RCFlyerDan

My Feedback: (54)

RCFlyerDan

My Feedback: (54)

Here's the problem signing off on a ARF made by any Asian Country.

http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/rc-j...s-su-35-a.html

Chris Smith

My Feedback: (2)

Bob,
I think you've hit on a key point. Maybe the 12lbs requirement is too high a weight, and something less might be more up to date. But I feel much below 12lbs could be the "corner cases" that would be very hard to accommodate unless a minimum weight is dropped. The small foamy glider with a small turbine comes to mind. Even a large composite glider with a K120 might be a corner case for waiver flights, I'm not sure. Seems each CD is free to judge?

Seems at this point, maybe lower the minimum weight and leave all else as is. I would be glad to let a flyer borrow an appropriate jet to get his waiver, then he's on his own to fly whatever.

why_fly_high

My Feedback: (19)

I think that the below 12lbs USED to be a corner case. A $3000 P20 or Kolibri a few years ago was not an entry point for new jet flyers. I think the new smaller engines out and few more on the way make sub 12lbs no longer a corner case. My opinion is drop the weight all together.

RCFlyerDan

My Feedback: (54)

BarracudaHockey

My Feedback: (11)

Exactly. I have 2, a Harlock Viper and Sebart Avanti and there's probably 6 sub 12 pound dry (both mine are sub 12 or right at 12 WET) at our field on a Saturday. The Kingtech 30 and 45's are making it not only possible but fairly common. And as much as I hate to disagree with Frank, its ludicrous that I need a waiver to fly my 10 pound jet, but I can't use that jet to get the waiver. I had to borrow a 20 pound turbinator, to do my waiver flight and like I said on RCG, not everyone has such a buddy to loan a brother a jet.

speed is life

tony5548

tony5548

Easy fiy.

franklin_m

What you're talking about here and in subsequent posts is spot on. This is substantially more about safety program management and operational risk management via policy and much less about details of operating a turbine sUAS. Thus it may actually be the formally trained aviation safety program management guy, with DECADES of operational risk management experience, that may lend much more to the discussion than a EE waiver holder. As I've said from the beginning, this is about POLICY and less about stick and programming skills.

What you talk about above is a challenge. The easy answer is for AMA to indemnify their CDs, waiver signers, inspectors, and perhaps others. Some may already be indemnified, but others may not. Extend that legal protection to the rest. That largely mitigates liminates the concerns of the HH guy example. I agree that the "corner example" metaphor doesn't work here. What's applicable in engineering is of limited use in the vastly different world of policy making and impelmentation ... as the latter has to work for ALL cases, whether or not they're a "corner."

So it's an issue of perceived risk that bigger is more risky, If that's correct, then write policy to support that premise. If it's wrong, then stop worrying about weight and write policy accordingly. It appears to me there's some big disconnects in existing policy, most notably that one needs a waiver to fly something 12lb or smaller, but cannot use it to get the waiver itself. It goes back to the question in the first sentence of this paragraph, if weight is an issue, then it all but drives a need for a weight based system of waiver categories. The logistical challenges above are real, and they directly impact execution of the AVIATION SAFETY POLICY regardless of what it is. HOW to execute that is a separate question, more based on what level of tolerance of the insurer (operational risk management). If they want tighter control, you're looking at more formality and more challenging logisitics. If insurer is willing to tolerate more risk, you can go with a less formal program. But this is about WRITING POLICY to match RISK TOLERANCE of INSURER and the ORGANIZATION based on a set of OPERATIONAL RISK MANAGEMENT and AVIATON SAFETY PROGAM MANAGEMENT principles.

So by way of example, let's assume for a moment weight does matter and the inurer is willing to tolerate more risk than currently. That lends itself to weight categories but with less formal (easier logistics) implementation. So why not pick two, three or four weight category cutoffs? I really don't care how many, that's for the "waiver holder" experts to decide. So let's say you pick three broad categories 15lb and less, 15lb to 55lb, and above 55lb. Initial waiver can be obtained using any category and has to be done by a turbine powered CD. Not a big change from what's done already. A waiver in a weight class permits you to fly anything in that class or below w/o requalification. If someone wants to "move up" in waiver category, those can be signed by anyone with a valid waiver in that category. Much easier logistically. Thinking is that guy already knows how to operate a turbine, program cutoffs, etc., and mostly needs to just demonstrate he can reliably and safety fly something bigger. If you don't want to allow ANYONE w/ existing waiver to sign off on what I'm going to call an "upgrade," then create a class of individuals indemnified by AMA to do these signoffs. Ideas include ANY CD, or Turbine Event Managers or ANY CD, etc. Again, WHO is empowered to do this is based on risk tolerance of AMA and their insurer. One can easily build AVIATION SAFETY PROGRAM MANAGMENT / OPERATIONAL RISK MANAGEMENT POLICY that either moves this up or down in formality based on risk tolerance. Things like inspections etc. that might someday come to be (or not). Again, mileage may vary. But within the POLICY, not conceptually difficult to do.

So God forbid this non-waiver holder might actually know something about this. But again, some are so blinded by their belief that only waiver holders know anything, it will probably fall on deaf ears.

rhklenke

My Feedback: (24)

Anyone who wants to see the requirements for an AMA turbine waiver flight can actually read the document - 510-d, available here:

510-d.pdf

The only question that the JPO was asked their opinion on was the 12 lb weight requirement for the waiver flight, contained in the AMA Gas Turbine Program document, 510-a

Anyone desiring to champion additional changes to either document is free to volunteer their time and opinions to the people who actually write them - the AMA Safety Committee and the people who actually approve them, the AMA EC.

It seems as if, based on inputs from modelers who have small turbine jets, that the 12 lb limit is not as valid as it used to be, due to the proliferation of sub-60N turbines. However, there does need to be some requirements on the aircraft for the waiver flight in order to comply with the requirements in 510-d for that flight.

The comments on liability are spot on. That is why the attestation on the waiver form states: "I hereby attest that __________________________ has successfully performed the turbine qualification flight outlined on page two of this document." The person signing is only attesting that they have witnessed a successful waiver flight - nothing further. Again, as mentioned above, even that is more than some guys are willing to do.

Bob

why_fly_high

My Feedback: (19)

Thanks for working on this Bob.

rhklenke

My Feedback: (24)

No problem at all - its what I volunteered for!

Bob

BarracudaHockey

My Feedback: (11)

What he said!

franklin_m

Ironic, considering countless times above this same individual talks about how being a "waiver holder" is a requirement to comment etc. Yet the MAJORITY the group that actually approves the policy are NOT waiver holders.

Just another example of the rediculousness of JPO and others throwing the "are you a waiver holder" epethet.

Perhaps because these folks see that this program is based in arbitrary distinctions not supported by hard data or PHYSICS, AERODYNAMICS, or SCIENCE.

erbroens

great flight and great save in the landing!

Boomerang1

It's easy to think Bob is the bad guy here but in reality he's walking the fine line between those
people with rubber band powered models who think they know best when making up the rules
and the dangerous cowboys who will be a threat to life & limb whatever they fly but especially turbines.

I guess that's why he gets paid the big dollars!

Thanks Bob.

rhklenke

My Feedback: (24)

Sounds like you know something about being in a similar position!

Thanks,
Bob

franklin_m

Hey... I enjoy rubber powered planes! And control line too!

In all seriousness, when I was still on active duty, first in the developmental test world and again when stationed at a remote site where they did operational testing, I got to fly a handful of different turbine drones, at that time most were not in production. I concur that the bigger and HEAVIER they are, the EASIER they are to fly (assuming of course your wing loading is not rediculously high). If for no other reason than more momentum (physics), less affected by day to day winds (aerodynamics), and easier to see small attitude, angle of bank, yaw, even response to power changes when on approach. I guess that's why I get such a chuckle out of the whole "not a waiver holder" garbage.

Oh, and Bob. Offer stands to help write POLICY. But you gotta get past your bias that non-waiver holders OBVIOUSLY don't know anything.

Auburn02

My Feedback: (1)

Chris Smith

My Feedback: (2)

franklin m,
Why not go and get an AMA turbine waiver?

franklin_m

Why? Not a whole lot of suitable fields close by, and for me to spend several thousand dollars on something there's got to be a "return on investment" for my time. By that I mean logistics. Lots of time on the road for a suitable field, which means that's the one or two things I get done on a weekend. I don't eat live and breathe model aviation, so if it's too hard logistically, too hard administratively ... skip it. Secondly, as indicated above, I don't kiss the ring of the AMA and JPO. I see the policy and its impelmentation as pretty arbitrary - for example, need waiver to fly 12lb jet but can't use same jet to get the waiver you need to fly it. Add to that the need for all the observed flights (not a lot of mythical waiver holders in my area), a specially annointed CD (none nearby), etc. etc. Nope, I'm not spending hours and hours on the road to find the right folks to "bless" my flying. Too big a pain in the a**.

Thirdly, I flew some big turbine sUAS and I didn't find them all that challenging to warrant the admin and logistical pain in the fanny. Fourth, I believe the FAA will impose some pretty significant altitude caps and I have very little faith in AMA's ability to get a carve out. Why? They failed to get waiver for registration. Failed to keep 336. And failed keep altitude limits out of most recent bill. Lastly, I've had the pleasure of an interaction with a member of the jet community "royalty" in this area, and the guy was a complete jerk. The epitome elitism. Really soured my perception of the entire community. Just about the time I start thinking it's an isolated case, Bob throws the "not a waiver holder" at the drop of a hat. All that did was reinforce that it's not an isolated case, more of a group culture thing ... a culture that comes from the top.

But I can fly an EDF at any speed recreationally, unlike turbines. Additionally, since I don't have Freudian need to say "I'm a waiver holder," why bother?

Propworn

My Feedback: (3)

Haven't ya figured it out yet???? All he likes to do is argue and put down your organization no mater what the discipline or topic. Simply click on his name and click on all posts by Franklin. I challenge you to find one positive post about anything AMA. Being an expert on everything he expects everyone to agree with “The world according to Franklin” LOL

If you completely ignore him and refuse to engage him in argument he will wander off and attempt to hijack another topic. How do you think he ended up here.

speed is life

franklin_m

It never ceases to amaze me that people cannot read the actual words within the context of a larger discussion. I guess it shouldn't surprise me given the current state of political discourse, someone clamps onto a single clause in a sentence and then expands that to an entire treatise. I don't need a recreational waiver because I already have a formal approval under 107. If you actually read the words, there's nothing in it about types of power plants. I can fly a turbine helo all day long w/o kisisng the AMA ring. I can even fly a turbine powered fixed wing w/o kissing the AMA ring, so long as I stay within the 107 altitude and speed limits. I can even ask the FAA for a waiver to those 107 limits if I really want to. No need to drive all over the region to find a special CD anointed to "bless" my flying. No need for a bunch of flights under "supervision" of other AMA Demi-Gods.

As to remote tours, you're funny. And clearly have no idea what you're talking about in this case.

So, big picture. FAA doesn't think I need a "waiver" to fly a turbine, but AMA does? And gee....which organization knows more about aviation? Uhm...that would be the FAA.