BarracudaHockey

My Feedback: (11)

I certainly can't say no injuries.

I can say with pretty good confidence that there's a lot less injuries with turbines than prop strikes. Maybe we need a waiver to safely start gassers?

Auburn02

My Feedback: (1)

Well, I understand that now there is additional verbiage now specific to turboprop; what I was mainly curious about is how and why the wording "turbine powered model" ever excluded turboprops before the turboprop waiver was created. It's not relevant to this discussion though, as I mentioned I just didn't know such a thing existed and would have never guessed that a 12lb turboprop doesn't qualify for a turbine fixed wing airplane until this thread. Carry on!

rhklenke

My Feedback: (24)

Well, its a legitimate question, and I think that the answer is that originally, there were no turboprop units, and then the initial ones were heavy, expensive, and *very* prone to failure. Now, the sizes and prices of the turboprop units has come down, *and* some manufactures are offering really nice ARF kits for turboprops, so more guys who were not into jets expressed interest in getting into turboprops, so this was added.

To-date, I don't know if any turbo-prop waivers have been issued, but I'm not sure.

The situation with small turbines is also similar in that they've really just come about fairly recently in a readily available and reliable way...

Bob

why_fly_high

My Feedback: (19)

And those crying elitism fail to even grasp the fact that the purpose of this question was to be more inclusive.

causeitflies

Some guys look for excuses NOT to be included.

Viper1GJ

My Feedback: (20)

Ditto, My experience also.
Gary

franklin_m

Perhaps because some of us belive that much of the certification processes for things like this are inherently governmental, for the following reasons:

First, AAA doesn't "waiver" sports car drivers for operation on PUBLIC highways. BoatUS doesn't "waiver" speedboat operators for operation on PUBLIC waterways. And AOPA doesn't "waiver" operators of P51s or other high performance aircraft for operation in the PUBLIC airspace. Thus I do not believe a private dues collecting organization, AMA, should "waiver" operators of recreational sUAS for operation in the PUBLIC airspace.

Secondly, one of the fundamental aspects of federal law (i.e. FAA) is the concept of equal protection. Namely, ALL citizens are able to enjoy the rights and privileges under the law as all other citizens. So now we have a law that is structured such that to fly a FW turbine under recreational rules, one has to be a member of a private dues collecting organization. Why is that? Because AMA has said they won't evalute/waiver/etc. non-members. And because of that, you now have two classes of citizens under the law ... those who are members of a private dues collecting organization (i.e. non-goverment) and those who are not. That creates an equal protection clause basis as the regulation in question is a federal one. It doesn't matter that 107 is an option. The point is that whether it's 101 OR 107, both have to be available to ALL citizens.

The best thing that AMA could do is create a process to evaluate, "waiver", or pick some other term both members and non-members. S ame concepts for LMAs as well. All it's going to take is one non-AMA member with some $$$ to file suit in Federal court. After all, look at what Taylor was able to do.

speed is life

RCFlyerDan

My Feedback: (54)

Hydro Junkie

Really? Then let me throw this at you. A guy shows up at a flying field with a turbine powered Eagle. He's not an AMA member but wants a turbine waiver. Would he be able to get one or would he be forced to join the AMA first? What other hoops would he need to jump through to get his waiver?

BarracudaHockey

My Feedback: (11)

That's pretty easy. AMA turbine waivers are only issued to AMA members.

AAA towing is only provided to AAA members.

AARP discounts are only given to AARP members.

So he would need to join the AMA, follow the waiver process and possibly join the club he's flying at.

rhklenke

My Feedback: (24)

For anyone interested in the actual contents of the law on recreational use of unmanned aircraft, the main portion is below. If you want to see the entire text of the bill, see paragraph 349 of the full law here:

https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/302/text?q=%7B%22search%22%3A%5B%22FAA+Reauthorization %22%5D%7D&r=2#toc-HFC2BF962EFA14270B797E485483D072C

Note that there is no specific prohibition of the operation of turbine-powered model aircraft anywhere in the law. The AMA's "waiver" program is to qualify for operation under the AMA's set of community based safety guidelines. Anyone not wanting to utilize those is free to develop their own. The law even spells out how to do that...



If you don't want to follow the AMA safety guidelines, you can operate under "all statutes and regulations generally applicable to unmanned and manned aircraft systems" - meaning 14 CFR Part 107, that *also* does not prohibit turbine-powered unmanned aircraft.

Bob

rhklenke

My Feedback: (24)

Actually, if he's not an AMA member, he can not, and should not be allowed to fly there at all - under any circumstances.

AMA insurance is *primary* for site owners and is only provided for AMA members - just like AAA, AARP, etc. If that person hurts someone or himself, then the site owner could be liable, and the leases for most AMA club fields, which generally are on private land, state the only AMA members can fly there, for that reason.

AMA fields on public land are somewhat different, but actually most localities now also insist on AMA membership for the liability insurance coverage.

Bob

S_Ellzey

A little history;

This comes from my 6 years as JPO President.

Why is there a waiver in the first place? When a model turbine engine first became commercially available someone on the AMA EC saw a nightmare scenario: someone putting a JPX in a Parkinson Regal Eagle (I am not making this up). To stop this, they just banned turbine models. You could get special permission from your AMA District VP to fly on a day at an event. They then put into place the waiver to allow other to fly with far less restriction. Just get 50 flights on a 150 mph ducted fan or pylon racer and pass the written test and you were good to go. The constraints placed in the safety regulations of the day pretty much prevented the nightmare from being built. This system went on for a number of years with little change. During this time Jet Pilots were few and considered to be something of an unknown. About 17 years ago Don Lowe, head of the AMA safety committee and past AMA president, went to a jet rally and realized that many of the regulations made no sense (written around the JPX, which was no longer used). Don contacted JPO and asked that we help rework the Regs. During that process The AMA EC and the Jet pilots of this country were better introduced, and things started working much smoother.

There is a sort of a good reason the wavier is not going to go away. At one time the AMA felt that turbine models represented a higher risk, and they acted to address that risk. If there were an accident today that resulted in a lawsuit the AMA can, justifiably, say that they understand the risk and have a process in place to minimize it. If the wavier process went away the other side could say the AMA knew of the risk but quit acting to minimize it. It does not matter any longer if there is more or less risk to flying a turbine model, a precedence was set in the past that dictates today’s actions.

I do not agree with the 12 pound rule, it is a complication not required for the true need of the waiver. The wavier shows that the pilot demonstrated reasonable pilot skills and knowledge of the system. If someone qualifies on a light turbine then proceeds to a heavy scale jet, if he crashes it will be on landing, and no different than someone learning on a foam electric and trying to move on to a heavy warbird.

I would recommend that JPO work to remove the 12 pound rule sense upon further examination we do not see a true impact on safety. Ultimately safety is in the hands of the members and we must assume that they will apply some level of common sense.

Steven

franklin_m

ul

You're selectively quoting. The aircraft is operated "in accordance with..." part is operable. As of now, there's arguably only one set of CBO rules. And those rules say that to operate a turbine, you need a waiver. And as Andy said, to get a waiver you have to be a member. Once there's other CBOs, maybe the rules change, but until then, any citizen has equal protection under the law, in this case 101. Equal protection is NOT defined as using 107, that's a different section of law. All of the citizens get equal protection under all laws, not just part of one or part of another.

As for the towing etc. example. Andy again makes a bad comparison. One doesn't have to be towed in order to operate on the PUBLIC highways. Nor does one have to have towing service to operate on PUBLIC highways. The AARP discounts thing is laughable, as that's a an affinity program. And yet again, one is not required to have AARP to operate in the public ... well ... anything.

gunradd

My Feedback: (9)

rhklenke

My Feedback: (24)

I keep coming back to the example of a hand-launched Funjet with a P-20 being potentially allowed as a waiver aircraft - which I'm not sure is appropriate as a demonstration of reasonable skills. In addition, there are portions of the requirements for successful completion of the waiver flight that are not possible with a hand-launched Funjet, or similar aircraft.

The turbine rules make a distinction for "hand-launched aircraft which have no undercarriage and with a flight weight under 7.5 pounds wet" - with respect to brakes in this case.

So what about applying the above statement to the requirement for the aircraft to be used on the waiver flight - i.e., "the aircraft must be over 7.5 lbs wet, have a rudder, an undercarriage suitable for rolling takeoffs, brakes, and a ground steering system."

Thoughts?

Bob

rhklenke

My Feedback: (24)

Dan,

That's a funny story! I think the issue you had was the fact that it was a Mamba.

I used to have a bunch of AMT air-start turbines (and operated a bunch more when I worked with NASA), and they were easy and a blast to start - seriously. A blast of air to spin the wheels, hit the propane until it lights (usually just a wosh, not a pop) and then hold both wide open until it comes up on the kero.

The sound was also unmistakable and really cool! I should have kept one of those engines - although I got tired of having a scuba tank rolling around in my garage.

Bob

franklin_m

If the primary concern over turbines was the fire risk, as some have said, then who cares about a rolling takeoff? Also, what's the definition of "reasonable skills?" I mean is there a list of task-tolerance to measure against or is it the highly arbitrary "know it when you see it?" And what's pass / fail criteria in the Demi-God world? I mean can they blow one maneuver and still get the waiver? Or two? Or parts of one and all of another? Etc. Etc.

My point is that your "evaluation" is largely arbitrary and subjective. Even worse as JPO doesn't have any sort of standardization among those signing off waivers ... which means they're even more arbitrary than just the arbitrary criteria of one evaluator.

So the concern over rolling takeoff etc. worthless. The "waiver holder" equivalent of adding digits after a decimal place and thinking the answer is more precise (hint, it isn't)

speedracerntrixie

My Feedback: (29)

franklin_m

While this discussion continues, it may be irrelevant before long.

The ink's not even dry on the comments on the ANPRM for Safe and Secure Operations of Small Unmanned Aircraft, and within days the Secretary of Transportation announces the first commercial drone package delivery in the US. And not in some obscure and relatively unpopulated region, right in the mid-Atlantic area! I can't imagine that Amazon, Google, and countless others are far behind. There not only might be others competing for the low altitude airspace, it's now a reality.

https://www.faa.gov/news/press_releases/news_story.cfm?newsId=23554

I couldn't help but notice that AMA (most certainly not JPO) are among the six major groups with whom the FAA met (CNN, MLB & Sports Group, Small UAV Coalition, Commercial Drone Alliance, Airmap, and AirXOS). With those groups PLUS ALPA, A4A, Ag Aircraft Flyers, etc. weighing in on need for control of the lower airspace, it's not "if", just "when."

Enjoy the "waiver" thing while it lasts.

RCFlyerDan

My Feedback: (54)

Hydro Junkie

I have to agree with Franklin, your comparisons are flawed as:
I can get towing coverage from any insurance carrier, not just AAA
I can get discounts due to being former military, through my job, and from other sources, not just through AARP
the AMA has a monopoly on turbine waivers, as stated above by BH, so there is no other source to obtain one. Seems to me that the AMA has set itself up for litigation if someone really wanted to push the issue in court

franklin_m

This is an interesting and thoughtful post. While Bob may be blinded by his belief that because I'm not a waiver holder I can't possibly contribute, maybe some will read this w/o such bias.

The key point in the above, FROM A POLICY MAKING AND IMPLEMENTATION PERSPECTIVE, is the very first answer that comes to mind when you ask "Why does the waiver program care if individuals like those described above crash?"

If the answer is money. That tells me the waiver program about preservation of a "beautiful plane," preventing needless wasting of money, etc. But from a policy making perspective, these concerns aren't really that consequential from an organizaional standpoint. The program should be designed accordingly, and in context of discussion, would point to allowing one to qualify on any turbine and then move on to flying any other turbine.

If the answer is 'because they might be a risk to others," then don't look now, but from a FROM A POLICY MAKING AND IMPLEMENTATION PERSPECTIVE, you're creating a reason for a better defined qualification process, one that is built with the understanding that the flying a larger turbine SAFELY requires demonstration of skills that cannot be done with smaller turbines. This would point to a process does not allow a 12lb or less qualification.

However, that now means that FROM A POLICY MAKING AND IMPLEMENTATION PERSPECTIVE, your issue is where to draw the line? Or is it even one line and not two? And guess what, assuming it's one line, then you've just made it difficult for those you want to join the community by making them buy something they don't want - just to get the waiver. Worse yet, from a growth of the hobby perspective, they may not buy at all and say "forget it." If the communnity is ok losing those folks, then stop worrying about it. Hit them with the same vigor that we see people use the "non-waiver holder" (in various forms) here on these pages, something like "Sorry buddy, if you can't afford a bigger jet, then come back when you can."

But I suspect that's not what the community wants. So now you're back to the base problem, assuming it is a safety issue, and assuming you want to lower the barrier to entry. So again, FROM A POLICY MAKING AND IMPLEMENTATION PERSPECTIVE, maybe it makes sense to draw more than one line? Basic waiver with a 12lb etc. jet. Then some sort of additional demonstration of skills before cleared to fly larger jet w/o supervision. Is that a separate waiver? Or merely a couple check flights observed by a CD? Or a couple check flights observed by other waiver holders who themselves are signed off to fly larger stuff? But based on the comments above, it sounds to me, FROM A POLICY MAKING AND IMPLEMENTATION PERSPECTIVE, that there needs to be some intermediate step.

Of course, as stated above, this only matters if the organization sees this as a safety issue and not a preventing waste of money. But alas, I'm not a waiver holder, so since I don't have any knowledge of flying these things - as stated by the head of JPO himself - then I can't possibly know anything about POLICY MAKING AND IMPLEMENTATION, or risk management, or qualification programs, or training programs, or any number of topics part of this problem that DO NOT require hands on experience flying these things to still be valid points.

BarracudaHockey

My Feedback: (11)

As usual the point was was going north and your perception or wish to twist it is going west.

If you want the services of a membership organization its reasonable that you need to be a member of it.