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. I 90(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. I 07(b) and 6S.107(c) of Title 

14, Code of Federal Regulations 

Regulatory Docket No. FAA-2012-0514 

(;RANT OF EXEMPTION 

By letter dated May 7, 2012, Mr. Kirk Hawkins, CEO & Founder, ICON Aircraft (ICON), 

I 2S11 Beatrice Street, I ,os Angeles, CA 90066, petitioned the Federal Aviation Administration 

(FAA) on behalf of ICON and persons operating, maintaining, providing tlight training in, and 

performing preventive maintenance on its Model AS aircraft for an exemption from §§ 21.181, 

21.190, 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 light-sport category 

to operate a light-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 of a 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, if any, 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 of the 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 of light 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, aircraft for which you endorsements required by this 

license hold the endorsements subpart, and comply with the 

2 
equircd 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 ~ircraft in that category any of the endorsements 

category and class rating, and class, required by this subpart, but 

you must comply with the 

limitations in § 61.31 5. 

(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 the endorsements required § 61.315(c)(14) and, if a 

and class of light-sport in § 6 1.321 for its private p ilot or higher,§ 

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

Section 61 .315 prescribes, in pertinent part, that: 

If you hold a sport pilot certificate 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: 

If you are applying for a flight 

instructor certificate with a sport 

pilot rating rrhcn you must 

for . .. log at least ... Which must include at least . . . 

(a) Airplane category and single- (1) 150 hoursof (i) 100 hours of flight time as pilot in 

engine class privileges, flight time as a command in powered aircraft, 

pilot, (i i) 50 hours of flight time in a singleengine airplane, 

(iii) 25 hours of cross-country 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. 

3 
Section 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 issued 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 of proficiency, 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 issued an experimental certificate for operating a light-sport aircraft 

under § 21.191 (i) of this 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 special 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 of this 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. 

4 
The 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 states 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 of pilot-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 of loss-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 of the 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 specific 

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 

5 
SLSA. 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 of the 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-five ( 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 of LSA could benefit from a higher weight. 

The fifty-four (54) commenters in opposition to ICON's petition are concerned with the 

safety of the 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. 

6 
Additional 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 

information 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 combination 

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. Clarification that inflatable restraints are not incorporated in the design of the 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 

7 
7. 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 of the 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 of its 

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 of the above information 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 of a 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 of the safety continuum, the F J\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 of these 

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-Sport Aircraft (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 of light-sport aircraft. While the 

LSi\ regulations do not prevent the introduction of SRi\, the FAA did not consider the 

weight of SRA technology compliant with 14 CFR Part 23 spin resistance standards in 

establishing the MTOW for LSA. 

8 
Analysis 

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 of fatal 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 requirements 

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 of a 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 propulsion 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 of pilot induced oscillations or over-control of the aircraft. The FAA believes 

that the inclusion of these 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 of LSA. The 

combined design features and SRA concepts incorporated into the ICON AS design to 

9 
avoid 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 scenarios, 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 fully 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 ICON 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 of increasing safety for small 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 crash worthiness by 

separating and protecting occupants from flight controls, cables, and other systems. The 

10 
FAA 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 of exemption 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 of relief 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 ASTM 

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. 

II 
Maneuver 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 of tum 160° of additional roll 

Stall 30° bank in opposite direction 

(Delta of+ 30°/-60°) 

via§ 23.221(a)(2)(iii) requiring compliance 

with§ 23.203 

Accelerated 90° bank in original direction of tum ±60° of additional 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 of concept 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 of the 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 roll/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 exemption 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 

12 
FAA has determined 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 for 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 F AI\ 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 parameters of the LSA 

definition. 

The FAA has determined the ICON AS 's flight 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 of attack 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 spin 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 of training 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 of a light sport aircraft would not adversely affect safety and would be in the 

public interest. The additional weight and safety enhancements included as part of the 

design and performance of the ICON AS do not add complexity to the maintenance or 

13 
inspection 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 of a sport pilot and those persons 

holding a repairman certificate (light sport aircraft) with a maintenance rating or 

inspection rating to perform maintenance and preventive maintenance on these aircraft in 

accordance with the privileges applicable to performing those activities 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 requirements 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 Aircraft 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 applied as part of the 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 if it met the 

applicable MTOW parameter. The FAA, however, is granting this exemption only 

within the limited confines of the facts presented in this petition and in accordance with 

the conditions and limitations set forth in this exemption. This decision should not be 

given wider precedential value. SLSA are not produced under type and production 

certification procedures and are prohibited from being used for compensation or hire 

except to conduct flight training or to tow a light-sport glider or an unpowered ultralight 

vehicle. 

The r AA has denied previous petitions for relief from aircraft category weight limitations 

and believes that ICON's petition for relief is unique and distinguishable 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 flight. The stall-spin 

scenario 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 CPR part 23, §23.221(a)(2), such as that of the ICON AS, is a safety feature not 

substantiated in other SLSA. 

14 
ICON 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 also 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 of the entire design and how it is intended to be operated, we 

find a grant of exemption is in the public interest, subject to the specific conditions and 

limitations contained in this exemption. The FAA bases this grant of exemption 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 of the conditions and limitations of this grant are designed to ensure that these 

other safety elements, which are not required by Federal Aviation Regulations or ASTM 

standards, remain part of the 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 pilot certificate, even with the 

MTOW of the aircraft above that of other aircraft issued a special airworthiness 

certificate in the light-sport category. 

The FAA's Decision: 

In consideration of the foregoing, I find that a grant of exemption is in the public interest. 

Therefore, 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 §§ 21.181(a)(3) and 

21 .190(a) to the extent necessary to allow the ICON AS aircraft with a MTOW of 1680 pounds 

to be eligible tor issuance of a 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 of persons 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 of persons 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 

behalf of holders of sport pilot certificates and repairman certificates (light-sport aircraft) with a 

maintenance rating or an inspection rating to permit those persons to perform maintenance and 

preventive maintenance on ICON AS aircraft as authorized within those sections. All of these 

grants are subject to the conditions and limitations listed below. The FAA has determined that 

an exemption 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 also determined that an exemption 

IS 
from 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 

of this 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 of compliance required by 14 CFR § 

21.190(b )(I )(iii) for its model AS aircraft indicating a maximum takeoiT weight 

(MTOW) of up to 1680 pounds (762 kilograms), provided the aircraft meets all 

applicable requirements of 14 CFR § 21.190 and the conditions and 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 of the exemption. A copy of this exemption must be 

carried on board each aircraft during its operation. 

4. The manufacturer's statement of compliance 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 spin resistance without the usc of a 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 revision 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 F AA-acccpted revision of F2245. 

16 
S. 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 audit of ICON's facilities and find that ICON can produce the model AS 

aircraft in accordance with applicable regulations, consensus standards, and the 

conditions and limitations 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 limitations 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 specifi 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 CFR § 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 stall or spin related accident or incident involving the model AS to 

the Small Airplane Directorate within 48 hours after learning of the 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