Possible LSA weight exemption on certian legacy aircraft?

[3-333]

As for being the biggest LSA manufacture Eclipse (who had several thousand orders and over a Billion dollars in investment, that's with a Billion with a B), Adams, Flight Designs Valkyrie and even the old LSA "Mermaid" was in the same position (order-wise with hundreds of orders) and remember Icon has not produced a single Light Sport Aircraft only a +1600 pound Experimental prototype. Orders and press releases do not supplement a product. To date all they have done is make promises, take deposits, and not deliver.... everything else is fluff. In my experience that is the quickest way to ruin your reputation in aviation.

There is an old adage "those to speak the loudest have the least to say"

Do you always root against everyone who has the guts to bring a new product to market and try to make it as good as it possibly can be ? What incredible negativity from you, kill joy.

I'll put the management, design team, and financial backing Icon has up against everyone of those companies you listed any day. Break out the salt and pepper cause you're going to eat your words, "fluff" and all.

I am the ultimate optimist, but I know BS when I smell it.

First off, I deal with facts not speculation, the only thing that they "have brought to market" is ocean front property in Arizona, FACT.

Secondly, Verne Rayburn is a substantial share holder in Icon, sits on the Board of Directors who tells the management what to do. CEOs have bosses and its called the Board of Directors. You said "I'll put the management, design team, and financial backing Icon has up against everyone of those companies you listed any day." They are the same people, FACT. Do some research and see for yourself.

I applaud innovation, but I don't see any, I think they are very unoriginal. Spin resistance has been around since 1930. folding wings, nothing new there. Amphibious hull designs, once again, have been around since the early twenties. LSA amphib, they haven't built one.

What they do have is some of the most impressive marketing I have ever seen in aviation, but the flip side is you need to talk to the engineering higher ups at their company and get there impressions because they are the ones that have to cash the checks that Marketing wrote.

If they are so good how come they haven't produced 1 LSA? FACT
If they are so good how come they had to petition the FAA, on the down low, for additional 250 pounds? FACT

[3-333]

Here a simple question, what do you think Icon will do if their 250 pound weight exemption is denied?

[rsteele]

I wish Icon much good luck. But if I remember correctly Icon was born more as a marketing company than an airplane company. The idea was to build something flashy and catch the eye of the sort of people that might be buying jet skis or speed boats and get them into aviation. I never could see that working, still don't. But good luck none-the-less.

I can't see the FAA granting them they kind of exemptions they want when they won't even make an allowance for a BRS.

[dstclair]

If they are committed to producing an aircraft then I'd guess they'd go Primary Category (see DJ.com) then, perhaps, adjust their marketing campaign to hype the A5 can be flown by Recreational Pilot (versus a SP) which only requires 30 hrs of training. Of course, you need to get several endorsements to fly in controlled airspace and beyond 50 nm of your home base but could satisfy those non-pilot depositors especially if the AOPA/EAA medical proposal is adopted.

I'd think with 1000 deposits, they could come up with the extra $750K+ for the different certification.

Here's something of the wall if they went Primary, they could try another angle on SP-eligible aircraft and ask for an exemption for an SP to fly the A5. Specific aircraft have gotten odd-ball exceptions (ex. Bonanza throw-over yoke) in the past.

And to echo Paul's comments, all of us in aviation hope Icon is successful. They just have a difficult rode ahead made even more so by trying to gain an exemption from an organization that does not have a history of granting them in a timely manner (if at all).

I would also think the SeaRay and SeaMax folks will be very active opposing the weight exemption or ask this be inclusive for all seaplanes.

[7900]

I am the ultimate optimist, but I know BS when I smell it.

First off, I deal with facts not speculation, the only thing that they "have brought to market" is ocean front property in Arizona, FACT.

Secondly, Verne Rayburn is a substantial share holder in Icon, sits on the Board of Directors who tells the management what to do. CEOs have bosses and its called the Board of Directors. You said "I'll put the management, design team, and financial backing Icon has up against everyone of those companies you listed any day." They are the same people, FACT. Do some research and see for yourself.

I applaud innovation, but I don't see any, I think they are very unoriginal. Spin resistance has been around since 1930. folding wings, nothing new there. Amphibious hull designs, once again, have been around since the early twenties. LSA amphib, they haven't built one.

What they do have is some of the most impressive marketing I have ever seen in aviation, but the flip side is you need to talk to the engineering higher ups at their company and get there impressions because they are the ones that have to cash the checks that Marketing wrote.

If they are so good how come they haven't produced 1 LSA? FACT
If they are so good how come they had to petition the FAA, on the down low, for additional 250 pounds? FACT

Cause Icon is putting the safety of its customers first, and wants to make the very best lsa possible, is that something they have to apolgize for ? Do they have to build it according to YOUR production timeline ? You're more qualified to tell their engineers and designers they should of been done by now ? Get over yourself.

You imply that having Verne Rayburn on the board is bad, I assume because Eclipse didn't make it. Did you ever consider that because he went through the entire process of bring a new ac and concept to market he's learned some very valuble lessons about what it really takes to succeed now ? Do you really think for a minute that the incredibly talented founder of Icon would be so dumb as to allow someone one the board who's going to hurt his company ?

You sound like you have it out for Icon. Other companies had the guts to bring new products and ideas to the market but sadly didn't make it, and now you're making the same assumption that yet another innovative entrepreneur, who's got far more guts and smarts than you do, will fail yet again. Sorry but that's anything but an "optimist" as you claim to be.

[drseti]

Please, gentlemen, let's be civil here. We all want the same thing, and we're all playing for the same team. Personal digs have no place on this forum.

[drseti]

You imply that having Verne Rayburn on the board is bad, I assume because Eclipse didn't make it. Did you ever consider that because he went through the entire process of bring a new ac and concept to market he's learned some very valuble lessons about what it really takes to succeed now ?

This is a valid, and very important point. The CEO of a large and very well known software company likes to hire bright executives from failed companies. He reasons that they have learned valuable lessons from failure, and will not repeat their mistakes.

[3-333]

As for being the biggest LSA manufacture Eclipse (who had several thousand orders and over a Billion dollars in investment, that's with a Billion with a B), Adams, Flight Designs Valkyrie and even the old LSA "Mermaid" was in the same position (order-wise with hundreds of orders) and remember Icon has not produced a single Light Sport Aircraft only a +1600 pound Experimental prototype. Orders and press releases do not supplement a product. To date all they have done is make promises, take deposits, and not deliver.... everything else is fluff. In my experience that is the quickest way to ruin your reputation in aviation.

There is an old adage "those to speak the loudest have the least to say"

Do you always root against everyone who has the guts to bring a new product to market and try to make it as good as it possibly can be ? What incredible negativity from you, kill joy.

I'll put the management, design team, and financial backing Icon has up against everyone of those companies you listed any day. Break out the salt and pepper cause you're going to eat your words, "fluff" and all.

I am the ultimate optimist, but I know BS when I smell it.

First off, I deal with facts not speculation, the only thing that they "have brought to market" is ocean front property in Arizona, FACT.

Secondly, Verne Rayburn is a substantial share holder in Icon, sits on the Board of Directors who tells the management what to do. CEOs have bosses and its called the Board of Directors. You said "I'll put the management, design team, and financial backing Icon has up against everyone of those companies you listed any day." They are the same people, FACT. Do some research and see for yourself.

I applaud innovation, but I don't see any, I think they are very unoriginal. Spin resistance has been around since 1930. folding wings, nothing new there. Amphibious hull designs, once again, have been around since the early twenties. LSA amphib, they haven't built one.

What they do have is some of the most impressive marketing I have ever seen in aviation, but the flip side is you need to talk to the engineering higher ups at their company and get there impressions because they are the ones that have to cash the checks that Marketing wrote.

If they are so good how come they haven't produced 1 LSA? FACT
If they are so good how come they had to petition the FAA, on the down low, for additional 250 pounds? FACT

Now, now. Don't get your boxers in a wad I was just countering your comments with facts; don't take my comments out of context and try an twist them around, once again facts are facts, if you would like to add facts and debate them that's fine but personal attracts are counterproductive and rude.

One last thing, in a format such as this you never know just who you are talking too. You have no idea if I am qualified to speak about aerospace composite amphibious design and manufacturing or not; are you? That's rhetorical.

I like the A-5 its just not an LSA as defined by law; and, if their mission was to design an LSA so far they have failed. It doesn't matter how you FEEL about them facts are facts, sorry to disappoint.

my popcorn is ready, got to go.

[3-333]

You imply that having Verne Rayburn on the board is bad, I assume because Eclipse didn't make it. Did you ever consider that because he went through the entire process of bring a new ac and concept to market he's learned some very valuble lessons about what it really takes to succeed now ?

This is a valid, and very important point. The CEO of a large and very well known software company likes to hire bright executives from failed companies. He reasons that they have learned valuable lessons from failure, and will not repeat their mistakes.

I completely agree.

[3-333]

Very interesting document. I'll make the popcorn while we wait.

I found item 10 of the proposed aircraft limitations interesting:

10. Each ICON A5 must have onboard an ICON Aircraft owned Flight Data Recorder (FDR) that operates in accordance with the provisions of the ICON A5 operating manual for the purpose of continued airworthiness.

Jim,
I think is could be a major innovation that would allow other LSA companies to enter the market creating competition and spurring innovation. This could potentially solve the biggest issue that facing budding LSA companies, product liability insurance. To my knowable Cessna is the only LSA that has product liability insurance and considering that 8 out of 10 accidents are caused because pilots doing maneuvers low to the ground that they shouldn't be, this open the door for defense against a grieving widow that provides definitive proof that is was pilot error instead of improper design and manufacturing. of course I am only talking about the cases where it was pilot error and not the manufacture to blame.

Personally, I don't want a tattle-tail in my plane but if it brings down prices and spurs innovation I'm all for it.

What do you think?

[Jim Stewart]

I'm not sure what to think. If I crash my CT badly, the NTSB will definitely read out my Dynon and my GPS. So post-crash investigation is nothing new. OTOH, Icon claims they need to have the recorder for continued airworthiness, not crash investigation. Does that mean if you pull too many G's or land too hard they will ground your aircraft or deny you warranty service? That's my guess. There was some talk years ago about the usefulness of a landing force G recorder on aircraft in general, in the context of landing damage.

[fredg]

I wonder if ICON can enforce that requirement, other than by threatening to withhold warranty service. If I buy the plane, how do they get to keep their property in it?

[3Dreaming]

7900, I want to know why your so thrilled with an airplane whose structure is going to be built by a chinese owned company powered by a Rotax engine that you can not get serviced anywhere? Also what does doc have to say about it?

[zaitcev]

7900, I want to know why your so thrilled with an airplane whose structure is going to be built by a chinese owned company powered by a Rotax engine that you can not get serviced anywhere? Also what does doc have to say about it?

I don't think the cheap FUD about Rotax helps your case. It's the engine that beat the pants of everything Lyc and Conti could do, for years and years. It is lighter, performs better, and more reliable than old "tried and true" powerplants. Or should I say obsolete ones? Rotax powers Predators and Reapers, remember. And finding a Rotax-qualified mechanic is not that much of a chore these days.

As for "Chinese-owned", then I suppose Bonanza is not for you anymore either, huh.

Note that if A5 comes out as pudgy as the exemption suggests, they'll need to find a different engine. 100 hp in a 1600 lbs airplane means performance of Cessna 150.

[Jim Stewart]

What Pete said. The Rotax 4-stroke is a major factor in the success of light sport and a great engine. Mine has never needed anything but preventative maintenance and there's a fully qualified mechanic about a half hour away.