Icon A5 Request For Weight Increase Exemption Status

[Floatsflyer]

If they are so mad, then why did they go forward with their design on the assumption that they would be granted an exemption?

Best guess is: real entrepreneurs take real risks; big risk, big reward type A personality; nothing ventured, nothing gained; nothing happens until you take that first giant step forward; being outfront of the curve takes big cahoonas; etc, etc, etc.

[kmhd1]

July 10, 2013 Status Report:

FAA disposition--still pending

Icon disposition--madder than a cat on a hot tin roof

I know I shouldn't be, but I am just amazed at how long this is being dragged out. The rules allow for weight exemptions for safety enhancements. If Icon has in fact met the Part 23 standards for spin resistance, then clearly this is a safety enhancement and should be allowed the exemption so that it may be incorporated into the aircraft and maintain its LSA status. Maybe that's an oversimplification but should it really be this hard? The loudest opponents are Icon's competitors. I say, let them spend the engineering hours and funds and come up with their own spin resistant airframes if they want things to be "fair"!

On another note, did you notice AOPA's interpretation of the posted congressional inquiry document on the A5 docket (posted 6/4 and the most recent official document on the docket)? Here is the link: http://www.aopa.org/News-and-Video/A...exemption.aspx. If that is true, I wonder how many years this will add to the process of obtaining a final ruling on the matter?

[RVC]

I say, let them spend the engineering hours

I say, there is 250 pounds in the folding wings and wing box. Let them spend the engineering hours and funds to redesign and meet the LSA weight requirements.

[FloridaJohn]

I know I shouldn't be, but I am just amazed at how long this is being dragged out. The rules allow for weight exemptions for safety enhancements. If Icon has in fact met the Part 23 standards for spin resistance, then clearly this is a safety enhancement and should be allowed the exemption so that it may be incorporated into the aircraft and maintain its LSA status. Maybe that's an oversimplification but should it really be this hard?

I think the complication is coming from the fact that the "spin resistant" design is basically a change to the design of the wing. The FAA has to look at two components to this request:

1. Does the redesigned wing actually do what Icon says it does (spin resistance)?
Obviously, if it doesn't actually prevent spins, then there really isn't any point to granting the request. The FAA is looking at this by studying the results of the tests that Icon performed.

2. Does this redesigned wing actually require and additional 250 pounds more than the previous wing design? What is different that accounts for the additional weight?
I think this is the real sticking point for the FAA on this exemption. Was that weight just an arbitrary number by Icon so that they can add all of their cool goodies on to the plane? Or is there an actual 250 pounds of additional structure required for the spin resistant wing? If it isn't the full 250 lbs, how much is it? Also, this increased weight puts the Icon plane well above many standard category airplane designs, like the Cessna 150. Maybe this is a design that should really be in the standard category and not the LSA category. After all, spin resistance is not a requirement for LSA planes.

That's the issues as I see them, which is why the FAA is taking their time. However, I do think they have had more than enough time by now to answer those questions.

[Floatsflyer]

I say, there is 250 pounds in the folding wings and wing box. Let them spend the engineering hours and funds to redesign and meet the LSA weight requirements.

Tell us how and why you know this. What expert knowledge, documentation, design work or other concrete information do you possess that allows you to make your assertion? Support, Support, Support!!! Or do you make this stuff up?

[Flyfalcons]

Tell us how and why you know this. What expert knowledge, documentation, design work or other concrete information do you possess that allows you to make your assertion? Support, Support, Support!!! Or do you make this stuff up?

I believe it's the FAA looking for Support, Support, Support!!! to make sure Icon isn't making this stuff up.

[Frank Giger]

Am I missing something fundamental here, or would simply restricting elevator/rudder movement do the same thing, along with standard washout on the wings?

One would lower the crosswind capacity, but that's pretty much what FlightDesign did with the CTLS (max xwind is 11 kts with flaps, 16 without in it) for spin resistance.

Heck, just put in a linkage like on the Eurocoupe and do away with rudder pedals entirely!

[Rotornut]

Whew! Just read this thread cover to cover. Several observations:

1) When I heard a few years ago of the millions of dollars Icon raised for financing, I was stunned. I was having a hard time understanding the delay in production with that amount of money available. That was before the weight exemption request. Recently, I was loosely affiliated with a small, but growing, LSA manufacturer. I watched what was done with a far smaller amount of money, and saw the company do some decent innovations, get their manufacturing certificate, then built and sold planes. At that point, I started to think the A5 might become vaporware, instead of hardware. I also saw some questionable, and seemingly very arbitrary, action by the FAA before granting the manufacturing certificate, or approval of a specific airframe. They were often considering Part 23 regs instead of ASTM. The Small Airplane Directorate appears to this observer as approaching incompetence. I can easily understand Icon's frustration with the FAA. But, I also wonder about Icon's own competence. Money doesn't solve all problems, but it sure seems they should be in production by now, with all their resources.

2) Having helped on that LSA, of composite construction, I've moved fuselages and wings numerous times. The airframe was stressed for 6G, but two people could carry a wing or empty fuselage without breaking a sweat. I'd be very surprised if the entire airframe (no systems installed) weighed 200 pounds. It's really hard for me to understand why Icon "needs" an INCREASE of 250.

3) Earlier comments about landing gear failures are spot on. I've seen several models of airplanes, from different manufacturers, with landing-related failures. Both in sheet-metal and composite airframes. These planes fly like heavier planes, but they can't be as robust and still meet weight requirements. They can make good trainers, but are much less tolerant of the abuse that a student pilot will naturally put on a plane. I did many demo flights with experienced pilots, and found that almost all of them were having a hard time flying slower LSA landing speeds. Another big difference for transition pilots is not realizing that there is less inertia with LSA planes, and power reduction on short final comes later than heavier planes. This leads to a lot of those hard landings. For new pilots, this shouldn't be as much of an issue. But, I saw that the majority of interest in these planes was from existing pilots, concerned about passing their next medical. Any type of aircraft requires training, even for experienced pilots. Maybe even more so. Oh, canopies turned out to be as abuse-tolerant as the gear.

4) One of the problems in comparing USA LSA gross weights vs. similar European aircraft is the cabin load. Let's be blunt: Americans are getting heavier and heavier. With 2 typical Americans in the seats, many of these LSAs would be over-gross if fully fueled. Hmmmm, one could make the case that partial-fuel flights could be a safety issue.

5) Frank said:

Am I missing something fundamental here, or would simply restricting elevator/rudder movement do the same thing, along with standard washout on the wings?

One would lower the crosswind capacity,

Although I've been studying for a seaplane rating, it remains in my to-do bucket. I am helicopter-rated, however. Both seaplanes and helicopters enjoy the flexibility of being able to reduce crosswind components by operating into the wind. Of course, that's not absolute, but usually is much better than being confined by the heading of a runway as a landplane is. Frank might be onto something.

[kmhd1]

I think the complication is coming from the fact that the "spin resistant" design is basically a change to the design of the wing. The FAA has to look at two components to this request:

1. Does the redesigned wing actually do what Icon says it does (spin resistance)?
Obviously, if it doesn't actually prevent spins, then there really isn't any point to granting the request. The FAA is looking at this by studying the results of the tests that Icon performed.

2. Does this redesigned wing actually require and additional 250 pounds more than the previous wing design? What is different that accounts for the additional weight?
I think this is the real sticking point for the FAA on this exemption. Was that weight just an arbitrary number by Icon so that they can add all of their cool goodies on to the plane? Or is there an actual 250 pounds of additional structure required for the spin resistant wing? If it isn't the full 250 lbs, how much is it? Also, this increased weight puts the Icon plane well above many standard category airplane designs, like the Cessna 150. Maybe this is a design that should really be in the standard category and not the LSA category. After all, spin resistance is not a requirement for LSA planes.

That's the issues as I see them, which is why the FAA is taking their time. However, I do think they have had more than enough time by now to answer those questions.

FloridaJohn, thank you for your reply. You raise some good points. As to your second point, I wonder if the eventual answer from the FAA could be yes to an exemption for spin resistance but no to the amount they requested. Could they even do that or would they have to simply accept or reject the request as it is written?

[Floatsflyer]

I wonder if the eventual answer from the FAA could be yes to an exemption for spin resistance but no to the amount they requested. Could they even do that or would they have to simply accept or reject the request as it is written?

Spin Resistance by itself is a non-requirement so that's a moot point. The only material matter to be considered and decided is the added weight exemption request as a result of spin resistance(or any other safety enhancement) so I would conclude that the answer to your question is no they wouldn't do that and yes they would accept all or reject all.