Quote Originally Posted by FloridaJohn View Post
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?