Exemption No. 10829

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION WASHINGTON, DC 20591

In the matter of the petition of
ICON AIRCRAFT
for an exemption from§§ 21.18l(a)(3), 21. I90(a), 43.3(c), 43.7(g),61.89( c), 61.303(a), 61.31S(a), 61.411(a), 61.41S, 61.429(b), 6S. I07(b) and 6S.107(c) ofTitle 14, Code ofFederal Regulations Regulatory Docket No. FAA
-2012-0514

(;RANT OF EXEMPTION By letter dated May 7, 20 12, Mr

. Kirk Hawkins, CEO & Founder, ICON Aircraft (ICON), I 2S11 Beatrice Street, I,os Angeles, CA 90066, petitioned the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) on behalfofICON and persons operating, maintaining, providing tlight training in, and performing preventive maintenance on its Model AS aircraft for an exemption from §§ 2 1.181 , 2 1.190, 43.7, 61.23, 61.31, 61.89, 61.303, 61.30S, 61.31S, 61.317, 61.321, 61.32S, 61.327, 61.403, 61.411, 61.415, 61.417, 61.419, 61.423, and 61.429 ofTitle 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR). The proposed exemption, if granted, would allow the ICON Model AS to be certificated, operated, and maintained under the regulations applicable to aircraft issued a special airworthiness certificate in the light sport category while incorporating a spin-resistant airframe (SRA) at a maximum takeoff weight (MTOW) of 1,680 pounds

. To obtain the desired relief, the petitioner requires exemption from the following regulations:
Section 2 I

. 181 prescribes, in pertinent part, that : (a) Unless sooner surrendered, suspended, revoked, or a termination date is otherwise established by the FAA, airworthiness certificates are effective as follows: (3) A special airworthiness certificate in the light-sport category is effective as long as
- (i) The aircraft meets the definition of a light-sport aircraft; Section 21.190 prescribes, in pertinent part, that:(a) Purpose

. The FAA issues a special airworthiness certificate in the li ght-sport category to operate a li ght-sport aircraft

. 

### Section 43.3 prescribes in pertinent part, that: (c) The holder of a repairman certificate may perform maintenance, preventive maintenance, and alterations as provided in part 65 of this chapter. Section 43

.7 prescribes in pertinent part, that: (g) The holder ofa repairman certificate (light-sport aircraft) with a maintenance rating may approve an aircraft issued a special airworthiness certificate in light

- sport category for return to service, as provided in part 65 of this chapter. Section 61.89 prescribes in pertinent part, that : (c) A student pilot seeking a sport pilot certificate must comply with the provisions of paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section and may not act as pilot in command- (1) Of an aircraft other than a light-sport aircraft; Section 61.303(a) prescribes in pertinent part, that: (a) Use the following table to determine what operating limits and endorsement requirements in this subpart, ifany, apply to you when you operate a light

-sport aircraft. The medical certificate specified in this table must be in compliance with § 61.2 in regards to currency and validity. If you hold a recreational pilot certificate, but not a medical certificate, you must comply with cross cow1try requirements in § 6 1.1 01 (c), even if your t1ight does not exceed 50 nautical miles from your departure airport

. You must also comply with requirements in other subparts of this part that apply to your certificate and the operation you conduct. Ifyou hold And you hold Then you may operate And (I) 

### A (i) A sport pilot (A) Any light-sport (1) You must hold any other medical certificate, aircraft for which you endorsements required by this certificate hold tihe endorsements subpart, and comply with the required for its category limitations in § 61.315

. and class (ii) At least a recreational (A) Any light-sport (1) You do not have to hold pilot certificate with a aircraft in that category any ofthe endorsements category and class rating, and class, required by this subpart, nor do you have to comply with the limitations in§ 61.315

. (iii) At least a recreational (A) That light-sport (1) You must comply with the pilot certificate but not a aircraft, only if you hold limitations in 

### § 61.315 , except rating for the category he endorsements required 

### § 61.315(c)(14) and, if a and class oflight sport in§ 61.321 for its private pilot or higher, 

### § aircraft you operate, category and class, 61.315(c)(7)

. (2) Only a (i) A sport pilot (A) Any light

-sport (I) You must hold any other U

. S. driver's certificate, a ircraft for which you endorsements required by this license hold the endorsements subpart, and comply with the 2equircd for its category limitations in 

### § 61.315

. and class

. (i i) At least a recreational (A) Any light-sport (1) You do not have to hold pilot certificate with a**~ircraft** in that category any of the endorsements category and class rating , and class , required by this subpart, but you must comp ly with the limitations in § 61.31 5. (iii) At least a recreational (A) That li ght-sport (1) You must comply with the pilot certificate but not a aircraft, only if you ho ld limitations in 

### § 61.315, except rating for the category the endorsements required 

### § 61.315(c)(14) and , if a
and class of light-sport in 

### § 6 1. 32 1 for its private p ilot or higher,§ aircraft you opera te , ca tegor y and class, 6 1. 315(c)(7 )

. Section 61

. 315 prescr ibes, in perti nent part, that: If you hold a sport pi lot c ertif icate you may act as pilot in command of a light-sport aircraft, except as specified in paragraph (c) of this section. Section 61.411 prescribes in pertinent part , that: Usc the following table to determine the experience you must have for each aircraft category and class:

Ifyou are applying for a flight instructor certificate with a sport pilot rating rrhcn you must for
. .. log at least

... Whi ch must include at least

. . . (a) A irplane category and single
- (1) 1 50 h oursof (i) 100 hours of flight time as pilot in eng ine class privileges , flig ht time as a command in powered aircraft, pilot, (i i ) 50 hours offlight time in a single

e ngine airp lane, ( iii ) 25 hours ofcross-co untry t1ight time, (iv) 10 hours of cross
-country Hight time in a single-engine airplane, and (v) 15 hours of flight time a<; pilot in command in a single

-engine airplane that is a light-sport aircraft.

3Section 61.415 states in pertinent part, that: If you hold a flight instructor certificate with a sport pilot rating, you may only provide 

### flight training in a light-sport aircraft and are subject to 

### the following limits: (a) You may not provide ground or flight training in any aircraft for which you do not hold : (1) A sport pilot certificate with applicable category and class privileges or a pilot certificate with the applicable category and class rating; and (2) Applicable category and class privileges for your flight instructor certificate with a sport pilot rating. Section 61.429 states in pertinent part, that: If you hold a flight instructor certificate, a commercial pilot certificate with an airship rating, or a commercial pilot certificate with a balloon rating is sued under this part, and you seek to exercise the privileges of a flight instructor certificate with a sport pilot rating, you may do so without any further showing ofproficiency, subject to the following limits: (b) You must comply with the limits specified in§ 61.415 and the rccordkceping requirements of§ 61.423

. Section 65. 107 states in pertinent part, that: (b) The holder of a repairman certificate (light-sport aircraft) with an inspection rating may perform the annual condition inspection on a light

-sport aircraft: (1) That is owned by the holder; (2) That has been iss ued an experimental certificate for operating a light-sport aircraft under § 21.191 (i) ofthis chapter; and (3) That is in the same class of light-sport-aircraft for which the holder has completed the training specified in paragraph (a)(2)(ii) of this section

. (c) The holder of a repairman certificate (light-sport aircraft) with a maintenance rating may
- ( I) Approve and return to service an aircraft that has been issued a specia l airworthiness certificate in the light-sport category under § 21.190 of this chapter, or any part thereof, after pert()rming or inspecting maintenance (to include the annual condition inspection and the 1 00-hour inspection required by 

### § 91.327 ofthis chapter), preventive maintenance, or an alteration (excluding a major repair or a major alteration on a product produced under an FAA approval); (2) Perform the annual condition inspection on a light

-sport aircraft that has been issued an experimental certificate for operating a light-sport aircraft under§ 21.191(i) ofthis chapter; and (3) Only perform maintenance, preventive maintenance, and an alteration on a light-sport aircraft that is in the same class of light-sport aircraft for which the holder has completed the training specified in paragraph (a)(3)(ii) of this section. Before performing a major repair, the holder must complete additional training acceptable to the FAA and appropriate to the repair performed.

4The petitioner supports its request with the following information:
The petitioner states that including a spin-resistant airframe (SRA) in the ICON AS will result in an aircraft that exceeds the maximum takeoff weight (MTOW) found in 14 CFR § 1.1 for light-sport aircraft intended for operation on water, or 1,430 pounds (6SO kilograms). According to ICON, an additional 2SO pounds is necessary to implement its SRA technology without compromising other safety features, resulting in a MTOW of I,680 pounds (762 kilograms) for the model AS.
The petitioner sta tes that the incorporation of an SRA in the ICON AS at a weight above that specified in the light-sport aircraft (LSA) definition will enable a level of safety over and above that fully considered when the regulations for special light

- sport aircraft (SLSA) were created. According to ICON, including an SRA in the AS design will address a primary cause ofpilot-related fatal accidents

- loss of control (LOC). The petitioner states that spin-resistance is a major safety-enhancing feature for light aircraft and can significantly reduce the number ofloss-of-control accidents resulting from stall/spin scenarios.
The petitioner states that in January of2012 , the ICON AS proof-of-concept vehicle successfully completed spin-resistance flight testing and demonstrated spin-resistance in accordance with the full envelope ofthe 14 CFR 

### § 23.22l(a)(2) standard. ICON further states that few production aircraft have attempted to achieve spin-resistance to that standard, and no conventional production aircraft without a canard has ever been completely successful due to the technical difficulty of meeting this requirement. Although there are other aircraft that have incorporated some spin-resistance characteristics (i.e., Ercoupe, Jetcruzer, and Cessna Corvalis) , the ICON AS, according to the petitioner, will be the first produc6on aircraft in history to be designed to, and actually meet, the full-envelope Part 23 standard for spin-resistance.
The petitioner states that due to the unique physical constraints that spin-resistance presents , it cannot be included in the design under the MTOW as currently defined for SLSA products without compromising other safety features. To achieve their spinresistant technology, ICON claims that their design requires a significantly increased wing area. ICON asserts the increased wing area then in-turn requires increased tail size for stability, along with a corresponding increase in internal structure and a proportional accommodation for weight. ICON states further that the increased wing, tail, and specif i c spin-resistance elements also result in an increase in aerodynamic drag , which requires increased engine size and additional fuel to compensate.
The petitioner states that sport pilots should be allowed to train in and operate the ICON AS in order to benefit from the safety improvements realized from spin-resistant aircraft. Also , according to ICON, in order to assure the ICON AS can be kept in an airworthy condition in the cost-effective manner envisioned by the regulations governing SLSA, these aircraft should be maintained by repairmen (light- sport aircraft) like any other 5SLSA. The petitioner states that the addition of spin-resistance does not add complexity to the maintenance aspects of the aircraft

. The petitioner states that this exemption unequivocally serves both safety and public interest and thereby represents the responsible regulatory decision. ICON further states the long term benefits of their SRA technology, if made available to the public for LSA, will have a profound impact on increasing aviation and public safety

. In addition, ICON states that due to the price point of light-sport aircraft like the A5, a larger percentage of the general public can afford the aircraft. Therefore, according to the petitioner, granting this exemption is important so that these widely available products are as safe as technology allows. Summary of Comments Received :
A summary of the petition was published in the Federal Register on May 24, 2012, (77 FR 31 063 ). Subsequent to the closure ofthe original comment period a notice reopening the comment period was published in the Federal Register on July 17, 2012, (77 FR 42075). The FAA received 103 comments during and shortly after the requested comment periods that were considered. Four of these were duplicate submittals. Of the submissions, forty

- f ive (45) commenters were in favor of the petition submitted by ICON and fifty-four (54) commenters were in opposition to ICON's petition

. The forty-five (45) commenters in favor of the petition support the additional weight of the ICON A5 SRA design as a safety enhancement. Forty

-four commenters state the ICON AS design will improve safety, reduce the likelihood of fatal accidents due to stall /spin LOC scenarios and will be a significant innovation in LSA. Two commenters assert that the SRA design will produce no discernible adverse effect on stability or controllability, as has been claimed by those opposed to the request. Eight commenters also stated that the current weight restrictions for LSA should be lifted for all designs so all producers ofLSA could benefit from a higher weight.
The fifty

- four (54) commenters in opposition to ICON's petition are concerned with the safety ofthe SRA design. Five commenters claim the design will result in increased stall/spin accidents due to limited control authority. Thirteen commenters suggest that ICON should certify the aircraft to Part 23, or Primary Category standards, and not to SLSA standards. Seven commenters state that certain features, such as the aircraft's folding wings and its automotive-like interior should be removed to reduce the total amount of weight being requested. Twelve commenters suggest that this petition, if granted, would give ICON an unfair advantage over other LSA manufacturers and would not benefit the public. Four commenters suggest a weight increase for all LSA.

6Additional Information Provided 

### by ICON Aircraft at the FAA's Request:
At the FAA's request, on May 9, 2013 , ICON Aircraft provided the following additional inf ormation in support of the FAA ' s analysis of ICON Aircraft's petition:
I. ICON Drawing No. ICA007990 Rev. A, dated 02

- May-13 , which provides dimensioned, three-view drawings and an isometric view of the Model AS design that ICON Aircraft claims meets the requirements of 14 CFR § 23

.22I(a)(2) 2

. A list of the flight test conditions in which ICON Aircraft claims it confirmed the model AS meets the requirements of 14 CFR § 23.22 l (a)(2) 3. A description of the manner in which ICON Aircraft confirmed the model AS meets the requirements ofthose 14 CFR § 23.221(a)(2) standards that encompass other part 23 sections which differ from the consensus standards for light-sport aircraft 4. A signed statement attesting that the AS design:

a. meets the requirements of 14 CFR § 23.22 1 (a)(2) subject to the roll and yaw limits allowed by ASTM F224S for coordinated and uncoordinated stalls b. does not incorporate a stick pusher or other automatic flight control system to achieve satisfactory stall characteristics or spin resistance

c
. includes an indicator that provides angle-of-attack (AOA) and sensed AOA rate information to the pilot d. has a demonstrated descent rate of 20 ftls ( 1200 ftlmin) or less during a fully developed, wings-level, power-off stall at the most unfavorable weight and center of gravity combination

e. has a demonstrated altitude loss of 300 feet or less during recovery from a wings-level, power-off stall at the most unfavorable weight and center of 1:,rravity combinat ion 

### f. includes a ballistic recovery complete-aircraft parachute system that will comply with ASTM International Standard F23 16 g. complies with the pilot force requirements of ASTM International Standard F224S

- 12c h. includes a propulsion system with a maximum power output of 100 kW (135 horsepower) or less, regardless of flight phase or de-rating of the engine

1. incorporates interior panels separating and protecting occupants from flight controls , cables , and other systems 5. Cla rifi cation that inflatable restraints are not incorporated in the design ofthe Model AS 6. An explanation of ICON Aircraft' s plans for defining a standard LSA maintenance program , and a description of the reasons for ICON Aircraft's claim that LSA Repairmen should be permitted to maintain the model AS 77. An explanation ofthe factors leading to ICON Aircraft ' s request that a grant of its petition include a requirement for persons exercising the privileges of a repairman certificate (light-sport aircraft) to receive and maintain an ICON authorihcd certificate of training on repair and maintenance ofthe ICON AS in order to perform work on the aircraft 8. An explanation of the factors leading to ICON Aircraft' s request that a grant ofits petition include a requirement for persons operating the aircraft while exercising the privileges of a sport pilot certificate to have received ICON authorized training on the aircraft
Some ofthe above inf ormation provided by ICON Aircraft is proprietary. All nonproprietary information submitted by ICON Aircraft has been placed in the docket.
The FAA's analysis is as follows: Background
The Aircraft Certification Service (AIR) Strategic Plan for Light-Sport Aircraft aligns LSA safety goals with the top

-level goals identified in the FAA ' s strategic vision

- Destination 2025. Both documents are available on the FAA website and have been placed in the docket. In striving to achieve the safety goals set forth in these documents, the F J\A recognizes the existence ofa safety continuum in which the public expects progressively higher levels of safety assurance as aircraft complexity , passenger carrying capability, and operational usage advance from recreational aviation, through small typecertificated aircraft, and up to large aircraft used for air carrier and other types of service. The agency establishes safety standards consistent with this continuum by balancing the level of certitude, appropriate level of safety, and acceptable risk for each segment of general aviation (GA). The anticipated operation of the aircraft plays a major role in establishing this continuum and in setting appropriate safety standards.
Within the LSI\ segment ofthe safety continuum, the FJ\J\ has designed its rules to establish appropriate regulatory standards to permit individuals to safely operate aircran for the purpose of sport and recreation. The weight limits specified for LSA account for certain provisions that provide an additional safety benefit, such as ballistic parachute recovery systems and other safety enhancing features. The typical weight ofthese features was considered in establishing a MTOW for LSI\ that was greater than proposed in the original Notice of Proposed Rulemaking , Certification of Aircra.fi and Airmenfor the Operation <dLight-SportAircraft (67 FR 5268 ; February 5 , 2002). The FAA believes it achieved an acceptable balance between enabling innovation and regulating safety in the regulations governing the certification and operation oflight-sport aircraft. While the LSi\ regulations do not prevent the introduction of SRi\, the FAA did not consider the weight of SRA technology comp liant with 14 CFR Part 23 spin resistance standards in establishing the MTOW for LSA.

8Analysis
The 

## r AA has reviewed ICON's request for an exemption to allow its model 

### AS to be certificated under the regulations applicable to SLSA while incorporating an SRA at a MTOW of 1,680 pounds (762 kilograms). In conducting our review to determine whether granting the request would provide a level of safety at least equal to that provided by the rules or not adversely affect safety, and be in the public interest, we considered a number of factors. These factors include: the FAA's strategic goal to reduce fatal GA accidents , the established safety continuum, the FAA ' s approach to regulatory oversight of small type

-certificated airplanes and light-sport aircraft, public comments, information provided by ICON, and our own research.
As mentioned in ICON ' s petition, LOC accidents continue to be a major concern for GA and they remain the largest source offatal GA accidents , including in recreational aircraft. The use of SRA technology is being proposed by ICON to specifically address LOC accidents by allowing the AS to remain controllable in the stalt to resist spins, and to descend at a slow rate in stall due to its wing loading and control characteristics.
The FAA has determined that the ICON AS design incorporates features that will permit the ICON AS to be certificated as an SLSA at a MTOW above that specified in the definition for LSA. These features include: (1) spin resistance meeting the requi rements of 14 CFR 

### § 23.221(a)(2); (2) an angle of attack (AOA) indicator that includes an indication of sensed AOA rate, allowing the pilot to identify margin above stall ; (3) aerodynamic characteristics and reversible flight controls that provide stall recovery capability and spin resistance without the usc ofa stick pusher or other automatic flight control system; (4) design features that allow recovery from a stall with an altitude loss of 300 feet or less ; (S) aerodynamic characteristics that limit the vertical descent rate to 20 ft/s (1200 ft/min) or less during a fully developed stall; (6) interior panels separating and protecting occupants from t1ight controls , cables , and other systems; (7) a ballistic recovery complete-aircraft parachute system in compliance with ASTM International Standard F2316; (8) a propuls ion system with a maximum power output of l 00 k W (I 35 horsepower); and (9) compliance with ASTM International Standard F224S-12c, to ensure appropriate minimum control forces, proper control harmony and balance, and the avoidance ofpilot induced oscillations or over-control ofthe aircraft. The FAA believes that the inclusion ofthese features in the aircraft permits the certification of the ICON AS as an SLSA without adversely affecting safety , even though its MTOW exceeds that specified for an LSA.
The FAA notes that it has previously issued exemptions to certificate " readable" aircraft that exceed the MTOW specified for LSA not intended for operation on water in order to accommodate ground drive systems and equipment required by other regulatory agencies. The agency, however, has previously been very circumspect in limiting such grants to exceed the MTOW for LSA only to aircraft that have design features that clearly were not contemplated in rules originally established for the certification ofLSA. The combined design features and SRA concepts incorporated into the ICON AS design to 9avoid excessive descent rates and altitude loss while maintaining controllability during stall , combined with demonstrated spin resistance meeting 14 CFR part 23 standards, arc 

### recognized by the FAJ\ as significant safety enhancements not contemplated in 

### the regulations. Accordingly the FAA agrees with commcnters who support the additional weight of the ICON AS SRA design as a safety enhancement that will improve safety, reduce the likelihood of fatal accidents due to stall /spin LOC scenari os, and be a significant innovation in LSA

. The FAA disagrees with commentcrs who assert that the design will actually result in increased stall/spin accidents due to limited control authority. This could be a concern if reducing stall/spin susceptibility were achieved by limiting control effectiveness or changing static stability. However, NASA research on GA stall and spin prevention has clearly shown, and flight tests have demonstrated , it is possible to maintain controllability all the way through a fully developed stall and prevent spins (Ref NASA SP-2003-4S29; Concept to Reality, CONTRIBUTIONS OF THE NASA LANGLEY RESEARCH CENTER TO U.S. CIVIL AIRCRAFT OF TilE 1990s by Joseph R. Chambers, a copy of which has been included in the docket). Maintaining controllability all the way through a fu lly developed stall is only possible if specific design characteristics are met to maintain pitch and roll control through the stall , and by preventing uncontrollable roll , yaw, or pitch rates from developing during stall. The result is an aircraft that will " mush" into the stall and simply descend , instead of departing controlled flight. NASA research also showed it is possible to mush into a stall and recover with minimal altitude loss. The use of an angle of attack indicator can help a pilot have situational awareness regarding pending stall , and proper recovery technique to minimize altitude loss (i

.e
., 300 feet or less). The NASA research also showed these features can be incorporated into existing designs , with a particular benetit from keeping outer portions of the wings from stalling. ICON Aircraft states that their research, development, and engineering effort to advance previous NASA work on the subject have made full Part 23 spin resistance possible.
The FAA disagrees with the commenters that suggest I CON should certificate the aircraft to Part 23 standards, or Primary Category standards

- not to SLSA standards. The FAA has determined that the ICON AS provides an equivalent level of safety, and may in fact exceed the level of safety provided by aircraft that meet the parameters set forth in 14 CFR 

### § 1.1 for LSA

. While the current standards and regulations do not prevent the introduction of SRA, the FAA did not specifically consider SRA in establishing the MTOW for LSA. The FAA has determined that granting relieffrom the MTOW for LSA for this specific safety enhancement is in the public interest and is also consistent with the FAA ' s goal ofincreasing safety for sma ll airplanes.
The FAA disagrees with commenters who state that certain features of the ICON AS should be removed to reduce the total amount of weight relief requested. While the interior panels of the AS may have aesthetic value, they also improve crashworthiness by separating and protecting occupants from flight controls, cables , and other systems. The 10FAA believes that these and other safety features , such as an angle of attack indicator and ballistic recovery parachute, should not be removed in order to decrease the total amount of weight relief requested to incorporate spin resistance, as their removal will decrease the level of safety provided by the aircraft.
The FAA also considered commenters' assertions that the wing fold mechanism appears to be driven by marketing instead of safety. While the wing fold mechanism may improve the marketability of the AS , the FAA determined that requiring a commensurate reduction in the aircraft·s MTOW would have no appreciable positive or negative effect on level of safety afforded by this aircraft's design and would not be in the public interest

. Twelve commenters suggest that this petition, if granted, would give ICON an unfair advantage over other LSA manufacturers. Generally, the FAA does not take a position on whether a grant ofexemption may provide ICON with a business advantage over its competitors. Under 14 CFR Part 11, any individual or entity may ask the FAA for relief from the requirements of a current regulation. The FAA evaluates petitions for exemption by considering the extent ofrelief sought, the reason for requesting relief , whether granting relief would benefit the public as a whole, and whether granting relief would not adversely a1Tect safety or provide a level of safety at least equal to that provided by the rule from which exemption is sought. The FAA believes that granting the relief requested by the petitioner would not adversely affect safety and would be in the public interest. Finally, from all submissions, twelve commenters stated that the current weight restrictions for LSA should be lifted for all designs so all producers of LSA could benefit from a higher weight. Such requests, however, are more appropriately the subject of petitions for rulemaking action.
In reviewing ICON Aircraft's May 9, 2013, submittal of additional information, the FAA noted that in demonstrating the model A5·s spin resistance, ICON Aircraft used AS TM stall and spin resistance requirements unless no applicable ASTM requirement existed, in which case the company used 14 CFR part 23 test procedures with ASTM limits and maximum deviations where defined

. Ilowever, 14 CFR 

### § 23.221(a)(2) references the stall tests of § 23.201 and§ 23.203 , and in one subparagraph directly requires that, "it must be possible to maintain wings-level flight within 15 degrees of bank

... " Instead, ICON substituted the ASTM maximum roll/yaw limits, which in some cases are less stringent than required by 14 CFR 

### § 23.221(a)(2). Table l compares the roll/yaw lin1its of 14 CFR 

### § 23.221(a)(2) with those of ASTM F2245

.

IIManeuver 14 CFR § 23.221 (a)(2) ASTM 1<'2245 roll/yaw limits roll/yaw limits Wings-l,evel ± 15 ° roll :L20 ° roll or yaw Stall via direct requirement in § 23.22 1 (a)(2)(i) AND via§ 23.221 (a)(2)(iii) requiring compliance with§ 23.201
Turning Flight 60° bank in original direction oftum 160° of additional roll Stall 30° bank in opposite direction (Delta of+ 30°/-60°) via§ 23. 221(a)(2)(iii) requiring compl iance with§ 23.203
Accelerated 90° bank in original direction oftum ±60° of add itional roll Turning Stall 60° bank in opposite direction ( Delta of -1 60°/ -90°) via§ 23.221 (a)(2)(iii) requiring compliance with § 23.203


### Table 1, Comparison of Part 23 and ASTM F2245 roll/yaw limits
In its petition tor exemption, ICON claimed that the A5 proof ofconcept vehicle had, ''demonstrated spin resistance in accordance with the full envelope of the 14 CFR § 23.22l(a)(2) standard " and described the complex, challenging, and multivariablc problem presented by designing an aircraft to meet the " full envelope ofthe Part 23 spinresistance standard". ICON Aircraft's petition also included a recommended limitation that would require ICON to include the following statement on the Manufacturer's Statement of Compliance (FAA Form 8130

- 15): "This aircraft performs to the standard of 14 CFR 

### § 23

.22 l(a)(2) at amendment 23-50

. '' ICON's petition indicates the Model A5 tully meets the spin resistance standard of 14 CfR 

### § 23.221(a)(2). The company's petition makes no mention of substituting ASTM pass/fail criteria for the pass/fail criteria established by 14 CFR 

### § 23.22l(a)(2).
The FAA has determined that the generally more stringent rol l/yaw limit pass/fail criteria of 14 CFR 

### § 23.221 (a)(2) should be applied as a condition of granting ICON's petition for exemption. The part 23 spin resistance standard requires a level of performance that will help ensure the ICON A5 provides a level of safety at least equal to that provided by the rules from which exem ption is granted. Notwithstanding ICON Aircraft's substitution of ASTM maximum roll/yaw deviations as pass/fail criteria, all test data submitted by ICON Aircraft clearly show that the A5 prototype actually met the more stringent 14 CFR § 23

. 221 (a)(2) pass/fail criteria. The
12FAA has determin ed that as a condition of this exemption, each production Model AS must also meet the more stringent requirements of 14 CFR § 23.221(a)(2), without substitution of ASTM maximum roll/yaw limits

. The one exception we have made to the 14 CFR 

### § 23.221 (a)(2) requirements is substitution of ASTM F2245 pilot force limits

. In establishing the definition oflight-sport aircraft, the FAA sought to ensure that lightsport aircraft characteristics are consistent with the skills and training of the sport pilot and those persons authorized to perform maintenance and preventive maintenance on the aircraft. In issuing the final rule, Certification of Aircraft and Airmen f or the Operation of Light-Sport Aircraft (69 FR 44772; July 27, 2004) (the LSA rule), the FAA believed that pilots operating an aircraft with an MTOW that exceeds that established by the rule should hold at least a private or recreational pilot's certificate. However, the FAI\ has determined that granting relief from the LSI\ weight limits in order to provide spin resistance and other safety features of the ICON /\5 would result in the provision of an aircraft to persons exercising the privileges of a sport pilot that would provide a level of safety equivalent to that of an aircraft that, in fact, met the pa rameters of the LSA definition.
The FAA has determined the ICON AS ' s fli ght characteristics are approptiate for it to be operated by persons exercising the privileges of a sport pilot certificate or a student pilot seeking a sport pilot certificate

. The conditions and limitations of this exemption define several design features and operating characteristics that aircraft certificated under the provisions of this exemption must meet. These conditions and limitations ensure that the ICON AS's operating characteristics are consistent with the training and skills of sport pilots. The SRA technology, angle ofattack indicator, ballistic recovery parachute, and enhanced crao;h survival features incorporated in the ICON AS are not required by the regulations; however, the FAA believes their inclusion in the aircraft's design will enhance GA safety and be particularly beneficial to sport pilots. As the FAA believes that these aircraft can be operated by persons exercising the privileges of a sport pilot certificate, the agency also believes that a person holding a flight instructor certificate with a sport pilot rating can provide Hight training in such an aircraft even though it docs not meet the parameters ofthe LSI\ definition.
ICON Aircraft stated that to ensure the spi n resistance safety feature is well maintained , and to reduce maintenance errors, it is important for maintenance personnel to be trained by ICON. The petitioner recommended including a limitation requiring an ICON authorized certificate oftraining on repair and maintenance of the model AS. However, the FAA has determined that the existing regulations, including 14 CFR 65.81 and 65.107, sufficiently address the requirements for persons performing maintenance and preventative maintenance on light-sport aircraft. The FAA has determined that permitting maintenance and preventive maintenance to be performed on these aircraft by persons who are only authorized to perform such actions on aircraft that meet the definition ofa light sport aircraft would not adversely affect safety and would be in the public interest. The additional weight and safety enhancements included as part ofthe design and perf ormance of the ICON AS do not add complexity to the maintenance or 13inspection aspects of the aircraft for repairmen or sport pilots beyond that of any other aircraft issued a special airworthiness certificate in the light-sport category. Accordingly, the FAA will permit persons exercising the privileges ofa sport pilot and those persons holding a repairman certificate (light sport aircraft) with a maintenance rating or inspection rating to perform maintenance and preventive maint enance on these ai rcraft in accordance with the privileges applicable to performing those activ ities on aircraft that meet the parameters of a light-sport aircraft.
Similarly, the petitioner recommended including a limitation requiring that persons operating the model AS receive ICON authorized training. llowever, the FAA has determined that the existing 14 CFR requirements for operation of the aircraft are sufficient and no additional flight training requi rements need to be applied as part of the grant of exemption.
ICON Aircraft recommended including a limitation requiring that each model AS have on board an ICON Aircraf t owned flight data recorder (FDR) for the purpose of continued airworthiness. However, the FAA has determined that existing requirements for maintaining continued airworthiness are sufficient and no requirement for an FDR needs to be app lied as part ofthe grant of exemption. The FAA recognizes that it is granting an exemption to permit an aircraft that exceeds a regulatory MTOW limitation to be certificated , operated, and maintained as ifit met the applicable MTOW parameter. The FAA, however, is gra nting this exemption only within the limited confi nes of the facts presented in thi s petition and in accordance wit h the conditions and limitations set forth in this exemption. This dec ision should not be given wider precedent ial value

. SLSA are not produced under type and production certification procedures and are prohi bited from being used for compensation or hire except to conduct flight training or to tow a light-sport gl ider or an unpowered ultralight vehicle.
The 

# rAA has denied previous petitions for relief from ai rcraft category weight limitations and believes tha t ICON's petition f or relief is unique and disti nguishable from these previous petitions. The purpose ofiCON's petition is to allow for the incorporation of spin resistance without omitting an angle of attack indicator, ballistic recovery parachute, and enhanced crash survival features in order to achieve a level of safety commensurate with aircraft that meet the maximum weight parameter specified under the LSA rule. Spin resistance is a significant safety advancement that directly addresses the leading cause of GA fatal accidents

- loss of control. From 2001 through 2011 , there were over I ,300 fatal general aviation accidents involving loss-of-control in fli ght. The sta ll-spin scenar io usually happens in the landing pattern at low altitude and is a major contributor to these loss-of-control accidents

. A fully spin resistant airframe meeting the standards of 14 C PR part 23 , §23

.22 1(a)(2) , such as that of the ICON AS , is a safety feature not substantiated in other S LS A.

14ICON docs not seek relief from any of the Federal Aviation Regulations that serve to limit the other design criteria of light-sport aircraft. The ICON AS must meet the maximum level flight speed, maximum stall speed, and maximum seating capacity limits that all light-sport aircraft must meet, as well as the extensive conditions and limitations set forth in this exemption. ICON is al so not seeking relief in order to incorporate safety features that have been included in designs by other manufacturers within established weight limits.
After careful consideration ofthe entire design and how it is intended to be operated , we find a grant of exemption is in the public interest, subject to the specif i c conditions and limitations contained in this exemption

. The FAA bases this grant ofexemption not solely on the incorporation of SRA, but on the incorporation of SRA without compromising other safe tlight characteristics and safety features, such as an angle of attack indicator, a ballistic recovery parachute, and enhanced crash survival features. Some ofthe conditions and limitations ofthis grant are designed to ensure that these other safety elements, which are not required by Federal Aviation Regulations or AS TM standards , remain part ofthe model AS design. No single design feature of the AS alone would have compelled the FAA to grant ICON's request. The safety enhancements included as part of the design and performance of the ICON AS, and mandated by conditions and limitations, provide a level of safety at least equal to that provided by the rules for persons exercising the privileges of a sport p ilot certificate, even with the MT OW of the aircraft above that of other aircraft issued a special airworthiness certificate in the li ght

-sport category

. T he 

### FAA 's Decision :
In consideration ofthe foregoing , I find that a grant of exemption is in the public interest. Theref ore, pursuant to the authority contained in 49 U.S

.C. 

### §§ 40113 and 44701 , delegated to me by the Administrator, ICON Aircraft is granted an exemption from 14 CFR 

### §§ 21.18 1(a)(3) and 21

. 190(a) to the extent necessary to allow the IC ON AS aircraft with a MTOW of 1680 pounds to be eligible tor issuance ofa special airworthiness certificate in the light

- sport category

. ICON Aircraft is also granted an exemption from 14 CFR §§ 61.89(c) , 61.303(a), and 61.31S(a) on behalf ofpersons exercising the privileges of a sport pilot certificate or student pilots seeking a sport pilot certificate to permit those persons to operate the ICON AS and to permit flight time obtained in the ICON AS to be considered t1ight time obtained in a light-sport aircraft. ICON Aircraft is also granted an exemption from 14 CFR 

### §§ 61.41 1(a) , 61.41S, and 61 .429(b) on behalf ofpersons exercising the privileges of a flight instructor certificate with a sport pilot rating to permit those persons to provide t1ight training in the ICON AS. Additionally, ICON Aircraft is granted an exemption from 14 CFR 

### §§ 43

.3(c), 43.7(g) and 6S

. 107(b) and (c) on behalfofholders of sport pilot certificates and repairman certificates (light-sport aircraft) with a maintenance rating or an inspection rating to permit those persons to perform maint enance and preventive maintenance on ICON AS aircraft as authorized within those sections

. All of these grants are subject to the condit ions and limitat ions listed below

. The FAA has determined that an exempt ion from 14 CFR 

### §§ 61.23, 61.31, 61.305, 61.317,61 .403, 61.417, 61.419 , and 61.423 is not necessary to provide the relief requested. The FAA has al so determined that an exemption ISfrom 14 CFR 

### §§ 61

.321, 61.32S, and 61.327 is not necessary; however the FAA has included compliance with the provisions of those sections for certain persons as conditions and limitations ofthis exemption.
Conditions and Limitations
I. This exemption applies to the ICON Aircraft model number 

### AS, serial numbers 0000 1

- 99999. 2

. ICON may issue the manufacturer's statement ofcompliance required by 14 CFR § 21.190(b)( I )(iii) for its model 

### AS aircraft indicating a maximum takeoiT weight (MTOW) ofup to 1680 pounds (762 kilograms) , provided the aircraft meets all applicable requirements of 14 CFR 

### § 21.190 and the conditions a nd limitations specified in this exemption. 3. ICON must supply each purchaser of an ICON 

### AS certificated under the provisions of this exemption with a copy ofthe exemption. A copy of this exemption must be carried on board each aircraft during its operation. 4. The manufacturer's statement of compl iance required by 14 CFR 

### § 2l.l90(b)(1)(iii) must: (a) State that the aircraft meets the provisions of the applicable consensus standard and the design requirements specified in these conditions and limitations

. (b) State that the aircraft meets the spin resistance standards of 14 CFR § 23.221(a)(2) without exceeding the pilot force limits of ASTM F224S for temporary application. (c) State that the following safety design features have been incorporated into the aircraft: ( l) An angle of attack (AOA) indicator that includes an indication of sensed AOA rate , allowing the pilot to identify margin above stall. (2) Aerodynamic characteristics and reversible flight controls that provide stall recovery capability and spi n resistance without the usc ofa stick pusher or other automatic flight control system. (3) Design features that allow recovery from a wings-level , power
-off stall with an altitude loss of 300 feet or less. (4) Aerodynamic characteristics that limit the vertical descent rate to 20 fils (1200 ft!min) or less during a fully developed wings-level , power-off stall. (S) Interior panels separating and protecting occupants from flight controls, cables, and other systems. (6) A ballistic recovery complete-aircraft parachute system in compliance with the latest FAA

-accepted rev ision of ASTM International Standard F2316. (7) A propulsion system with a maximum power output of 100 k W ( 13S horsepower) or less, regardless of flight phase or de

-rating of the engine. (8) Compliance with ASTM International Standard F2245-12c until superseded by a later FAA-acccpted revision ofF2245.

16

### S. Prior to issuance ofa special airworthiness certificate in the light-sport category for the first ICON AS certificated under the provisions of this exemption, the FAA must 

### complete an audit ofICON ' s facilities and find that ICON can produce the model AS aircraft in accordance with applicable regulations , consensus standards, and the conditions and limi tations set forth in this exemption. 6. Prior to issuance of a special airworthiness certificate in the light-sport category for the first ICON AS certificated under the provisions of this exemption, the FAA must complete an inspection of the model AS aircraft and find that the model AS aircraft meets the provisions of all applicable regulations , consensus standards, and the conditions and limi tations set forth in this exemption. 7. Any person who holds a sport pilot certificate who docs not have airplane category and single-engine land and sea class privileges and seeks to obtain privileges to operate the ICON AS aircraft must receive the logbook endorsements, successfully complete the proficiency check and complete the application specified in 14 CFR § 61.321. 8. Any person who holds a sport pilot certificate and seeks privileges to operate the ICON AS aircraft at an airport within, or in airspace within, Class B, C, and D airspace, or in other airspace with an airport having an operational control tower must receive and log the ground and flight training and obtain the endorsement specified in 14 CFR § 61.32S. 9. Any person who holds a sport pilot certificate and seeks to operate the ICON AS aircraft must receive and log the ground and flight training and obtain the endorsement specif i ed in 14 CFR 

### § 61.327(b). I 0. Any person who performs maintenance or preventive maintenance on the ICON model AS aircraft under the provisions of this exemption must include a reference to this exemption in the maintenance record entry required to be made under the provisions of 14 C FR 

### § 43.9 or 43.11, as applicable. 11. ICON must maintain a record of all failures, malfunctions , or defects of the ICON model AS spin resistant airframe and report any failure, malfunction, or defect of the airframe and any sta ll or spin related accident or incident involving the model AS to the Small Airplane Directora te within 48 hours after learning ofthe occurrence.
This exemption terminates on June 30, 2018, unless sooner superseded or rescinded.
Issued in Washington DC , on July 24, 2013.

# -'?~fr**-:~**

Deputy Director,

## rcraft Certification Service

17