ICON Request for Change to Exemption Limitation Page 1 of 4

U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) 02.24.2016

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)

Attachments: (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 is 

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 comment, 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 10829 related to the 

maximum size of the powerplant. 

Current limitation related to powerplant size that ICON would like to change (FAA 

Exemption 10828, page 16): 

(7) 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.

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 KCAS required by 14 CFR § 

1.1 when the pilot is demanding maximum thrust.

The 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 arbitrary 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 limitation 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 subject to 

this regulation. The 135HP restriction placed on ICON 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. During takeoff, climb, cruise and even balked landing, power beyond 135HP, 

will 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, 

particularly 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 climb 
ICON 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. The limitation 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 imposed 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 meet the LSA speed 

limit and the removal of the arbitrary 135HP limitation would not be precedent setting. The 

FAA has previously granted exemption for increased weight in the LSA category without 

imposing a power limitation. The 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 

possible 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 considering 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 meant 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

2141 ICON Way

Vacaville, CA 95688

kirk@ICONaircraft.com / 707.564.4000

cc: Mel Johnson

Pat Mullen

 William Shinstock

 Terry Chasteen