Icon A5 Request For Weight Increase Exemption Status

[Bill Berson]

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.

[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.

[Floatsflyer]

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

Here, here, well said!

[kmhd1]

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....

[Floatsflyer]

...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.

[Floatsflyer]

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.

[kmhd1]

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.

[kmhd1]

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...

[Bill Berson]

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.

[Floatsflyer]

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.