Icon A5 Request For Weight Increase Exemption Status

[Frank Giger]

Um, wait a second.....if it has retractable gear it isn't LSA compliant!

Falcon, the FAA doesn't really have to have a reason other than to say the criteria for what makes an aircraft LSA compliant has been established and met by other manufacturers without undue safety issues, and then add that if they wish to make an aircraft that is over the gross allowable (or speed constraints, etc.) there is already a path to certification to make it market ready.

[Flyfalcons]

That was kind of my point Frank. I don't see why these guys should have a waiver granted and still qualify as LSA.

[zaitcev]

At 1,320 lbs (599 kg) for a landplane and 1,430 (649 kg) for a seaplane/amphibian, the LSA weight limits are already quite generous for two-seat aircraft of modest power and performance. Compare those with the European microlight regulations of 450 kg for a landplane and 495 kg for a seaplane/amphibian!

I do not entirely agree with the view that LSA limits are "quite generous", and frankly comparison with Europeis even more dubious. European governments often do what they can to destroy personal aviation (Italians are particularly adept at that). If they limit something to 450 kg, it's not even a sign of sanity, let alone good regulatory policy. Most countries that have useful airplanes in this class actually regulate to 750 kg, with the only exception being Brazil that accepted another European limit of 600 kg. The 750kg countries would allow Cessna 150, which is not a flying fortress by any stretch.

[rwanttaja]

Um, wait a second.....if it has retractable gear it isn't LSA compliant!

I believe the FAA allows amphibians to have retractable gear. I found a word document to that effect on an FAA site, and Sport Pilot.org mentions it.

I think the FAA should grant a waiver if the petitioner can show that the change will increase safety, and the change would apply to any aircraft. I don't think a company should be granted a waiver just because their design doesn't meet the regs.

...and, a "Wait....what?" minute: "The flaps have been back on for a year now--they received a lot of criticism from seaplane pilots." Doesn't Icon have any seaplane pilots *on staff*? If so, why aren't they listening to them?

Ron Wanttaja

[Floatsflyer]

An what about the air conditioning, the DVD entertainment system and -- gasp! -- you mean we can't have a mini-bar?!? ;-)

You want air huh? Tecnam has introduced an air conditioning unit for LSA's. It's all electric, not engine driven and was debuted at Sebring last week.

[Floatsflyer]

What reason does the FAA have to grant their wish? I'm glad to see they realized the error of their ways. After 2000 hours on floats, I couldn't imagine flying a seaplane with no flaps.

FAA is on record with respect to considering weight exceptions for safety reasons. Icon's application was based on the additional structural weight required for their spin proof wing. Last year Rod Hightower said he expected that it would be granted for this reason. The Maverick(roadable aircraft/parachute configuration) received excemption but only up to the max weight for floatplanes/amphibians(1430). The Terrafugia received the same excemption for additional weight required to make it street legal. No one except Icon has requested more than the current allowable max weight(1430). The jury is still out...we'll see. My bet is on the "yes".

I agree fully with you, flying floats or amphibs without flaps is just nuts. The reason they originally dropped them they said was to symplify flight systems in their quest to make the plane as safe and easy to operate as possible. I told them safety would be comprimised without them and so did many others.

[cluttonfred]

I still don't agree that this is necessary. Spin-proof wings? Ercoupe, Flying Flea, even the NASA tests with discontinuous wing cuffs on the outer wing leading edges are all examples that show that this can be done within LSA weight, so I just don't buy the argument that they can't make the weight because of that. I believe that Icon wants to have their cake and eat it, too, i.e. to take advantage of the less onerous regulations governing LSA certification and production but in fact produce an aircraft to compete with general aviation types.

FAA is on record with respect to considering weight exceptions for safety reasons. Icon's application was based on the additional structural weight required for their spin proof wing.

[Markmn]

It is well documented that many LSAs have had landing gear failures. Its been difficult for the manufacturers to design a durable two seat aircraft and stay under the 1320 lb gross weight.

There is absolutely no reason not to support a weight increase when we know it will increase safety.

And explain to me a GOOD reason why it would be bad if we allowed a 150 to be an LSA?

And dont start with the "it would destroy the LSA category"
The pilot who can afford a new LSA will still buy one and is not going to buy an old 150 instead. The pilot who cant afford a new LSA is not flying at all. Why not let them fly a 150?

Mark

[Flyfalcons]

It'd be great if the LSA category were designed to include the 150. Alas, it hasn't, and granting certain manufacturers excemptions from the rule and not others doesn't lead to fair competition in business.

[cluttonfred]

I am sorry to have to say it, but the GOOD reason is that these exemptions WILL destroy the LSA category if they get out of hand.

While far from perfect, the LSA category has resulted in an influx of new designs into the light aircraft market. Without the less onerous regulation of certification and production, we'd be back to flying nothing but Cessnas and Pipers again. How many new designs were certified in the USA in the 20 years before LSA?

Weak landing gear is a result of the LSA weight limit? You've got to be kidding. Cub, Champ, Ercoupe, Luscombe, Taylorcraft--there are literally dozens of 60+ year old designs that prove that it is possible to design a safe, rugged aircraft within the current LSA limits and they did it with heavier engines and old-fashioned materials. [EDIT--I have added links to the EAA lists of sport pilot eligible standard certificate and experimental amateur built aircraft.] The problems come along with the super-slick, high performance designs that don't really want to be LSAs in the first place. If they want to produce such planes, then they should--as fully certified production aircraft--and not ruin the LSA category.

We need Volkswagens to keep aviation alive and within reach of ordinary people, not Porches.

http://www.sportpilot.org/learn/lsa/..._aircraft.html

http://www.sportpilot.org/learn/lsa/likely_lsa.html

It is well documented that many LSAs have had landing gear failures. Its been difficult for the manufacturers to design a durable two seat aircraft and stay under the 1320 lb gross weight.

There is absolutely no reason not to support a weight increase when we know it will increase safety.

And explain to me a GOOD reason why it would be bad if we allowed a 150 to be an LSA?

And dont start with the "it would destroy the LSA category"
The pilot who can afford a new LSA will still buy one and is not going to buy an old 150 instead. The pilot who cant afford a new LSA is not flying at all. Why not let them fly a 150?

Mark