Icon A5 Request For Weight Increase Exemption Status

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Flyfalcons

Of course they haven't said that but it's no secret that plane of theirs is heavy. It's pretty clear to most of us that they decided to go for an LSA loophole by claiming spin resistance and somehow "adding" 250 pounds of structure that most of us know couldn't be added to a bare airframe if you were pouring lead shot into every cavity of the structure. Come on, what seems more logical - that the company decided to go through a substantial redesign well into the already delayed development process for marketing, or that the plane is, and always has been, a brick and they need that 250 pounds of additional gross weight so they can fit more than one person and half tanks?

---

Its certainly not an unreasonable scenario what you are suggesting but I'm not an aeronautical engineer so I don't have the credentials or even the build experience that you do to really speculate how much additional weight a spin-resistant airframe would add to a design so I will have to defer to the experts for that.

Would you still consider the A5 a brick if it were identical to it is now but introduced in the standard category?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Eaglerhythm

Well, if the rumor about FAA is true, we will know the result within 24 hours. If FAA does give ICON weight exemption, which will be the first time for LSA, gotta be some reason for FAA to make the decision with confidence.

---

The decision is very near, I give it a 75% chance it will occur at Oshkosh,90% it will happen in the next two weeks. As Alton said its a perfect platform to make a public announcement. But thats where we differ in trains of thought. I think the FAA is going to bring the hammer down and make it abundantly clear that the MGW is a line in the sand and do not waste their time thinking you can sweet talk your way around it, especially under the guise of safety.

We will know soon!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Popeye

The decision is very near, I give it a 75% chance it will occur at Oshkosh,90% it will happen in the next two weeks. As Alton said its a perfect platform to make a public announcement. But thats where we differ in trains of thought. I think the FAA is going to bring the hammer down and make it abundantly clear that the MGW is a line in the sand and do not waste their time thinking you can sweet talk your way around it, especially under the guise of safety.

We will know soon!

---

The FAA is a lot of things, but machiavellian is not one of them. If I'm getting you right, you think that if the request is denied, the FAA will make a bold, loud and humiliating proclamation. That's nonsense. There's no vendetta here, no hostility, it's not personal. It's just business. They'll respond like they always do, in writing with some reasons set out for the denial.

And that'll be it, until a possible appeal by Icon or they go combination primary and LSA.

[QUOTE=kmhd1;33292]

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kmhd1

You make some good points here and its probably one of the reasons the FAA has taken so long to hand down a ruling on the weight exemption request.

However, correct me if I am wrong, but FAR part 23 spin-resistance is not a REQUIREMENT for planes that fall into that higher weight category.

So Icon is meeting a standard that planes in that higher weight category are NOT even REQUIRED to meet. If all planes in that higher weight category were required to meet the spin-resistance standard then I would agree they should have to meet all of the other requirements of that category as well.

---

True, Part 23 is not a requirement of Part 25. A aircraft certified under Part 25 must comply with Part 25 rules, An aircraft certified under part 23 must comply with Part 23 rules, an SLSA must compile with the SLSA rules and so on.

Actually, they are required to comply with the rule or an "equivalent level of safety" to said rule...so in a defacto state they all meet that tiny section that pertains to spins, spin recovery and spin recovery under part 23.

You can't pick and choose what rules you want to follow just because its better for you. This is like saying that I am building an LSA and its going to be the safest LSA on the market because we are building the windscreen to Part 25 standards so it is virtually impossible to have a fatal bird strike. O, BTW we just need a 300 pound exemption because its built to a higher standard. Who could deny it's for safety and its built to a "higher standard", one that even surpasses part 23.

Whats the address to the FAA I need to go ahead and send in that exemption request?

[QUOTE=Popeye;33302]

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kmhd1

Actually, they are required to comply with the rule or an "equivalent level of safety" to said rule...so in a defacto state they all meet that tiny section that pertains to spins, spin recovery and spin recovery under part 23.

---

What? I was following along with you until this part.

No current production aircraft currently meets the full envelope FAR part 23 spin-resistance standards.

The Ercoupe, before World War II, was developed to be less susceptible to spins (it even mechanically linked the rudder to the ailerons to prevent the pilot from actively controlling yaw). More recently the Cirrus SR20/SR22 and Cessna Corvalis use a cuffed wing design but neither actually meet all of the Part 23 spin-resistance standards. (source: Flying Magazine August 2013)

You might want to rethink sending that exemption request to the FAA... ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kmhd1

What? I was following along with you until this part.

No current production aircraft currently meets the full envelope FAR part 23 spin-resistance standards.

The Ercoupe, before World War II, was developed to be less susceptible to spins (it even mechanically linked the rudder to the ailerons to prevent the pilot from actively controlling yaw). More recently the Cirrus SR20/SR22 and Cessna Corvalis use a cuffed wing design but neither actually meet all of the Part 23 spin-resistance standards. (source: Flying Magazine August 2013)

You might want to rethink sending that exemption request to the FAA... ;)

---

Thats word smithing, no current aircraft. Come on. The Ercoupe was certified before the FAA existed, still meets Part 23 spin resistance (even though it predates the rule), and is a LSA. But because it was design, built, and proven before the FAA was even a thought... somehow that discredits the facts, I call BS. If a plane meets the standards it meets the standards, period. It doesn't matter if shes has to use a walker to get around, If you can do it then you can do it. By law the Ercoupe has to have a placard saying that it is "inherently incapable of spins". Its simple to test, take the FARs find a Ercoupe and fly it as prescribed under part 23.

All part 23 aircraft that have earned a Type Certificate since the introduction of the Spin-resistance Standards have complied with the rule by the use of an Equivalent Level of Safety (ELS) thereby adhering to the rule. It is spelled out in the FARs.

Why would you want to put some thing on your aircraft that is going to degrade the level of performance, cost more, and means you have to deal with the FAA on more issues. The two aircraft you mentioned have ELS, and who do you think wrote those up? The company not the FAA. It's always easier and cheaper to follow your own rules if you have the choice.

It's all about the Benjamins.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Floatsflyer

The FAA is a lot of things, but machiavellian is not one of them. If I'm getting you right, you think that if the request is denied, the FAA will make a bold, loud and humiliating proclamation. That's nonsense. There's no vendetta here, no hostility, it's not personal. It's just business. They'll respond like they always do, in writing with some reasons set out for the denial.

And that'll be it, until a possible appeal by Icon or they go combination primary and LSA.

---

That is the opposite view of Alton's prediction. I think you're right, no announcement just a letter sent.

But my point was I disagree with some people that believe that the FAA is rallying behind Icon and planning a united front and going to award them with the exemption at Oshkosh.

As for our government being not Machiavellian; I bet Bin Laden would disagree, its more of a selective process.http://eaaforums.org/images/icons/wink.gif

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Popeye

That is the opposite view of Alton's prediction. I think you're right, no announcement just a letter sent.

But my point was I disagree with some people that believe that the FAA is rallying behind Icon and planning a united front and going to award them with the exemption at Oshkosh.

---

You're gettin' confused and not understandin' what I said. I agree with Alton's prediction and I said as much on this thread 2-3 months before he did--namely that a "yes" decision would be jointly made at Oshkosh, either in the Media Room or at Icon's exhibit in front of the throngs. If its a "no" decision, then it's just a standard letter sent from FAA to Icon-no muss, no fuss.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kmhd1

Would you still consider the A5 a brick if it were identical to it is now but introduced in the standard category?

---

At the anticipated 1680 pounds and the Rotax engine, it's going to have a lower power-weight ratio than a 172 on floats, which is a bit of a dog off the water. It's also 250 pounds heavier at gross than its main competitor, the Sea Ray.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Popeye

Thats word smithing, no current aircraft. Come on. The Ercoupe was certified before the FAA existed, still meets Part 23 spin resistance (even though it predates the rule), and is a LSA. But because it was design, built, and proven before the FAA was even a thought... somehow that discredits the facts, I call BS. If a plane meets the standards it meets the standards, period. It doesn't matter if shes has to use a walker to get around, If you can do it then you can do it. By law the Ercoupe has to have a placard saying that it is "inherently incapable of spins". Its simple to test, take the FARs find a Ercoupe and fly it as prescribed under part 23.

All part 23 aircraft that have earned a Type Certificate since the introduction of the Spin-resistance Standards have complied with the rule by the use of an Equivalent Level of Safety (ELS) thereby adhering to the rule. It is spelled out in the FARs.

Why would you want to put some thing on your aircraft that is going to degrade the level of performance, cost more, and means you have to deal with the FAA on more issues. The two aircraft you mentioned have ELS, and who do you think wrote those up? The company not the FAA. It's always easier and cheaper to follow your own rules if you have the choice.

It's all about the Benjamins.

---

Very interesting. I did not know the Ercoupe was an LSA.

As for part 23 aircraft, I'm curious why they would delineate a very specific spin-resistant standard (full envelope 14 CFR 23.221(a)(2) and then allow every aircraft a way out of that standard with this ELS you are referring to.

Admittedly, I don't know much about part 23 type certified aircraft but I thought that particular standard (full envelope 14 CFR 23.221(a)(2) was optional and I am specifically referring to this spin-resistant standard and not the equivalent level of safety you mentioned.

In other words, the highlight to this whole drama I thought was that no aircraft had met the specific spin-resistant standard . Everything I have read says full envelope 14 CFR 23.221(a)(2) standards have not been met by any aircraft. If true, then Icon has truly brought a unique innovation to its design and done something no part 23 aircraft has done nor is required to do.