Icon A5 Request For Weight Increase Exemption Status

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Popeye

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?

---

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kmhd1

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bill Berson

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aaron Novak

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Frank Giger

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!

---

But hopefully this will mean your midlife crisis is at least a safer one... :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FloridaJohn

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kmhd1

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kmhd1

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kmhd1

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.

---

Well, arguably it would. The additional weight without the proposed exemption puts it in the Standard Category, where many more safety standards are required, included a fairly rigorous flight testing program. No, spin resistance is not required in the Standard Category, but it isn't required in the LSA category, either.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kmhd1

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?

---

I guess in a " I can't believe this weight creep sort of way." It originally started with the 495 pound exemption (FAR
103) that was issued for the two seat ultralight trainers. Now it's up to 1680.
Where does it stop?
It isn't funny to me. This weight creep has decimated the lighter classes that previously operated with few restrictions. As the weight creeps up, the rules get tougher. I wanted to participate with new entries in the light end. That seems impossible now.

What exemption language are you referring to?

p.s might not see your reply for a while, leaving for Oshkosh in a few hours.

If spin resistance is that important to the Icon folks, wouldn't it have been one of the fundamental design criteria from the start?

I wonder about a team that designs an entire aircraft - an amphib, which is a tall design order - and suddenly realize that it needs to be spin resistant.

If they didn't work out the aircraft's stall characteristics in the fundamental design what else is wrong with it that they haven't foreseen due to a lack of engineering? The Icon may turn out to be the Corvair of the skies: unsafe at any speed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kmhd1

If the LSA rules were created to eliminate weight exemptions then why did they specifically include language to the contrary?

---

Here, here, well said!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bill Berson

I guess in a " I can't believe this weight creep sort of way." It originally started with the 495 pound exemption (FAR
103) that was issued for the two seat ultralight trainers. Now it's up to 1680.
Where does it stop?
It isn't funny to me. This weight creep has decimated the lighter classes that previously operated with few restrictions. As the weight creeps up, the rules get tougher. I wanted to participate with new entries in the light end. That seems impossible now.

What exemption language are you referring to?

p.s might not see your reply for a while, leaving for Oshkosh in a few hours.

---

Maybe its time to revise the Light Sport category and incorporate into the rules the newest innovations with a different weight limit.

I am referring to 14 CFR 11 in general though there are probably others more well versed in the minutiae of the FAA regulations that could provide other references as well.

Nice that you are able to attend Oshkosh! I went last year and it was so much fun. Unfortunately I can't make it this year. Looks like I will miss a ton of cool things too... Oh well, I guess that's the case every year.... ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aaron Novak

...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.

---

Aaron, Icon is far and away the best financed, best capitalized private LSA company. They are also one of the best financed and capitalized general aircraft manufacturing companies, period(including all the Part 23's) and don't bust my nuts over the word manufacturing. Surely they could afford to do just about anything including a redesign if they chose. They chose to build the safest, intuitive and most fun aircraft possible and do so within the rules and regulations AS WRITTEN.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kmhd1

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?

---

According to Icon the A5 and its spin resistant wing is the first aircraft ever ,regardless of weight or any or any other factors, to meet the standards set by the FAA for Part 23 spin resistance.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FloridaJohn

Well, arguably it would. The additional weight without the proposed exemption puts it in the Standard Category, where many more safety standards are required, included a fairly rigorous flight testing program. No, spin resistance is not required in the Standard Category, but it isn't required in the LSA category, either.

---

Oops! You are right. I should have been more clear that I was referring specifically to spin resistance. As you said, its not required in the Standard Category so that is really my point. The A5 at the higher weight is accomplishing something from a safety perspective that other planes in that same weight category are not required to meet hence why the comparison to the Bell 429 example is an apples to oranges comparison.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Frank Giger

If spin resistance is that important to the Icon folks, wouldn't it have been one of the fundamental design criteria from the start?

---

That's a good question. At this rate, I wonder if we will ever get an answer. If the A5 does get into production, that and other questions like it should be answered in due time...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kmhd1

Maybe its time to revise the Light Sport category and incorporate into the rules the newest innovations with a different weight limit.
.

---

That is what I suggested. There should tiers for each weight category or complexity category. One size doesn't fit all.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kmhd1

Maybe its time to revise the Light Sport category and incorporate into the rules the newest innovations with a different weight limit.

---

This may in fact be around the corner. Everything I've read on this subject strongly suggests that a review involving all stakeholders, specifically concerning weight limits, will be considered in the near future. Many manufacturers want weight increases to add structure for safety which they believe will in turn create the LSA that consumers will want to own and fly.

That is the core thing, why they put the current 1430 pound as a limit? Any solid proof shows 1430 reasonable? Compared with safety function, how important to stick on this limit?
Without certain safety functions, LSA can never be consumer product for majority part of the population.

You have to put limits somewhere or there aren't categories at all.

LSA weight limits are just fine for simple, light, two passenger aircraft with a low stall and low cruise speed operating environment, as has been demonstrated over and over again.

Raising the weight limit for ducks so that geese now fit in it does not make a swan a duck.

Using "safety" as a reason to disregard aircraft category limits due to poor design from the start speaks volumes to the integrity of the Icon team.

It's not like the didn't know the LSA rules before they began - to now say they can't safely design within those constraints isn't the FAA's problem; it's Icon's design team's engineering incompetence.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Frank Giger

Using "safety" as a reason to disregard aircraft category limits due to poor design from the start speaks volumes to the integrity of the Icon team.

It's not like the didn't know the LSA rules before they began - to now say they can't safely design within those constraints isn't the FAA's problem; it's Icon's design team's engineering incompetence.

---

Your opinions are nothing more than unproven and unsustantiated allegations. But you appear to have a lot of insider information on Icon's design team so please tell us some factual detail about their "poor design", "integrity" and "engineering incompetence."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Floatsflyer

Your opinions are nothing more than unproven and unsustantiated allegations. But you appear to have a lot of insider information on Icon's design team so please tell us some factual detail about their "poor design", "integrity" and "engineering incompetence."

---

Weight limit 1430 pounds + actual weight over 1600 pounds = Engineering incompetence.

EDIT:

Though to be charitable, this can be explained by Managerial Thrombosis * as well. It's possible the engineers were told the airplane MUST have this, and MUST have that, for marketing purposes. They may have told their bosses all along that the 1430-pound weight limit couldn't be met, with the design direction they were given. I've seen it happen in the space biz.

Ron Wanttaja

* Having a clot for a boss

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Floatsflyer

Aaron, Icon is far and away the best financed, best capitalized private LSA company. They are also one of the best financed and capitalized general aircraft manufacturing companies, period(including all the Part 23's) and don't bust my nuts over the word manufacturing.

---

Sorry, Flo, but they're a "manufacturing company" when the production line is running. There's a bit too much Monty Python Cheese Shop sketch in claiming they're the best, right now....

Ron Wanttaja

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Frank Giger

You have to put limits somewhere or there aren't categories at all.

LSA weight limits are just fine for simple, light, two passenger aircraft with a low stall and low cruise speed operating environment, as has been demonstrated over and over again.

Raising the weight limit for ducks so that geese now fit in it does not make a swan a duck.

Using "safety" as a reason to disregard aircraft category limits due to poor design from the start speaks volumes to the integrity of the Icon team.

It's not like the didn't know the LSA rules before they began - to now say they can't safely design within those constraints isn't the FAA's problem; it's Icon's design team's engineering incompetence.

---

IMO, hands down the best comment on the entire thread! The A-5 doesn't look like a duck and doesn't quack one either, so what is it? Their one and only non conforming flying prototype is not even a LSA.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Frank Giger

If spin resistance is that important to the Icon folks, wouldn't it have been one of the fundamental design criteria from the start?

I wonder about a team that designs an entire aircraft - an amphib, which is a tall design order - and suddenly realize that it needs to be spin resistant.

If they didn't work out the aircraft's stall characteristics in the fundamental design what else is wrong with it that they haven't foreseen due to a lack of engineering? The Icon may turn out to be the Corvair of the skies: unsafe at any speed.

---

You are right and to take it one step further, for a company who has done wonders in marketing their company how come spin resistance was only brought up 5-6 years into the project. According to some Icons spin resistance is the best thing ever invented, (hey, some people believe we faked the moon landings too, whats the joke "you cant fix stupid") but wouldn't you use that as a marketing tool from the start just like the push button folding wings?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bill Berson

That is what I suggested. There should tiers for each weight category or complexity category. One size doesn't fit all.

---

$5,000 that is what we will see in the Part 23 rewrite.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rwanttaja

Sorry, Flo, but they're a "manufacturing company" when the production line is running. There's a bit too much Monty Python Cheese Shop sketch in claiming they're the best, right now....

Ron Wanttaja

---

Its the best cheese money can't buy!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Popeye

IMO, hands down the best comment on the entire thread!

---

Careful now, your standards are showing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rwanttaja

Sorry, Flo, but they're a "manufacturing company" when the production line is runnin

---

I did say, "and don't bust my nuts over the word manufacturing"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Floatsflyer

I did say, "and don't bust my nuts over the word manufacturing"

---

Certainly. But when I don't want someone to bust my nuts, I don't take them out of the Planter's can, spread them on the counter, and hand hammers to passersby....

Ron Wanttaja

[QUOTE=Floatsflyer;33175]

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Popeye

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/arti...eight-increase


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

---

Floats, the two examples you provided are not relevant to the 429s exemption. In your first example, the Turbo-normalized Bonanzas exemption is a STC that allows them to add more weight, staying within part 23, WITH OUT CROSSING THE PART 25 THRESHOLD, which is completely legal and should be.

The helicopter you mentioned is the same thing; it’s a part 27 bird and was granted a STC that kept it within part 27, once again WITH OUT CROSSING PART 29 THRESHOLD.


If they crossed these lines they have to comply with the entire regulation, you can’t be partially Part 23. Either you are or you are not. It’s not apples to oranges; it’s literally in black and white.


What Icon is trying to do is manufacture an aircraft at the above prescribed weight limit without having to adhere to any of the other regulations and bare the associated cost in said category, be it standard, primary, recreational, part 23 or part 25. Once you cross that line you have to play by a diffident and more expensive play-book. As the aircraft gets bigger it represent a greater threat to occupants of the aircraft, persons and property on the ground which requires a greater level of safety.

Personally, I like the fact that the 737 is manufactured to Part 25 standards and not manufactured under part 103, which there are zero rules regarding manufacturing of 103 aircraft, design regs yes, manufacturing regs no.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kmhd1

What design currently meets the spin resistance standards within the LSA category?

---

Every LSA who has achieved an SLSA ticket has had to adhere ASTM F2245, otherwise know as the Industry Consensus Standards. In F2245 Spins, Spinning and Spin Resistance is addressed; F2245-12-4.5.9 to be exact. 4.5.9.4 states "For those airplanes which the design is inherently spin resistance, such resistance must be proven by test and documented. If proven spin resistance, the aircraft must be placarded "no intention spins" but need not comply with 4.5.9.1-4.5.9.3."

Spin resistance was clearly addressed when 2245 was being composed, subsequently approved by ASTM and thusly accepted by the FAA. You don't design an aircraft and see what category it falls after its built. Every designer has the choice to design their aircraft to be spin resistance or not and the rules are clearly spelled out in ASTM F2245.

To answer your question, several LSAs meet the spin resistance requirements as spelled out under F2245, AirCoupe and Teckem (excuse the spelling)to name two but there are more out there.

For those going to Oshkosh you have to check out the museum, they just announced that they will be displaying the Beaver hat where the LSA weight limits were arbitrarily pulled from. Its a must see!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Popeye

Every LSA who has achieved an SLSA ticket has had to adhere ASTM F2245, otherwise know as the Industry Consensus Standards. In F2245 Spins, Spinning and Spin Resistance is addressed; F2245-12-4.5.9 to be exact. 4.5.9.4 states "For those airplanes which the design is inherently spin resistance, such resistance must be proven by test and documented. If proven spin resistance, the aircraft must be placarded "no intention spins" but need not comply with 4.5.9.1-4.5.9.3."

Spin resistance was clearly addressed when 2245 was being composed, subsequently approved by ASTM and thusly accepted by the FAA. You don't design an aircraft and see what category it falls after its built. Every designer has the choice to design their aircraft to be spin resistance or not and the rules are clearly spelled out in ASTM F2245.

To answer your question, several LSAs meet the spin resistance requirements as spelled out under F2245, AirCoupe and Teckem (excuse the spelling)to name two but there are more out there.

---

ASTM F2245-12-4.5.9.4 is not the same standards as described in FAR part 23 and which Icon is referring to in terms of the spin resistance it purportedly has achieved.

The context of this entire thread relates to the weight exemption request Icon filed in order that it may incorporate a spin-resistant airframe. The spin-resistance Icon says it has achieved relates to the standards as described and in accordance with the full envelope of the 14 CFR 23.221(a)(2) standards. If the A5 makes it to production with the weight exemption it will be the first to meet those high standards and do so as an LSA.

No current LSA meets those FAR part 23 spin-resistant standards.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Frank Giger

You have to put limits somewhere or there aren't categories at all.

LSA weight limits are just fine for simple, light, two passenger aircraft with a low stall and low cruise speed operating environment, as has been demonstrated over and over again.

Raising the weight limit for ducks so that geese now fit in it does not make a swan a duck.

Using "safety" as a reason to disregard aircraft category limits due to poor design from the start speaks volumes to the integrity of the Icon team.

It's not like the didn't know the LSA rules before they began - to now say they can't safely design within those constraints isn't the FAA's problem; it's Icon's design team's engineering incompetence.

---

Agreed that you have to put limits, but when the limits do not consider or foresee future safety innovations, then if nothing else the exemption process should be employed which is exactly what Icon is doing. In their original request they also mentioned that they would support "any future FAA rulemaking activity that would allow for S-LSA products with increased maximum takeoff weight to accommodate substantial safety improvements such as spin resistance".

Icon hasn't said they can't safely design within the current standards. They have said specifically that they can't incorporate a FAR part 23 compliant spin-resistant airframe within the current standards and would like the FAA to allow this innovation to be made available to pilots certified to fly LSA's.

[QUOTE=Popeye;33286]

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Floatsflyer

Floats, the two examples you provided are not relevant to the 429s exemption. In your first example, the Turbo-normalized Bonanzas exemption is a STC that allows them to add more weight, staying within part 23, WITH OUT CROSSING THE PART 25 THRESHOLD, which is completely legal and should be.

The helicopter you mentioned is the same thing; it’s a part 27 bird and was granted a STC that kept it within part 27, once again WITH OUT CROSSING PART 29 THRESHOLD.


If they crossed these lines they have to comply with the entire regulation, you can’t be partially Part 23. Either you are or you are not. It’s not apples to oranges; it’s literally in black and white.


What Icon is trying to do is manufacture an aircraft at the above prescribed weight limit without having to adhere to any of the other regulations and bare the associated cost in said category, be it standard, primary, recreational, part 23 or part 25. Once you cross that line you have to play by a diffident and more expensive play-book. As the aircraft gets bigger it represent a greater threat to occupants of the aircraft, persons and property on the ground which requires a greater level of safety.

Personally, I like the fact that the 737 is manufactured to Part 25 standards and not manufactured under part 103, which there are zero rules regarding manufacturing of 103 aircraft, design regs yes, manufacturing regs no.

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kmhd1

Icon hasn't said they can't safely design within the current standards. They have said specifically that they can't incorporate a FAR part 23 compliant spin-resistant airframe within the current standards and would like the FAA to allow this innovation to be made available to pilots certified to fly LSA's.

---

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Floatsflyer

Your opinions are nothing more than unproven and unsustantiated allegations. But you appear to have a lot of insider information on Icon's design team so please tell us some factual detail about their "poor design", "integrity" and "engineering incompetence."

---

The Icon design is a failure producing bunch simply because they set out to make an LSA aircraft and by their own admission couldn't cut the technical mustard - and failed in the one area that should have been first in design, namely safety in flight characteristics.

They're off by 250 pounds, which is a lot in LSA aircraft!

I'm naturally going to infer that the pre-exemption request design must have been inherently unsafe or they wouldn't have had to go back to the drawing board and come up with something that's more than 250 pounds to the design.

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.

It's odd, but this is starting to look like a cross between Jim Bede and Paul Moller (e.g, Skycar).

Like Bede and the BD-5, Icon is trying to market the A5 as "everyone's airplane," though admittedly Bede was making that pitch to pilots. Many folks disparage the concept and process, but there is a hard core of true believers who claim that everything is fine, just fine. Really saw it in relation to the BD-12, with some decrying the "Naysayers" up until the prototype crashed on its first flight (CG too far aft, despite 200+ pounds of ballast in the nose).

The Moller similarity? The emphasis on getting people to invest money in the company.

Right now, I'm kinda hoping the FAA DOES approve Icon's waiver. For one thing, that should open the floodgates for other companies to request approval for "heavy" LSAs. And, of course, it'd be interesting to see if Icon can actually go into production, and whether Icon's market predictions come true.

Ron Wanttaja

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.

---

It will be the first time over the maximum of 1430 pounds(seaplanes). It's not the first time exemptions have been approved and granted. Terrafugia and Maverick have already been granted weight exemptions for land planes in the past 2 years.