Icon A5 Request For Weight Increase Exemption Status

[Markmn]

Everyone,

We are missing the big picture here. What is best for aviation overall?

The number of pilots is rapidly declining. If this continues what do you expect aviation will look like in another ten years?

The reasoning for a weight increase is to allow aircraft that will be the most attractive to new pilots as well as keeping existing pilots active.
I understand some are attracted to the older rag and tube aircraft but most new pilots want something modern. The best selling LSA is a composite fully featured aircraft.

For example if Icon has a wing design that is substantially safer that definitely will increase new pilots.
Allowing a weight increase for safety equipment such as parachute will encourage it usage and increase safety and increase pilot number at the same time.

This discussion needs to be about whats best for aviation overall.

Mark

[cluttonfred]

Since when is heavier equal to safer in aviation? The argument that Icon needs a higher weight limite for safety is just silly. Lose the gewgaws and doodads and there will be plenty of weight left for the wings.

Everyone,

We are missing the big picture here. What is best for aviation overall?

The number of pilots is rapidly declining. If this continues what do you expect aviation will look like in another ten years?

The reasoning for a weight increase is to allow aircraft that will be the most attractive to new pilots as well as keeping existing pilots active.
I understand some are attracted to the older rag and tube aircraft but most new pilots want something modern. The best selling LSA is a composite fully featured aircraft.

For example if Icon has a wing design that is substantially safer that definitely will increase new pilots.
Allowing a weight increase for safety equipment such as parachute will encourage it usage and increase safety and increase pilot number at the same time.

This discussion needs to be about whats best for aviation overall.

Mark

[FloridaJohn]

For example if Icon has a wing design that is substantially safer that definitely will increase new pilots.

I am not convinced that their admittedly unique wing design will result in a substantially safer airplane. The majority of airplane accidents are caused by loss of control during landing (runway overruns, ground loops, pilot induced oscillations, hard landings, etc.). You also have stupid pilot tricks like running out of gas and VFR into IMC. I don't see the design of the Icon resolving any of those issues. My guess is that once the fleet is large enough to compare to other airframes, the accident rate will be nearly the same.

So, if that is the case, then how will they convince the FAA that they need the additional weight?

[rwanttaja]

One thing they don't answer there is where did the original 1232 lbs come from? I don't recall exactly where I heard, but it was in one of the forums at Oshkosh 2012 - that it came from the energy that the 1232 lbs aircraft would have at stall speed. What to compare that with such that it might have some meaning? Building codes. It's the energy to crash your LSA onto the roof of a house and not break through into the living room. But I guess that wasn't an absolute because then they went and added 90 lbs to it.

Back when the Light Sport regulations were released, the FAA included them in a 452+ page document that gave the justification for for each aspect of the regulation. Here's some of what the FAA says about the weight limit:

"Some commenters wanted the weight increased to permit stronger aircraft structures, use of four-stroke or type-certificated engines, electrical systems for avionics, starters for engines, or ballistic recovery systems. The FAA is increasing the weight limitation of the light-sport aircraft from the proposed 1,232 pounds (560 kilograms) to 1,320 pounds (600 kilograms). The originally proposed weight limitation was based on the 1,200-pound weight limitation proposed by the ARAC’s light-sport aircraft working group. The FAA agrees that there may be a safety benefit to light-sport aircraft designs to include provisions for currently produced type-certificated four-stroke engines and ballistic parachute recovery systems. Commenters submitted data that indicated that an additional 60 to 70 pounds would accommodate four-stroke aviation powerplants, and that an additional 30 to 40 pounds would accommodate the ballistic parachute recovery systems. For these reasons, the FAA has revised its proposed maximum takeoff weight limitation to 1,320 pounds (600 kilograms) for aircraft designed for operation on land."

The ARAC was the "Aviation Rulemaking Advisory Committee," and the US Ultralight Association (USUA) was the chair. Earlier on in the document, it referred to the USUA as having proposed the 1,320-pound limit.

Nothing in the FAA release about crashing through roofs, but that would have been the purview of the ARAC. I'm skeptical, though. Are roof-strength requirements that standard? It would have had to have been based on the weakest, of course.

You can find a copy of the FAA release at:

http://www.wanttaja.com/LSA_final.pdf

Ron Wanttaja

[rwanttaja]

I am not convinced that their admittedly unique wing design will result in a substantially safer airplane.

Can someone explain to this poor, knuckle-dragging EE what it is about the wing design that supposed to be safer than other aircraft? The "Design" section of the Icon web page doesn't seem to have any technical information.

The majority of airplane accidents are caused by loss of control during landing (runway overruns, ground loops, pilot induced oscillations, hard landings, etc.). You also have stupid pilot tricks like running out of gas and VFR into IMC. I don't see the design of the Icon resolving any of those issues.

Absolutely. I've got a database of nearly 3,000 homebuilt accidents, and structural failure of the airframe only caused 26 of them. That's about 0.8% of accidents, vs. the about 50% for pilot error cases. About half the airframe cases involved wing failure, and most of those were related to aerobatics, improper construction, or VFR into IFR conditions.

Ron Wanttaja

[Flyfalcons]

Your rationale and logic could easily have me going in a whole different direction but I'm going to take the high road and reply in a straight-up manner.

Perhaps no one thought of it before; perhaps they did think of it but couldn't come up with the design solution or technology to make it work; perhaps cost of development and production was a factor; perhaps their designers lived in a culture where new ideas, progressiveness, innovation and thinking outside the box was not tolerated or valued.

By your definition, things are unneccesary if they didn't previously exist or weren't used. How then does anything new happen? How then do we move forward and progress?

You do realize don't you, that your logic negates new ideas, ground breaking technology, innovation, creativity, ingenuity and going where no one else has gone before.

Within my context of the safety issue alone, your definition of unneccesary must apply to, for example, the Cirrus airframe parachute system(CAPS) because no previous GA aircraft ever had it. According to the Cirrus Owners and Pilots Assoc. as of Jan.25, 2013 there have been 42 known CAPS activations. Of these, 32 are considered "saves" that involved 65 survivors with one fatality. Also, no person has died when when the CAPS deployed within the proper airspeed and altitude parameters as set out by Cirrus. Call me crazy, but I'm pretty damn confident that those 65 souls would not define CAPS by your definition of necessary/unnecessary.

Innovation is great! So just certify the plane in the actual category it ends up in then. If it isn't light enough, then it isn't light sport legal.

[Frank Giger]

We are missing the big picture here. What is best for aviation overall?

The number of pilots is rapidly declining. If this continues what do you expect aviation will look like in another ten years?

The reasoning for a weight increase is to allow aircraft that will be the most attractive to new pilots as well as keeping existing pilots active.

If we're betting on little seaplanes to save General Aviation, we're sunk.

Innovation is great! So just certify the plane in the actual category it ends up in then. If it isn't light enough, then it isn't light sport legal.

Amen! There's nothing wrong with revising the category in the interest of safety and other features. Besides, I don't think there is a huge market for this aircraft to begin with; amphibs are a niche - making it LSA makes puts it in a niche within a niche.

[rwanttaja]

Innovation is great! So just certify the plane in the actual category it ends up in then. If it isn't light enough, then it isn't light sport legal.

Amen! There's nothing wrong with revising the category in the interest of safety and other features. Besides, I don't think there is a huge market for this aircraft to begin with; amphibs are a niche - making it LSA makes puts it in a niche within a niche.

I suspect Icon isn't attracted towards SLSA certification because it's easier, but because there's a greater market available by making them Sport Pilot eligible.

The Icon is an attractive airplane, even as a landplane. It's got a modern design, the wings fold, and the cockpit is out of the 21st century. As Frank so aptly said, "If we're betting on little seaplanes to save General Aviation, we're sunk." The Icon has to appeal to potential buyers as a general-purpose aircraft. Personally, I really like the look of the thing. If I had a spare $100,000 or so, I'd seriously consider it.

So...why not go for a lower-cost, lower-complexity landplane version, first? Get rid of the power wing fold, get rid of the retractable gear, get rid of the sponsons, etc. Get some planes on the market. Come out with an amphib version later; with a high degree of commonality in parts.

The main worry about that approach stems from the weight issues. Rumor has it that the Icon can't meet the 1,430-pound limit for amphibious LSAs. We don't know how much it's out. If it's out by ten pounds, one might hope that changing to a non-amphibious version might save the 120 pounds necessary. But if it's 150 pounds above the 1,430-pound limit....

Ron Wanttaja

[zaitcev]

So...why not go for a lower-cost, lower-complexity landplane version, first?

Because Kirk & Co wanted to capture recreational boaters first and foremost, that's why. As was observed many times, quite a few of those people throw more at their boats in a year than pilots of Bonanzas, even Cirruses. The S-LSA is central to that plan: every little bit that lovers the barrier to entry is important to the plan. Going after boaters with a seaplane offers some incidentals, too. For example, disconnecting from airports by using marinas. Of course NIMBYs of waterways are vicious too, and the same kind of local mafia is involved that, for example, destroyed the independent FBO at New Braunfels. But expanding the field of battle gives aviators the advantage. Therefore, Icon even mulled a version without gear at all: a pure flying boat (it would be pulled out of the water on the same trailer as a seadoo). I have their old brochure that mentions the gearless option.

[Frank Giger]

I'd love to see the market research that showed that a sizeable number of recreational boaters want to fly an aircraft, and that they're jumping at the chance to pay over a 100K for a plane to do it.

They're not inventing the seaplane, after all. If someone is sitting in their boat thinking "wow, it sure would be great to be a pilot" they'd be a pilot.

I could be wrong, of course.

But saying that boaters suddenly represent a functional market for seaplanes is a bit like saying that sport shooters want to become human cannon balls and will purchase a big a--ed air cannon.