Icon A5 Request For Weight Increase Exemption Status

[Frank Giger]

...which is why I just don't get amphibs.

The adventure of aviation complicated by the hazards of boating....

[rwanttaja]

The safety issue with LSA's has everything to do with the lack of transition training for PPL's moving from their C172's or heavier into light aircraft. There is tons of data and several studies to back this up.

(btw, this is also the key to understanding why Experimental aircraft have a safety record worst than spam-cans. If one is the third owner of an Experimental, bad things happen.)

Whew, glad I'm the fourth owner of my homebuilt! :-)

But what Frank is saying is borne out by the homebuilt safety record. The chance of a crash on a first flight is about the same, whether the pilot built the plane or bought an already-flying example. The increased risk of mechanical failure on the aircraft's first flight is about the same as the increased rate of pilot error for a purchased homebuilt.

One of the "Famous last words" in homebuilt aviation is, "I fly a XXXX for a living, I don't need a checkout in a Kitfox." I'm sure we're seeing the same thing on the LSA side.

Ron Wanttaja

[rwanttaja]

...which is why I just don't get amphibs.

The adventure of aviation complicated by the hazards of boating....

To quote Sam Johnson, "Being in a ship is like being in a jail, with the chance of being drowned." Seems like this could be adapted to amphibs.

Ron Wanttaja

[rwanttaja]

An in-cockpit electric folding wing for a flying boat is not a "cool gadget". It's an ingeniously practical godsend, incredibly safer for airplane and occupants alike, and dramatically eliminates the piss-off factor flying boat drivers experience. It should have been in use decades ago.

So, why hasn't it? What GA amphibians have had powered folding wings?

What's the weight of the powered wing-folding system, vs. the amount the Icon is over the LSA limit? How can Icon claim they need an FAA waiver for safety reasons, when they're including a gadget that few (if any other) GA amphibians has incorporated?

Ron Wanttaja

[Floatsflyer]

...which is why I just don't get amphibs.

The adventure of aviation complicated by the hazards of boating....

Ok......but the versatility, freedom and fun factors of seaplanes are off the charts!

[Flyfalcons]

Floats, you don't have to try to impress me with your knowledge of seaplane operations (as I said before, I have 2000 hours of professional float time). I know exactly why small flying boats are dreadful machines and it is as you said - they are impossible to dock.

None of that has anything to do with certification as an LSA meeting preset weight requirements, however.

[Floatsflyer]

Falcon, my intention was not to impress you but rather to provide a descriptive narrative to all that may not be involved with flying boats and therefore unaware of the challenges they present. Your use of the term "cool gadget(power folding wings anyone?)" denotes something unnecessary. I provided a scenario to illustrate that a folding device was indeed functional and necessary. Hence, with the safety issue I described(and where such a device would prevent hazardous operation), I believe it had a lot to do with the request to consider a weight increase.


BTW, from one water flyer to another, your 2000 hrs. does impress me alot. And I mean that in the absolute positive sense.

[Flyfalcons]

It is unnecessary. If it were necessary then every other small flying boat design would have it.

[Eric Witherspoon]

Not really a true representation of the genesis of the weight limitations. Take a look at this(from EAA):


www.sportpilot.org/questions/afmviewfaq.asp?faqid=2815

One thing they don't answer there is where did the original 1232 lbs come from? I don't recall exactly where I heard, but it was in one of the forums at Oshkosh 2012 - that it came from the energy that the 1232 lbs aircraft would have at stall speed. What to compare that with such that it might have some meaning? Building codes. It's the energy to crash your LSA onto the roof of a house and not break through into the living room. But I guess that wasn't an absolute because then they went and added 90 lbs to it.

Anyway, when we go debating whether this or that weight increase should be allowed, keep in mind the original intent was to provide some measure of protection to people on the ground - nothing to do with airplane capabilities, performance, capacities, etc.

[Floatsflyer]

It is unnecessary. If it were necessary then every other small flying boat design would have it.

Your rationale and logic could easily have me going in a whole different direction but I'm going to take the high road and reply in a straight-up manner.

Perhaps no one thought of it before; perhaps they did think of it but couldn't come up with the design solution or technology to make it work; perhaps cost of development and production was a factor; perhaps their designers lived in a culture where new ideas, progressiveness, innovation and thinking outside the box was not tolerated or valued.

By your definition, things are unneccesary if they didn't previously exist or weren't used. How then does anything new happen? How then do we move forward and progress?

You do realize don't you, that your logic negates new ideas, ground breaking technology, innovation, creativity, ingenuity and going where no one else has gone before.

Within my context of the safety issue alone, your definition of unneccesary must apply to, for example, the Cirrus airframe parachute system(CAPS) because no previous GA aircraft ever had it. According to the Cirrus Owners and Pilots Assoc. as of Jan.25, 2013 there have been 42 known CAPS activations. Of these, 32 are considered "saves" that involved 65 survivors with one fatality. Also, no person has died when when the CAPS deployed within the proper airspeed and altitude parameters as set out by Cirrus. Call me crazy, but I'm pretty damn confident that those 65 souls would not define CAPS by your definition of necessary/unnecessary.