Icon A5 Request For Weight Increase Exemption Status

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Matthew Long

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...?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-plac...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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Floatsflyer

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

In this article, he says,

Quote:

---

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rwanttaja

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':)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rwanttaja

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Floatsflyer

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rwanttaja

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.

Meanwhile Janice Wood regurgitates Icon's newsletter today that trumpets the start of production and includes the following curious snippet:

Quote:

---

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.

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.

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."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Floatsflyer

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.