Possible LSA weight exemption on certian legacy aircraft?

[N918KT]

I know that the FAA rarely gives weight exemption to LSAs, but would it be possible for the FAA to grant a weight exemption to certain 2 seater legacy aircraft like the 150 or 152? I really love the 152 that I flown this summer!

Also when, if ever, does the FAA grants a weight exemption? Do they grant it only for additional safety features?

[drseti]

I know that the FAA rarely gives weight exemption to LSAs,

More like never

would it be possible for the FAA to grant a weight exemption to certain 2 seater legacy aircraft like the 150 or 152?

This has been much discussed, on these forums, within the LSA industry, and within the FAA. There have even been petitions filed requesting such an exemption. They have all been denied. The FAA's answer, so far, is not no, but hell no.

The only exceptions to the 1320 pound limit of which I am aware are for seaplanes (they get an extra 110# for the floats), and the Terafugia Transition (they used the float exemption as precedent to request, and receive, the same weight limit for their roadable aircraft / "flying car"). There have been requests to exclude, for example, the weight of a BRS from the 1320 pound limit, but they have consistently been denied. I don't think you're going to see the FAA budging on this one.

[7900]

I know that the FAA rarely gives weight exemption to LSAs,

More like never

would it be possible for the FAA to grant a weight exemption to certain 2 seater legacy aircraft like the 150 or 152?

This has been much discussed, on these forums, within the LSA industry, and within the FAA. There have even been petitions filed requesting such an exemption. They have all been denied. The FAA's answer, so far, is not no, but hell no.

The only exceptions to the 1320 pound limit of which I am aware are for seaplanes (they get an extra 110# for the floats), and the Terafugia Transition (they used the float exemption as precedent to request, and receive, the same weight limit for their roadable aircraft / "flying car"). There have been requests to exclude, for example, the weight of a BRS from the 1320 pound limit, but they have consistently been denied. I don't think you're going to see the FAA budging on this one.

As reported by AvWeb in January of this year, "The FAA has opened "a dialogue" about increasing the maximum weight for Light Sport aircraft as a safety measure, Rod Hightower, the president of EAA said Thursday. In answer to a question following a speech at the Light Aircraft Manufacturers Association, Hightower stressed the preliminary nature of the FAA's consideration of the idea but he did acknowledge the idea is being floated internally at the FAA."

Additionally according to a recent article on Dan Johnson's site, "Icon requested an exemption to bump up the weight from the present 1,430-pound limit for seaplane LSA by 250 pounds to 1,680 pounds (almost the weight of a Cessna 152, by the way). The weight allowance is intended to cover Icon's spin resistant airframe design plus other safety features. No word yet on when or if FAA will decide to offer the exemption."

Taking into account the enormous financial expenditures that Icon has invested into developing the A5, their huge order backlog, and the fact that they are doing this solely for safety reasons, the FAA will find it very hard to justify denying them their weight exemption.

If they did then ironically it will be the FAA itself who will be responsible for forcing Icon to go ahead and sell an LSA that isn't as safe as it could be ( spin resistant ) solely for the nonsensical reason of keeping weight down to some previously assigned arbitrary limit. Icon has painted the FAA right into a corner, good for them.

The FAA will also be to blame for what looks like the biggest lsa manufacturer to come potentially losing alot of sales in a still very depressed industry. If denied Icon will then have no choice but to go ahead and try to spin the issue ( pardon the pun ) and say the A5 is still a safe lsa, but certainly not as safe as they could of made it. This may give some buyers pause about actually taking delivery of one.

Ultimately the FAA will come out looking very bad if they deny this, after all safety is supposed to be paramount to them. They will have authorized the production of an lsa that they know isn't as safe as the designer wanted to make it, plus they may very well have contributed to killing sales in an industry that is still struggling to "get off the ground."

The financial might of Icon may be just the ticket that finally gets this ridiculous LSA weight limit issue fixed once and for all. I wish them well.

[drseti]

Dan Johnson's comments cited in that AvWeb article appear to be nothing but pure speculation (plus wishful thinking). I wouldn't hold your breath for the Cessna 150/152 ever being approved for Sport Pilots.

[7900]

Dan Johnson's comments cited in that AvWeb article appear to be nothing but pure speculation (plus wishful thinking). I wouldn't hold your breath for the Cessna 150/152 ever being approved for Sport Pilots.

Dan Johnson didn't comment on the AvWeb article, those comments came from EAA's Rod Hightower. And Icon has already filed for the weight exemption so no "pure speculation" exists.

[drseti]

OK, 7900, I'm confused. Your post cited AvWeb quoting Rod Hightower, and then went on to quote an article on Dan Johnson's website. I guess you're saying that the paragraph citing Johnson was your comment, and didn't come from the same source as the one quoting Hightower. Correct?

Yes, Icon has filed for a weight exemption. That applies specifically to a request for weight increase on their aircraft. So, anything about how the FAA will react is pure speculation, as is any suggestion that this will be a precedent for approving the 150/152. That's what Johnson seemed to be hoping for when he said "almost the weight of a Cessna 152, by the way", which is why I called it wishful thinking.

[7900]

OK, 7900, I'm confused. Your post cited AvWeb quoting Rod Hightower, and then went on to quote an article on Dan Johnson's website. I guess you're saying that the paragraph citing Johnson was your comment, and didn't come from the same source as the one quoting Hightower. Correct?

Yes, Icon has filed for a weight exemption. That applies specifically to a request for weight increase on their aircraft. So, anything about how the FAA will react is pure speculation, as is any suggestion that this will be a precedent for approving the 150/152. That's what Johnson seemed to be hoping for when he said "almost the weight of a Cessna 152, by the way", which is why I called it wishful thinking.

In your usual fashion you're going out of your way to maintain the status quo. You demonstrated in a previous thread you want to maintain the existing weight limit solely to preserve the economic value of existing lsa's like yours. Your bias comes through loud and clear. Keep denying innovation and see how far it gets you and the lsa industry as a whole.

Open your mind and put away your bias for once.

[drseti]

you want to maintain the existing weight limit

You've totally misrepresented (or perhaps just misunderstood) my position. I'm not talking at all about what I want. I'm merely discussing what I believe will happen, based upon what I know about the FAA. I certainly hope I'm wrong!

As for financial incentive, I'd certainly be far better off if a much wider range of aircraft were Sport Pilot eligible. So would all flight schools. So would the entire GA industry.

[Jim Stewart]

Taking into account the enormous financial expenditures that Icon has invested into developing the A5, their huge order backlog, and the fact that they are doing this solely for safety reasons, the FAA will find it very hard to justify denying them their weight exemption.

If they did then ironically it will be the FAA itself who will be responsible for forcing Icon to go ahead and sell an LSA that isn't as safe as it could be ( spin resistant ) solely for the nonsensical reason of keeping weight down to some previously assigned arbitrary limit. Icon has painted the FAA right into a corner, good for them.

The FAA will also be to blame for what looks like the biggest lsa manufacturer to come potentially losing alot of sales in a still very depressed industry. If denied Icon will then have no choice but to go ahead and try to spin the issue ( pardon the pun ) and say the A5 is still a safe lsa, but certainly not as safe as they could of made it. This may give some buyers pause about actually taking delivery of one.

Ultimately the FAA will come out looking very bad if they deny this, after all safety is supposed to be paramount to them. They will have authorized the production of an lsa that they know isn't as safe as the designer wanted to make it, plus they may very well have contributed to killing sales in an industry that is still struggling to "get off the ground."

The financial might of Icon may be just the ticket that finally gets this ridiculous LSA weight limit issue fixed once and for all. I wish them well.

Um, no.

Icon knew the rules when they started playing the game.

They didn't ask for an exemption then. They didn't claim to be building a spin-proof plane then. All the other LSA manufacturers played by the rules and built their airplanes as safe as they could within the rules that are in place.

The FAA is not "forcing" Icon to do anything. Icon is trying to change the rules because they appear not to be able to deliver the product they promised by following the rules.

Think about this:

250lbs is a huge amount of weight in the LSA world. I doubt that both wings on my CT weight 250lbs. So here is the $64,000 question.... How do you take an aircraft design, add 250lbs to it and make it safer? Airfoil changes won't eat up 250lbs, a canard won't eat up 250lbs, flaps and or spoilers won't eat up 250lbs. Maybe I'm just a little slow on the uptake, but I can't seem to make any sense out of this.

Does anyone have a link to Icon's original petition for the additional 250lbs? All I can find is summaries and extentions.

[drseti]

250lbs is a huge amount of weight in the LSA world.

True fact. My whole airplane (engine, prop, gearbox, fuselage, wings, landing gear, avionics, accessories, and interior) weighs just three times that amount. Seems to me as though they're asking for a lot.

[7900]

Um, no.

Icon knew the rules when they started playing the game.

They didn't ask for an exemption then. They didn't claim to be building a spin-proof plane then. All the other LSA manufacturers played by the rules and built their airplanes as safe as they could within the rules that are in place.

The FAA is not "forcing" Icon to do anything. Icon is trying to change the rules because they appear not to be able to deliver the product they promised by following the rules.

Think about this:

250lbs is a huge amount of weight in the LSA world. I doubt that both wings on my CT weight 250lbs. So here is the $64,000 question.... How do you take an aircraft design, add 250lbs to it and make it safer? Airfoil changes won't eat up 250lbs, a canard won't eat up 250lbs, flaps and or spoilers won't eat up 250lbs. Maybe I'm just a little slow on the uptake, but I can't seem to make any sense out of this.

Does anyone have a link to Icon's original petition for the additional 250lbs? All I can find is summaries and extentions.

Yep from your perspective, Icon may have bit off more than they can chew by going with the design they've chosen. Nonetheless this may be an excellent opportunity for the FAA to revisit the whole weight vs safety issue and Icon certainly has the best qualified people in the business to make the case.

After all wasn't the 1320 lb limit chosen to encompass fat ultralights more so than the safety of any future lsa designs in mind ? LSAs have been out eight years now, enough time for even the FAA to have seen how their initial design paramaters have faired. What's more important for pilots and the industry to stay wedded to a weight number intended to accomplish an entirely different purpose or improve the safety of new lsas and finally stimulate the industry with some serious sales ?

We shall see if safety truly matters and, coming from the biggest future lsa manufacturer, if economics ( ie money ) really does talk.

[fredg]

Seems like a case of counting chickens before they hatch to be calling Icon "the biggest future lsa manufacturer". I think it was James Thurbur who said "Predictions are difficult, especially when they are about the future".

If I am not mistaken, Icon has not delivered a single airplane to a paying customer. Yes, they have a lot of orders, but some other manufacturers, especially those that actually have actually sold airplanes, might not think Icon is the biggest lsa manufacturer, now or in the future.

[zaitcev]

After all wasn't the 1320 lb limit chosen to encompass fat ultralights more so than the safety of any future lsa designs in mind ?

I heard that even 1320 gross was fought for, as originally FAA wanted LSA to be fat ultralights as you said, and those could be much lighter. It's very rare to see a 254 lbs signle-seat ultralight break 600 lbs gross. So 1000 lbs was likely. The alphabet groups talked FAA into 1320 lbs by promising a flood of 600 kg designs from Europe. Note that almost all of the rest of the world, except BRIC countries, have 750 kg limit, which coincidentially includes C-150/152. But that was a bridge too far. FAA would not agree to it then and would not agree to it now.

P.S. Among BRIC, Russia and China have no LSA-slash-ultralight at all: everything must be typed like airliners. Brasil is a 600 kg country. India I do not know about, likely like R and C.

[Jack Tyler]

First, I see little difference between a petition asking for a weight allowance that permits the addition of a ballistic parachute - claiming to be for safety reasons - and other such petitions. And most certainly for a petition for a 250# addition *beyond* the seaplane weight allowance. Icon's petition doesn't paint the FAA into any specific corner insofar as I can tell except that, as is always the case, a regulatory agency which inevitably has the role of drawing lines, enforcing limits and making judgment calls. The various aviation industries and pilot communities can consider some of these rulings to be produced by bureaucratic cretins or to be counterproductive to the very industry that necessitates the FAA's existence...but that's always been the nature of the FAA's presence since it replaced the CAA. No new news there.

And how much weight - pure political and/or economic clout - would we expect the LSA industry to have with the FAA? I think we all know the answer to that question.

Also, let's keep in mind that 'safety' isn't any single trait but rather a complex mixture of design parameters, performance characteristics and controlled manufacturing practices. A *claim* by a manufacturer that an a/c is spin resistant doesn't thereby define that a/c as 'safe' or even 'more safe'. It poses the question of whether a significantly heavier LSA a/c that might be spin resistant is, on the whole, sufficiently safer to at least justify *considering* to grant the petition. And although it rankles just about everyone, the FAA has always considered the LSA weight limit to be one way to control an LSA's ability to get a Sport Pilot into trouble. Seeking this one-of-a-kind exemption is a real stretch goal, it seems to me...both a Hail Mary pass and a Pandora's box (as seen by the FAA), as well.

I think back to Paul's comment a few days ago about the Icon business model. Folks associated with the Icon project are designing, building and testing experimental models and no doubt paying for this, in some measure, with other folks money. The FAA petition could well be viewed as simply another part of their business model. I can just imagine how an Icon investor (or a politician) could spin the demise of such a 'business' as due solely to bureaucratic intransigence.

[nbjeeptj]

Jack, I dont think that it is a possibility, I more think it will be the case that this will be spun into a goverment regulation hurting the business. I know no one looks to this fourm for political views as neither do I. I lean more conservative (R) but in this case I dont think it can be the case that they are being held back from regs. The rules were in place prior to them getting in. That would be like if I could ask OSHA if the guys that work for me could forgo any saftey equipment and just get killed on the job, because the cost of the equipment was causing me to not be competive in the market.