Printable View
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bill Berson
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.
Ever heard of a hung jury? Shake your head yes or no.Quote:
Originally Posted by Floatsflyer
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bill
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Floatsflyer
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Eaglerhythm
Of course, but we are talking the percentage to lower the risk of the J bird pilots, right?
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Floatsflyer
Fly/drive safe everyone, I'm gettin' excited.:D