Your position on the turbine rules
08-05-2004, 10:39 AM
#1
Your position on the turbine rules
G'day,
What is your position regarding the current AMA rules that apply to turbines, and turbines only ? Which rules do you support ; which do you think are unnecessary ? ; what rules should we have that we do not ?
Regards,
Gordon
What is your position regarding the current AMA rules that apply to turbines, and turbines only ? Which rules do you support ; which do you think are unnecessary ? ; what rules should we have that we do not ?
Regards,
Gordon
08-05-2004, 01:15 PM
#2
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Baldwinsville,
NY
Posts: 136
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Your position on the turbine rules
ORIGINAL: Gordon Mc
G'day,
What is your position regarding the current AMA rules that apply to turbines, and turbines only ? Which rules do you support ; which do you think are unnecessary ? ; what rules should we have that we do not ?
Regards,
Gordon
G'day,
What is your position regarding the current AMA rules that apply to turbines, and turbines only ? Which rules do you support ; which do you think are unnecessary ? ; what rules should we have that we do not ?
Regards,
Gordon
I voted in favor of the revised turbine regulations when they were first presented to the EC in November 2003 and I voted in favor of them again, in their slightly modified form, when represented in February 2004. I thought Don Lowe did a good job of putting together the Turbine Review Committee that included officers of the JPO and acknowledged expert members of the turbine community. Respect and confidence in those on the review committee, and the endorsement of Don Lowe and the AMA Safety Committee made it easy for me to accept that their recommendations were what was right for both AMA and turbine pilots.
I support the rules as presented by the committee. Specifically, I was good with removing the requirement for an engine ground school because of the advancements in turbine technology, but like the fact that the community stills makes this information available to those that want/need it. I really like the new policy allowing the use of a buddy box for flight proficiency work and qualification flights. It made no sense to me that the use of a buddy box was prohibited before. I’m comfortable with the flightline requirements because most are common sense. I accept the 200 mph maximum speed limit because we were told by he committee that 200 mph was fair and reasonable. After listening to Steven Ellzey’s presentation in February I don’t know that the speed limit is really much of an issue. Reality appears to be that the large majority of turbine models aren’t any faster than a competitive Quickie 500.
I think the regulations fall short in one area, fuel containment. The number one concern in a turbine crash is the possibility of a fire. To have a fire you need an ignition source and a propellant. Item 9 in the regs. does the job of trying to eliminate the ignition source if a crash is eminent. But the regulations do little to address fuel containment. I know some guys in the field are still using 2 liter soda bottles as fuel tanks. These become big aspirators in a crash. I suggested at the November EC meeting that the AMA Safety Committee should work with the turbine community, through JPO, to work towards improvements in this area.
Dave
08-05-2004, 02:09 PM
#3
RE: Your position on the turbine rules
ORIGINAL: Dave Mathewson
I accept the 200 mph maximum speed limit because we were told by he committee that 200 mph was fair and reasonable. After listening to Steven Ellzey’s presentation in February I don’t know that the speed limit is really much of an issue. Reality appears to be that the large majority of turbine models aren’t any faster than a competitive Quickie 500.
I accept the 200 mph maximum speed limit because we were told by he committee that 200 mph was fair and reasonable. After listening to Steven Ellzey’s presentation in February I don’t know that the speed limit is really much of an issue. Reality appears to be that the large majority of turbine models aren’t any faster than a competitive Quickie 500.
I think the regulations fall short in one area, fuel containment. The number one concern in a turbine crash is the possibility of a fire. To have a fire you need an ignition source and a propellant. Item 9 in the regs. does the job of trying to eliminate the ignition source if a crash is eminent. But the regulations do little to address fuel containment. I know some guys in the field are still using 2 liter soda bottles as fuel tanks. These become big aspirators in a crash. I suggested at the November EC meeting that the AMA Safety Committee should work with the turbine community, through JPO, to work towards improvements in this area.
Thanks for responding,
Gordon
08-11-2004, 07:19 AM
#4
My Feedback: (34)
RE: Your position on the turbine rules
I'm in agreement here with Gordon.. Back when I raced the unlimited class stuff, our Stiletto weighed over 56 pounds full of fuel and we had to remove fuel to make the maximum weight. This airplane was clocked on radar out of the start dive at 257mph. Why is it acceptable to the AMA for these airplanes yet taboo for turbine aircraft to exceed 200mph? Don't misunderstand, I'm not trying to put limits on the racers at all.. Racing is about going fast.. but why do turbines have performance limits placed upon them that exist for no other facet of the hobby?
08-11-2004, 08:33 AM
#5
RE: Your position on the turbine rules
First, I am an AMA experimental aircraft inspector and a CD. Personally I'm in favor of some revising of the guidelines concerning larger aircraft. As stated in other posts, on first look it doesn't make sense to limit turbines to 200 mph, but a piston racer can go as fast as the want too. But the turbine sport flyer isn't required to follow all of the safety rules levied on the pylon racers either. (http://www.modelaircraft.org/templat...-files/535.pdf) So, If as a turbine flyer, are you willing to set up a flying course at your field that will comply with all of these standards all the time, just so you can fly your jet? And be carefull because if you say all turbines you've just condemned all the turbine helicopter flyers to spending a lot of money for nothing to hover behind a 400 foot deadline!
Now, we move up to 'experimental', theoretically your model weights some fraction over 55 pounds and you have to suddenly find a way to not exceed 92 MPH! And unlike our European brethren we have to stop at a completely arbitrary 100 pounds. Whereas most of them can go up to 330 pounds. Of course then they actually have to maintain and certify it with the full scale regulatory agency in that country. I don't think we want the FAA that involved in the hobby. (neither do they)
My personal conviction would be to unify all of the high speed/ large/ heavyweight models to a single maximum KINETIC ENERGY level. So many folks blurt out the well you can get killed by a 6 pound model too. So a bigger model must be able to more killing? No, the amount of ENERGY that hits you is all the same so a 40 pound model doing 150 and a 100 pound model doing 45 hit with the same impact. The concept behind us is always to look at the worst case. We have an out of control jet slam into a school bus driving by the flying field. If the academy can at least start a defense that we have one unified standard that is an attempt at being safe under all conditions the folks in the accident stand a reasonable chance in court not to be viewed as totally irresponsible, more money than common sense, idiot, and get totally cleaned out.
Before we go changing things do a good job of unifying ALL of the AMA guidelines, not just your little corner of the world
Thomas Solinski
AMA 8026
Now, we move up to 'experimental', theoretically your model weights some fraction over 55 pounds and you have to suddenly find a way to not exceed 92 MPH! And unlike our European brethren we have to stop at a completely arbitrary 100 pounds. Whereas most of them can go up to 330 pounds. Of course then they actually have to maintain and certify it with the full scale regulatory agency in that country. I don't think we want the FAA that involved in the hobby. (neither do they)
My personal conviction would be to unify all of the high speed/ large/ heavyweight models to a single maximum KINETIC ENERGY level. So many folks blurt out the well you can get killed by a 6 pound model too. So a bigger model must be able to more killing? No, the amount of ENERGY that hits you is all the same so a 40 pound model doing 150 and a 100 pound model doing 45 hit with the same impact. The concept behind us is always to look at the worst case. We have an out of control jet slam into a school bus driving by the flying field. If the academy can at least start a defense that we have one unified standard that is an attempt at being safe under all conditions the folks in the accident stand a reasonable chance in court not to be viewed as totally irresponsible, more money than common sense, idiot, and get totally cleaned out.
Before we go changing things do a good job of unifying ALL of the AMA guidelines, not just your little corner of the world
Thomas Solinski
AMA 8026
08-11-2004, 03:44 PM
#6
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2003
Location: St Augustine, FL,
Posts: 2,644
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Your position on the turbine rules
ORIGINAL: Doug Cronkhite
I'm in agreement here with Gordon.. Back when I raced the unlimited class stuff, our Stiletto weighed over 56 pounds full of fuel and we had to remove fuel to make the maximum weight. This airplane was clocked on radar out of the start dive at 257mph. Why is it acceptable to the AMA for these airplanes yet taboo for turbine aircraft to exceed 200mph? Don't misunderstand, I'm not trying to put limits on the racers at all.. Racing is about going fast.. but why do turbines have performance limits placed upon them that exist for no other facet of the hobby?
I'm in agreement here with Gordon.. Back when I raced the unlimited class stuff, our Stiletto weighed over 56 pounds full of fuel and we had to remove fuel to make the maximum weight. This airplane was clocked on radar out of the start dive at 257mph. Why is it acceptable to the AMA for these airplanes yet taboo for turbine aircraft to exceed 200mph? Don't misunderstand, I'm not trying to put limits on the racers at all.. Racing is about going fast.. but why do turbines have performance limits placed upon them that exist for no other facet of the hobby?
Doug-
I'm a little puzzled about the (basic) question you and Gordon are asking, as it appeared to me that Dave and some of other EC members gave the turbine fliers exactly what was asked for by the SIG that represented them. As this forum is intended to elicit Dave Mathewson's position on issues, I'll rephrase it as a question for him.
Dave, did you ask for modification of the proposal made to the EC by representives of the turbine community to reduce the limit on speed before voting in support of it?
Abel
08-11-2004, 04:29 PM
#7
Senior Member
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: East Cobb County,
GA
Posts: 1,390
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Your position on the turbine rules
ORIGINAL: MajorTomski
Now, we move up to 'experimental', theoretically your model weights some fraction over 55 pounds and you have to suddenly find a way to not exceed 92 MPH! And unlike our European brethren we have to stop at a completely arbitrary 100 pounds. Whereas most of them can go up to 330 pounds. Of course then they actually have to maintain and certify it with the full scale regulatory agency in that country. I don't think we want the FAA that involved in the hobby. (neither do they)
Thomas Solinski
AMA 8026
Now, we move up to 'experimental', theoretically your model weights some fraction over 55 pounds and you have to suddenly find a way to not exceed 92 MPH! And unlike our European brethren we have to stop at a completely arbitrary 100 pounds. Whereas most of them can go up to 330 pounds. Of course then they actually have to maintain and certify it with the full scale regulatory agency in that country. I don't think we want the FAA that involved in the hobby. (neither do they)
Thomas Solinski
AMA 8026
I'm not sure we shoudn't follow the example already set by BMFA and LMA because they appear to have gotten it right.
I'm also not so sure that IMAA shoudn't migrate to the large model arena, if for no other reason than IMAA seems to be waning now that 40% models are relatively common and AMA is sanctioning giant model events directly, sans IMAA imprimateur.
I do think we've fallen well and truly behind the rest of the aeromodeling world with respect to large models, and that if the hobby is to continue growing in the U.S. we've got to find a solution before the real giants become a thing of the past and the models du jour are foam indoor jobbies simply because AMA wasn't really interested in large models.
Having said all that, I'm also sure the BMFA/LMA setup cannot be used as is because the politics of FAA are like no other in the world.
08-11-2004, 05:14 PM
#8
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Baldwinsville,
NY
Posts: 136
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Your position on the turbine rules
ORIGINAL: Doug Cronkhite
I'm in agreement here with Gordon.. Back when I raced the unlimited class stuff, our Stiletto weighed over 56 pounds full of fuel and we had to remove fuel to make the maximum weight. This airplane was clocked on radar out of the start dive at 257mph. Why is it acceptable to the AMA for these airplanes yet taboo for turbine aircraft to exceed 200mph? Don't misunderstand, I'm not trying to put limits on the racers at all.. Racing is about going fast.. but why do turbines have performance limits placed upon them that exist for no other facet of the hobby?
I'm in agreement here with Gordon.. Back when I raced the unlimited class stuff, our Stiletto weighed over 56 pounds full of fuel and we had to remove fuel to make the maximum weight. This airplane was clocked on radar out of the start dive at 257mph. Why is it acceptable to the AMA for these airplanes yet taboo for turbine aircraft to exceed 200mph? Don't misunderstand, I'm not trying to put limits on the racers at all.. Racing is about going fast.. but why do turbines have performance limits placed upon them that exist for no other facet of the hobby?
Fair enough question. Let’s reverse it. Why does Giant Scale Racing have operating restrictions placed on that discipline that exist for no other facet of the hobby? Greater pilot, officials, and spectator setbacks. Required pilot barriers, mandatory airframe logbooks, required technical inspections, identification systems to insure only certain personnel are allowed beyond the spectator area, minimum airframe and mechanical requirements, and a long list of others. Not to mention up until a year or so ago the requirement for a race organizer to purchase an umbrella liability policy on top of their AMA coverage.
What are practical safety standards? I don’t think applying a lot of the above requirements to turbine modeling is really necessary or practical. On the other hand I obviously don’t think a maximum speed limit for a racing event makes a whole lot of sense.
Gordon asks if a double standard exists here. I don’t think it does. I think it’s the same standard applied using different methods.
Dave
08-11-2004, 05:31 PM
#9
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Baldwinsville,
NY
Posts: 136
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Your position on the turbine rules
ORIGINAL: abel_pranger
Doug-
I'm a little puzzled about the (basic) question you and Gordon are asking, as it appeared to me that Dave and some of other EC members gave the turbine fliers exactly what was asked for by the SIG that represented them. As this forum is intended to elicit Dave Mathewson's position on issues, I'll rephrase it as a question for him.
Dave, did you ask for modification of the proposal made to the EC by representives of the turbine community to reduce the limit on speed before voting in support of it?
Abel
ORIGINAL: Doug Cronkhite
I'm in agreement here with Gordon.. Back when I raced the unlimited class stuff, our Stiletto weighed over 56 pounds full of fuel and we had to remove fuel to make the maximum weight. This airplane was clocked on radar out of the start dive at 257mph. Why is it acceptable to the AMA for these airplanes yet taboo for turbine aircraft to exceed 200mph? Don't misunderstand, I'm not trying to put limits on the racers at all.. Racing is about going fast.. but why do turbines have performance limits placed upon them that exist for no other facet of the hobby?
I'm in agreement here with Gordon.. Back when I raced the unlimited class stuff, our Stiletto weighed over 56 pounds full of fuel and we had to remove fuel to make the maximum weight. This airplane was clocked on radar out of the start dive at 257mph. Why is it acceptable to the AMA for these airplanes yet taboo for turbine aircraft to exceed 200mph? Don't misunderstand, I'm not trying to put limits on the racers at all.. Racing is about going fast.. but why do turbines have performance limits placed upon them that exist for no other facet of the hobby?
Doug-
I'm a little puzzled about the (basic) question you and Gordon are asking, as it appeared to me that Dave and some of other EC members gave the turbine fliers exactly what was asked for by the SIG that represented them. As this forum is intended to elicit Dave Mathewson's position on issues, I'll rephrase it as a question for him.
Dave, did you ask for modification of the proposal made to the EC by representives of the turbine community to reduce the limit on speed before voting in support of it?
Abel
No, I voted in favor of the proposal as presented to the EC.................... both times.
Dave
08-12-2004, 11:12 AM
#11
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Baldwinsville,
NY
Posts: 136
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Your position on the turbine rules
ORIGINAL: Doug Cronkhite
I believe the 200mph limit was put in our proposal to the AMA to keep Dave Brown from becoming completely unhinged.
I believe the 200mph limit was put in our proposal to the AMA to keep Dave Brown from becoming completely unhinged.
Now, if you’re telling me that certain items in the package were influenced for fear of a backlash, then that’s a problem. I thought Don Lowe did exactly the right thing in creating this review committee. Who better to ask for advice than those most involved in the discipline? But the experts have to be comfortable enough to come to us with their true opinions. And it’s possible, even if they do that, that the EC may not endorse their concept. From a personal standpoint, when I have to cast a vote like this I try to put my trust in the fact that those making the suggestions, the experts, have the best interest of both AMA and their form of modeling at heart. Couple that with, in this case, the unanimous endorsement of every voting member of the Safety Committee (and its Chairman), I was more than comfortable in voting the way I did.
Here’s the thing, and this is what I’ve told other prominent members of the turbine community. Policy in our organization is created by majority vote of the Executive Council. If I become president I can’t promise anyone anything other than the fact that I will never block any issue from making its way to the table to be discussed, reasonably, with all the relative facts, by the entire Council. The reply I’ve gotten every time is, “That’s all we can ask for”.
Dave
08-12-2004, 02:43 PM
#12
RE: Your position on the turbine rules
ORIGINAL: abel_pranger
I'm a little puzzled about the (basic) question you and Gordon are asking, as it appeared to me that Dave and some of other EC members gave the turbine fliers exactly what was asked for by the SIG that represented them. <snip>
I'm a little puzzled about the (basic) question you and Gordon are asking, as it appeared to me that Dave and some of other EC members gave the turbine fliers exactly what was asked for by the SIG that represented them. <snip>
Thus, the question that I and some others have / had for Dave M, is a somewhat complex one - e.g. "Do you support unnecessarily tieing progress in the rules in one area, to an unconnected and arbitrary addition of a restrictive rule in another area, or should each item be considered good or bad in it's own right?" ; "If you become president, will you work to improve the working relationship between the big guns in the AMA and the membership & the SIGs, such that the representatives of those communities may discuss problems with you openly, rather than feeling that they must pretend that the problem does not exist (and tell you what you want to hear rather than what the truth is) in order to avoid having even more arbitrary rules imposed", "Do you believe in having rules just to show that you are doing something, or should each and every rule actually make sense?", etc.
As for the comparison to the rules for Giant Scale racing ...
Correct me if I am wrong here - although I used to be pretty active in the giant scale race scene, it's been a few years since I dropped out of it. However, if my understanding is correct, and if the rules have not changed since I was involved, then the additional rules imposed for the giant scale racers apply only at sanctioned race events. i.e I could fly a giant scale racer at 250 mph at our local club field any day I like, without having to be concerned about the race rules; only when I take part in an actual organised race do the additional rules apply. (Just like the "cage" rules for Q racing etc ... those do not apply on a day-to-day basis). By contrast, the restrictions on turbines apply every single minute of every single day.
For there to be a fair comparison between the rules for racing and the rules for turbines, we'd have to have a situation in which I could fly my turbine at any speed I like on an average day, and only be restricted to 200 mph when attending an AMA sanctioned jet meet.
Regards,
Gordon
[Edit: typo]
08-13-2004, 09:20 AM
#13
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Baldwinsville,
NY
Posts: 136
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Your position on the turbine rules
ORIGINAL: Gordon Mc
According to what we have been told thusfar, the TRC (Turbine Review Committe) came up with a bunch of proposals which were submitted to the safety committe and the EC (in what order, I don't know). These proposals did not include a speed limit. The speed limit was supposedly added "after the fact" by someone in the AMA - according to some reports, reportedly Dave Brown himself. It was furthermore insisted that the EC could only make a yes or no vote on the entire package of proposals, including the speed limit. Thus, in order to be allowed to use a buddy-box for training turbine newbies before they get their waiver, the turbine community was essentially blackmailed into accepting a 200 mph limit - a limit which Dave Brown has supposedly admitted was totally arbitrary in its choice of actual speed.
Thus, the question that I and some others have / had for Dave M, is a somewhat complex one - e.g. "Do you support unnecessarily tieing progress in the rules in one area, to an unconnected and arbitrary addition of a restrictive rule in another area, or should each item be considered good or bad in it's own right?" ; "If you become president, will you work to improve the working relationship between the big guns in the AMA and the membership & the SIGs, such that the representatives of those communities may discuss problems with you openly, rather than feeling that they must pretend that the problem does not exist (and tell you what you want to hear rather than what the truth is) in order to avoid having even more arbitrary rules imposed", "Do you believe in having rules just to show that you are doing something, or should each and every rule actually make sense?", etc.
As for the comparison to the rules for Giant Scale racing ...
Correct me if I am wrong here - although I used to be pretty active in the giant scale race scene, it's been a few years since I dropped out of it. However, if my understanding is correct, and if the rules have not changed since I was involved, then the additional rules imposed for the giant scale racers apply only at sanctioned race events. i.e I could fly a giant scale racer at 250 mph at our local club field any day I like, without having to be concerned about the race rules; only when I take part in an actual organised race do the additional rules apply. (Just like the "cage" rules for Q racing etc ... those do not apply on a day-to-day basis). By contrast, the restrictions on turbines apply every single minute of every single day.
For there to be a fair comparison between the rules for racing and the rules for turbines, we'd have to have a situation in which I could fly my turbine at any speed I like on an average day, and only be restricted to 200 mph when attending an AMA sanctioned jet meet.
Regards,
Gordon
[Edit: typo]
ORIGINAL: abel_pranger
I'm a little puzzled about the (basic) question you and Gordon are asking, as it appeared to me that Dave and some of other EC members gave the turbine fliers exactly what was asked for by the SIG that represented them. <snip>
I'm a little puzzled about the (basic) question you and Gordon are asking, as it appeared to me that Dave and some of other EC members gave the turbine fliers exactly what was asked for by the SIG that represented them. <snip>
Thus, the question that I and some others have / had for Dave M, is a somewhat complex one - e.g. "Do you support unnecessarily tieing progress in the rules in one area, to an unconnected and arbitrary addition of a restrictive rule in another area, or should each item be considered good or bad in it's own right?" ; "If you become president, will you work to improve the working relationship between the big guns in the AMA and the membership & the SIGs, such that the representatives of those communities may discuss problems with you openly, rather than feeling that they must pretend that the problem does not exist (and tell you what you want to hear rather than what the truth is) in order to avoid having even more arbitrary rules imposed", "Do you believe in having rules just to show that you are doing something, or should each and every rule actually make sense?", etc.
As for the comparison to the rules for Giant Scale racing ...
Correct me if I am wrong here - although I used to be pretty active in the giant scale race scene, it's been a few years since I dropped out of it. However, if my understanding is correct, and if the rules have not changed since I was involved, then the additional rules imposed for the giant scale racers apply only at sanctioned race events. i.e I could fly a giant scale racer at 250 mph at our local club field any day I like, without having to be concerned about the race rules; only when I take part in an actual organised race do the additional rules apply. (Just like the "cage" rules for Q racing etc ... those do not apply on a day-to-day basis). By contrast, the restrictions on turbines apply every single minute of every single day.
For there to be a fair comparison between the rules for racing and the rules for turbines, we'd have to have a situation in which I could fly my turbine at any speed I like on an average day, and only be restricted to 200 mph when attending an AMA sanctioned jet meet.
Regards,
Gordon
[Edit: typo]
The Turbine Review Committee reviewed and revised what were the current turbine regs. When they completed the project they next met with the AM Safety Committee to discuss their recommended proposal. The result of that effort was then presented to the EC.
While I certainly don’t support a “if you want this, you have to do this” mentality when creating guidelines, I do think if we’re going to create a committee to do a job they ought to have the latitude to do it. I don’t think we want to be micro-managing every item in every committee report. If we’re going to do that, then why have committees in the first place. But, I don’t subscribe to the take it or leave it attitude and sure don’t think it does anybody any good if those on the committee feel uncomfortable presenting their true thoughts to the EC.
Right after the candidates were selected in early July JPO President Steven Ellzey wrote to each candidate offering to provide a small space (300 words I think) in Contrails for each candidate to speak to the JPO membership. What I sent is, in part, relevant to all AMA SIGs and if you’ve been to my website you’ve seen a link there that will point to my JPO comments once the issues has been mailed. I think I can sum up the type of relationship I’d like to see us have with our SIGs by quoting part of my comments to JPO, “"We need to take advantage of the expertise and knowledge of our Special Interest Groups when creating policy that affects a SIG’s respective type of modeling. AMA and JPO need to work together as a team to produce the results that both are looking for. This is the philosophy I would bring to the table if elected."
I think the point I was trying to make was that turbines are not the only ones that have additional guidelines placed upon them. Giant Scale Racing, Experimental Class models, even RC combat and RC pylon are other styles that have some type of additional restrictions. I think in each case the goal is the same, but the methods used to get there are different. From my viewpoint, I don’t know that it’s as important to me as to how we reach the goal as much as it is the goal is reached.
Dave
