Icon A5 Request For Weight Increase Exemption Status

[Eaglerhythm]

I just might know that as well,lol, just kidding. But I have very strong feeling that FAA is going to do something very big before or at the beginning of EAA this year.And, positive thing for sure.

[kmhd1]

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?

This is an apples to oranges comparison. The A5's final proposed weight would not place it into a category that currently requires a spin resistant airframe / higher level of safety. If Icon has proven it meets the spin resistance standards with the additional data it submitted to the FAA back in May, and since the regulations allow for weight exemptions for safety enhancing features, then why shouldn't the exemption be allowed?

[Aaron Novak]

This is an apples to oranges comparison. The A5's final proposed weight would not place it into a category that currently requires a spin resistant airframe / higher level of safety. If Icon has proven it meets the spin resistance standards with the additional data it submitted to the FAA back in May, and since the regulations allow for weight exemptions for safety enhancing features, then why shouldn't the exemption be allowed?

One should not need an exemption to meet the standards of a category when other designs can meet it. When things like this come up, it is usually a case of "smoke and mirrors", namely using a safety feature as as excuse to get an exemption because the design itself has basic flaws that prevent it from meeting standards. Its usually the case when a design is too far along for a company to be able to afford doing a correct re-design. Instead they try to find every avenue to get their "out of standard" design into production. Happens in the auto, marine, and aviation industry all the time be it safety, performance or emissions regulations.

[kmhd1]

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.

Is that funny, haha, or funny in a strange sort of way?

If the LSA rules were created to eliminate weight exemptions then why did they specifically include language to the contrary?

[kmhd1]

One should not need an exemption to meet the standards of a category when other designs can meet it. When things like this come up, it is usually a case of "smoke and mirrors", namely using a safety feature as as excuse to get an exemption because the design itself has basic flaws that prevent it from meeting standards. Its usually the case when a design is too far along for a company to be able to afford doing a correct re-design. Instead they try to find every avenue to get their "out of standard" design into production. Happens in the auto, marine, and aviation industry all the time be it safety, performance or emissions regulations.

What design currently meets the spin resistance standards within the LSA category?

If I am reading your response correctly, your premise is that the A5, as designed, did not meet the weight standards of the LSA category even prior to incorporating a spin resistant airframe. So Icon then cooked up this scheme to build a spin resistant airframe as a "smoke and mirrors" game to get their plane approved as an LSA at a higher gross weight than what is allowed to hide the fact that their plane was too heavy to begin with. Its certainly one possibility although at this point it would seem like it would have just been easier to redesign the thing given the time that has passed and the amount of new funding they have received.

Since we don't have access to the information that would prove or disprove that possible scenario we should at least be able / willing to give a fair look at the facts as they are currently presented.

What we do know is that Icon says the A5 meets the spin resistance standards and has supplied the FAA with the data to prove it. Icon would like to build an LSA with spin resistance incorporated into it and has asked for the weight exemption accordingly. To my knowledge no other aircraft weighing less than 1,680 pounds has met the spin resistant standards as currently written. If Icon has in fact done what they say they have done, why shouldn't they be allowed the exemption? Is spin resistance not a safety feature we want in our planes?

[kmhd1]

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!

But hopefully this will mean your midlife crisis is at least a safer one...

[kmhd1]

Yes. Everybody is waiting on the FAA to do something.


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.

Lots of companies might be making them but not a lot of planes are flying with them. Icon is supplying an AoA as standard equipment. So perhaps one of the innovations here is simply that they are putting an AoA as standard equipment on the plane. In addition, the presentation of the data seems very intuitive as compared to the examples you mention in a subsequent post. I'm sure as with any instrument we would get used to its presentation but the way Icon has designed their AoA it appears more intuitive and much easier to read. Plus the extra touches of having the visual feedback on the gauge for best glide and approach seems like a decent value add.

[Aaron Novak]

If I am reading your response correctly, your premise is that the A5, as designed, did not meet the weight standards of the LSA category even prior to incorporating a spin resistant airframe. So Icon then cooked up this scheme to build a spin resistant airframe as a "smoke and mirrors" game to get their plane approved as an LSA at a higher gross weight than what is allowed to hide the fact that their plane was too heavy to begin with. ?

You are correct. Nobody outside of a select few will ever know the truth.

[FloridaJohn]

Lots of companies might be making them but not a lot of planes are flying with them. Icon is supplying an AoA as standard equipment. So perhaps one of the innovations here is simply that they are putting an AoA as standard equipment on the plane. In addition, the presentation of the data seems very intuitive as compared to the examples you mention in a subsequent post. I'm sure as with any instrument we would get used to its presentation but the way Icon has designed their AoA it appears more intuitive and much easier to read. Plus the extra touches of having the visual feedback on the gauge for best glide and approach seems like a decent value add.

i agree with you. My point was that for an airplane so tight on weight, they sure seem willing to add more to it.

[FloridaJohn]

This is an apples to oranges comparison. The A5's final proposed weight would not place it into a category that currently requires a spin resistant airframe / higher level of safety.

Well, arguably it would. The additional weight without the proposed exemption puts it in the Standard Category, where many more safety standards are required, included a fairly rigorous flight testing program. No, spin resistance is not required in the Standard Category, but it isn't required in the LSA category, either.