Icon A5 Request For Weight Increase Exemption Status

[hydroguy2]

1680.......

oh thought I read 1510#. Well let's change that to.... it'll be a porky pig.

[FloridaJohn]

Well, I have say that I am surprised by the announcement. Now it's up to the market forces to determine if this design will be a success.

[kmhd1]

oh thought I read 1510#. Well let's change that to.... it'll be a porky pig.

hydroguy2, you are correct. Icon stated today that the production A5 will have an MTOW of 1510 pounds. What they requested and what the FAA approved allowed them to go up to 1680 but Icon says for this version they won't need the entire exemption amount.

[zaitcev]

oh thought I read 1510#. Well let's change that to.... it'll be a porky pig.

You read correctly. While waiting for the exemption, Icon went through a drastic weight reduction program, in case. So, the lightiest production airplanes are going to be only 80 lbs overweight. However, the exemption is granted to the original request of 1680 lbs, which leaves Icon with a headroom.

[kmhd1]

Well, I have say that I am surprised by the announcement. Now it's up to the market forces to determine if this design will be a success.

Yeah, I was a bit surprised as well. What had me believing they might get it was the length of time and the types of questions the FAA was asking in their follow up additional information request back in April. It just seemed like if they had no intention of approving the exemption then why wait this long and ask for so much more information nearly a year after the request had been made.

[kmhd1]

A couple of interesting articles posted today:

This one provides a few more tidbits than the standard press release did on the granted exemption:
http://www.flyingmag.com/aircraft/lsasport/faa-grants-icon-a5-weight-increase?cmpid=enews072913&spPodID=030&spMailingID =17747506&spUserID=NDg4MzU1MjY0ODkS1&spJobID=21884 4534&spReportId=MjE4ODQ0NTM0S0

Interesting opinion piece from Flying Magazines Robert Goyer:
http://www.flyingmag.com/blogs/going-direct/icon-gets-exemption-good-thing-or-favoritism?cmpid=enews072913&spPodID=030&spMailing ID=17747506&spUserID=NDg4MzU1MjY0ODkS1&spJobID=218 844534&spReportId=MjE4ODQ0NTM0S0

[kmhd1]

An interesting read on the thought process the FAA went through to arrive at its decision. The document attached in the following link for the A5 docket specifically addresses some of the concerns that have been raised in this discussion thread regarding competitive advantage, part 23 certification, removing other items to make the plane lighter, the folding wings, etc...

http://www.regulations.gov/#!documen...2012-0514-0136 then click on the link at the site to view the attached pdf document.

[Frank Giger]

Aside from its looks I'm trying to figure out where the leap forward in aviation exists with this plane.

AccuFlex (tm) SafeSecure (tm) cup holders.

And a "smokeless" ashtray.

[rwanttaja]

An interesting read on the thought process the FAA went through to arrive at its decision. The document attached in the following link for the A5 docket specifically addresses some of the concerns that have been raised in this discussion thread regarding competitive advantage, part 23 certification, removing other items to make the plane lighter, the folding wings, etc...

http://www.regulations.gov/#!documen...2012-0514-0136 then click on the link at the site to view the attached pdf document.

Thanks for the link!

Interesting... the exemption is good for only five years. I expect this gives the FAA the ability to refuse to renew it if the claimed benefits don't manifest themselves.

Ron Wanttaja

[martymayes]

Interesting... the exemption is good for only five years. I expect this gives the FAA the ability to refuse to renew it if the claimed benefits don't manifest themselves.

So if 25% of the total accidents at the end of 5 yrs are stall/spin, would that indicate the weight exemption for "safety" is a failure?