ICON Request for Change to Exemption Limitation Page 1 of 4 U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) 02

. 24 .201 6 Docket Operations West Building – Ground Floor, Room W12

- 140 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE. Washington, DC 20590

(Also Submitted to Federal Docket Management System Website)

Subject: Requests for a Change to a Limitation for FAA Exemption 10829 (Regulatory Docket No. FAA

- 2012

- 0514)

Attachment s: (1) Grant of Exemption No. 10829 Dated July 24, 2013 (2) Plane & Pilot Magazine, ICON A5 Has Entered The Building , Thursday, June 18, 2015 (3) Petition for Exemption – ICON A5 to Incorporate a Spin

- Resistant Airframe (SRA) (4 ) yyyyyyyyyyyyͲyyyyyyyyyyyyͲyyyyyyyyyyyͲyyyyyyyyyyyͲyyyyy

Dear DOT Representative:

ICON Aircraft requests that the FAA consider this petition to change a specific limitation to FAA Exemption No. 10829 , in accordance with 14CFR§11.15

. The minor change being requested i s not precedent setting and it will further enhance the public benefit of this exemption as it will improve the already industry leading level of safety of the ICON Aircraft model A5 . ICON requests that this change be accomplished as quickly as possible

, without need for public
review and co mment

, as permitted by regulation and clarified by FAA policy and past precedent

.

In July of 2013, the FAA granted an exemption (FAA Exemption 10828, attached) to allow the

ICON Aircraft model A5 to carry an additional 250 pounds, needed to include a Spin

- Resistant Airframe (SRA), while still qualifying as a Special Light Sport Airplane (S

- LSA)

. This exemption
includes eleven limitations

. ICON is seeking to have one of these limitations changed in furtherance of safety and without affecting the nature of the exemption which permits a SRA to be incorporated

. This exemption was granted because the safety improvement an SRA provides
embodies a substantial public benefit ; the spin resistant design of the ICON A5 all but
eliminates loss of control accidents, the primary cause of fatal accidents

. The ICON A5 is now in production and the included SRA feature is being heralded as one of the most significant safety advancements of modern general aviation (see attached news article)

.ICON Request for Change to Exemption Limitation Page 2 of 4 ICON requests a change to one limitation included in FAA Exemption 10 829 related to the

maximum size of the powerplant

.

Current limitation related to power plant size that ICON would like to change (FAA Exemption 10828, page 16): (7) A propulsion system with a ma ximum power output of 100 kW ( 13 5 horsepower) or less, regardless of flight phase or de

- rating of the engine.

ICON proposes this limitation be deleted (the issue is addressed by current regulation)

or modified to read as follows (based upon ICON signed statement, page 18) : (7) The A5 may not exceed the level flight speed of 120 KC AS required by 14 CFR §

1.1 when the pilot is demanding maximum thrust

.

T he quality and performance of spin resistance is paramount to the exemption and spin resistance is a key feature of the A5 that has been and will be assured at any power level.

Correct Arbitrary Limitation:
ICON believes the current 135HP limitation is ar bitrary as it is unrelated to the effectiveness of spin resistance and is overly prescriptive in nature – specifying design solutions versus design objectives. Furthermore, no other LSA manufacturer has to endure a power l imitation of this
type

. Physics dictates that the added drag and weight from the inclusion of an SRA actually requires that more power , not less

, in order to achieve optimal LSA takeoff, climb and cruise performance. A propulsion power limitation is not included as a part of the rules governing LSA and it should not be a limitation imposed on the ICON A5

. The only performance limitation for a light sport airplane is 120KCAS limit on cruise airspeed at sea level. ICON is already su bject to this regulation

. The 135HP restrictio n placed on IC ON should be changed so that this safest,

most innovative and useful aircraft can be made available to the public. ICON is requesting that the FAA change the wording of this limitation XXXXXXX XXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXX XXXXXXX

XXXXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXXXX XXXXXXX XXXXXXX

.

Eliminate Unintended Safety Restriction: Setting aside the fact that the 135HP limitation was arbitrary and unnecessary to begin with

, increased power directly affects an aircraft’s ability to avoid terrain and obstacles

, thereby increasing safety significantly

. Increased power and climb performance in an aircraft is categorically safer

, provided it is integrated into the airframe properly and remains controllable to the operator . D uring takeoff, climb, cruise and even balked landing, power beyond 135HP,

w ill result in improved safety

. Furthermore, amphibious operations require even more power than land aircraft due to water operations and often confined spaces. Lower power output,

p articularly on water, exposes the aircraft to very long takeoff runs and low climb gradients in potentially confined spaces. If there is any application that needs access to more horsepower, it’s amphibious operations. Limiting power is by definition limiting takeoff and climbICON Request for Change to Exemption Limitation Page 3 of 4 performance

, imposing a serious unintended consequence and reducing safety

.

The larger wing and airframe which result from the inclusion of a Spin Resistant Airframe, amplify the need for more power as compared to a traditional amphibious LSA. A more powerful engine will also allow for more speed differential between typical cruise and stall; increasing this differential provides extra protection to new pilots or pilots who may not be paying enough attention to airspeed

. The A5 includes a host of equipment to protect pilots from low speed events, but ICON believes that there shouldn’t be a limitation prohibiting any additional safety benefits that are possible.

The original LSA rules captured this philosophy correctly when they

, intentionally

, did not prescribe horsepower limitations in the LSA category to avoid this unintended consequence of reducing safety

. In the case of the ICON A5, XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX

XXXXX XX this limitation should be eliminated so the safest aircraft possible may be fielded.

120KCAS Speed Limitation

ICON understands that the FAA decision to accommodate an SRA, by allowing additional weight

, in the LSA category was precedent setting

. T he limit ation requiring a powerplant of
135HP or less was not a key aspect in granting the exemption

. It is possible that the 135HP
limitation was added to alleviate an FAA concern that ICON might use the additional weight to significantly over power the aircraft and to violate the 120KCAS maximum level cruise speed at
sea level

. ICON understands the FAA’s concern in this regard but horsepower is not a surrogate for maximum cruise speed, an arbitrarily impose d power constraint has other unintended consequences and so the limitation should be changed

. There are many ways to control maximum speed of an aircraft

. The ICON A5 will conform to the LSA maximum speed requirements independent of power.

FAA Exemption 10828 does not alleviate the requirement for the A5 to me et the LSA speed
limit and the removal of t he arbitrary 135HP limitation would not be precedent setting . T he FAA has previously granted exemption for increased weight in the LSA category without imposing a power limitation

. T he FAA can make a minor change to the limitation of powerplant size, in the current exemption, without the need to solicit public comment because this is not a precedent setting aspect of the exemption

. Making this change as efficiently and quickly as

poss ible is in the best interest of the FAA, the public XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX

XXXXX XXXXX XXX

. Further, making the proposed minor change will more directly address the FAA’s concerns without having unintended consequences on the model A5

.

Lastly, elimination prescriptive based constraints like this one is completely aligned with the expressed future regulatory philosophy espoused by the FAA leadership and proposed to Congress.ICON Request for Change to Exemption Limitation Page 4 of 4 History of 135HP Limitation
When the FAA was originally c onsidering the request for exemption there was dialogue
between the FAA and ICON XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XX

XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XX

XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XX

XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX X

XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXX This request for change to the 135HP limitation is mea nt to provide additional information so the FAA can correct this limitation.

Closing Finally, 14CFR§11.63 requires that applicants allow 120 days for the FAA to process exemptions.

ICON requests that the FAA determine that the requested change is non

- precedent setting and process the request before 31.March.2015 to facilitate looming production schedules

. XXXX

XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XX

XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXX ICON considers the material related to the performance of the ICON
model A5 with the 100HP powerplant option (highlighted in grey ) to be proprietary and asks
that the FAA not disclose this information in to the public.

If you have any questions or need additional information, feel free to contact me directly

.

Sincerely,

Kirk Hawkins CEO & Founder / ICON Aircraft

2 141 ICON Way Vacaville, CA 9 5688 kirk@ ICON aircraft.com / 707

. 564

. 4000

cc: Mel Johnson
Pat Mullen
William Shinstock Terry Chasteen