Icon A5 Request For Weight Increase Exemption Status [Archive]

zaitcev

01-23-2013, 03:26 PM

Going back a number of posts on the page, and I see no mention of the weight increase exemption mentioned.
To the best of my knowledge, Icon never ever acknowledged or publicized their request for weight exemption. Not on Facebook, not anywhere. It was found long after filing by their competitor, Independent Aircraf, who went to the pains of designing to existing limits, and were upset. It was long enough for the original request for comment period expiring. After a brief outrage, the comments on the proposed rulemaking were re-opnened. Icon is still silent on this even though everyone who cares can easily know about the issue. And why would they comment? If they come out and say that they cannot deliver on their promises of LSA, there's going to be a massive deposit exodus and a wave of bad publicity outside of narrow aviation circles. If they keep silence, then it's just commentary in fringe forums like this one. The story is in media blackout, and that's to Icon's advantage. They will not mention it as long as they can.

Remember the deal with Lotus to design structural interior parts? Being a beginner in airplanes, I don't know how desperate for weight savings one has to be to turn to structural interior, this late in the game too. Nobody in the press paid slightest attention to that hint, they just regurgitated Icon's presser.

Floatsflyer

01-23-2013, 04:24 PM

Your knowledge is absolutely correct zaitcev. The only place where I differ with you is with the fallout aspect if they don't get the excemption. In that event(which BTW I do not believe will happen), it's well speculated that Icon will go for certification in the Primary Category even though that goes against their marketing and target consumer philosophy and strategy. Approximately one-third of the total deposit holders(about 1000) are non-pilots so they'll probably only lose those or most of those and those few with medical issues.

cluttonfred

01-24-2013, 12:00 AM

Honestly, I would have to say that I oppose this and any similar exemption requests. Otherwise, what's the point of the LSA category in the first place?

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!

For example, the Volmer VJ-22 Sportsman (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volmer_VJ-22_Sportsman), designed in the 1950s, comes in at 1,000 lbs empty and 1,500 lbs gross with a Continental C-85, Aeronca Champ wings and a fiberglass-covered plywood hull. With today's lighter but more powerful Rotax engine, modern composite materials, lighter instruments, etc. it just shouldn't be that hard to come in under 1,430 lbs.

Exemptions will simply encourage companies to push the limits to the point that LSA performance parameters will be so close to standard aircraft that the FAA might well simply eliminate the LSA category and Sport Pilot rating.

Flyfalcons

01-24-2013, 12:04 AM

They're already down to no flaps and having to choose between retractable gear or power wing folding mechanism (sorry, can't have both).

cluttonfred

01-24-2013, 12:12 AM

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

They're already down to no flaps and having to choose between retractable gear or power wing folding mechanism (sorry, can't have both).

Floatsflyer

01-24-2013, 05:18 PM

They're already down to no flaps and having to choose between retractable gear or power wing folding mechanism (sorry, can't have both).

The flaps have been back on for a year now--they received a lot of criticsm from seaplane pilots- and came to see the error of their ways. If the weight increase is approved you will be able to have BOTH retracts and in-cockpit electrical wing folding.

Flyfalcons

01-24-2013, 05:50 PM

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.

Frank Giger

01-24-2013, 05:51 PM

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

01-24-2013, 06:05 PM

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

01-24-2013, 06:37 PM

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

01-24-2013, 08:59 PM

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 (http://www.sportpilot.org/learn/final_rule_synopsis.html) 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

01-24-2013, 09:16 PM

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

01-24-2013, 09:32 PM

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

01-24-2013, 10:59 PM

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

01-24-2013, 11:51 PM

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

01-25-2013, 12:12 AM

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

01-25-2013, 12:34 AM

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/standard_certificate_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

rwanttaja

01-25-2013, 02:30 AM

It is well documented that many LSAs have had landing gear failures.
Please point us to the documentation.

Also, a landing gear failure doesn't necessarily indicate a structural problem. LSAs are light, and winds and pilot inexperience can result in damage during landings.

Ron Wanttaja

Floatsflyer

01-25-2013, 09:11 AM

and granting certain manufacturers excemptions from the rule and not others doesn't lead to fair competition in business.

Of course it doesn't, especially when you phrase the argument like that. But that's not the argument at all. The current system allows for exemption application based on improved safety issues and substantiating them. It doesn't mean it will be granted in all cases or any case, it only means that a level playing field exists--any manufacturer can apply for an exemption if they so desire. That's FAIR competition in my book.

Frank Giger

01-25-2013, 09:13 AM

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?

That's a big, easy target to shoot!

I'm a Sport Pilot and I fly a Champ while building my own LSA compliant aircraft. I want no part of a C-150. It lacks sex appeal and has the third wheel on the wrong end of the aircraft.

I learned to fly in a FlightDesign CTLS, which IMHO has some weakness in the landing gear. This particular plane has been through two sets of mains; never a failure, but the composite design leads to delamination if subjected to repeated hard/squirrely landings (and since it's used as a trainer, it gets those a bit more often than if flown by an experienced pilot. ;) ). That's not a design flaw as much as it is an aircraft used in the wrong role.

The folks at Cessna caught on to this, which is why they made such a big deal about how robust the SkyCatcher's landing gear is designed and why it would make such a great Light Sport trainer.

The safety issue with LSA's has everything to do with the lack of transition training for PPL's moving from their C172's or heavier into light aircraft. There is tons of data and several studies to back this up.

(btw, this is also the key to understanding why Experimental aircraft have a safety record worst than spam-cans. If one is the third owner of an Experimental, bad things happen.)

More to the point, the Light Sport criteria was approached from the permissive, not restrictive, viewpoint. They were worked out based on the problem of fat ultralights and the potential of moving ultralight pilots into a more formal training and regulatory sphere. How fat can an ultralight get before it's a "regular" aircraft? 1,320 pounds gross, 120 kts crusing speed.

The numbers were arbitrary based on a clean sheet of paper, without any one model of aircraft in mind. They didn't work in a vaccum, of course, and were aware of what's out there but tried to ignore it. But if I were on the panel and trying to spur on a new class of aircraft I'd probably use the C-150 as the threshold NOT to cross. It's arguably the start of the certified production aluminum skinned aircraft in weight and performance.

The gripes come from PPL holders that for whatever reason have decided to forgo the medical and fly under Sport Pilot rules. I hold no judgement over such pilots either way - heck, if I owned a Champ or Cub and only flew daytime VFR I'd skip the doc just to have one less thing to fool with - but I do have issue with the complaints. If one is going to fly under the rules it's a decision to fly under the rules, and they are what they are. Take it or leave it.

If they're too onerous for one's flying goals go see the doc and keep flying your 172 for jimney's sake.

[edit]

Floats, there already exist exemptions for safety. The weight of stall recovery parachutes doesn't count, for example, IIRC. Of course there is a common sense factor to consider; if the plane comes in at 1,360 pounds gross and there's just no way to shave off the 40 pounds and keep it the same aircraft it probably wouldn't be reasonable to deny it. If they were asking for 500 pounds in exemption it would be a different matter.

Flyfalcons

01-25-2013, 10:41 AM

Of course it doesn't, especially when you phrase the argument like that. But that's not the argument at all. The current system allows for exemption application based on improved safety issues and substantiating them. It doesn't mean it will be granted in all cases or any case, it only means that a level playing field exists--any manufacturer can apply for an exemption if they so desire. That's FAIR competition in my book.

Kind of makes an easy excuse for the manufacturer to pour all their weight into "cool" gadgets (power folding wings anyone?), then go to the FAA and say "oh poor me, I need more weight to have this structural stuff".

FloridaJohn

01-25-2013, 11:02 AM

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 still say the FAA is going to say "no" on this one.

Also the Terrafugia originally requested a higher weight, but the FAA only approved up to the seaplane max rating. More info here (http://www.avweb.com/avwebflash/news/FAAGrantsExtraWeightToTerrafugia_202769-1.html). From the link:

"The company had petitioned the FAA to allow a maximum takeoff weight of 1,474 pounds, but the FAA chose to stick with precedent."

Check 6

01-25-2013, 11:03 AM

Great discussion. The European equivalent to our S-LSA is not an ultralight. Under EASA it is called a CS-LSA. The maximum weights for the CS-LSA are the same as here, e.g. 1320 and 1430 pounds (600kg/650kg).

There are some slight differences between S-LSA and CS-LSA. EASA allows a flight adjustable propellor, maximum stall Vso is 45 knots, and day VFR only.

CS-LSA EASA specifications (http://www.easa.eu.int/agency-measures/docs/certification-specifications/CS-LSA/CS-LSA%20-%20Initial%20Issue.pdf)

Floatsflyer

01-25-2013, 11:10 AM

The elephant in the LSA room is almost 60 years old. While some manufacturers have experienced satisfactory sales figures, they just aren't as robust as they had all envisioned 7 years ago.

The LSA manufacturers' greatest fear is that if the 150 became included as a legacy aircraft, it would decimate their sales activity. I have no idea if that would be a realistic outcome but there could be logical reasoning behind it: The 150 is perhaps the best non-fabric light sport aircraft ever designed. And the acquisition price today is enormously attractive and availability is big. The LSA guys would have to discount their price tags by 50% to compete or fold the tent. Hey, that's a good thing isn't it?

Floatsflyer

01-25-2013, 12:26 PM

[QUOTE=Frank Giger;26618

The numbers were arbitrary based on a clean sheet of paper, without any one model of aircraft in mind. They didn't work in a vaccum, of course, and were aware of what's out there but tried to ignore it. [/QUOTE]

Not really a true representation of the genesis of the weight limitations. Take a look at this(from EAA):

www.sportpilot.org/questions/afmviewfaq.asp?faqid=2815 (http://www.sportpilot.org/questions/afmviewfaq.asp?faqid=2815)

Frank Giger

01-25-2013, 01:55 PM

From the very excellent link provided;

One commenter’s opinion was that the FAA strategically established the weight limit to favor the sale of new, more expensive light-sport aircraft. The FAA did not have such a purpose in mind when it established its proposed light-sport aircraft weight limit. Also, in establishing the light-sport aircraft, FAA did not intend to promote existing certificated aircraft. When the FAA initially set the proposed limits for the light-sport aircraft definition, the FAA did not look at currently built aircraft, either with type certificate approval or in the amateur-built aircraft marketplace. The FAA’s proposed definition was to address aircraft to be designed and built for the sport pilot, rather than addressing existing aircraft for currently certificated pilots.

A commenter stated that the proposed weight limit eliminates the eligibility of many production aircraft, and seems to cater to homebuilt aircraft. The FAA disagrees with this opinion. The reasons for the weight limit were discussed in the proposal and were intended to accommodate a wide variety of simple, low performance aircraft that have no more than two occupants. The FAA has explained elsewhere in this section the reasons for its changes to the proposed weight limit in the light-sport aircraft definition.

A few commenters noted that the FAA’s originally proposed weight limit would result in some models in a particular classic aircraft line being eligible for the light-sport aircraft category, while other models in the same line would not be eligible. The FAA believes that this is evidence that the weight limit for light-sport aircraft was not drawn with the intent of including or excluding specific aircraft.

So we'll agree pretty quickly on some common ground! You're correct that it's not quite a blank sheet of paper, but the numbers they arrived at are different from every other standard out there, both domestically and internationally. Lots of fudging around with the numbers.

[edit]

Floats, if the C150 were looped into LSA the only thing that would happen to sales is that the excuse for NOT selling them would change by their owners. It would go from "One of these days I'll sell it," to "Nobody will pay my (now doubled) asking price for it." And so yet another aircraft will sit for another year in a hanger without ever once being cranked, let alone taken up in the air.

But that's a rant for another day.

Look at the prices being asked for Champs and Cubs....and not just the award winners. If they weren't LSA eligible does anyone think they'd be that high?

Floatsflyer

01-25-2013, 03:09 PM

Kind of makes an easy excuse for the manufacturer to pour all their weight into "cool" gadgets (power folding wings anyone?), then go to the FAA and say "oh poor me, I need more weight to have this structural stuff".

An in-cockpit electric folding wing for a flying boat is not a "cool gadget". It's an ingeniously practical godsend, incredibly safer for airplane and occupants alike, and dramatically eliminates the piss-off factor flying boat drivers experience. It should have been in use decades ago.

Ever try to dock(when beaching is not an option) a low or shoulder wing flying boat with or without sponsons. Like a Lake, Seamax, Avid Catalina, Aventura, Searey, Volmer, Osprey, Seawind, Seastar, Mermaid, etc, etc. It's a freekin' nightmare! At best it's horribly awkward and hazardous to plane, pilot and passengers. At worst, it's categorically impossible.

You either have to approach the dock at 90 degrees or at 45 degrees to a dock corner if space available. Then you have to hope that someone is on the dock to hold the bow steady while you all precariously climb out onto the bow deck(without breaking the windshield, that is if you can climb over it)with the balancing talents of a ballet dancer and jump to the dock without damaging the airplane, injuring yourself or falling into the water. Oh joy!

If you do all that with success, you're not finished yet. Now you have to tie it off in a manner that prevents windmilling. Once again, the piss-off factor raises it's ugly head. Damn near impossible if you're not in the most perfect environment.

And wait, you're not finished the ordeal quite yet. Now you're ready to leave, get back in the same awkward and hazardous way again. And I still have to turn the airplane around to taxi out(no, there is no reversing prop) without tearing the wings up or having to take an unwanted swim. Once again, the piss-off factor....oh joy!

Who the hell needs this nonsense. Now you know why Lake went out of business(btw, I love the airplane, just such an s.o.b to use on water as described) and some of the others named above just aren't popular for the same reason. So give me those ingenious electric folding wings so I can dock it effortlessly just like a floatplane. I've earned them! If I could afford an Icon, I wouldn't buy it without them.

Frank Giger

01-25-2013, 06:00 PM

...which is why I just don't get amphibs.

The adventure of aviation complicated by the hazards of boating....

:D

rwanttaja

01-25-2013, 06:22 PM

The safety issue with LSA's has everything to do with the lack of transition training for PPL's moving from their C172's or heavier into light aircraft. There is tons of data and several studies to back this up.

(btw, this is also the key to understanding why Experimental aircraft have a safety record worst than spam-cans. If one is the third owner of an Experimental, bad things happen.)

Whew, glad I'm the fourth owner of my homebuilt! :-)

But what Frank is saying is borne out by the homebuilt safety record. The chance of a crash on a first flight is about the same, whether the pilot built the plane or bought an already-flying example. The increased risk of mechanical failure on the aircraft's first flight is about the same as the increased rate of pilot error for a purchased homebuilt.

One of the "Famous last words" in homebuilt aviation is, "I fly a XXXX for a living, I don't need a checkout in a Kitfox." I'm sure we're seeing the same thing on the LSA side.

Ron Wanttaja

rwanttaja

01-25-2013, 06:26 PM

...which is why I just don't get amphibs.

The adventure of aviation complicated by the hazards of boating....

To quote Sam Johnson, "Being in a ship is like being in a jail, with the chance of being drowned." Seems like this could be adapted to amphibs.

Ron Wanttaja

rwanttaja

01-25-2013, 06:45 PM

An in-cockpit electric folding wing for a flying boat is not a "cool gadget". It's an ingeniously practical godsend, incredibly safer for airplane and occupants alike, and dramatically eliminates the piss-off factor flying boat drivers experience. It should have been in use decades ago.
So, why hasn't it? What GA amphibians have had powered folding wings?

What's the weight of the powered wing-folding system, vs. the amount the Icon is over the LSA limit? How can Icon claim they need an FAA waiver for safety reasons, when they're including a gadget that few (if any other) GA amphibians has incorporated?

Ron Wanttaja

Floatsflyer

01-25-2013, 08:49 PM

...which is why I just don't get amphibs.

The adventure of aviation complicated by the hazards of boating....

:D

Ok......but the versatility, freedom and fun factors of seaplanes are off the charts! :)

Flyfalcons

01-25-2013, 11:42 PM

Floats, you don't have to try to impress me with your knowledge of seaplane operations (as I said before, I have 2000 hours of professional float time). I know exactly why small flying boats are dreadful machines and it is as you said - they are impossible to dock.

None of that has anything to do with certification as an LSA meeting preset weight requirements, however.

Floatsflyer

01-26-2013, 08:35 AM

Falcon, my intention was not to impress you but rather to provide a descriptive narrative to all that may not be involved with flying boats and therefore unaware of the challenges they present. Your use of the term "cool gadget(power folding wings anyone?)" denotes something unnecessary. I provided a scenario to illustrate that a folding device was indeed functional and necessary. Hence, with the safety issue I described(and where such a device would prevent hazardous operation), I believe it had a lot to do with the request to consider a weight increase.

BTW, from one water flyer to another, your 2000 hrs. does impress me alot. And I mean that in the absolute positive sense.

Flyfalcons

01-26-2013, 10:40 AM

It is unnecessary. If it were necessary then every other small flying boat design would have it.

Eric Witherspoon

01-26-2013, 11:41 AM

Not really a true representation of the genesis of the weight limitations. Take a look at this(from EAA):

www.sportpilot.org/questions/afmviewfaq.asp?faqid=2815 (http://www.sportpilot.org/questions/afmviewfaq.asp?faqid=2815)

One thing they don't answer there is where did the original 1232 lbs come from? I don't recall exactly where I heard, but it was in one of the forums at Oshkosh 2012 - that it came from the energy that the 1232 lbs aircraft would have at stall speed. What to compare that with such that it might have some meaning? Building codes. It's the energy to crash your LSA onto the roof of a house and not break through into the living room. But I guess that wasn't an absolute because then they went and added 90 lbs to it.

Anyway, when we go debating whether this or that weight increase should be allowed, keep in mind the original intent was to provide some measure of protection to people on the ground - nothing to do with airplane capabilities, performance, capacities, etc.

Floatsflyer

01-26-2013, 12:46 PM

It is unnecessary. If it were necessary then every other small flying boat design would have it.

Your rationale and logic could easily have me going in a whole different direction but I'm going to take the high road and reply in a straight-up manner.

Perhaps no one thought of it before; perhaps they did think of it but couldn't come up with the design solution or technology to make it work; perhaps cost of development and production was a factor; perhaps their designers lived in a culture where new ideas, progressiveness, innovation and thinking outside the box was not tolerated or valued.

By your definition, things are unneccesary if they didn't previously exist or weren't used. How then does anything new happen? How then do we move forward and progress?

You do realize don't you, that your logic negates new ideas, ground breaking technology, innovation, creativity, ingenuity and going where no one else has gone before.

Within my context of the safety issue alone, your definition of unneccesary must apply to, for example, the Cirrus airframe parachute system(CAPS) because no previous GA aircraft ever had it. According to the Cirrus Owners and Pilots Assoc. as of Jan.25, 2013 there have been 42 known CAPS activations. Of these, 32 are considered "saves" that involved 65 survivors with one fatality. Also, no person has died when when the CAPS deployed within the proper airspeed and altitude parameters as set out by Cirrus. Call me crazy, but I'm pretty damn confident that those 65 souls would not define CAPS by your definition of necessary/unnecessary.

Markmn

01-26-2013, 01:49 PM

Everyone,

We are missing the big picture here. What is best for aviation overall?

The number of pilots is rapidly declining. If this continues what do you expect aviation will look like in another ten years?

The reasoning for a weight increase is to allow aircraft that will be the most attractive to new pilots as well as keeping existing pilots active.
I understand some are attracted to the older rag and tube aircraft but most new pilots want something modern. The best selling LSA is a composite fully featured aircraft.

For example if Icon has a wing design that is substantially safer that definitely will increase new pilots.
Allowing a weight increase for safety equipment such as parachute will encourage it usage and increase safety and increase pilot number at the same time.

This discussion needs to be about whats best for aviation overall.

Mark

cluttonfred

01-26-2013, 02:28 PM

Since when is heavier equal to safer in aviation? The argument that Icon needs a higher weight limite for safety is just silly. Lose the gewgaws and doodads and there will be plenty of weight left for the wings.

Everyone,

We are missing the big picture here. What is best for aviation overall?

The number of pilots is rapidly declining. If this continues what do you expect aviation will look like in another ten years?

The reasoning for a weight increase is to allow aircraft that will be the most attractive to new pilots as well as keeping existing pilots active.
I understand some are attracted to the older rag and tube aircraft but most new pilots want something modern. The best selling LSA is a composite fully featured aircraft.

For example if Icon has a wing design that is substantially safer that definitely will increase new pilots.
Allowing a weight increase for safety equipment such as parachute will encourage it usage and increase safety and increase pilot number at the same time.

This discussion needs to be about whats best for aviation overall.

Mark

FloridaJohn

01-26-2013, 03:02 PM

For example if Icon has a wing design that is substantially safer that definitely will increase new pilots.
I am not convinced that their admittedly unique wing design will result in a substantially safer airplane. The majority of airplane accidents are caused by loss of control during landing (runway overruns, ground loops, pilot induced oscillations, hard landings, etc.). You also have stupid pilot tricks like running out of gas and VFR into IMC. I don't see the design of the Icon resolving any of those issues. My guess is that once the fleet is large enough to compare to other airframes, the accident rate will be nearly the same.

So, if that is the case, then how will they convince the FAA that they need the additional weight?

rwanttaja

01-26-2013, 03:33 PM

One thing they don't answer there is where did the original 1232 lbs come from? I don't recall exactly where I heard, but it was in one of the forums at Oshkosh 2012 - that it came from the energy that the 1232 lbs aircraft would have at stall speed. What to compare that with such that it might have some meaning? Building codes. It's the energy to crash your LSA onto the roof of a house and not break through into the living room. But I guess that wasn't an absolute because then they went and added 90 lbs to it.
Back when the Light Sport regulations were released, the FAA included them in a 452+ page document that gave the justification for for each aspect of the regulation. Here's some of what the FAA says about the weight limit:

"Some commenters wanted the weight increased to permit stronger aircraft structures, use of four-stroke or type-certificated engines, electrical systems for avionics, starters for engines, or ballistic recovery systems. The FAA is increasing the weight limitation of the light-sport aircraft from the proposed 1,232 pounds (560 kilograms) to 1,320 pounds (600 kilograms). The originally proposed weight limitation was based on the 1,200-pound weight limitation proposed by the ARAC’s light-sport aircraft working group. The FAA agrees that there may be a safety benefit to light-sport aircraft designs to include provisions for currently produced type-certificated four-stroke engines and ballistic parachute recovery systems. Commenters submitted data that indicated that an additional 60 to 70 pounds would accommodate four-stroke aviation powerplants, and that an additional 30 to 40 pounds would accommodate the ballistic parachute recovery systems. For these reasons, the FAA has revised its proposed maximum takeoff weight limitation to 1,320 pounds (600 kilograms) for aircraft designed for operation on land."

The ARAC was the "Aviation Rulemaking Advisory Committee," and the US Ultralight Association (USUA) was the chair. Earlier on in the document, it referred to the USUA as having proposed the 1,320-pound limit.

Nothing in the FAA release about crashing through roofs, but that would have been the purview of the ARAC. I'm skeptical, though. Are roof-strength requirements that standard? It would have had to have been based on the weakest, of course.

You can find a copy of the FAA release at:

http://www.wanttaja.com/LSA_final.pdf

Ron Wanttaja

rwanttaja

01-26-2013, 03:50 PM

I am not convinced that their admittedly unique wing design will result in a substantially safer airplane.

Can someone explain to this poor, knuckle-dragging EE what it is about the wing design that supposed to be safer than other aircraft? The "Design" section of the Icon web page doesn't seem to have any technical information.

The majority of airplane accidents are caused by loss of control during landing (runway overruns, ground loops, pilot induced oscillations, hard landings, etc.). You also have stupid pilot tricks like running out of gas and VFR into IMC. I don't see the design of the Icon resolving any of those issues.
Absolutely. I've got a database of nearly 3,000 homebuilt accidents, and structural failure of the airframe only caused 26 of them. That's about 0.8% of accidents, vs. the about 50% for pilot error cases. About half the airframe cases involved wing failure, and most of those were related to aerobatics, improper construction, or VFR into IFR conditions.

Ron Wanttaja

Flyfalcons

01-26-2013, 04:18 PM

Your rationale and logic could easily have me going in a whole different direction but I'm going to take the high road and reply in a straight-up manner.

Perhaps no one thought of it before; perhaps they did think of it but couldn't come up with the design solution or technology to make it work; perhaps cost of development and production was a factor; perhaps their designers lived in a culture where new ideas, progressiveness, innovation and thinking outside the box was not tolerated or valued.

By your definition, things are unneccesary if they didn't previously exist or weren't used. How then does anything new happen? How then do we move forward and progress?

You do realize don't you, that your logic negates new ideas, ground breaking technology, innovation, creativity, ingenuity and going where no one else has gone before.

Within my context of the safety issue alone, your definition of unneccesary must apply to, for example, the Cirrus airframe parachute system(CAPS) because no previous GA aircraft ever had it. According to the Cirrus Owners and Pilots Assoc. as of Jan.25, 2013 there have been 42 known CAPS activations. Of these, 32 are considered "saves" that involved 65 survivors with one fatality. Also, no person has died when when the CAPS deployed within the proper airspeed and altitude parameters as set out by Cirrus. Call me crazy, but I'm pretty damn confident that those 65 souls would not define CAPS by your definition of necessary/unnecessary.

Innovation is great! So just certify the plane in the actual category it ends up in then. If it isn't light enough, then it isn't light sport legal.

Frank Giger

01-26-2013, 06:55 PM

We are missing the big picture here. What is best for aviation overall?

The number of pilots is rapidly declining. If this continues what do you expect aviation will look like in another ten years?

The reasoning for a weight increase is to allow aircraft that will be the most attractive to new pilots as well as keeping existing pilots active.

If we're betting on little seaplanes to save General Aviation, we're sunk.

Innovation is great! So just certify the plane in the actual category it ends up in then. If it isn't light enough, then it isn't light sport legal.

Amen! There's nothing wrong with revising the category in the interest of safety and other features. Besides, I don't think there is a huge market for this aircraft to begin with; amphibs are a niche - making it LSA makes puts it in a niche within a niche.

rwanttaja

01-26-2013, 09:50 PM

Innovation is great! So just certify the plane in the actual category it ends up in then. If it isn't light enough, then it isn't light sport legal.Amen! There's nothing wrong with revising the category in the interest of safety and other features. Besides, I don't think there is a huge market for this aircraft to begin with; amphibs are a niche - making it LSA makes puts it in a niche within a niche.
I suspect Icon isn't attracted towards SLSA certification because it's easier, but because there's a greater market available by making them Sport Pilot eligible.

The Icon is an attractive airplane, even as a landplane. It's got a modern design, the wings fold, and the cockpit is out of the 21st century. As Frank so aptly said, "If we're betting on little seaplanes to save General Aviation, we're sunk." The Icon has to appeal to potential buyers as a general-purpose aircraft. Personally, I really like the look of the thing. If I had a spare $100,000 or so, I'd seriously consider it.

So...why not go for a lower-cost, lower-complexity landplane version, first? Get rid of the power wing fold, get rid of the retractable gear, get rid of the sponsons, etc. Get some planes on the market. Come out with an amphib version later; with a high degree of commonality in parts.

The main worry about that approach stems from the weight issues. Rumor has it that the Icon can't meet the 1,430-pound limit for amphibious LSAs. We don't know how much it's out. If it's out by ten pounds, one might hope that changing to a non-amphibious version might save the 120 pounds necessary. But if it's 150 pounds above the 1,430-pound limit....

Ron Wanttaja

zaitcev

01-26-2013, 11:58 PM

So...why not go for a lower-cost, lower-complexity landplane version, first?
Because Kirk & Co wanted to capture recreational boaters first and foremost, that's why. As was observed many times, quite a few of those people throw more at their boats in a year than pilots of Bonanzas, even Cirruses. The S-LSA is central to that plan: every little bit that lovers the barrier to entry is important to the plan. Going after boaters with a seaplane offers some incidentals, too. For example, disconnecting from airports by using marinas. Of course NIMBYs of waterways are vicious too, and the same kind of local mafia is involved that, for example, destroyed the independent FBO at New Braunfels. But expanding the field of battle gives aviators the advantage. Therefore, Icon even mulled a version without gear at all: a pure flying boat (it would be pulled out of the water on the same trailer as a seadoo). I have their old brochure that mentions the gearless option.

Frank Giger

01-27-2013, 07:35 AM

I'd love to see the market research that showed that a sizeable number of recreational boaters want to fly an aircraft, and that they're jumping at the chance to pay over a 100K for a plane to do it.

They're not inventing the seaplane, after all. If someone is sitting in their boat thinking "wow, it sure would be great to be a pilot" they'd be a pilot.

I could be wrong, of course.

But saying that boaters suddenly represent a functional market for seaplanes is a bit like saying that sport shooters want to become human cannon balls and will purchase a big a--ed air cannon.

Flyfalcons

01-27-2013, 01:49 PM

rwanttaja

01-27-2013, 03:13 PM

There may not be much evidence to support the marketing effort but Icon is definitely marketing the A5 as a PWC with wings. Even though, modern looks aside, it does nothing that hasn't been done before, but you can certainly tell that Icon has probably spent just as much on marketing as it has on design and test.
Agree with you there. Market RESEARCH, I don't know.

The customer base is daunting. Start with the number of boat owners (pretty big), weed it down by the number of persons interested in a personal watercraft (smaller), weed it down further by the number who would have ~$150,000 to spend on a personal watercraft, weed it down further by the number of folks interested a flying personal watercraft, weed it down even more by those who would accept a plane with a big "This aircraft does not meet the certification requirements of a standard certificated aircraft" placard.

Finally, weed out those for whom the modern looks and powered wing-fold of the Icon have more attraction than the Searey, which offers similar performance, at lower cost.

But, Icon seems to think there are enough people left over to give them a good batch of sales. If that's the case, fighting the LSA rules don't make a lot of sense: The vast majority of the potential buyers won't already have pilot's licenses, and won't understand the difference between a Sport License and a Private. Twenty hours more training required, when the guy's already considering spending $150K? Trivial. Why fight the LSA weight limits and delay getting it on the market?

Icon would have a big advantage if they offered an ab-initio pilot training program. "With just a 7% addition to the cost of your airplane, we'll give you all the instruction you require gain a license to fly your new Icon." If you're marketing to non-pilots, you're going to have to do something like that....

Ron Wanttaja

FloridaJohn

01-28-2013, 11:04 AM

Can someone explain to this poor, knuckle-dragging EE what it is about the wing design that supposed to be safer than other aircraft? The "Design" section of the Icon web page doesn't seem to have any technical information.

I found this description on the Icon website using Google (it looks like it is in the "News" section of the website). It seems like the best description I could find:

About Spins and Spin Resistance (http://www.iconaircraft.com/news/about-spins-and-spin-resistance.html)

From that link:

"One of the key findings of the NASA studies was that a critical component of spin resistance is controlling the way the wing stalls. They concluded that having the stall initiate near the root of the wing (where it attaches to the fuselage) while the outboard panels of the wing continue to fly is ideal because it prevents the stall from ever fully developing or “breaking” because the outboard panels are still generating lift. Without a stall, a spin cannot initiate. This progressive stall is achieved with a wing cuff, or a discontinuity on the leading edge of the wing that separates the wing into two distinct parts. The outboard segments of cuffed wings have a different airfoil with a drooped leading edge, compared to the main wing, which causes that portion of the wing to stall later than the inboard part of the wing as angle of attack increases. Because the ailerons are located on the outboard panel which is still flying, roll control is preserved even after the inboard panel of the wing has stalled."

So, it looks to me like they have two (or possibly more) distinct airfoils in the wing. This allows the outer part of the wing, with the ailerons, to continue to fly (and have control) while the wing root starts to stall. I guess the "big breakthrough" is that they can completely prevent a spin with the changing airfoils.

The reality is that this is nothing new. Lots of planes have wing designs that allow the wing root to stall before the wing tips. I guess Icon just took it a little further than most do.

Now whether this actually prevents any accidents it's hard to say. I can put my 152 into a non-stalled condition that still results in a descent of over 1000 fpm (i.e. "mushing") that still could result in a crash if I happened to do it at a low altitude. So spin-proof does not necessarily mean safer. I guess one would have to fly an Icon A5 to really see what the implication of the wing design really is. As has been already said, you can hurt yourself pretty bad in a plane without ever entering a stall or spin.

cluttonfred

01-28-2013, 12:30 PM

FloridaJohn

01-28-2013, 01:15 PM

And what makes anyone think that a wing cuff designed in from the outset would carry a substantial weight penalty? Like I said, it's not the wing, it's the doodads that put it over the LSA seaplane weight limit.
I totally agree, although if I were to guess, I would think Icon would say that since the new wing design required the re-introduction of flaps in the wing, and that is the weight "penalty" of the new wing design.

But like you said, I think Icon is using this as a ploy to get more weight allowance. Which is also why I say the FAA will see right through it and deny, just like they did to the Terrafugia when they requested a final weight above the seaplane LSA weight.

As much time as Icon has spent bringing this plane to production, they could have just gone ahead and certified via Part 23. Then they could get all the doo-dads they wanted, sell a few planes, and then strip it down for an LSA version. In all the online articles I have seen, Icon predicted a 2010 date for the first sale. They missed that by three years so far. Meanwhile, Van's has designed an E-LSA, a fly-away factory built LSA version, and has over 200 of them flying in customer's hands. So it can be done in that amount of time.

rwanttaja

01-28-2013, 01:35 PM

And what makes anyone think that a wing cuff designed in from the outset would carry a substantial weight penalty? Like I said, it's not the wing, it's the doodads that put it over the LSA seaplane weight limit.
And when you look at the Icon web page, it says the main doodad (e.g., automatic wing folding) is an *option*. So it ain't the folding wing that puts it over LSA limit.

Ron Wanttaja

FloridaJohn

01-28-2013, 02:32 PM

And when you look at the Icon web page, it says the main doodad (e.g., automatic wing folding) is an *option*. So it ain't the folding wing that puts it over LSA limit.
They also list a parachute, landing gear (or, more specifically, deletion of gear), night lighting, and attitude indicator as optional, too.

cluttonfred

01-28-2013, 02:43 PM

Maybe Icon should take a look at alternative designs that do meet LSA requirements? Here's a clean, all-metal flying boat that's still well within LSA weight limits. It's a three-seater, not an amphibian, but they could trade that third seat for manually-retracting landing gear. With a light Rotax in place of the original engine, they could use the weight saved to add a canopy, and be good to go as an LSA. Not bad for 1921!

2770

Dornier Libelle I (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dornier_Libelle)

zaitcev

01-28-2013, 04:54 PM

Don't even need to go as far as Dornier Libelle. SeaMax and SeaRey are already available as S-LSA. The latter in particular carries a long kitplane pedigree, while former flied all over the world for years (although last I checked it only scored 5 registrations in U.S.).

Frank Giger

01-28-2013, 06:45 PM

They also list a parachute, landing gear (or, more specifically, deletion of gear), night lighting, and attitude indicator as optional, too.

They need to check out the limitations of a Sport Pilot. Night lighting? For an aircraft designed for the Sport Pilot which is limited to daytime VFR only?

Sounds like they have a serious issue with "feature creep."

Flyfalcons

01-28-2013, 06:54 PM

What if a Private Pilot or higher wants to own and fly one?

Markmn

01-28-2013, 09:48 PM

rwanttaja

01-28-2013, 10:49 PM

People want doodads and doodads sell airplanes. As I said earlier we need to look for ways to increase aviation participation.

You guys may be the ones that go to a car dealer and ask for a car without air conditioning and hand crank windows. Nothing wrong with that.
Its just not what most new buyers are looking for. If you cant afford one the only way you ever will is for someone else to buy them so you can buy a used one.
The problem is when the doodads get in the way of certification. Icon apparently has a plane with all these marketable doodads, and be unable to certify it because it's too heavy. You can't make any money on airplanes that can't fly, no matter how much lipstick you put on the pig.

As far as certifying part 23 do you know how much that would add to the cost? Just think a new skyhawk costs $330000.00!!!! and its a 50 plus year old design!!!
The cost of Part 23 certification is less than a lot of folks think. The base price for the Cirrus SR20 is less than what you quote a new 172 runs for, and Cirrus had to certify the SR20 under modern Part 23 less than 20 years ago. For that matter, the Columbia 300 (which became the Cessna Corvallis) was certified about 15 years ago. Heck, they're even re-certifying the Skycatcher under Part 21.

Years ago, they asked Frank Christensen how high the paperwork was to certify the Husky. He indicated a stack about an inch and a half high...shocking folks who thought it was much more than this.

Part 23 is not unreasonable...it's just thorough. You're expected to prove the aircraft meets the requirements, not just nudge the local FAA in the ribs and wink. If you compare Part 23 and the LSA Consensus Standard side-by-side, you'd see a LOT of similarity. You've gotta do the same engineering, with the difference being that the FAA requires you to formally submit the engineering work for assessment.

If Icon had a Part-23 airplane ready *now* they'd be selling it, and having an income. Like Floridajohn said, they could do an initial version Part 23 and use the income to fund evolution into a Sport Pilot-eligible version. Are there THAT many boaters who can't pass a Class 3 medical?

I'm an engineer with a large Chicago-based aircraft manufacturer (though have never worked on the aircraft side). Saw a sign on the toolbox of a shop worker back when I started, 32 years ago, and it's stuck with me ever since:

"In the life of any project, it eventually becomes time to shoot the engineers and begin production."

Play with the gimcracks and doodads all you want, but eventually airplanes have to start coming out the factory door.

Ron Wanttaja

cluttonfred

01-28-2013, 11:31 PM

I can't speak to the cost but I do think that the comparison between cars and airplanes, especially between cars and light sport aircraft, is flawed. Unlike passenger cars, aircraft, any aircraft, are critically concerned with weight. "Simplicate and Add Lightness" as Ed Heinemann used to say. Even the smallest passenger cars are required to include energy-absorbing structures and safety devices that even the most expensive aircraft don't have, never mind the luxury doodads. But that's because they can afford the extra weight--overload the family car and it will still get up the hill, just a bit slower, not hit those trees at the end of the runway.

LSA landplane is limited to 1,320 lbs, an LSA seaplane to 1,430 lbs. For comparison, certainly the smallest, probably the lightest and definitely one of the cheapest cars you can get in the USA is the two-seat Smart Pure Coupe with an empty weight of 1,808 lbs and a maximum gross vehicle weight of 2,315 lbs. That's with manual windows, no A/C or radio with 507 lb payload not including 8.7 gallons of fuel plus a reserve of 1.3 gallons. And that's in a car which is a niche market in the USA, too small, light and spartan for the average buyer.

Aircraft, any aircraft, cannot safely accommodate all the bells and whistles without driving up the weight, which requires a bigger engine, which drives up the weight some more, and so on. Off the top of my head, I don't even know of any four-seat production general aviation aircraft that offer something like A/C as standard, or power folding wings at all. What makes Icon think they can fit all that in when the LSA category of aircraft was designed to be light, slow, simple planes for the low-time pilot? If Icon can't figure that out, then they shouldn't be in the airplane business in the first place.

People want doodads and doodads sell airplanes. As I said earlier we need to look for ways to increase aviation participation.

You guys may be the ones that go to a car dealer and ask for a car without air conditioning and hand crank windows. Nothing wrong with that.
Its just not what most new buyers are looking for. If you cant afford one the only way you ever will is for someone else to buy them so you can buy a used one.

As far as certifying part 23 do you know how much that would add to the cost? Just think a new skyhawk costs $330000.00!!!! and its a 50 plus year old design!!!

Mark

zaitcev

01-29-2013, 10:32 AM

The cost of Part 23 certification is less than a lot of folks think. The base price for the Cirrus SR20 is less than what you quote a new 172 runs for, and Cirrus had to certify the SR20 under modern Part 23 less than 20 years ago. For that matter, the Columbia 300 (which became the Cessna Corvallis) was certified about 15 years ago. Heck, they're even re-certifying the Skycatcher under Part 21.

Yeah, and now Skycatcher is officially the 2nd most expensive LSA on the market (behind Carbon Cub), while having about the worst payload and range. Lacks any kind of soundproofing, too, and I smacked my head good upon exposed aluminum in it. Way to go, Cessna. But it has a TSOed G1000, yay!

A regular LSA maker would not sell squat of those certified thingies if they did not already have a captive audience of Cessna Pilot Centers.

If Icon had a Part-23 airplane ready *now* they'd be selling it, and having an income. Like Floridajohn said, they could do an initial version Part 23 and use the income to fund evolution into a Sport Pilot-eligible version. Are there THAT many boaters who can't pass a Class 3 medical?

Please, Ron. The Part 23 to LSA never works, get real. The only airplane that managed that is Sky Arrow and how well that worked out? Magnaghi had to buy assets and restart production, and guess what: only LSA version survived. They are still certified in Europe, of course, and might have the old legal standing, but they do not sell Part 23 anymore. The only other example that's close is 7EC Champ, which is not LSA, of course.

If Icon started with Part 23, their income would not be sufficient to pay back their financing, and they would end in bankrupcy, same as Eclipse. You think that having some income is better than no income (which is what they have now), but it's not true. You only burn through the financing quicker.

The only sensible path is from kit to LSA, like SeaRey, RANS, Van's etc. Not in the opposite direction. Read Christiansen's book, it's the law of northeast migration.

P.S. They advertise a certified Sky Arrow 650TCNS on the website now. So yeah, someone got something useful out of the money that 3I's investors lost in bankrupcy. Still doesn't prove that it's a workable idea.

Bill Berson

01-29-2013, 10:37 AM

I think it takes a few overweight designs before a new designer understands about building light.
Having someone with 30 or 40 years experience on the design team wouldn't hurt.

Floatsflyer

01-29-2013, 04:10 PM

Had a conversation with an AME friend on the subject of LSA weight and durability. He provided this example: A 600Kg Skycather vs. a 757Kg 150/152 have close to the same weight for engine and fuel capacity and use almost the same traditional construction methods and materials. So where did the 157kg go?? It went to structure he said. Structure equates with durability/sturdiness which equates with safety and many other in-the-field operational considerations like after sale maintenance and repair costs, etc.

So while the LSA weight number mostly came from somewhere, perhaps it's not the correct number. Perhaps increasing the weight restriction for all allows the manufacturers to build the kind of aircraft that they would all like to build, all flight schools would like to have for training and you would want to own and fly.

If Icon does not receive the excemption, in my mind they will have 3 options:

-Build to current LSA certification standards

-Build the plane as it currently stands to FAR 21.24 Primary Category Type Certification as I mentioned before. This is the most viable direction and is the most cost effective. Primary costs close to about $1 million for approval(compared to Part 23 which can be from $25-50 million). Cessna has done this with the Skycatcher for sales purposes only outside the US.(LSA is not recognized in many countries).
http://www.faa-aircraft-certification.com/21-24-primary-category.html

-Manufacture both models so they don't lose their sport flying recreational consumer market. This could be the best business model.

All this could be moot when they receive the excemption. So, just for a moment, does anyone have any real insider info on the status of the excemption request?

Frank Giger

01-29-2013, 07:23 PM

So while the LSA weight number mostly came from somewhere, perhaps it's not the correct number. Perhaps increasing the weight restriction for all allows the manufacturers to build the kind of aircraft that they would all like to build, all flight schools would like to have for training and you would want to own and fly.

But that defeats the basic premise that LSA rules were designed to spur development of a new class of aircraft....

We know that LSA compliant float planes can be built; there are numerous examples to draw from. That some manufacturers can't cut the mustard on the standards is no reason to change them.

cluttonfred

01-29-2013, 10:13 PM

rwanttaja

01-29-2013, 11:31 PM

Had a conversation with an AME friend on the subject of LSA weight and durability. He provided this example: A 600Kg Skycather vs. a 757Kg 150/152 have close to the same weight for engine and fuel capacity and use almost the same traditional construction methods and materials. So where did the 157kg go?? It went to structure he said. Structure equates with durability/sturdiness which equates with safety and many other in-the-field operational considerations like after sale maintenance and repair costs, etc.
Hope you meant "A&P", not "AME" (Aviation Medical Examiner). :-)

I can believe it, though. First time I took a look at a Skycatcher, I was a bit dismayed by the metal work on the leading edge of the wing. Really a change from my old 150. Still, SOMETHING has to give, when you have to pack the same basic capability in a ~270-pounds lighter package.

Just seems weird that Icon missed the weight budget so bad that they have to ask for a waiver. They've got some Scaled Composites veterans in some high places, and what looks to be good engineering qualifications all around. Does make you wonder how much marketing is driving the engineering.... "You MUST include XXXX, YYYY, and ZZZZ in the design!" Seen that sort of thing before....

Ron Wanttaja

Floatsflyer

01-30-2013, 11:29 AM

Floatsflyer, these numbers are really interesting to me, where did you get them? Are they based on the average cost to certify an aircraft in Part 23, and would it really be that expensive to certify to Part 23 an Aeronca Champ, for example, in 2013? It seems very strange that Part 23 vs. Primary would be a 25-50 times increase in cost for the same aircraft.

Strange or not Matthew, actually the Part 23 cost to certify is currently as we speak twice that much!!! Greg Bowles, GAMA Director of Engineering and Manufacturing says it's $50-100 million.

http://www.avweb.com/podcast/podcast/AudioPodcast_GregBowles_GAMA_Part23Revisions_20527 3-1.html?kw=AVwebAudio

As you may or may not know a review of Part 23 is underway with many reforms including costs being considered. The objective with costs is to reduce them by at least half. My figure was based on this possible outcome so I applied some simple mathematical optimism for near future certification approval.

http://www.flyingmag.com/pilots-places/pilots-adventures-more/part-23-time-change

From NBAA website, October 10, 2012:

"Speaking in the city that manufactures more than 40 percent of all standard general aviation (GA) aircraft in the world, Huerta said he expects the FAR Part 23 changes to slice new-aircraft approval cost by as much as half by ‘harmonizing’ the FAA’s rules with those of other countries. He cited a required wing-strength test, saying that each country might have a slightly different requirement for the test, costing manufacturers millions of dollars to make slight changes to satisfy each country"

The Primary Category cost is based on osmosis -talking and listening to people discussing the subject.

Your question about the Champ is exactly what the Part 23 review is all about which is basically to shift the Rules from the being weight based to being performance based.

FloridaJohn

01-30-2013, 01:28 PM

Strange or not Matthew, actually the Part 23 cost to certify is currently as we speak twice that much!!! Greg Bowles, GAMA Director of Engineering and Manufacturing says it's $50-100 million.

Here's a good article by Dan Johnson that applies pretty well to our discussion here:

The cost of certification (http://www.generalaviationnews.com/2012/09/the-cost-of-certification/)

In this article, he says,

A major organization has estimated the cost of Part 23 certification to be valued at $50 million, however, that figure reportedly includes the cost of designing and testing…so certification cost alone might be perhaps half, or $25 million. It’s challenging to be certain of the total cost of certification as some expenses will be commingled or “burdened” by non-certification tasks.

So, in round numbers — and just for discussion — certification costs might be $150,000 for an LSA, $1 million for a Primary, and $25 million (or so) for Part 23. Even if the numbers are off by a wide margin, the differences are huge — and you don’t have to be an economist to see how this affects the retail price of airplanes.

Just to add a little more information to this discussion, I also ran across this article from Flying Mag in 2011:

ICON Aircraft Receives $25 Million Cash Infusion (http://www.flyingmag.com/aircraft/lsasport/icon-aircraft-receives-25-million-cash-infusion)

So maybe if Icon spent a little less on marketing, they could just go ahead and pay for full certification. :eek:

Floatsflyer

01-30-2013, 02:10 PM

Hope you meant "A&P", not "AME" (Aviation Medical Examiner). :-)

Ron Wanttaja

No hope involved, no typo made. In Canada an A&P is called an AME--Aircraft Maintenance Engineer. Way too many damn acronyms in aviation that mean different things in different jurisdictions. Can get confusin':)

Floatsflyer

01-30-2013, 02:30 PM

Just seems weird that Icon missed the weight budget so bad that they have to ask for a waiver. They've got some Scaled Composites veterans in some high places, and what looks to be good engineering qualifications all around. Does make you wonder how much marketing is driving the engineering.... "You MUST include XXXX, YYYY, and ZZZZ in the design!" Seen that sort of thing before....

Ron Wanttaja

I believe that marketing and engineering works best when it's a two way street, one driving the other and vice-versa. This works very effectively but only in an atmosphere like Icon where the business plan is sound, the company is extremely well capitalized so they can afford to be methodical and thoughtful(no need to rush to market with anything less than the full realized design vision) and the engineers are "A" List totally suited to the design and its optimum execution.

rwanttaja

01-31-2013, 10:27 PM

I believe that marketing and engineering works best when it's a two way street, one driving the other and vice-versa. This works very effectively but only in an atmosphere like Icon where the business plan is sound, the company is extremely well capitalized so they can afford to be methodical and thoughtful(no need to rush to market with anything less than the full realized design vision) and the engineers are "A" List totally suited to the design and its optimum execution.

Well.... agree fully on the first sentence. We won't know if it's working effectively at Icon until they actually have a product on the market.

Kind of like the Monty Python Cheese sketch. Guy's trying to buy cheese in a cheese shop, but the guy behind the counter says they're out of stock on every type of cheese the guy asks for. There's eventually an exchange that goes like this...

"This *is* a cheese shop, isn't it?"

"Yes, sir, finest in the district!"

"Explain the logic behind that remark."

"It's so CLEAN!"

"Well, it's certainly uncontaminated by cheese....."

Icon might have a great atmosphere between the marketers and engineers, and the business plan might be sound, but they're certainly uncontaminated by airplanes.

Ron Wanttaja

Floatsflyer

02-01-2013, 02:49 PM

Icon might have a great atmosphere between the marketers and engineers, and the business plan might be sound, but they're certainly uncontaminated by airplanes.

Ron Wanttaja

Appreciate the analogy and understand the skepticsm. The aviation graveyard is filled with too many start-ups with bad business plans, horribly under funded and too quick to take your deposit money for development, production and try to get to market and deliver something. For some of these "companies" and we all know who they were, these startups were run almost like a ponzie scheme-as long as the money was flowing in, they were Ok, as soon as it stopped they(and depositers and vendors) were f***ed.

We don't need more of that because we need to attract VC's, and private equity placement investors to believe in small airplanes that are market driven and will be delivered. I don't believe in saviors for anything but I do believe that Icon can and will provide the much, much needed shot in the arm that is so desperately required.

zaitcev

02-22-2013, 11:10 AM

Meanwhile Janice Wood (http://www.generalaviationnews.com/2013/02/production-begins-on-icon-a5/) regurgitates Icon's newsletter today that trumpets the start of production and includes the following curious snippet:

The horizontal tail tip removal system is another area in which ICON’s industrial design and engineering teams have collaborated closely in recent months. The tips of the horizontal tail are removable in order for the A5 to fit within the Department of Transportation’s over-the-road width limit when the aircraft is being trailered. The system has been designed around a sliding action with positive locking pin, which is both user-friendly and serves to ensure that the tip of the tail is securely installed, company officials said.
Brilliant, yet another weight-adding item.

Floatsflyer

02-22-2013, 12:39 PM

I'm on Icon's email blast list and received this newsletter. Janice Wood of GA News has misled her readers with the headline "...Production Begins On Icon A5" The newsletter is a "Production Update", the most current one of many Icon has sent out in the last few years. Amongst many things it sets out production status including that certain tooling masters and production articles for components are being produced in preperation for delivery to and manufacturing by Cirrus. Janice Wood must have come from Fox News because she writes things unsupportable by facts. This is irresponsible journalism at the least. Just last week she wrote an article about LSA that included the statement that LSA prohibited engines greater than 100hp.

The real "curious" thing for me is that Icon, in the absense of an FAA exemption decision, continues to move forward rapidly as if they've received approval. Either that or they are supremely confident or know something that has not been made public as yet or they are proceeding regardless of yea or nay decision by preparing to go ASTM or Primary or both.

Frank Giger

02-23-2013, 01:01 AM

Maybe they invested very well when it comes to Congressional and Senate lobby efforts. Nothing cuts through red tape like a congressional inquiry....usually just asking the question is enough to get resolution in a favorable way.

"Yes, Mr. Congressman/Senator, we've looked into the matter you asked about and, as a matter of our careful and efficient processes, have found in favor of granting the waiver. We at the FAA have as our mandate to encourage aviation in every way, helping domestic innovation and the jobs they create. I have directed the appropriate department to contact Icon representatives by telephone and email as to the decision; it may take a week or so to follow on with the official waiver as recent fiscal challenges within the FAA have caused an administrative delay in most of our notifications.

"Unfortunately, we will have to advise Icon to not announce the waiver approval until such time as they receive the official issuance. Thank you again for your interest in this matter and please do not hesitate to contact us again if you require more information or have any other questions."

FloridaJohn

02-25-2013, 10:04 AM

The real "curious" thing for me is that Icon, in the absense of an FAA exemption decision, continues to move forward rapidly as if they've received approval. Either that or they are supremely confident or know something that has not been made public as yet or they are proceeding regardless of yea or nay decision by preparing to go ASTM or Primary or both.
I would guess that they are preparing for multiple courses of action depending on the FAA's decision. If the FAA decision is favorable, then they go with Plan A. If they get some, but not all, of what they want, they go with Plan B. If they are completely turned down, then they go with Plan C. It's probably what I would do in their shoes. That way they can announce their plans immediately after the FAA decision, and hopefully start delivering planes as soon as possible.

Buzz

03-18-2013, 03:58 PM

Approximately one-third of the total deposit holders(about 1000) are non-pilots 80% of people that start GA flight training never finish it according to AOPA research. Maybe some of those well-healed non-pilots will find out the "Let's buy a cool airplane first and then become a pilot" wasn't as straightforward as they thought. ["Gee Honey, this is a bit more than just buying a "boat with wings"."]

Then a bunch of A-5s will come on the used market at a big price discount for the rest of us!
:cool:

-Buzz

kmhd1

04-17-2013, 09:44 AM

rwanttaja

04-17-2013, 10:07 AM

Late Monday 4/15/13, on the Federal Register website, an update to Icon's weight exemption request was posted:

http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;rpp=100;so=DESC;sb=docId;po=0;D=FAA-2012-0514

The odd thing is that it does not specifically answer the exemption request but instead goes in to detail about the new FAA SLSA Strategic Plan. It would seem to bode well for Icon given that the plan calls for increased innovation and safety but with no precise mention of Icon its hard to tell what this is saying.

Any thoughts?
You'll also notice that the site contains one critical letter regarding the potential for Icon to be granted an exemption. It's obviously not a slam-dunk. GAMA, EAA, and AOPA have chimed in in favor, at least.

One amusing aspect: The FAA guy involved is Earl Lawrence, who used to be EAA's Goverment specialist.

Ron Wanttaja

Floatsflyer

04-17-2013, 10:37 AM

kmhd1

04-17-2013, 11:13 AM

kmhd1, as you've pointed out this FAA document has nothing to do with the decision on Icon's request. It's a blueprint from Aug. 2012 that sets out their overall certification strategy to operationally manage SLSA into the future and sets out objectives to support and move the strategy forward.

Some history--It's now been over one year since Icon submitted the request and still no decision. FAA promised a decision by end of August 2012 and then delayed it untill December, 2012 with still no decision. No further info whatsoever from FAA since. It remains in limbo and I suspect it's because with all this sequestration(man, I hate this word) stuff going on, it has not been a priority in terms of resources(people) dedicated to it.

Notwithstanding a lack of FAA decision making, Icon continues to move rapidly and confidently forward towards production as if they have had a positive decision. As I've said on this thread and others many times with reasons, I believe they'll get the exemption. But the FAA/Small Airplane Directorate is sure taking their sweet time about it.

Yeah, it does appear Icon is full steam ahead. I just find it odd that they (US DOT / FAA) would post this to the exemption request docket now (4/15/13) given that the last response from them on the docket was that they were delaying a response until the end of 2012. Which as you mentioned has long since past.
Maybe they are just warming everyone up to their eventual decision (which they will be posting any day now... lol) :D

I also noticed someone posted on Icon's Facebook page earlier this month that they were a position holder and they wanted to find out the current LSA certification status. Icon responded and told the poster that they would essentially have a sales rep contact him directly to answer his question. Now if we could just get the poster to tell us what Icon's response was maybe we would have more solid information.;)

Floatsflyer

04-17-2013, 12:08 PM

Yeah, it does appear Icon is full steam ahead.

I also noticed someone posted on Icon's Facebook page earlier this month that they were a position holder and they wanted to find out the current LSA certification status. Icon responded and told the poster that they would essentially have a sales rep contact him directly to answer his question. Now if we could just get the poster to tell us what Icon's response was maybe we would have more solid information.;)

As a very interested observer, I've been checking daily on the exemption status for a few months now. I'm not on Facebook( I think I might be one of only 27 people worldwide who are not-don't need it, don't want it), but if you are, perhaps you could "friend" this person and get an answer.

kmhd1

04-17-2013, 12:23 PM

As a very interested observer, I've been checking daily on the exemption status for a few months now. I'm not on Facebook( I think I might be one of only 27 people worldwide who are not-don't need it, don't want it), but if you are, perhaps you could "friend" this person and get an answer.

Or, we could pull our money together, buy an aircraft position, and get the answer straight from the source.... :)

Floatsflyer

04-17-2013, 12:31 PM

Or, we could pull our money together, buy an aircraft position, and get the answer straight from the source.... :)

I'd love to be on the order book, but like new car introductions, I always prefer to wait to consider buying until the 2nd or 3rd year of production.....when they've got all the bugs out.

kmhd1

04-17-2013, 12:43 PM

I'd love to be on the order book, but like new car introductions, I always prefer to wait to consider buying until the 2nd or 3rd year of production.....when they've got all the bugs out.

Smart move for sure!

I also sent a direct email to Icon to see what I can find out... Not holding my breath, but you never know. I'll post if I hear anything back from them.

kmhd1

04-17-2013, 09:18 PM

Smart move for sure!

I also sent a direct email to Icon to see what I can find out... Not holding my breath, but you never know. I'll post if I hear anything back from them.

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."

Floatsflyer

04-18-2013, 08:02 AM

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

04-18-2013, 01:14 PM

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

05-01-2013, 08:35 PM

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/#!docketDetail;D=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:
2913
The saga continues....

Floatsflyer

05-02-2013, 10:31 AM

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

05-02-2013, 11:16 AM

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

05-02-2013, 12:23 PM

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

05-02-2013, 01:11 PM

Floatsflyer

05-02-2013, 01:19 PM

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

05-03-2013, 01:36 PM

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

05-06-2013, 12:29 AM

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.

WWhunter

05-09-2013, 08:26 PM

Floatsflyer

05-09-2013, 08:56 PM

They have been flying perfectly fine for 60-70 years off the lakes and rivers of the world without the need of flaps!!! Learn to fly the plane...granted flaps are another tool to help TO and landings but they are far from neccessary.

While you're at it, why don't you eliminate ailerons as well. In applying your logic, they too must be unnecessary as planes for years had been flying perfectly fine using wing warping. WW, it's about newly applied innovation over the ages that made flying safer, easier and more controllable in all attitudes(and on all surfaces).

steveinindy

05-09-2013, 09:25 PM

cluttonfred

05-10-2013, 03:45 AM

WWhunter

05-10-2013, 06:47 AM

floatsflyer, "While you're at it, why don't you eliminate ailerons as well. In applying your logic, they too must be unnecessary as planes for years had been flying perfectly fine using wing warping"
Where the heck is your logic is making that statement? I NEVER said ailerons weren't needed nor did I even hint at such a statement so don't try to put words into a post I did not write. You and a couple others have said you wouldn't fly a floatplane without flaps and I was totally baffled at why you would make such a statement when there a planes that have been flying on floats without flaps for decades. Like I said earlier, "...granted flaps are another tool to help T/O and landings but they are far from neccessary". Neither one of my float equipted aircraft have flaps, there are times I wish they did have them, just for the extra lift they would provide when heavy or in a tight spot, but both planes have served me well within my mission parameters. I didn't mean to hurt your feelings. I see way too many times that someone reads something, takes it as a personal attack and then has to try to start an internet arguement. It was a statement of fact, nothing more. Many people read these forums, what happens when a neophyte reads the posts thinking he/she is flying an inherantly unsafe floatplane just because it does not have flaps? The majority of beginning float plane pilots probably learned on one these dreaded flapless aircraft. We can't steer away potential pilots from our ranks just because a plane is sans flaps.
Having said that, I am all for anything that can improve safety in flight. What I see in these exemptions is, what will happen next, the aircraft is soon going to be so heavy with safety features they might possibly have to put in a larger engine. Then what, another exemption for the extra weight of the larger engine for the reason of safety. It's a never ending battle for the designers.

kayla95

05-10-2013, 07:44 AM

Not sure if this is the right place to talk about the icon a5 if not please advise where. Anyway hello from sydney australia did Google search for icon forum and found eaa forums so i joined all help and advice appreciated. I have been monitoring the a5 for sometime and about 3months ago got serious and was in email communication with icon about purchasing an a5 i was even offered to jump up the order list for a bigger deposit. All was going well and replys to emails were prompt and acurate however when i asked how the horizontal stabilizer/elevator was mounted after seeing the
stall test with the cessna on YouTube and the crazy flutter of elevator they stopped replying to emails. They have hit approx 1050 orders for this aircraft and i cannot find anywhere an explanation for the flutter why? it seems they dont care to much about the flutter i believe it will cause serious doubt over this aircraft and if it was my company product i would be worried about what people are thinking. Short term may not be a problem but material fatigue and failure takes time. Not sure what else to say.

wantobe

05-10-2013, 08:30 AM

In addition to the Primary Category Aircraft which allows weight up to 2700 lb for land planes and 3375 lb for seaplanes, there is also a Very Light Aircraft (VLA) class which allows weight up to 1654lb (750kg). This is much closer to Icon's request of 1680lb.

In "AC 21.17-3: Type Certification of Very Light Airplanes under FAR §21.17(b)", issued Dec. 21st, 1992, FAA accepts VLA as a new class and Europe's certification standard of VLA. Following is from this AC:

1. Purpose. This advisory circular (AC) provides a means but not the only means for the type, production, and airworthiness certification of very light airplanes (VLA); and designates the "Joint Aviation Requirements for Very Light Aeroplanes" (JAR-VLA), issued April 26, 1990, by the Joint Aviation Authorities (JAA) of Europe as an acceptable airworthiness criteria that provides an equivalent level of safety under FAR 21.17(b) for Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) type certification of VLA as a special class of aircaft.

What happened to VLA class certification? Somehow nobody is talking about it. I would expect it to be the next level up from LSA, or is it more expensive to certificate a VLA than a Primary Category Aircraft?

Flyfalcons

05-10-2013, 09:14 AM

Floatsflyer

05-10-2013, 11:37 AM

On a somewhat related note, as a result of my reading on here about all the headaches of small flying boats. I was thinking of working on a small flying boat design as my LSA project. The comments here make me want to think twice about that approach. If one were to design an amphibian with removable floats, does the MTOW stay at the higher amphibian limit or revert back the "land plane" limit when the floats are removed?

Conventional floats(straight or amphibious) with their attachment structures are already designed to be easily removable so standard gear can be placed and vice-versa. That is a somewhat expensive procedure to do on a annual or bi-annual basis. But to your question re LSA it would seem logical that MTOW would revert to whatever configuration one was in.

If you wish to simplify, then avoid the category of floatplanes and design a flying boat that must eliminate the annoyance factor that docking presents for them(this is the PO factor!). That would mean an ingenious in-cockpit electric folding wings design with a centralized "swim platform" for stability and floatation with no outer wing sponsons(like Icon). Or sponsons that retract to form an elongated wing/wing tip like the Mckinnon mods on Grumman Widgeon and Goose. Icon did one other really good thing for water operation for what is essentially a hybrid lower/shoulder wing. They beefed up the structure of the droop wing tips and also made them hydrofoil-like to provide safer high speed taxiing and manoeuvering on/through the water.

Now go ahead and design a much cheaper version than Icon(or the myriad of other LSA flying boats currently on the market). Oh, and one other thing: provide a reversible prop as standard equipment...now you have the perfect flying boat.

steveinindy

05-10-2013, 04:30 PM

Logically, removable floats would drop you down to the landplane limit once removed, but retractablegear or floats would allow you to stay at the limit. It makes sense--there is a limit for landplanes, but since floats and their struts are heavier than wheels, and flying boat hulls heaveir than ordinary fuselages, the weight limit is more generous if you want to operate off water. If you remove the floats altogether, you don't need the more generous weight allowance.

Ah...now to figure out how to develop retractable floats that don't offset the benefits of a higher weight limit. Maybe just make them hollow or something and make them "retractable" only while the aircraft is on the ground (think an ground adjustable prop) so you wouldn't have to have a heavy retraction mechanism since we would have to have a retraction mechanism for the landing gear.

kmhd1

05-13-2013, 09:28 PM

A new document was posted today (5/13/13) by the USDOT / FAA concerning the Icon weight exemption request :

http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=FAA-2012-0514-0123

Below is what the pdf contained:

RECORD OF CONTACT WITH PETITIONER
Reference Regulatory Docket No. FAA-2012-0514

On May 7, 2013, at 0900 CDT, Pat Mullen, Steve Thompson, and Wes Ryan of the FAA Small Airplane Directorate had a conversation via telephone with ICON Aircraft Vice President of Engineering, Mr. Matthew Gionta. Mr. Gionta sought clarification of an April 25, 2013, FAA letter that requested additional information in support of the FAA’s analysis of ICON Aircraft’s petition for exemption for the Model A5. Mr. Gionta sought clarification of the first sub-bullet under the first main bullet on Page 2 of the April 25, 2013 FAA letter, which reads:

• A description of the manner in which ICON Aircraft confirmed the Model A5 meets the requirements of those § 23.221(a)(2) standards that encompass other Part 23 sections which differ from the consensus standards for light-sport aircraft, i.e.:

− In confirming the Model A5 meets the requirements of § 23.221(a)(2)(i) and § 23.221(a)(2)(ii) , did ICON Aircraft use the wings level stall maneuvers of ASTM International Standard F2245, or those of 14 CFR § 23.201?

Mr. Gionta said that because § 23.221(a)(2)(ii) is not related to wings level stalls, this sub-bullet of the FAA letter appeared to be a mistake. The FAA explained that the requested information pertains to the wings level stall conditions ICON Aircraft used in setting up the tests of § 23.221(a)(2)(ii). The FAA noted the portion of § 23.221(a)(2)(ii) that references the power and airplane configuration requirements of § 23.201.

Mr. Gionta said the FAA’s clarification was helpful and that ICON Aircraft would supply the requested information.

Floatsflyer

05-14-2013, 07:41 AM

After trying to read that, my only response is I need clarification of the clarification. I never learned to speak government.

kmhd1

05-14-2013, 10:59 AM

Agreed. Hopefully the actual conversation between the parties contained a bit more useful information...

rwanttaja

05-14-2013, 08:11 PM

Nahhh. All the references to stuff like "§ 23.221(a)(2)(i)" have to be carefully parsed when you read them, but it'd be very difficult to write an unambiguous response without them. I'm not saying it's easy to read, but the way it's worded, it doesn't leave much leeway for misinterpretation...accidental or otherwise. Icon certainly understood it, and that's all that matters.

Ron Wanttaja

kayla95

05-16-2013, 11:25 PM

After trying to read that, my only response is I need clarification of the clarification. I never learned to speak government.

Would you care to comment on my post or direct me to where i should post about icon . Kayla95 page11 thanks

Floatsflyer

05-17-2013, 09:40 AM

Would you care to comment on my post or direct me to where i should post about icon . Kayla95 page11 thanks

Hi Kayla95,

Re your post #106 here: When I first viewed that spin demonstration a year ago, I was only focused on the entire aircraft and did not see any particular tail flutter. Your question encouraged me to look closer at it again and your astute observation appears to confirm that flutter is indeed apparent.

I don't know why your communications with Icon became silent after you mentioned it to whomever you were in contact with about buying one. I'm going to assume that your conversations were with a sales person who's only responsibility/goal is to try to sell you an Icon A5. Perhaps he was intending to forward your inquiry to someone who was far better qualified to answer but he dropped the ball.

All I can tell you, from my own experience with Icon, is that they don't shy away from criticsm or controversial subjects concerning their aircraft. When I learned that they were eliminating flaps, I emailed them to voice my displeasure and concern. They responded quickly saying that one of their staff would contact me to arrange a time/date to discuss the subject on the phone. That phone conversation took place within a few days. He spoke his piece and I spoke mine and I concluded by saying I hoped that they would reconsider their position. Well, I don't know if this conversation alone had any influence on any decision making but within a few months the flaps were back on.

I am neither an aerodynamicst or aero engineer or anything remotely close to either, so I'm therefore completely unqualified to provide an explanation for the apparent tail flutter. However, there are people on this forum who possibly can and so I'm attaching the link for the demo(can be seen at about 2:25 in).

I also want to tell you that another direct experience with Icon did not go as well. I had the opportunity to talk to CEO Hawkins at their booth at Oshkosh a few years ago. While we were both standing next to the mock-up he answered my questions and listened politely to some comments and suggestions. The exchange was a good one I thought. I asked him if I could try the airplane on for fit and comfort by sitting in it. He responded by asking if I had put down a deposit. I said no, and he said, then you can't sit in it. Not expecting this, I soon recovered by asking if he was being serious. He said he was and smirked. Trying not to be confrontational, I said he he had a lot to learn about selling and influencing the sales of airplanes and let him know that I would never make a blind commitment to buy without at least sitting in his plane and having a demo flight. I then just left feeling quite sour and 2nd class about the entire experience. But on an emotional level I love the airplane.

http://youtu.be/bsQcfzNWJWc

MEdwards

05-17-2013, 01:31 PM

your astute observation appears to confirm that flutter is indeed apparent.How would one recognize the difference between tail flutter (which I think is an unstable situation that tends to increase in magnitude until something breaks) and just vibration caused by the stall buffet? If they were sure it was the latter, seems like they should have replied to that effect immediately.

Bill Greenwood

05-17-2013, 02:44 PM

Floats, the CEO probably did you a favor by being impolite when you asked to sit in the demo. His rudeness saved you any chance of spending money with people like that. Better to keep it and/or use it with good folks who have proven airplanes. I don't know of any pie that doesn't taste better on the ground than in the air.

Years ago, the CAF had a P-47 on display at Midland that was whole, but really needed some tender care which equates to money.
I was and am a lifetime member of CAF since the 80's but I don't own or wear a uniform. I went up to the old guy, who looked about like the old white conservative southern not so good ole boys who make up much of the organization. I asked a little about the plane and then asked if I could sit in it. He told me no, and said something like the planes were too important or too fragile to let the public in them. It certainly was not in pristine condition, didn't have any new paint or fancy avionics that might be fragile. I could have gone to get some of the top guys like Lefty and gotten to sit in it. But instead I just walked away and any idea of my sponsoring it went with me. To be honest, I wasn't all that taken with a big plane like that, but I had the $5000, and maybe even $10,000. But that guy couldn't sell ice in the desert, and I know that for years it was short on sponsors. Linda Finch did sponsor it some and flew it a bit. I know that not all the CAF guys have such a selfish attitude as that one, and there have been efforts to broaden the base, with some limited success.

Another time there was a guy in Ft. Lauderdale that had one of the former Dominican Mustangs advertised for sale. I phoned him, set up a time to see the plane and went down to Florida and he never even bothered to show up. So once again, I and my checkbook left. I don't think I would have brought the plane outright, but I very well might have put down a substantial deposit with a partner. He called me the next week when he heard that I had come to the airport and said he didn't know that I was serious; not even really an apology.
I grew up in Texas where when you give your word it is supposed to mean something, and I learned a lesson that this doesn't apply to lots of other people in other places especially about money. There are a lot of people whose honesty is variable and in inverse proportion to how much money is involved.

Floatsflyer

05-17-2013, 05:43 PM

Bill Berson

05-17-2013, 05:50 PM

Would you care to comment on my post or direct me to where i should post about icon . Kayla95 page11 thanks
That wasn't flutter ( as i saw it in video) it was normal tail buffeting in a stall. Tail buffeting, caused by the T - tail entering the edge of the wing wake in slow, high angle of attack flight, is desirable in that it warns the pilot of the stall. Flutter is high frequency and would not be tolerated for certification.

Having said that, I think promoting an airplane as spin resistant at idle power is a complete joke.
What good is spin resistance at idle power?

Flyfalcons

05-18-2013, 09:45 AM

WWhunter

05-19-2013, 06:56 AM

Bill, you're being very polite by using the word "impolite" to describe Hawkins behavior. At the time(and still as I recall it) it felt more like you're nobody because you haven't bought one, so f**k you and don't come back until you're prepared to do so. Big ego meets arrogant, pompous prick. I think I'll go take a shower again.
Floatsflyer, Many years ago I had the same issue with the head of Cub Crafters. While at Oshkosh, I was asking about the new Carbon Cub (or Sport Cub) and was totally ingnored by the owner of the company. The way he treated me with total arrogance and disregard caused him to lose a sale. Yep, I bought something else the next day even though I felt what I really wanted was the CC. I wonder if these people with their pompous attitude realize how much money they are losing with their arrogant attitudes. I have the money to stillbuy a CC but I will not just due to the principle of that one short encounter.

Ok, back the the original topic.

kayla95

05-20-2013, 05:50 PM

Thanks for reply floats now i know why icon gave me the bird unless it involves money forget you.which is how a pyramid scam is built 1075 orders plus at $5000 with no deliverys they are probably driving around in the best cars with order money. But more serious my experience with composite materials such as carbon fibre,kevlar is that they dont like flexing movement as they crack and break now watch you tube again and even the camera mounted on the tail shakes crazy. The more i see the less i like and with no explanation from icon. Is the tail boom moving so many questions and without a $5000 deposit no answers

kayla95

05-20-2013, 06:02 PM

Thanks for interest but are you suggesting that manufacturers like Cessna piper beechcraft deliberately build movement in their tail assembly to warn of stall ? Not sure about that. I am more concerned that with flexing movement composite materials crack and break and with no response from icon when i asked about it. Just keep taking the money quick before they wakeup.

Bill Berson

05-20-2013, 06:30 PM

The tail shake is caused by air burbles. My Grob does the same thing. All airframes flex and move, but the smaller boom type aft fuselages are more flexible than a larger Cessna structure. And the combination of T- tail and small tailbooms will do this worse than a Cessna. ( Grob has a T- tail)

Also, I found the burble is much worse when I neglect to tape the wing/fuselage joint. Believe it or not, just a 1/16" gap will send these burbles to the tail and make it shake worse ( only at near stall) The Icon has wing fold, so it may have some wing gap in flight that creates these burbles at slow speed.

martymayes

05-20-2013, 06:43 PM

If you ever watch a KingAir 200 tail in a stall you'd never fly in one again. Same is true for a Tomahawk. I think tail buffeting is the least of I-Con's problems.

Bill

05-20-2013, 09:20 PM

If you ever watch a KingAir 200 tail in a stall you'd never fly in one again. Same is true for a Tomahawk. I think tail buffeting is the least of I-Con's problems.

After watching and feeling the Tomahawk's (Traumahawk) tail that I was flying shaking when I stalled it, I decided that I didn't really want to fly a Tomahawk any more. I don't recall how many hours I have in a Tomahawk, but its enough. Must be one of the reasons why I don't see any Tomahawks flying today. Probably the only good thing about them was the cockpit visibility that let you see the tail whipping around in a stall.

wantobe

05-21-2013, 01:59 AM

I think promoting an airplane as spin resistant at idle power is a complete joke.
What good is spin resistance at idle power?

Another issue with the spin resistant video is the rudder authority. The deflection of the rudder as shown in the video is very small. I would guess about 15 degrees. I asked them about crosswind landing speed with the small deflection in Oshkosh, but did not get an answer. I guess many airplanes would be spin resistant with the combination of idle power and small rudder deflection.

kayla95

05-21-2013, 11:58 PM

If you ever watch a KingAir 200 tail in a stall you'd never fly in one again. Same is true for a Tomahawk. I think tail buffeting is the least of I-Con's problems.
The only info on icon i have is from the net are you saying there are other problems? Like what are they?

kayla95

05-22-2013, 12:04 AM

The tail shake is caused by air burbles. My Grob does the same thing. All airframes flex and move, but the smaller boom type aft fuselages are more flexible than a larger Cessna structure. And the combination of T- tail and small tailbooms will do this worse than a Cessna. ( Grob has a T- tail)
Also, I found the burble is much worse when I neglect to tape the wing/fuselage joint. Believe it or not, just a 1/16" gap will send these burbles to the tail and make it shake worse ( only at near stall) The Icon has wing fold, so it may have some wing gap in flight that creates these burbles at slow speed.
Yes airframes flex but the structure is aluminium the a5 is composite and my experience is it cracks and breaks with flex.

Bill Berson

05-22-2013, 12:33 AM

Yes airframes flex but the structure is aluminium the a5 is composite and my experience is it cracks and breaks with flex.
Perhaps you could be more detailed about your experience with composite.

Anything will break at some stress level, but generally a composite airplane ( from glider to 787) will take quite a bit of visible deflection without breaking.
Might get some gel coat surface crazing, but that is not structural.

steveinindy

05-22-2013, 12:48 AM

You beat me to it Bill but I was about to ask Kayla95 if she has ever seen how floppy/flexible the wings on gliders are?

Bill Greenwood

05-22-2013, 10:04 AM

Three things almost too ugly to watch:

Congress making laws.
Sausage being made.
The wings of a high performance glider flexing both on takeoff and landing as g load comes on and goes off.

kmhd1

05-22-2013, 06:47 PM

There is a new post today (5/22) on the docket for the exemption request. In a letter dated 5/9/13, Icon Aircraft responds to the FAA / DOT request for additional information. An interesting read for sure and in it there is a request from Icon that a final decision by the FAA be made by no later than 5/31:

http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=FAA-2012-0514-0125

Floatsflyer

05-23-2013, 08:26 AM

kmhd1

05-23-2013, 07:39 PM

kmhd, thanks for continuing to post this info. While providing all the information requested by FAA in a quick and timely fashion, Icon has also certainly let the FAA know that they are quite displeased with the FAA's delays and lack of timeliness on decision making. I applaud Icon for being proactive and demonstrative in their request for a May 31 decision but I'm not inclined to believe that the FAA will comply.

You can really feel the tension in Icon's response to the FAA. While it was well written and professional it most definitely had an edge to it. And so it should - Icon is at their mercy and all the FAA has done is delay, delay, delay...

I don't discount the fact that the request is a big one and will set precedent but to take an entire year to basically say we can't decide and oh by the way we need more information is just absurd. And for a second, if we throw out all of the skeptics and conspiracy theorists, and agree that Icon is legitimately trying to be innovative, it really does put a significant burden on a company and really makes you wonder why anyone would attempt to bring new and disruptive technology and designs when you can basically expect to be ignored when you want to change the status quo.

And I agree - no way the FAA will submit to any deadline given by Icon.

At this point I will be very shocked if Icon receives a positive outcome on this. Do you still feel optimistic that they will get the exemption?

The other interesting thing is that the FAA has had this latest response from Icon for 2 weeks now and given the upcoming holiday weekend its at least June before we probably hear any news... Who knows maybe they will surprise us! ;)

kmhd1

05-23-2013, 08:25 PM

Flying magazine posted an article today and while its final sentence is now already outdated the rest of the piece I thought had an interesting take on the debate of whether the FAA should grant the request. One I don't recall seeing anywhere else. Thoughts?

http://www.flyingmag.com/blogs/fly-wire/should-faa-grant-icons-weight-increase

Floatsflyer

05-24-2013, 12:30 PM

tonycondon

05-24-2013, 12:56 PM

really, i've always found the flex of an open class glider to be downright beautiful. The vide of the Eta doing a low pass on Youtube is breathtaking and when I was at Uvalde for the World Championships, nothing beat watching Concordia fly by with the wingtips waaaay higher than the top of the T Tail.

Bill Berson

05-24-2013, 01:58 PM

I had not seen the Flying article. IMO, it is the most succinct, clear, thoughtful, to the point, factual summation of the entire issue devoid of rhetoric, bias and speculation. I have always shared it's conclusion for granting the exemption based on meeting the criteria/requirements for any newly enhanced safety factors. It is not precedent setting in any way because the built-in FAA mechanism to trigger excemption status has always been in place for anyone else to use. So yes, I still feel optimistic they'll be approved. But as the newlywed anxious groom said to his shy, inhibited, virgin bride, "But when?"
All SLSA are required to meet spin criteria as stated in the ASTM standards. The ASTM standards allows the applicant the choice of proving the airplane can recover from a 1 turn spin or they can choose to design for spin resistance in which case no need to prove that the aircraft can recover from a spin at all.
Why should they get an extra 250 pounds for compliance with the ASTM spin standards?

This additional weight request based on safety is absurd. Every standard is based on safety.
Should they get another 100 pounds if ADS-B is installed for safety? Or another 100 pounds for " good visibility".
Where do you draw the line?

Floatsflyer

05-24-2013, 02:27 PM

All SLSA are required to meet spin criteria as stated in the ASTM standards. The ASTM standards allows the applicant the choice of proving the airplane can recover from a 1 turn spin or they can choose to design for spin resistance in which case no need to prove that the aircraft can recover from a spin at all.
Why should they get an extra 250 pounds for compliance with the ASTM spin standards?

This additional weight request based on safety is absurd. Every standard is based on safety.
Should they get another 100 pounds if ADS-B is installed for safety? Or another 100 pounds for " good visibility".
Where do you draw the line?

If you had taken a few minutes to read the article or some of the former comments on this thread, then you would not have wasted your time making an uninformed irrelevant comment. It's about being compliant with PART 23 standards, not ASTM.

Bill Berson

05-24-2013, 03:28 PM

If you had taken a few minutes to read the article or some of the former comments on this thread, then you would not have wasted your time making an uninformed irrelevant comment. It's about being compliant with PART 23 standards, not ASTM.
I am fully aware that they claim to be using Part 23 as a guideline ( makes sense, since ASTM doesn't have any guidelines for demonstrating spin resistance at this time, as far as I know. So I would expect any company that's chooses spin resistance would use FAR23.221

But FAR 23.221 requires the spin resistance demonstration at no less that 50% power. Has this been demonstrated to the FAA? ( In the Icon spin resistance video, the pilot said: " power at idle")

In any case, how can spin resistance require 250 pounds?

martymayes

05-24-2013, 05:17 PM

You can really feel the tension in Icon's response to the FAA. While it was well written and professional it most definitely had an edge to it. And so it should - Icon is at their mercy and all the FAA has done is delay, delay, delay...

Well, I think some of the delay is due to Icon, Icon, Icon. The company gets an "D-" in strategic planning.

Floatsflyer

05-24-2013, 09:13 PM

But FAR 23.221 requires the spin resistance demonstration at no less that 50% power. Has this been demonstrated to the FAA?

If you go back to post#134, there's an attachment containing Icon's responses to the FAA list of questions. kmhd1 took the time and effort to search and post it for all those interested enough to read it. It should answer your question if you care to open and seek out the appropriate sections and appendixs.

Bill Berson

05-25-2013, 12:31 AM

If you go back to post#134, there's an attachment containing Icon's responses to the FAA list of questions. kmhd1 took the time and effort to search and post it for all those interested enough to read it. It should answer your question if you care to open and seek out the appropriate sections and appendixs.

That attachment would not open for me yesterday, but it did open today.
Reading it today, I found where Icon said the tested power level was at 75%. So yes, it would comply with the Spin resistant criteria of FAR23 (as I read it).
But that doesn't prove spin resistance at 100% power. No doubt some pilots will stall at full power, and it may or may not be recoverable. And since no production airplane has ever met this criteria ( according to Icon statement), there is no data to show that meeting the current FAR 23 "spin resistance" criteria will result in fewer spin accidents.

Moving on to my remaining unanswered question: is there a document somewhere on this forum that explains why a 250 pound exemption is needed to create spin resistance?

In the past, during creation of the LSA rules, the FAA has repeatedly said that they will NOT regulate by exemption. Therefor I think, if a safety issue is shown to be in need of some relief with a weight increase, Icon should petition for a LSA rule change that would apply to all, not just them.
That would allow for public comment about these complex issues.

wantobe

05-25-2013, 01:39 AM

Most of the dicussion have been on the spin resistance itself. Let me shelf this question for now and move on: Icon never explained or gave a calculation to show that 250 lb was the weight increase required to obtain the benefit of spin resistance. Proof this: it will take 250 lb, not 2.5 lb, or 25 lb, or 2500 lb for an LSA to be spin resistant. Strangely FAA did not ask this quantitative question either. The modification for spin resistance is mainly in the wing. I would estimate the full weight of a conventional wing to be 130 lb for an LSA (someone on this forum should be able to provide an exact example). The modification for spin resistance propably adds another 40 lb given the structural efficiency of composite wing. To ask for 250 lb is totally out of proportion.

Flyfalcons

05-25-2013, 08:42 AM

I'm also scratching my head on how they needed 250 pounds of additional structure to make the plane spin resistant.

kmhd1

05-26-2013, 05:33 PM

I'm also scratching my head on how they needed 250 pounds of additional structure to make the plane spin resistant.

250 pounds does seem like a lot. Although, none of us are building this particular plane so its all speculation - even if an informed one given that some of the folks on here are building or have built their own plane - which I would love to do some day...

I noticed your signature says you are building an RV-7 - sounds like a fun project! I wonder what other modifications you would have to make if suddenly your wings were 40 pounds heavier? If memory serves, in Icon's original documentation for the weight exemption request they discuss the domino effect of structural changes that are needed to support the spin resistant airframe and it included more than just the wings being heavier.

kmhd1

05-26-2013, 06:01 PM

Well, I think some of the delay is due to Icon, Icon, Icon. The company gets an "D-" in strategic planning.

I don't disagree with you. Icon certainly made things far more challenging for themselves in that regard. In fact, I recall seeing an interview they did with Kirk Hawkins a while back where he talked about the decision to delay the production launch to incorporate the spin resistant design. At the time he figured it was going to extend things out 8 months just to nail down the design changes. However, I don't think he ever thought the FAA would take more than a year (and counting) to make a decision on the subsequent weight exemption request initiated by the spin resistant airframe changes they incorporated into their POC.

wantobe

05-27-2013, 03:04 AM

Following is the paragraph in Icon's original petition explaining the weight increase:

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.

In my understanding, basically they are saying they need a bigger wing because the maximun lift cofficient is limited to prevent outer wing stall, and to keep the tail volumes constant for stability, now they need a bigger horizontal and a bigger vertical tail. The arguement on a bigger engine is not true since they use the Rotax 912s regardless of this spin-resistance feature.

There is no quantitative analysis in the petition. They intentionally avoided this discussion. The number, 250, came from nowhere. In fact, most of this increased weight are likely for the stuff like automatic wing folding and gear retraction.

Flyfalcons

05-27-2013, 10:46 AM

The "additional fuel to compensate" bit is misleading as well. There's only additional fuel needed if you are (a) actually using a bigger engine than planned (the above mentioned use of the standard 912S covers that), and if you're trying to meet a specific range target using that bigger engine (of which the LSA standards do not specify a minimum range requirement for certification). So if Icon is fudging the facts about that, what else are they trying to BS the FAA with?

Flyfalcons

05-27-2013, 01:30 PM

250 pounds does seem like a lot. Although, none of us are building this particular plane so its all speculation - even if an informed one given that some of the folks on here are building or have built their own plane - which I would love to do some day...

I noticed your signature says you are building an RV-7 - sounds like a fun project! I wonder what other modifications you would have to make if suddenly your wings were 40 pounds heavier? If memory serves, in Icon's original documentation for the weight exemption request they discuss the domino effect of structural changes that are needed to support the spin resistant airframe and it included more than just the wings being heavier.

That is coincidentally the rough weight gain in metalizing the wings of a Cessna 140 and I don't think there's a gross weight increase included with that.

martymayes

05-27-2013, 01:45 PM

However, I don't think he ever thought the FAA would take more than a year (and counting) to make a decision on the subsequent weight exemption request initiated by the spin resistant airframe changes they incorporated into their POC.

Why not? Has he never worked with the FAA before?

ICON could have easily brought a product to market then worked on the "B" model and "C" model later. Hanging the future of the company on FAA approval of weight exemption was a dumb move.

Neoflyer

05-29-2013, 10:52 AM

After reading all these responses there is a couple of comments by a few posters that really iratated me...those guys that said flying on floats without flaps is crazy! Are you guys serious? How many Champs, Chiefs, Cubs, PA-12's, etc. are out there and are mounted on floats? They have been flying perfectly fine for 60-70 years off the lakes and rivers of the world without the need of flaps!!! Learn to fly the plane...granted flaps are another tool to help TO and landings but they are far from neccessary.
Ok, back to the original topic. Rant over.

Flaps are very useful in seaplane flying and I was one of those who thought Icon was making a mistake when they announced they were not going to use them on the A5. Rotating a seaplane on takeoff is more difficult than a landplane because increasing the pitch greatly increases the water drag on the float/hull. Flaps increase the angle of attack in the level attitude of a water takeoff.

Now for other thoughts. What will happen to the performance of the A5 when the weight is increased over 17% with the same engine. I don't know how perky the plane was at 1430 lbs. but a 250 pound increase has got to hurt. I like the idea Cub Crafters had with the Carbon Cub. Get an engine with a lot of power for takeoff and climb but limit that power in time. Have a continuous power setting more in line with LSA needs. Wonder of any of the other LSA engine manufacturers are working on engines to do this?

Further, the promised price is nearly the same as other upscale LSA's such as the CTLS. The few flying boats there have been have typically cost upwards of 50% more than a similar land plane. I expect the actual price of the A5, if it ever is delivered, to be much more than predicted.

Floatsflyer

05-29-2013, 12:26 PM

Flaps are very useful in seaplane flying....... I expect the actual price of the A5, if it ever is delivered, to be much more than predicted.

Yup, flaps increase lift for take off and provide for the quicker release of suction so to get up on the step quicker(aileron input can help as well).

Yup on the price. The current $139K is for a base model plus the CPI(consumer price index) since 2008. That CPI proviso plus additional development costs I suspect will net out to somewhere between $165-175K base for current deposit holders.

RVC

05-29-2013, 03:11 PM

In the past, during creation of the LSA rules, the FAA has repeatedly said that they will NOT regulate by exemption.........
That would allow for public comment about these complex issues.

I agree with Bill. Understandably, everyone thinks that the A5 is a really exciting airplane and wants it to succeed. But emotion, politics, and money should not influence the certification process. Take a look at the Icon Directors. The Venture Capitalists that are funding this project will eventually take the company public. The VCs got involved to make money and if greasing the political skids is less expensive than a redesign then that is the path they will take. The Board has a number of politically connected heavy hitters capable of applying ample grease to the FAA skids. The FAA has indicated that they will NOT regulate by exemption. They should do just that. The FAA should follow it's long established rules and procedures and deny this weight waiver. As Bill indicated, if Icon feels that the LSA weight requirements need alteration then the correct procedure is to petition for a rule change. In that way a period of public comment would be required. The aviation community is full of smart, cautious, careful thinking, objective, responsible people whom I would guess would opt for an objective rules based certification process instead of a politically influenced process. The FAA should send the VCs back to the drawing board to put the A5 on a diet.

Floatsflyer

05-30-2013, 07:58 PM

I agree with Bill. Understandably, everyone thinks that the A5 is a really exciting airplane and wants it to succeed. But emotion, politics, and money should not influence the certification process. Take a look at the Icon Directors. The Venture Capitalists that are funding this project will eventually take the company public. The VCs got involved to make money and if greasing the political skids is less expensive than a redesign then that is the path they will take. The Board has a number of politically connected heavy hitters capable of applying ample grease to the FAA skids. The FAA has indicated that they will NOT regulate by exemption. They should do just that. The FAA should follow it's long established rules and procedures and deny this weight waiver. As Bill indicated, if Icon feels that the LSA weight requirements need alteration then the correct procedure is to petition for a rule change. In that way a period of public comment would be required. The aviation community is full of smart, cautious, careful thinking, objective, responsible people whom I would guess would opt for an objective rules based certification process instead of a politically influenced process. The FAA should send the VCs back to the drawing board to put the A5 on a diet.

RVC, you're a newbe to this forum and this thread so I'll cut you some slack. You can't substitute histrionics and rehetoric for a lack of knowledge and factual content, most of which(factual content that is) is already contained in the thread. Better not to say anything at all, especially when unsubstantiated accusations can lead to libel:

1. This may come as a shock, but emotion, politics and money influence everything.

2. GA needs VC's to grow the sector and keep it well capitalized. The VC's rarely give GA a glancing look and too many companies go down because they are not well funded to meet their goals and aspirations. VC's should be embraced, not vilified for what you perceive as involved in influence peddling.

3. It's really quite ironic that you think the VC's are greasing the skids and politically influencing the process. What evidence do you have to support these accusations? Do you just believe it to be so or do you just make this stuff up. It seems to me that they have no clout at all because the FAA took over a year just to reply to the request. With that kind of "greasing" and "influence" someone just wasted a lot of time and effort.

4. The FAA is playing by the rules. There's a built-in mechanism in the LSA rules to trigger exemption requests based on meeting criteria/requirements for newly enhanced safety features and innovations. That has always been in place for any LSA manufacturer to exploit. So therefore no petition for rule change is required. And as far as public comment is concerned, did you provide one when Icon submitted the request? Why not? Public comments were called for over a year ago and the FAA even extended the original comment period by over a month.

Neoflyer

06-03-2013, 02:28 PM

Yup, flaps increase lift for take off and provide for the quicker release of suction so to get up on the step quicker(aileron input can help as well).

It's more than just flaps aiding getting on the step. Seaplanes have a reduced ability to rotate on takeoff. Flaps decrease the needed rotation to get airborne at a given speed.

kmhd1

06-04-2013, 12:28 PM

A new document was posted to the exemption docket for the Icon A5 today (6/4/13): http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=FAA-2012-0514-0128

Anyone have a clue as to the purpose of this document - (other than some kind of house cleaning for full disclosure of all pertinent documents regarding this request)?

It appears to be a copy of a letter from the House Speaker from Ohio - John Boehner - dated July 25th 2012. In the letter he requests information on the A5 exemption request. This request was prompted by a letter from John Brown of Independant Aircraft who requested a congressional inquiry on the matter dated July 23rd 2012. There is also a copy of a Privacy Act release form.

Seems like old information. I wonder what the revelance is and why it is just now being made public?

Floatsflyer

06-04-2013, 01:10 PM

kmhd1

06-04-2013, 01:32 PM

This is very old news but interesting. Indepenant Aircraft has an LSA amphib in some sort of development and therefore could be considered an Icon competitor and therefore would try to negatively influence the FAA's decision. The letter's contents sound dire and apocolyptic--kind of humourous actually in a dark sort of way. This obviously went nowhere-"congressional inquiry", now that's laughable. Independent Aircraft, however, was successful in having the FAA comment period extended last year by about a month. A quick look at their site today shows the last entry in "news" as Nov. 2011 so they don't sound too active.

Yeah, the letter from Mr. Brown certainly attempts to ramp up the FUD factor for sure!

My theory is that we are finally reaching the end of this saga and they are just dotting the I's and crossing the T's at this point in preparation for posting the final ruling on the request...

Floatsflyer

06-04-2013, 01:39 PM

My theory is that we are finally reaching the end of this saga and they are just dotting the I's and crossing the T's at this point in preparation for posting the final ruling on the request...

The FAA's "timely" reply on this file;) means your theory is as good as anyones.

Popeye

06-04-2013, 03:34 PM

Independent Aircraft, however, was successful in having the FAA comment period extended last year by about a month. A quick look at their site today shows the last entry in "news" as Nov. 2011 so they don't sound too active.

Floats, I just went to Independent Aircrafts web site, cool plane looks a bit rough though and on the first page it says that it was updated on May 13th 2013. I wounder if they will request an exemption for folding wings....I mean spin resistance:rollseyes:

Popeye

06-04-2013, 06:21 PM

This obviously went nowhere-"congressional inquiry", now that's laughable.

If you look in the docket you will see that Icon had a Congressional Inquiry from the aviation subcommittee chair before Independent Aircraft had the Speaker send one over to the FAA. I think it was a pissing match because in all actuality the FAA, or any Department for that matter, cannot give any consideration to an inquiry from a member of congress that influences their decision. Its highly illegal, and commonly called corruption.

Now, a Congressional Hearing would be laughable!

Below was pasted from the GOVs website to explain the difference if any one is interested.

Congressional Inquiries

Public Law entitles constituents to correspond with their elected officials. Interested parties may ask their elected officials to help them with a matter involving them and/or the Department of the Defense (DoD).

Members of Congress hold their office by the vote of their citizen constituents. As a Member of Congress, they will assist you by making a Congressional Inquiry or "A Congressional" on your behalf as to the status of your case with a federal agency or department. Call – Find out who your Congressman is. This information is avaiable on USA.gov (http://www.usa.gov/Contact/Elected.shtml).

The Department takes an active interest in their constituents’ problems and will insist each inquiry be given sympathetic consideration, equitable treatment, and timely response. For DoD Congressional Inguiries, the Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Legislative Affairs is responsible for coordinating requests for information from Congress. The homepage can be found at http://la.defense.gov/, and includes a general description of how the office functions and administers legislative affairs for the Department with Congress and the White House. The office is continuing to improve the Web site within the bounds of the Department’s security regulations.

Floatsflyer

06-04-2013, 08:43 PM

Popeye, thanks for pointing out the difference.

Floatsflyer

06-04-2013, 08:57 PM

I wounder if they will request an exemption for folding wings:rollseyes:

Aahhhh, but those power in-cockpit folding wings are a god-send to airboat drivers....greatest invention since the aileron!

Popeye

06-04-2013, 09:47 PM

Floatsflyer

06-05-2013, 07:59 AM

Now thats something I would love to see! Does anyone know where I can see a video of the A-5 with the wings folded under power on the water. Come to think of it, I don't think I have seen a picture with the wings folded just sitting in the water... can anybody point me in the right direction?

I don't think that exists, at least I've never seen a video or in person at the demo at the Osh seaplane base. Perhaps the protoypes are not set up for it or I'm sure they would have demonstrated on the water by now. I'm assuming you've seen the mockup land demos of the wingfold. If not, go their website, click multimedia and then click The Today Show for real world(not animation) demo.

kayla95

06-05-2013, 06:19 PM

Bill here is my late reply have had no spare time lately. my expierience with C/fibre is from the racing industry both cars and motorcycles where the criteria for components was lightness and strength with 0% flex. when flex did occur the various components cracked .obviously a different application to the aircraft industry however for me the A5 tail boom seems to short to have as much flex as it does in the stall test video. is it the boom moving or the tailplane or both ? i would also like to know how the tailplane is mated to the top of the rudder as they are seperate components when made.
Perhaps you could be more detailed about your experience with composite.

Anything will break at some stress level, but generally a composite airplane ( from glider to 787) will take quite a bit of visible deflection without breaking.
Might get some gel coat surface crazing, but that is not structural.

Bill Berson

06-05-2013, 07:36 PM

Kayla,
0% flex in race cars or airplanes is impossible, all structures flex, some more than others. It depends on the size of the tailboom, the materials Young's modulus of elasticity, and in this case the t-tail increases the moment. As I said before, this is normal. I was told that the new 787 carbon fiber wing tips flex so high in normal flight that it blocks the passenger view.

The mount structure at the top of the fin is likely similar (I have not looked) to any modern composite glider or motor glider. The only way to reduce boom flex is to add more material ( weight ). And they don't need more airframe weight. Carbon fiber is not quite as light (or stiff) as some claim, it seems. (Since at least one competing company with a standard steel tube trussed Cub amphib has met the SLSA weight limit)

zaitcev

06-07-2013, 12:24 PM

Now for other thoughts. What will happen to the performance of the A5 when the weight is increased over 17% with the same engine.
They have repeatedly stated that they'll continue to use Rotax 912, now in the iS guise. Unfortunately with 250 extra pounds they are even heavier than Cessna 150.

Further, the promised price is nearly the same as other upscale LSA's such as the CTLS. The few flying boats there have been have typically cost upwards of 50% more than a similar land plane. I expect the actual price of the A5, if it ever is delivered, to be much more than predicted.
Price is my concern also. What's more, if you spring a price increase upon position holders, many are going to drop, especially when they were made jittery by schedule slips. We saw it with Eclipse, and we saw it with Cessna 162. In case of Skycatcher, a 44% price increase caused a complete sales collapse, from which it hasn't recovered yet.

Flyfalcons

06-07-2013, 12:42 PM

They have repeatedly stated that they'll continue to use Rotax 912, now in the iS guise. Unfortunately with 250 extra pounds they are even heavier than Cessna 150.

That kind of a power-weight ratio on a seaplane with a speed-optimized airfoil and no flaps......

zaitcev

06-07-2013, 01:40 PM

That kind of a power-weight ratio on a seaplane with a speed-optimized airfoil and no flaps......
They came back to flaps on the cuffed wing, at least that was the word.

kayla95

06-10-2013, 02:22 AM

hey popeye if the wings were folded on water with the weight transfer to the rear by the wings maybe the tail would sink possibly why there is no vids or photos ???
Now thats something I would love to see! Does anyone know where I can see a video of the A-5 with the wings folded under power on the water. Come to think of it, I don't think I have seen a picture with the wings folded just sitting in the water... can anybody point me in the right direction?

kmhd1

06-11-2013, 07:06 PM

An interesting comment was posted today on the Icon A5 docket. It is apparently a copy of an email (though Wes Ryan is the person listed as the one who submitted the comment). The email was supposedly sent to Mr. Lawrence on 6/7/13 by Christopher “Doc” Bailey of Renegade Light Sport LLC. Mr. Bailey states he is an ASTM F37, F39, and F44 committee member.

While the letter is very slanted to the negative and has a number of grammatical errors in addition to discussing the "stall" resistance rather than the "spin" resistance; he does raise an interesting point regarding stall numbers. If the A5 is 250 pounds heavier, how will it meet the LSA standard for maximum stall speed?

In addition, the end of the letter leaves what could be an interesting clue as to what might be currently going on behind the scenes when he says, "So I stand behind your decision to get more data and to put it onto the ASTM committee to take a vote whether or not to allow just ICON to have the weight increase and take it off the back of the FAA light Plane directorate."

So, perhaps after more than a year of delay and dodging the request, is it now possible the answer will simply be pushed to someone else to deal with?

Full details can be found here: http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=FAA-2012-0514-0130

Flyfalcons

06-12-2013, 10:48 AM

FloridaJohn

06-12-2013, 11:04 AM

While the letter is very slanted to the negative and has a number of grammatical errors in addition to discussing the "stall" resistance rather than the "spin" resistance; he does raise an interesting point regarding stall numbers.
Wow, that guy couldn't find anyone to proof read that before he sent it in?!

kmhd1

06-12-2013, 12:06 PM

He makes good points. If the Cessna 120/140, which fits the spirit of Sport Pilot very well and has been proven to be a safe airplane for many years, can't be given an excemption because it's a few pounds heavier than LSA standards, then why should anyone be allowed to deviate from the compliance standards?

Yeah, he makes an interesting point on the stall speed, but I disagree with the Cessna 120/140 example. The Icon weight exemption request is about allowing a safety enhancing feature (spin resistance) on an LSA which is clearly a provision that the FAA has said they will consider within the category.

kmhd1

06-12-2013, 12:08 PM

Wow, that guy couldn't find anyone to proof read that before he sent it in?!

I know, right!? For a guy who seems to have some clout, etc.... He really did himself a disservice with such a poorly written letter.

Flyfalcons

06-12-2013, 12:15 PM

Yeah, he makes an interesting point on the stall speed, but I disagree with the Cessna 120/140 example. The Icon weight exemption request is about allowing a safety enhancing feature (spin resistance) on an LSA which is clearly a provision that the FAA has said they will consider within the category.

So full FAA certification isn't some testament to the safety of a design?

kmhd1

06-12-2013, 12:28 PM

So full FAA certification isn't some testament to the safety of a design?

I'm sure it is, but in the context of the LSA category and specifically regarding weight exemption requests, as things are written now it's not a consideration they will even look at.

kmhd1

06-20-2013, 06:00 PM

Well, while we continue to wait, and wait, and wait, and wait for the FAA to answer.....

Icon Aircraft posted an announcement on their site today regarding a new round of investment (worth $60M) that the company has just completed. In the press release, they also make a brief mention of the continued production delays and add a little hint of future products through their R&D efforts.

Here's hoping the FAA wraps this up by Airventure!!

Full Text of the press release:

ICON Aircraft Raises $60 Million of Investment Capital for Full-Scale Production
LOS ANGELES (20 June 2013)—ICON Aircraft announced that it raised its fourth and final round of equity
funding in May. The round, which totals over $60 million, included investors from North America,
Europe, and Asia. The company will use the funds to complete production preparations, demonstrate
regulatory compliance, ramp up full-scale aircraft production, and perform R&D to expand its model
line.

“We are thrilled to have the support of such a distinguished and passionate group of investors,” said Kirk
Hawkins, CEO and Founder of ICON Aircraft. “For the first time in ICON’s history, the company’s future is
no longer reliant on the whims of the capital markets, which have been highly unstable over the last five
years. This D round includes an outstanding group of investors who are very committed to ICON’s
mission to democratize flying. The round was led by a top-notch privately held strategic investor from
China. The entire round represents a minority, non-controlling interest in ICON which ensures ICON’s
original mission and strategy remains completely intact; the A5 will be U.S.-built, and the company will
continue to be a U.S.-based, -led, and -managed organization.”

ICON is backed by a strong syndicate of North American, European, and now Asian investors. The
participation of ICON’s Asian investor serves an important strategic goal of positioning ICON to capitalize
on Asia’s rapidly growing General Aviation industry. This investor is a multibillion-dollar conglomerate
and is well established in the Chinese General Aviation industry, which makes the collaboration
especially valuable to ICON.

In a letter to A5 deposit holders, Hawkins acknowledged the production delays of the A5 and thanked
owners for their continued patience and enthusiasm. He also pointed out that the extra development
time permitted significant improvements to the A5 amphibious Light Sport Aircraft, including the
inclusion of a Spin-Resistant Airframe (SRA). The company’s order list has continued to grow during this
period, with nearly 1,000 aircraft deposits.

“Creating a great aircraft and a great company from scratch is an extraordinarily difficult task,” added
Hawkins. “Furthermore, financing such an endeavor is an order of magnitude harder than just creating
it—and fundraising is particularly difficult for aviation startups. This has been a longer and more
challenging journey than even we had anticipated; that said, ICON is now in a great place. For everyone
who has kept the faith, remained a great wingman, and waited patiently for the A5, you’re going to get
the most amazing sport aircraft ever created.”

For more information, visit www.iconaircraft.com (http://www.iconaircraft.com).

Floatsflyer

06-20-2013, 06:47 PM

[QUOTE=kmhd1;31883]ICON Aircraft Raises $60 Million of Investment Capital for Full-Scale Production
QUOTE]

Raising this amount of financing in a single round from private equity is no small task for any type of industry. To raise it for GA and a start-up to boot is simply extraordinary, especially in today's tight economy. It shows a lot of confidence in the company, it's people and the product, not to mention 1000 pre-orders.

Now, the $64M dollar question is, is the FAA going to play Cinderella or Spoiler? Even if they deny the request, I'm sure that a portion of this round is allocated to strategic contingencies(e.g. Primary Category + SLSA).

C'mon FAA...inquiring minds want to know! Maybe they'll charge Icon a user fee to get the decision.
.

martymayes

06-20-2013, 07:10 PM

Icon must have hired the Rev. Jim Jones......I can't think of anyone else who can convince that many people to drink the kool-aid.

Floatsflyer

06-20-2013, 07:22 PM

Icon must have hired the Rev. Jim Jones......I can't think of anyone else who can convince that many people to drink the kool-aid.

He committed suicide 30 years ago(along with hundreds of innocent desciples).

Hal Bryan

06-20-2013, 07:40 PM

That's a popular expression, though most people don't know the horrific origin. For those of us do... Marty, I think you can come up with a less offensive analogy next time.

Bill Berson

06-20-2013, 08:05 PM

I don't understand how any group could "invest" $60 million and yet not get a controlling interest.
Could these announcements be fiction?

$60 million divided by 1000 orders is $60,000 each.

Floatsflyer

06-20-2013, 09:02 PM

I don't understand how any group could "invest" $60 million and yet not get a controlling interest.

Because the interest held by the majority shareholders in the capitalized value of the company is greater in proportional percentage to the $60M held by the minority shareholders. Simple!

Eaglerhythm

06-20-2013, 11:03 PM

Because ICONˊs DNA is very special, the Chinese investor made a good decision to keep ICON as an American company, will release negative concern on this deal.

Eaglerhythm

06-22-2013, 10:34 AM

I have a good feeling about FAAˊs response. Let the market make the judgement on A5.Good will be good anyway, if itˊs bad, a waive on weight wonˊt save it, fair game.

Floatsflyer

06-22-2013, 12:07 PM

I have a good feeling about FAAˊs response. Let the market make the judgement on A5.

If I've said it once here, I've said it 50 times, I've been a huge supporter of this airplane(& not the CEO) since it had a glitzy Hollywood rollout in 2008. IMO, it will be as much of a Differencemaker to LSA and GA in general as Cirrus was in the 90's. You can take that to the bank;)

RVC

06-22-2013, 04:49 PM

it will be as much of a Differencemaker to LSA and GA in general as Cirrus was in the 90's. You can take that to the bank;) Absolutely true, for 50 years now the aviation industry boardrooms have internally believed that they bear the financial liability for safety issues and as a result they should have the right to specify the levels of safety and the allocation of assets towards the same. And for many years the "people's FAA" hasn't quite agreed. Having been there I can assure you it is with good reason that the "people's FAA" doesn't trust the boardroom. This is the very reason for the composition of the ICON Board. The outcome of this battle will indeed have long range effects on GA safety. As I indicated previously the FAA needs to send the VC's back to the drawing board to follow the rules instead of trying to waive them.

wantobe

06-25-2013, 04:01 AM

While A5 is a beautiful airplane, the investors (as a whole) are unlikely to get the money back. The current round of 64M (millions) is round D. Two years ago Icon raised 25M, that should be round C. I do not have the number of the first two rounds, let us assume a modest $20M (anyone has the number?). All together this is something like $110M! Assume Icon makes 20,000 dollars profit out of each A5, that would take 5,500 airplanes to get the $110M back! When can Icon sell 5,500 LSA? The bad news is that LSA is waning. The market is simply not that big regardless how sexy the airplane is.

An interesting observation is that this time it is the Chinese that put all the money into GA, from Cirrus to Continental (engine), from Lisa (another LSA amphibian) to Icon. These novice will learn quickly that there is no much profit, if any, in GA. What they are paying is expensive tuition for this simple and public lesson.

For Icon, they will learn burning cash at this rate is not good for survival in GA.

Eaglerhythm

06-25-2013, 09:20 AM

I think they can make more than 20,000 USD per ICON. Consider the potential Chinese market, remember a BMW in China costs twice as much as the price in the US, ICONˊs price is just like a BMW 7 in China. Cirrus(500,000 per plane)can sell 300 per year, ICON should be double than that. Donˊt know how much they can make in the future, to get money back still sounds possible.

Frank Giger

06-25-2013, 10:24 PM

The problem with the domestic Chinese market is that it is at its heart part of a Communist run government.

General aviation is very closely controlled and limited in China, and I don't see them changing the rules on that any time soon.

Freedom of movement - especially the kind of freedom general aviation provides - is not something the Chicoms are really interested in fostering.

rwanttaja

06-25-2013, 11:34 PM

The problem with the domestic Chinese market is that it is at its heart part of a Communist run government.

General aviation is very closely controlled and limited in China, and I don't see them changing the rules on that any time soon.
I don't see them needing a Special Light Sport Aircraft, either. Dunno what the certification rules are in China, but I bet they don't care if it weighs 250 more than the US Light Sport limit. You'd think they're a bit confused over the delay...if I were a Chinese investor intending to sell plane in China, I'd be clamoring for delivery NOW.

Ron Wanttaja

Eaglerhythm

06-26-2013, 12:57 AM

Frank Giger

06-26-2013, 09:36 AM

Well, Chinese government actually is the largest capitalist in the whole world. Anything can help them get more tax and GDP, has always been the top priority. Think about how tightly US controls the air permit, compared with how bad the air over China now.
Anyway, ICONˊs maket will be in the western world first for sure.

Capitalist in running factories to sell stuff for export, mostly. One of the reasons there's very little restrictions on factory pollution by the government is that the factory is largely owned by the government...or overseen by a Communist official on the take.

In personal freedoms, Communist China is very much still Communist China. Freedom of assembly, expression, press, movement and religion don't really exist.

Their airspace is tightly controlled, and it is very unlikely that they'll suddenly embrace the Average Lee getting a civilian personal pilot license, his own plane and travel itinerary....particularly with an amphibious aircraft which could land anywhere along the coast, on rivers and lakes undetected.

Floatsflyer

07-10-2013, 12:04 PM

July 10, 2013 Status Report:

FAA disposition--still pending

Icon disposition--madder than a cat on a hot tin roof

Flyfalcons

07-10-2013, 01:40 PM

If they are so mad, then why did they go forward with their design on the assumption that they would be granted an exemption?

Floatsflyer

07-10-2013, 07:29 PM

If they are so mad, then why did they go forward with their design on the assumption that they would be granted an exemption?

Best guess is: real entrepreneurs take real risks; big risk, big reward type A personality; nothing ventured, nothing gained; nothing happens until you take that first giant step forward; being outfront of the curve takes big cahoonas; etc, etc, etc.

kmhd1

07-11-2013, 12:18 PM

July 10, 2013 Status Report:

FAA disposition--still pending

Icon disposition--madder than a cat on a hot tin roof

I know I shouldn't be, but I am just amazed at how long this is being dragged out. The rules allow for weight exemptions for safety enhancements. If Icon has in fact met the Part 23 standards for spin resistance, then clearly this is a safety enhancement and should be allowed the exemption so that it may be incorporated into the aircraft and maintain its LSA status. Maybe that's an oversimplification but should it really be this hard? The loudest opponents are Icon's competitors. I say, let them spend the engineering hours and funds and come up with their own spin resistant airframes if they want things to be "fair"!

On another note, did you notice AOPA's interpretation of the posted congressional inquiry document on the A5 docket (posted 6/4 and the most recent official document on the docket)? Here is the link: http://www.aopa.org/News-and-Video/All-News/2013/June/5/House-inquiry-made-into-Icon-weight-exemption.aspx. If that is true, I wonder how many years ;) this will add to the process of obtaining a final ruling on the matter?

RVC

07-12-2013, 02:08 AM

I say, let them spend the engineering hours

I say, there is 250 pounds in the folding wings and wing box. Let them spend the engineering hours and funds to redesign and meet the LSA weight requirements.

FloridaJohn

07-12-2013, 06:36 AM

I know I shouldn't be, but I am just amazed at how long this is being dragged out. The rules allow for weight exemptions for safety enhancements. If Icon has in fact met the Part 23 standards for spin resistance, then clearly this is a safety enhancement and should be allowed the exemption so that it may be incorporated into the aircraft and maintain its LSA status. Maybe that's an oversimplification but should it really be this hard?
I think the complication is coming from the fact that the "spin resistant" design is basically a change to the design of the wing. The FAA has to look at two components to this request:

1. Does the redesigned wing actually do what Icon says it does (spin resistance)?
Obviously, if it doesn't actually prevent spins, then there really isn't any point to granting the request. The FAA is looking at this by studying the results of the tests that Icon performed.

2. Does this redesigned wing actually require and additional 250 pounds more than the previous wing design? What is different that accounts for the additional weight?
I think this is the real sticking point for the FAA on this exemption. Was that weight just an arbitrary number by Icon so that they can add all of their cool goodies on to the plane? Or is there an actual 250 pounds of additional structure required for the spin resistant wing? If it isn't the full 250 lbs, how much is it? Also, this increased weight puts the Icon plane well above many standard category airplane designs, like the Cessna 150. Maybe this is a design that should really be in the standard category and not the LSA category. After all, spin resistance is not a requirement for LSA planes.

That's the issues as I see them, which is why the FAA is taking their time. However, I do think they have had more than enough time by now to answer those questions.

Floatsflyer

07-12-2013, 06:41 AM

I say, there is 250 pounds in the folding wings and wing box. Let them spend the engineering hours and funds to redesign and meet the LSA weight requirements.

Tell us how and why you know this. What expert knowledge, documentation, design work or other concrete information do you possess that allows you to make your assertion? Support, Support, Support!!! Or do you make this stuff up?

Flyfalcons

07-12-2013, 11:45 AM

Tell us how and why you know this. What expert knowledge, documentation, design work or other concrete information do you possess that allows you to make your assertion? Support, Support, Support!!! Or do you make this stuff up?

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

Frank Giger

07-12-2013, 02:11 PM

Am I missing something fundamental here, or would simply restricting elevator/rudder movement do the same thing, along with standard washout on the wings?

One would lower the crosswind capacity, but that's pretty much what FlightDesign did with the CTLS (max xwind is 11 kts with flaps, 16 without in it) for spin resistance.

Heck, just put in a linkage like on the Eurocoupe and do away with rudder pedals entirely!

:)

Rotornut

07-12-2013, 06:44 PM

Whew! Just read this thread cover to cover. Several observations:

1) When I heard a few years ago of the millions of dollars Icon raised for financing, I was stunned. I was having a hard time understanding the delay in production with that amount of money available. That was before the weight exemption request. Recently, I was loosely affiliated with a small, but growing, LSA manufacturer. I watched what was done with a far smaller amount of money, and saw the company do some decent innovations, get their manufacturing certificate, then built and sold planes. At that point, I started to think the A5 might become vaporware, instead of hardware. I also saw some questionable, and seemingly very arbitrary, action by the FAA before granting the manufacturing certificate, or approval of a specific airframe. They were often considering Part 23 regs instead of ASTM. The Small Airplane Directorate appears to this observer as approaching incompetence. I can easily understand Icon's frustration with the FAA. But, I also wonder about Icon's own competence. Money doesn't solve all problems, but it sure seems they should be in production by now, with all their resources.

2) Having helped on that LSA, of composite construction, I've moved fuselages and wings numerous times. The airframe was stressed for 6G, but two people could carry a wing or empty fuselage without breaking a sweat. I'd be very surprised if the entire airframe (no systems installed) weighed 200 pounds. It's really hard for me to understand why Icon "needs" an INCREASE of 250.

3) Earlier comments about landing gear failures are spot on. I've seen several models of airplanes, from different manufacturers, with landing-related failures. Both in sheet-metal and composite airframes. These planes fly like heavier planes, but they can't be as robust and still meet weight requirements. They can make good trainers, but are much less tolerant of the abuse that a student pilot will naturally put on a plane. I did many demo flights with experienced pilots, and found that almost all of them were having a hard time flying slower LSA landing speeds. Another big difference for transition pilots is not realizing that there is less inertia with LSA planes, and power reduction on short final comes later than heavier planes. This leads to a lot of those hard landings. For new pilots, this shouldn't be as much of an issue. But, I saw that the majority of interest in these planes was from existing pilots, concerned about passing their next medical. Any type of aircraft requires training, even for experienced pilots. Maybe even more so. Oh, canopies turned out to be as abuse-tolerant as the gear.

4) One of the problems in comparing USA LSA gross weights vs. similar European aircraft is the cabin load. Let's be blunt: Americans are getting heavier and heavier. With 2 typical Americans in the seats, many of these LSAs would be over-gross if fully fueled. Hmmmm, one could make the case that partial-fuel flights could be a safety issue.

5) Frank said:
Am I missing something fundamental here, or would simply restricting elevator/rudder movement do the same thing, along with standard washout on the wings?

One would lower the crosswind capacity,

Although I've been studying for a seaplane rating, it remains in my to-do bucket. I am helicopter-rated, however. Both seaplanes and helicopters enjoy the flexibility of being able to reduce crosswind components by operating into the wind. Of course, that's not absolute, but usually is much better than being confined by the heading of a runway as a landplane is. Frank might be onto something.

kmhd1

07-12-2013, 08:39 PM

I think the complication is coming from the fact that the "spin resistant" design is basically a change to the design of the wing. The FAA has to look at two components to this request:

1. Does the redesigned wing actually do what Icon says it does (spin resistance)?
Obviously, if it doesn't actually prevent spins, then there really isn't any point to granting the request. The FAA is looking at this by studying the results of the tests that Icon performed.

2. Does this redesigned wing actually require and additional 250 pounds more than the previous wing design? What is different that accounts for the additional weight?
I think this is the real sticking point for the FAA on this exemption. Was that weight just an arbitrary number by Icon so that they can add all of their cool goodies on to the plane? Or is there an actual 250 pounds of additional structure required for the spin resistant wing? If it isn't the full 250 lbs, how much is it? Also, this increased weight puts the Icon plane well above many standard category airplane designs, like the Cessna 150. Maybe this is a design that should really be in the standard category and not the LSA category. After all, spin resistance is not a requirement for LSA planes.

That's the issues as I see them, which is why the FAA is taking their time. However, I do think they have had more than enough time by now to answer those questions.

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?

Floatsflyer

07-12-2013, 10:00 PM

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?

Spin Resistance by itself is a non-requirement so that's a moot point. The only material matter to be considered and decided is the added weight exemption request as a result of spin resistance(or any other safety enhancement) so I would conclude that the answer to your question is no they wouldn't do that and yes they would accept all or reject all.

Floatsflyer

07-12-2013, 10:25 PM

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

07-13-2013, 08:30 AM

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

07-13-2013, 09:47 AM

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

07-13-2013, 10:30 AM

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

07-13-2013, 04:48 PM

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

07-14-2013, 02:51 PM

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

07-18-2013, 03:56 PM

Why Icon will get its LSA weight exemption (http://blog.aopa.org/blog/?p=5182) 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 (http://www.iconaircraft.com). 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

07-18-2013, 06:35 PM

Bill Berson

07-18-2013, 07:35 PM

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

07-19-2013, 03:23 AM

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.

Floatsflyer

07-19-2013, 05:42 PM

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.

You must also wonder if a judge or jury has to ever render a verdict? All I can say is wow...and give your head a shake.

You're comparing a full blown detailed submission for an exemption request to "I sent a letter to the FAA."???!!! Give your head another shake.

Bill

07-19-2013, 09:07 PM

Floatsflyer

07-19-2013, 09:21 PM

Ever heard of a hung jury? Shake your head yes or no.

I've been just waiting for someone to say that. Looks like you go to the back of the class Bill. A hung jury is still a decision made, an action rendered, not an issued ignored. Shake your head up and down and say, yup, that's right Floats.

Aaron Novak

07-19-2013, 09:43 PM

I have my own prediction-
Reguardless of the outcome, none of us will know the truth behind the decision making.

Personally I dont feel that Icon should have any exceptions. This appears to be a case of a serious flaw in the concept and validation stage of development, that is trying to be band-aided with bent rules in the 11th hour. The design clean-sheeted could likely meet all the requirements.

Bill Berson

07-19-2013, 11:09 PM

You must also wonder if a judge or jury has to ever render a verdict? All I can say is wow...and give your head a shake.

You're comparing a full blown detailed submission for an exemption request to "I sent a letter to the FAA."???!!! Give your head another shake.
A judge renders judgement on individual cases one at a time. The FAA makes policy to avoid exemptions or "favors" to individuals. If the FAA grants an exemption, they might soon be swamped with all 130 SLSA companies requesting various exemptions.
The proper course is to request a rule change. Perhaps through the ASTM consensus process.
They could request a new ASTM 1650 pound seaplane weight class (with increased rules commensurate with the increased complexity of folding wings or whatever)
I would support this on the condition that other various lower weight classes also be created, such as the much needed 495 pound class for two seat "ultralight like" trainers (for which the LSA rule was designed for from the start, but ignored in the rule).
And another class for single seat is needed.

Eaglerhythm

07-20-2013, 12:58 AM

martymayes

07-20-2013, 05:12 AM

Real is real, fake is fake. Let market tells if spin resistant is ture or not. If it is true, this function will save millions of J birds trained only 20 hours.
Is spin resistant is not true, ICON will pay the price shortly after on the market.
The American cultrue should give them a chance to prove the innovation is true or not.

Spin resistant does not equal spin proof. Easy to build a spin resistant airplane, not so easy to build a spin proof airplane, unsinkable ship, or any other absolute feature as long as humans are involved in design and/or operation.

Eaglerhythm

07-20-2013, 06:48 AM

Of course, but we are talking the percentage to lower the risk of the J bird pilots, right?

Floatsflyer

07-20-2013, 07:33 AM

Marty and Eaglerhythem, you're both right. Spin resistance is not spin proof just like the difference between a watch that's water resistant and waterproof.

But Icon never set out to design something that's spinproof. Because Icon intuitively knows that its appeal and consumer product marketing strategy is targeted to the jetski crowd(one-third of the large order book is non-pilots of any kind) and because the SP certificate has much less requirements than the PPL, they are purposely designing the plane to be as safe and forgiving as is aerodynamically possible. They have also designed the systems to be as simple to operate and be less demanding as is possible for the same reasons.

I believe that the closest to spinproof is a canard design.

Floatsflyer

07-22-2013, 08:56 AM

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)

I wrote this on April 18, 2013, post #91 of this Icon thread. Opening day is in 7 days. Hmmmm.....let's see if that recent AOPA speculation and mine have anything in common.

Fly/drive safe everyone, I'm gettin' excited.:D

Ylinen

07-22-2013, 11:20 AM

Has Icon delivered the mounds of data the FAA requested?

icon just announced a nice AOA indicator.

http://www.iconaircraft.com/news/icon-aircraft-releases-production-details-of-a5-aoa-system.html

FloridaJohn

07-22-2013, 11:32 AM

Has Icon delivered the mounds of data the FAA requested?
Yes. Everybody is waiting on the FAA to do something.

icon just announced a nice AOA indicator.

http://www.iconaircraft.com/news/icon-aircraft-releases-production-details-of-a5-aoa-system.html
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.

Eaglerhythm

07-22-2013, 11:18 PM

Well, they donˊt, but still lots of real work to get it on the aircraft. That is not just a simple gauge.

FloridaJohn

07-23-2013, 05:42 PM

Well, they donˊt, but still lots of real work to get it on the aircraft. That is not just a simple gauge.
Is it more complicated than this one? (http://www.alphasystemsaoa.com/mechanical-kits.html) Or this one (http://www.advanced-flight-systems.com/Products/AOA/aoa.html)?

Doesn't seem too complicated to me. Two specialized static ports and either a gauge or a small air data computer connected to an indicator. Or build the ports into your pitot tube like Dynon does (http://www.dynonavionics.com/docs/D180_Feature_AOA.html). That's pretty much all there is to it.

Frank Giger

07-23-2013, 09:52 PM

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!

Aaron Novak

07-23-2013, 10:09 PM

Bill Berson

07-24-2013, 09:14 AM

Popeye

07-24-2013, 10:23 AM

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?

Floatsflyer

07-25-2013, 10:44 AM

[QUOTE=Popeye;33092]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.
QUOTE]

For every denial, I'll raise you with 2 FAA approved weight increase exemption requests: :)

http://www.taturbo.com/gwipr.html

http://www.verticalmag.com/news/article/FAA-approves-MD-Expolorer-902-maximum-weight-increase

Every request is decided on an individual basis determined by the supporting documentation. Your call.

Floatsflyer

07-25-2013, 12:41 PM

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

Well, he just might. Alton, Senior Editor, AOPA Pilot, directly following this online self-admitted speculative article in the comments section, is asked, "where did the FAA announce that it was close to a decision?" Alton replies, "On the phone to me at about noon[July 18, 2013].

Eaglerhythm

07-26-2013, 04:20 AM

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

07-26-2013, 02:47 PM

Aaron Novak

07-26-2013, 03:10 PM

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

07-26-2013, 03:13 PM

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

07-26-2013, 03:49 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?

kmhd1

07-26-2013, 04:00 PM

kmhd1

07-26-2013, 04:11 PM

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

07-26-2013, 04:29 PM

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

07-26-2013, 06:04 PM

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.