Quote Originally Posted by Aaron Novak View Post
One should not need an exemption to meet the standards of a category when other designs can meet it. When things like this come up, it is usually a case of "smoke and mirrors", 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. Instead they try to find every avenue to get their "out of standard" design into production. Happens in the auto, marine, and aviation industry all the time be it safety, performance or emissions regulations.
What design currently meets the spin resistance standards within the LSA category?

If I am reading your response correctly, your premise is that the A5, as designed, did not meet the weight standards of the LSA category even prior to incorporating a spin resistant airframe. So Icon then cooked up this scheme to build a spin resistant airframe as a "smoke and mirrors" game to get their plane approved as an LSA at a higher gross weight than what is allowed to hide the fact that their plane was too heavy to begin with. Its certainly one possibility although at this point it would seem like it would have just been easier to redesign the thing given the time that has passed and the amount of new funding they have received.

Since we don't have access to the information that would prove or disprove that possible scenario we should at least be able / willing to give a fair look at the facts as they are currently presented.

What we do know is that Icon says the A5 meets the spin resistance standards and has supplied the FAA with the data to prove it. Icon would like to build an LSA with spin resistance incorporated into it and has asked for the weight exemption accordingly. 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?