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.
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.
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?
Last edited by kmhd1; 07-26-2013 at 02:49 PM.
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?
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.
Last edited by kmhd1; 07-26-2013 at 04:15 PM.
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.