Icon A5 Request For Weight Increase Exemption Status

[Floatsflyer]

A few hours ago, Icon posted on their Facebook page a response to my question:

"Hello we’re getting preliminary indications that the FAA has made a decision and are expecting an announcement within the next month or so. We’ll be sending out an announcement of our own once the FAA informs us formally of the outcome."

Looks like things might be getting interesting here shortly!

There was also another poster that asked whether the aircraft would be on the market this year and they said:

"... we are currently awaiting the FAA response to our exemption request. This decision permits the finalization of the A5’s production design, and any corresponding refinement to production schedule will be announced in the coming months."

Good work. I'm impressed once again that Icon responded and quickly. My intuition and marketing experience tells me that the FAA and Icon will conspire(in a good way) to formally announce a positive decision to the hordes on the first day of AV for maximum effect and exposure. (If it's negative, it will certainly lack fanfare)

[kmhd1]

Good work. I'm impressed once again that Icon responded and quickly. My intuition and marketing experience tells me that the FAA and Icon will conspire(in a good way) to formally announce a positive decision to the hordes on the first day of AV for maximum effect and exposure. (If it's negative, it will certainly lack fanfare)

Thank you!

I have been chomping at the bit waiting for some kind of resolution to this. Like you, I check various sites almost daily looking for updated information so when I saw the new posting on the exemption request docket on Monday I thought things were finally going to be resolved. Well, that turned out to be just a tease, but at least we now have a bit more information with the possibility that a final answer is forthcoming in the next few months or possibly sooner.

Its not like I could ever afford an A5 anyway but I have been somewhat fascinated by the whole process watching them progress over the years from paper to prototype, etc.... I can only imagine how frustrating it has been for Icon to wait essentially a year for the government to respond. I realize not everyone is a fan of what Icon is doing but I think most can at least appreciate the level of effort that clearly has gone into designing an aircraft that is striking in appearance and incorporates a number of innovative features into one cohesive design (amphib, folding wings, airframe parachute, AOA indicator, Spin-resistant airframe, etc....). Of course, whether they can actually pull it all off is another thing entirely and I would imagine useful load, range, and performance are going to be very challenging for them to optimize!

[kmhd1]

The FAA / DOT just posted a response today 5/1 on the weight exemption request docket for the Icon A5. This is a specific response to Icon on the request but instead of a final ruling they are requesting more information. After a year, this is the best they can do. Good grief!

To view the information:

http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketD...=FAA-2012-0514. Click on the 5/1 response and download the U.S. DOT/FAA - Request for Additional Information pdf file.

Essentially they are asking for more detailed and specific information on several counts including a description of the design data that Icon claims meets 14 CFR 23.221, a list of flight test conditions, etc... They also are looking for a more detailed explanation on Icon's request that maintenance of the aircraft and also of flying it should require authorized Icon training.

An excerpt from the beginning of the letter (dated 4/25/13) talks about the justification for the delay in ruling on the exemption:

The saga continues....

[Floatsflyer]

Thanks for posting that response, the first such communication after a year of receiving the Icon request. If I was Hawkins and his team I'd be apoplectic. I do suspect however that the FAA only started to view and consider the application sometime after the end of Dec.(the 2nd delay date). Still, what's supposed to take, by the FAA's own admission, only 120 days, this seems so unreasonable. They have a lot of questions, no one ever said this would be a rubber stamp. Who knows how long it will take Icon to comply and then FAA to respond. Must be infuriating but Icon has no choice unless it either drops its request or decides to move forward with combination current LSA rules and Primary Category.

[Ylinen]

This is so sad. Can't believe Earl Would sign that letter as he was once one of us. Totally unprofessional to,go over a year and then respond that they need more info.

this company has had employees standing by to deliver their first product.

the industry should demand hearing in the house to review how the FAA is responding to citizen petitions. Icon and AOPA/EAA would be two great witnesses.

[martymayes]

This is so sad. Can't believe Earl Would sign that letter as he was once one of us. Totally unprofessional to,go over a year and then respond that they need more info.

I think it's a very professional response. The decision will have ramifications for years/decades to come and obviously not something that Earl Lawrence has individual discretion to sign off on.

this company has had employees standing by to deliver their first product.

the industry should demand hearing in the house to review how the FAA is responding to citizen petitions. Icon and AOPA/EAA would be two great witnesses.

I find it hard to believe ICON is not without fault. Repeated failure to meet performance and weight goals have pushed them into needing an FAA exemption to make their product successful? If I was an investor, heads would be rolling off the chopping block.

[kscessnadriver]

Don't forget, they could be selling this thing today if they'd give up on this cockamamie idea that they are going to get a waiver. There is zero chance, IMO, of them getting the waiver, as for the FAA, it opens them up to basically having to give everyone a waiver that wants one and defeats the rules as they stand.

[Floatsflyer]

If I was an investor, heads would be rolling off the chopping block.

If you don't believe that the investors/VC's have been apprised every step of the way for the last 5 years or gave their blessing/approval to move forward with the exemption request, then you don't know how private placements work and the inherent accountability requirements.

And BTW, some of those major investors sit on the BOD.

[Flyfalcons]

Don't forget, they could be selling this thing today if they'd give up on this cockamamie idea that they are going to get a waiver. There is zero chance, IMO, of them getting the waiver, as for the FAA, it opens them up to basically having to give everyone a waiver that wants one and defeats the rules as they stand.

It would certainly set a precedent for every other LSA manufacturer to add spiffy features to their planes and demand a gross weight increase waiver from the FAA.

[Bill Berson]

The stall/spin standards are spelled out in FAR 23.221 and 23.201. As far as I can determine, these rules for spin resistance testing are only required at 50% percent power.
But since most stall/spins accidents happen at full power during takeoff or on a hurried full power go around, I doubt these so called spin resistant airplanes have a better safety history.
In my opinion, these attempts to market " spin resistance" to the unwary public ( and FAA) is less than ideal.

In any case, I can't see how modifications for "spin resistance" would need more than a few pounds of structure, if anything. Certainly not 250 pounds.