Icon A5 Request For Weight Increase Exemption Status

[Floatsflyer]

I believe it's the FAA looking for Support, Support, Support!!! to make sure Icon isn't making this stuff up.

Well, the FAA now possesses all the "support" they need to make THE DECISION, perhaps before the dawn of the next mellinium. Tell ya what Flyfalcons, let's make a friendly wager. If FAA says "Yes", you hand over that pretty red Stinson to me lien free for $1.00. If FAA says "No", I'll say you were right all along! Ya like apples? How do ya like them apples?

[Flyfalcons]

How do you know that Icon provided supporting documents to show the need for a 250 pound increase? As stated earlier, that is a very large amount of extra structure for such a small airplane. Manufacturers don't really get to dictate how much of an exemption they get - there needs to be good reason for it, supported by engineering data to prove that what they are asking for in exemption is necessary for their safety feature, and not to make up for having a heavy airplane with minimal useful load.

[Floatsflyer]

How do you know that Icon provided supporting documents to show the need for a 250 pound increase?... there needs to be good reason for it, supported by engineering data to prove that what they are asking for in exemption is necessary for their safety feature

I'm going to take a leap of faith here and assume you've been a regular follower of this thread for the past 7 months. If that's correct, then you've seen the original Icon request documents attachment dated April or May, 2012 as well as the attachments for FAA's detailed request to Icon dated April, 2013 for additional information and Icon's reply to FAA dated May,2013. I would nicely suggest you re-read these so you can become more familiar with all the why's, wherefores and therefores and the reasons all supported by enough engineering data to stuff a T-Rex. Then you'd be in an excellent position to make more informed comments.

And what about that friendly wager?

[FloridaJohn]

FloridaJohn, thank you for your reply. You raise some good points. As to your second point, I wonder if the eventual answer from the FAA could be yes to an exemption for spin resistance but no to the amount they requested. Could they even do that or would they have to simply accept or reject the request as it is written?

I think tha FAA can approve the exemption at a lower weight. That's what they did for the Terrafugia. They had requested a max weight of 1474 lbs, but the FAA only approved a maximum of 1430 lbs.

[Flyfalcons]

All I've seen is this from an earlier post:

While it is beyond the scope and intent of this document to fully explain a full FAR Part 23 spin-resistance solution, a simplified, layman’s explanation is that a large portion of the outer wing sections must be protected from ever stalling by, among other things, reducing maximum lift well below the wing’s capability. Given the maximum stall speed (45 knots) required by the LSA definition, this loss of maximum available lift requires significantly increased wing area. The increased wing area then in turn requires increased tail size for stability along with the corresponding increase in internal structure, as well as proportional accommodation factor weight – at a minimum. Further, the increased wing, tail, and specific spin-resistance elements also result in an increase in aerodynamic drag which requires increased engine size and additional fuel to compensate. The net result is that a Spin-Resistant Airframe requires increased vehicle weight over a similar S-LSA airplane that does not achieve spin resistance.

[TedK]

Why should the government really care what the aircraft weighs? Isn't the intent of SLA to field a two person craft? Hasn't the FAA already given weight disposition for Amphibs since they are really a hybrid of ASEL + SSEL?

A few extra pounds (we still remain at the low end of the weight spectrum far away from 12000 lbs requiring a Type Rating) for Spin and Stall Resistance? I'm all for it.

Aircraft should be Certificated to Principles, not Rules.

(I guess that's why the FAA hated us when a team of three of us wrote the Navy's svelte "GPS Integration Guidance" in 1989)

[Popeye]

Why Icon will get its LSA weight exemption

July 18, 2013 by Alton K. Marsh, Senior Editor, AOPA Pilot

Follow me along here on this advance, speculative reporting. The FAA has just announced that it is near a decision on the requested 250-pound weight exemption needed by Icon Aircraft for its A5 amphibious airplane. What else is near? Could it be that AirVenture occurs in nine days, and the announcement will be made there? To me that is a certainty. To you, your own opinion is fine with me.
Now then. Would the FAA make an announcement unfavorable to an airplane company at a show that draws 600,000 pilots armed with super-sized cups of lemonade loaded with sticky sugar, and just right for throwing? Unlikely. The FAA barely has enough money to send anyone to the show (although you can get controllers to run the tower if you pay enough), let alone pay a huge drycleaning bill. So my deduction is that the weight exemption is approved. Still, try to act like you didn’t know when it is announced.
“I am of two minds on this,” said Dan Johnson, a founder of the light sport aircraft movement and author of bydanjohson.com. “This has the potential to grow the LSA sector, yet some may view this as unfair since they played by an earlier rule set. The FAA may hear from a lot of other producers who would also like to qualify for a safety exemption, and some of those could prepare the right package and get it if Icon does. Will the FAA be able to accommodate multiple requests given their budget? On behalf of the Light Aircraft Manufacturing Association [which Johnson heads] we supported the request for exemption because it has potential to grow the sector.”
Now Icon can go from the 1,430 pounds that light sport seaplanes can now weigh to 1,680 pounds, a 250-pound increase. With that, it’s more likely A5 customers will get the cuffed outer wings that keep the A5′s wingtips, and the aileron, flying when near a stall, and a parachute, folding wings, and retractable gear. “Exemptions sometimes lead to new rulemaking and are used to evaluate approaches to new technologies,” Johnson said.

__________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ ___________________________________

Can anyone point to me where the FAA announced that they were close to a decision?????????

[FloridaJohn]

Meh, I'm skeptical.

If you were going to turn Icon down, would you announce before, during, or after Oshkosh? If I was the FAA, I would wait until after Oshkosh and then tell them they were not getting it.

In conclusion, Alton doesn't know anymore than we do.

[Bill Berson]

I wonder if the FAA is required to respond at all?
In my case years ago, I sent a letter to the FAA with a request and never received a reply of any kind.

[kscessnadriver]

Meh, I'm skeptical.

If you were going to turn Icon down, would you announce before, during, or after Oshkosh? If I was the FAA, I would wait until after Oshkosh and then tell them they were not getting it.

In conclusion, Alton doesn't know anymore than we do.

Exactly, it ain't going to happen. If you waiver this, basically every LSA manufacture is going to request some sort of waiver to the 1320 limit, which makes it irrelevant period.