why Icon will need an additional 200 pound waiver on top of the one they have in the works for safety.
Oh, and they're going to make the right seat child seat compatible for safety which will require a 150 pound additional waiver. Who could fight this - it's for the children.
Wink, wink, nudge, nudge omitted for the sake of keeping a straight face.
The Icon A5 - the only LSA who's gross allowable weight is the same as a Cessna 172. Buy yours today and start boating your way into the skies! It's just like a jet ski - after you get yours take a few lessons at a local Icon driving school and you'll soon make twenty-somethings jealous of your midlife crisis!
The opinions and statements of this poster are largely based on facts and portray a possible version of the actual events.
Hahahaha thanks for the good laugh. This whole situation seems to be a prime example of "scope creep". In 20 years we will look back and either say "wow remember when this thing changed the GA market forever" or "Hey remember that flash airplane that almost made it into production but fizzled out?"
Yeh, it is kind of funny.
The whole LSA scheme was created to provide standards for the 496 pound two seat ultralights that were operating with weight exemptions. The FAA created the LSA rules to eliminate those exemptions, FAA said: "we don't want to rule by exemption".
Scope creep indeed.
Here is something I found interesting, I copied this from the FAAs official denial of Bells 429 weight exemption for an additional 500 lbs for safety equipment.
"Further, the fundamental philosophy in the evolution of the FAA airworthiness standards is a continued enhancement in safety with an accepted different level of safety based on grossweight. Currently, rotorcraft that exceed 7,000 pounds MOW are expected to meet the higher levels of safety prescribed by Part 29, transport category rotorcraft. To allow a rotorcraft to be certified at a higher weight than allowed by the regulations undermines the very philosophy that has served the United States aviation community since the beginning. Commenters did not indicate that the community at large believes the 7000 lb limit is inappropriate. However, the FAA will issue a notice in the future to seek public input on this topic……"
"An increase in MGW could allow Bell 429 operators to improve their operational capabilities primarily benefiting those operators and their customers. This would present Bell Canada, Bell 429 operators, and their customers with an economic advantage over their part 27 competitors since their competitors are limited to a 7,000 pound MGW. Comparable helicopters at a similar weight class that are part 29 certified would also be at a disadvantage since they were required to meet more costly part 29 certification requirements. Further, there are other normal category helicopters currently available in the market that can achieve similar operational capabilities proposed by Bell Canada that did not require an exemption for increased gross weight. Obtaining category A approval for the Bell 429 was strictly a Bell Canada business decision. This decision enhances the marketability of the Bell 429 when compared to non-category A helicopters."
Sound Familiar?
Last edited by Popeye; 07-24-2013 at 10:25 AM.
[QUOTE=Popeye;33092]Here is something I found interesting, I copied this from the FAAs official denial of Bells 429 weight exemption for an additional 500 lbs for safety equipment.
QUOTE]
For every denial, I'll raise you with 2 FAA approved weight increase exemption requests:
http://www.taturbo.com/gwipr.html
http://www.verticalmag.com/news/arti...eight-increase
Every request is decided on an individual basis determined by the supporting documentation. Your call.
Last edited by Floatsflyer; 07-25-2013 at 10:55 AM.
Well, he just might. Alton, Senior Editor, AOPA Pilot, directly following this online self-admitted speculative article in the comments section, is asked, "where did the FAA announce that it was close to a decision?" Alton replies, "On the phone to me at about noon[July 18, 2013].
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote