franklin_m

Oversimplifying again. Until such time that there's more CBOs out there, and thus more than ONE option to operate under 101, then it's more than just a membership organization. It's a private dues collecting organization that has veto power over operations by ANY CITIZEN under part of the law (101) .... in PUBLIC airspace.

why_fly_high

My Feedback: (19)

I will play devil's advocate for a second. (I do think this is a very good start.) If a handlaunch Opus, funjet, delta wing, etc. is too simple to be consider for a waiver flight why would one be required to have a waiver to fly those?

I have a friend with an Opus and a K30 he is going to be putting together soon. He has no desire for any other kind of jets. I would trust him with one of my jets for a waiver flight if needed when the time comes but he lives 3 states away so logistics aren't the easiest thing.

why_fly_high

My Feedback: (19)

OOOHH I also forgot something that is a pet peeve of mine in the rules you bring up here. If the decision to not allow hand launch planes for waiver flights can live with that. But where did the 7.5lb limit come from for hand launch? If I have a 9lb sailplane that can be easily handlaunched why should I have to add a wheel with a brake? Here is another example of a plane well over 7.5lbs that hand launches just fine.

rhklenke

My Feedback: (24)

Thank you for your attempt at getting us pointed in the right direction.

Let me make a few comments regarding how the pieces fit together. I think most of you know this, but some clearly do not.

The Jet Pilots Organization (JPO) is a Special Interest Group (SIG) of the AMA. As such, we are a voluntary organization. You don't have to belong to JPO to have or obtain an AMA turbine waiver. We don't make the rules and we don't have the authority to enforce the rules - other than as AMA members. We are staffed by people who volunteer their time to work for the AMA jet community. Our primary purpose is to represent the AMA jet community - mainly the turbine waiver holders, but also anyone who consider themselves a "jet modeler."

With respect to the waiver rules and process, we have again, volunteered our time to gather information and represent the opinions, desires, needs of the AMA waiver holders. As such we have access to many, long-time, experienced turbine flyers, we have, or have access to the long-time corporate knowledge of how and why things were done in the past, and we have various mechanisms for collecting information from the waiver holder community. We do not represent the other 200,000 AMA members (with the exception of those who desire to get a turbine waiver), or anyone outside the AMA - that's not our charter. How the Safety Committee and EC take into account those group's or individual's opinions, desires, needs, is completely their privilege and responsibility.

In this specific case, we were asked about the 12lb rule for a turbine waiver flight and what our opinion might be on that issue. I am listening to all opinions expressed here - some of which I have heard many, many times before. We are also gathering information and having discussions elsewhere. Of course those opinions expressed by individuals who actually own and fly those types of model aircraft are considered most valuable - as any reasonable person would say.

I appreciate the discussion and I could use some more input on alternatives to the 12 lb rule - again those from people who have actual experience is very valuable. I do not as my smallest jet is 20 lbs dry.

Thanks,
Bob Klenke
JPO President

franklin_m

This is an excellent observation and deserves an answer from JPO. I you highlighted a poorly written policy that's inconsistent with itself (too simple for waiver yet requires waiver to fly). As a "waiver holder" I think you should press this issue, from a policy making and impelmentation perspective of course ...

Imagine a community, managed by an organization that's trying to attract new members, that because of poorly thought out POLICY, gives someone the following choices: not join and fly whatever you want in places where you can find a spot to fly (pretty easy in middle America, west, Texas, and southwest), or buy something bigger than you want to fly just to get "qualified," or expect someone to trust you with several thousand dollars worth of airplane just so you can get "qualified." And because it's borrowed equipment, it's reasonable to expect the person flying it for the sole purpose getting "qualified" is less proficient in flying it ... thus putting expensive equipment at more risk. From a policy making and implementation perspective of course.

Another excellent observation that illustrates just how arbitrary the current policy is.

franklin_m

With respect to the first, it shows. Perhaps it's time to get people involved who actually know something about policy writing?

With respect to the second, it's another veiled swipe at anyone who isn't a "waiver holder." And yet it was those same mythical Demi-Gods that wrote this logically inconsistent policy.

rhklenke

My Feedback: (24)

I do hear what you are saying, but one thing you learn in engineering design is that if you handle all of the "corner cases," you often wind up with a system that doesn't perform well for normal operation. I personally think that is the case with removing all requirements on the aircraft for a waiver flight - take away all requirements for the aircraft and the demonstration of proficiency that has to be witnessed for the waiver is not sufficient. Sometimes it better to let the "corner cases" be handled in a different way. That's my opinion anyway.

Keep it coming...

Bob

gunradd

My Feedback: (9)

RCFlyerDan

My Feedback: (54)

franklin_m

Excellent point. It boils down to is it about the turbine or is it about the flaps etc. (complexity)?

If the former, then weight shouldn't matter. I think that point is illustrated well by the fact that POLICY requires you to have a waiver to fly it, yet that same POLICY prohibits you from using that same plane to get the waiver required to fly it. ILLOGICAL policy writing ... at best.

If it's the latter, the complexity, then the "waiver" requirement should apply to all sUAS that are complex.

why_fly_high

My Feedback: (19)

It is a student design contest put on by OSU. Speedfest

I am not saying that plane is intended to sell to hobbyists. Just asking the question to why a weight limit for handlaunching? It was an example of a heavier plane that handlaunches nicely.

RCFlyerDan

My Feedback: (54)

why_fly_high

My Feedback: (19)

I have flown for OkSU :^) for over 20 years now. We have won over a handful of international contests, set numerous FAI World Records, and even started our own high school and college contest. It is very rewarding. The students I am working with now were born about the same time I graduated college. Yes, I feel old.

Challenging? How about this year. 12lb planes with 23.5" wing spans. wing loading of about over 80oz/sqft.

speedracerntrixie

My Feedback: (29)

RCFlyerDan

My Feedback: (54)

Boomerang1

And the original request was before the arguments started?

About small turbine jets?

Bobcat 50 (glow powered pusher conversion) 10 pounds all up weight with one litre of fuel, 8 pound Wren 44,
Spring Air retracts, no brakes (as per Oz rules), no flaps but added air brake under fuselage.
Flown with it's origins (cheap Chinese glow powered ARF) in mind so no heroics.

https://www.nitroplanes.com/newsibo5051a.html

No turbine 'waivers' as such in Oz but each model itself in certified for 3 years with both model
construction & integrity inspected as well as the pilot's ability to operate & fly it evaluated. No
'one size fits all' turbine waiver here, you have to demonstrate proficiency with EACH model.

I'm not saying that's the way you guys should run your show, just our approach to a similar problem.
Link to our rules: MOP030-Gas-Turbine-Rules.pdf

RCFlyerDan

My Feedback: (54)

erbroens

This is my small jet data:

Savex L-39 : All composite, full featured jet with flaps, retracts, retractable landing gear and wheel brakes. About 3 Kg ready to fly dry... 1.2 liter of fuel capacity. I flown it with the wren 44, Jetcat P-60 with reduced rpm and the Kingtech K-45.. the best suited engine for this plane so far. Its a Ok plane, but is harder to land it decently than a larger L-39.

E-flite Phantom F4 with a Jetcat P-20 , 800 ml tank,retracts, no flaps no wheel brakes. Smaller and lighter than the L-39 .flies Ok too, but it is harder to fly and land than the average jet..

I always considered the small turbine jet a curiosity, or a technical challenge. They are not very practical, or fun to fly at all, compared with the medium or larger scale jets.

In the last couple of years, building (sorry, buying) a EDF jet makes a lot more sense, with similar performance of a turbine jet the same size for a dead cheap price. For example the FMS 70mm Avanti wich costs $200,00 ready to fly. Also the batteries are not expensive too unless you screw up the charging parameters and start a fire in your house. (yes it happened here with the owner of this plane). Not needed to mention that flying this kind of plane doesnt need a permission of any kind.

Hydro Junkie

I LIKE IT, A POLICY THAT REQUIRES MODELERS TO GET THEIR R/C PLANES "D" CHECKED EVERY THREE YEARS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I actually think the Aussie way of doing things makes more sense than the US waiver system. You have to have your plane checked for issues, just like a full sized manned aircraft would in the US. This could catch problems before they become crash-inducing events. Having to demonstrate proficiency also makes a lot of sense. This would require the owner/pilot to practice with each plane periodically, just like a pilot flying full sized aircraft, to keep their skills sharp. Obviously, there has to be a way for a new plane and/or pilot to be certified flight ready. How is this done in Australia, Boomerang?

Hydro Junkie

I found the aircraft inspection criteria, very well written:
INSPECTION FORMAT There are four aspects to the inspection and issue of a Permit to Fly for gas turbine powered aircraft.
(a) The airframe is subject to an inspection to assess its suitability in terms of construction, hardware installation, radio equipment, suitability for the turbine(s) installed and airworthiness.
(b) The installation of the turbine(s) in the airframe is inspected to assess the suitability of the installation, heat insulation and to ensure that the remote and manual shut down features as required in Section 3 (l) are fitted and suitable for the purpose.
(c) The operator must demonstrate the safe operation of the turbine powered aircraft through a ground run demonstration including fuelling, start up and shut down procedures. This will be followed by a test flight of the aircraft by the operator to demonstrate the airworthiness of the aircraft and the operator’s ability to manage the aircraft safely and within their limits.
(d) With respect to the flight inspection, this may be accomplished over a series of flights not necessarily on the same day: i.e. the operator may choose to have an experienced operator fly the aircraft (provided they have a current Permit To Fly for the aircraft) and start their inspection flight with circuits only, following up with take offs and landings in subsequent flights. These levels will be noted by the Inspector on the Permit to Fly. Once a full flight combining take off, circuits, aerobatic manoeuvres and landing has been achieved then the operator will have achieved a valid Permit to Fly.

I didn't find anything about how a pilot is certified, however

Boomerang1

Inspectors usually travel to fly-ins held around the country, their services are available there. Not every country town has potential jet flyers or, indeed, a model club at all. If you want to have a jet inspected it's just a matter of contacting an inspector & making the necessary arrangements. A lot of inspections are done at outer metropolitan clubs.

How many attempts at certification? As many as he wants until he runs out of time, money or tears I guess. Some guys get the message that the're over their head with a jet quickly, others are slow learners.

speedracerntrixie

My Feedback: (29)

Boomerang1

Outlined in another form which becomes the permit to fly once filled out by the applicant & signed off by the inspector.
Simple manoeuvres from just take off, fly round & land up to unrestricted aerobatics.

Form-038-Permit-to-Fly-Form-Jan-2015.pdf

This form is also used with all other models weighing over 7KG regardless of power source but ALL jets.
The inspector is termed a 'heavy model inspector' with an additional 'gas turbine' endorsement if he is going to inspect jets.

Not perfect, just what we use down here.

Boomerang1

The re-certification process is just a 'rubber stamp' process mostly, a turbine model being an expensive toy means most flyers take care of them with basic maintenance & servicing. If a model survives 3 years
(a lot don't) the pilot must be doing something right so in practice a re-certification flight is rarely done.
We are nothing special down here, we have slackers who don't maintain their models or just don't give a toss and those who are meticulous with preparation just like in the US.

Yes, faults are picked up during inspections, the most common being a failsafe that doesn't work. That's when you find out the owner is clueless about programming his pointlessly complex transmitter.
Some hinges not glued, fuel lines not secured properly, receiver antennas stuffed under other equipment, clevises not secured or missing keepers - all the usual suspects.

Boomerang1

Becoming an inspector? Have experience building a number of turbine models, present a an application from your club to your state aeromodelling body along with a detailed list of what you have built & flown followed by a spoken exam from a list of relevant questions, from the national aeromodeling body, by an established inspector. Endorsements & ratings are listed on our MAAA/FAI card.

Conversations don't get too far out of hand with me, the words 'ok, find another inspector' easily flow from my mouth when called for.

Maybe back to Bob's original thread, these are just procedures from another country ......