Go Back  RCU Forums > RC Airplanes > RC Jets
Reload this Page >

Turbine Regulations Saga

Notices
RC Jets Discuss RC jets in this forum plus rc turbines and ducted fan power systems

Turbine Regulations Saga

Old 11-17-2003, 07:45 AM
  #26  
Gordon_Dickens
Thread Starter
My Feedback: (1)
 
Gordon_Dickens's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Alpharetta, GA,
Posts: 232
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default RE: Turbine Regulations Saga

ORIGINAL: F106A

Hi,
Anyone heard what BV's reaction is to all of this?
Jon
Hi Jon,

BV reviewed and approved the TRC's proposal in detail prior to its submission to the AMA. Nevertheless, during the uncertainty of last week, he was pushing for some kind of comprimise between the TRC and the AMA EC on the speed sensor language out of fear that the EC might otherwise come up with an even more onerous set of regulations. That is one of the reasons why the TRC sent the AMA EC the Revised Turbine Regulation Memorandum that offered the current T/W and speed sensor language as a comprimise.

BV is very concerned over the impact that the regulations could have on his business.

Gordon
Old 11-17-2003, 08:29 AM
  #27  
DocYates
My Feedback: (102)
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Oklahoma City, OK
Posts: 3,359
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes on 3 Posts
Default RE: Turbine Regulations Saga

Has anyone looked at a system such as Blue/Gold WAiver where the newbies, such as myself could be offered a waiver for the 12-17 pound thrust turbines, with airframes limted to 175 MPH, and following a period of time and documented flights (logbook) they could apply for the Gold waiver. The Gold waiver would allow for larger airframes and engines, as well as larger fuel capacity. The Gold waiver would require frequent recertification (yearly) such as that proposed, documented flights. The Gold Waiver holders would have open flying at the jet fly-ins and AMA sanctioned events, while the Blue members would demonstrate a flight before the CD in order to get flying priviledges at that event. The Blue waiver holder would be allowed to fly at any AMA filed (where turbines are allowed) in order to gain experience and become more familiar with the turbines. In return their waiver would not be subject to annual review UNLESS a report of unsafe flying had been made to the AMA during the year. Speed limiters would only be required for aircraft where speeds in excess of 175 MPH is in question, and therefore only for the GOld waiver. Could we not come up with something like this?

I think something like this would fix the problems we have run up against, while having a "relaxed" requirement for the new guy, which seems to be a sticking point with some.
Just my two cents, but like I said I'm newbie
Tommy
AMA 1469
Turbine Operator 6950
Old 11-17-2003, 09:12 AM
  #28  
Kevin_W
My Feedback: (1)
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Carrollton, TX
Posts: 1,264
Likes: 0
Received 7 Likes on 5 Posts
Default RE: Turbine Regulations Saga

Tommy,
To answer your question, Yes (sort of).
The last time (about 2 years ago) changes to the turbine rules were being contemplated Bob Violett had a proposal for a 3 tiered waiver system similar to (but slightly more complicated than) what you described.
It was sent to the AMA around the same time as other proposals from the JPO, USRCJC, and some other individuals. I do not know what the kind of response it got from the AMA, but as I remember it was highly criticized by many in the jet community as too complicated, too restrictive, and too difficult to enforce.
I would not be opposed to a multi-level waiver system if the difficulties of administration and enforcement can be overcome. So far I have not seen a proposal for such a system that a majority of jet modelers and the AMA would agree to though.
Old 11-17-2003, 09:40 AM
  #29  
MMallory
My Feedback: (1)
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: South Plainfield, NJ
Posts: 1,149
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default RE: Turbine Regulations Saga

Doc,

Good points, just remember size shouldn't be the only factor. A large plane will most likely be easier to fly than a smaller one. A higher thrust engine might make that plane safer. A good example is the Eurofighter. Large plane, large engine, lots of drag = trainer type characteristics.

I agree at major events ther nerves of the day can alter a person's ability to complete their normal pre-flight routine. In other words a competent pilot may make mistakes. There is a lot of bravado at these events.

If you look at the KingCat, how would you classify that thing? It will fly as slow as any funfly plane and as fast as most sport jets.

Everyone keeps getting on the speed bandwagon. Many of the crashes I've witnessed had nothing to do with pilot competency or speed. Most were building errors or pre-flight misses. How do you regulate that?

Tony,

I must disagree with you "Right or wrong, most AMA members see turbine modeling as unsafe.". Unless you have a survey of all members I think you are way off base. Most members, I know, don't know anything about turbines and must be taught whenever one starts at our field. if you don't believe me take a turbine to any local field and prepare to start it. They will flock around and attempt to look up the rear "to see the flame". No fear is a far cry from deeming unsafe. If anything the presence of the fire extinguisher is what scares people.

I don't know Dave Brown nor would I presume to judge his motives. What I do know is the waiver process is already too limiting. Most of this process can't or won't be enforced. Many of the rules do not serve to "promote the hobby". Liability seems to be the buzz word without the facts. Since you know Dave...please ask him why are so many so overly concerned with what might happen and not paying any attention to what has already happened (Turbine flight and technology has become safer and more reliable, worldwide, with or without these rules).

Mark M.
Old 11-17-2003, 10:08 AM
  #30  
F106A
My Feedback: (2)
 
F106A's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Clifton, NJ
Posts: 1,859
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default RE: Turbine Regulations Saga

Hi Tommy,
I guess the problem is where you draw the line on thrust. I, and I'm sure others can only afford one turbine. I couldn't afford to buy a "small" turbine and then graduate to a "larger"one. I've got a SimJet 2300 on a FACET 2300 that I'm flying as my trainer. Since I'm interested in scale, I bought an engine that I feel I can use for my "future" projects. I don't think that just thrust is the issue, maybe powerloading, thrust/weight, etc or a combination might work.
What I really fear from the fallout from all this is a lot of manufacturers are just going to throw in the towel and get out. That includes kits, engines and accessories. I know if I had one of these businesses I would have to think long and hard to decide is this small segment of the hobby really worth the uncertainty and hassle? Then I would have to make a business decision on what I'd do. Many could just invest their money and let it grow and not have to deal with any of this.
I've got a feeling it's going to get worse before it gets better, if it ever does.
Regards,
Jon
Old 11-17-2003, 10:47 AM
  #31  
DocYates
My Feedback: (102)
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Oklahoma City, OK
Posts: 3,359
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes on 3 Posts
Default RE: Turbine Regulations Saga

Sorry, I was looking at it too simplistically. I hate rules and regs as much as the next guy, but unfortunately they are a necessary evil. Irregardless, I will do whatever it takes to fly these jets. I'm used to it, really, see I been married for 17 years, and I will just look at it like sex...[&:]
Tommy
Old 11-17-2003, 11:12 AM
  #32  
BCoston
My Feedback: (7)
 
BCoston's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Malvern, AR
Posts: 352
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default RE: Turbine Regulations Saga

Does anyone think that AMA doc. 567 will be renewed in 2004? We do not have any TCD's in central Arkansas and that was how I was hoping to get my waiver sometime next year. I will have to travel several hours in any direction to complete the waiver process, but I do attend a couple of jet events each year and was thinking that the buddy box system would be a great opportunity to get my waiver.
Old 11-17-2003, 05:51 PM
  #33  
CFII1974
My Feedback: (5)
 
CFII1974's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Sand Springs , OK
Posts: 755
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default RE: Turbine Regulations Saga

I'm used to it, really, see I been married for 17 years, and I will just look at it like sex...
Doc .. Do you have to re-certify once a year for that or will she just take your word on it. ?
Old 11-18-2003, 12:25 AM
  #34  
jetflyr
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Colorado Springs, CO
Posts: 749
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Default RE: Turbine Regulations Saga

Hi Greg,

There really isn't an alternative to the JPO since it is the only jet SIG recognized by the AMA. So, while you say that the JPO isn't the first choice for most jet modelers, I don't understand what their other choices are other than choose not to affiliate with any AMA jet SIG. Doing something constructive is alot better than doing nothing.

Why not join the JPO and become part of the process to make it better instead of standing on the sidelines? I invite each and every jet pilot out there that are not JPO members to join the JPO and help make a difference.

Gordon
= = = = = = = =

Gordon, I stand by my statement. Go to the 9 page thread on the issue and you will find a very well (better than my exhausted brain can do right now) about the options modelers have. Many choose to NOT fly at events...that's an option. Many choose to buy a dinner with their wife, or as I said some kero. SIG or no SIG, the JPO is not seen as worth the investment of a measely $25.oo by the majority of waver holders. The math speaks for itself. I've been a member for 6 or 7 years...to the chagrin of the 9 other jet flyers in the area.......not worth it to them. I hope you are more eloquent and able to convince others than I have been.
Remember, if something is not seen as worthwhile to an individual, there is no push for them to join/purchase/belong. Somehow the fence sitters need to be encouraged. Maybe this issue will do it.

Greg
Old 11-18-2003, 01:32 AM
  #35  
Silver182
My Feedback: (2)
 
Silver182's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Littleton, CO
Posts: 1,095
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default RE: Turbine Regulations Saga

ORIGINAL: Gordon_Dickens

ORIGINAL: rcdoc

I have to agree with Tony, that in the eyes of most jet modelers, the JPO is not their first choice.

Greg
Hi Greg,

There really isn't an alternative to the JPO since it is the only jet SIG recognized by the AMA. So, while you say that the JPO isn't the first choice for most jet modelers, I don't understand what their other choices are other than choose not to affiliate with any AMA jet SIG. Doing something constructive is alot better than doing nothing.

Why not join the JPO and become part of the process to make it better instead of standing on the sidelines? I invite each and every jet pilot out there that are not JPO members to join the JPO and help make a difference.

Gordon
Hello Gordon and all,
There must be a reason the JPO doesn't seem to be speaking for all Jet modeler's, and I believe the reason is the JPO's idea's come from a very small minority from within one of the smallest SIG's in the AMA. The facts are turbine wavered AMA members at best total less than 1/2 of one percent of the total AMA membership. Politically speaking we don't amount to a hill of beans, and some of you wonder why DB isn't totally moved by what the JPO or we want. I think DB knows the JPO doesn't speak for all of us, and at times only speaks for a few of us!

I for one don't believe our Jet turbine safety record indicates a need for more regulatory attention / change. Seems to me the powers that be within the JPO feel they must come up with something anything even if a need doesn't exist. Come up with something to justify their existence to the AMA and to us. I believe a history of actions like these are the real reason less than a majority of turbine wavered AMA members are members of the JPO. There are only seven hundred or so of us why couldn't a questionnaire have been sent to all of us for our in-put? Is it because our opinion isn't wanted?

I believe most Jet pilots would agree speed limits and or T/W limits are necessary. The question is should speed limits be correlated by aircraft type & manufacture, or just be an arbitrary number like the 200 mph. And then unless speed guns are used at Rally's to check & enforce speed limits, the only practical method of enforcement is the required use of the on-board speed limiters. I think the answer to this dilemma boils down to the required use of speed limiters.

The other issue I believe is critical for Jet modeling survival was addressed by the TRC, but not clearly enough for me. Water or some other means of crash site fire suppression should be on hand & ready for use, not just located somewhere at the flying site. Response time can be critical. I believe most of the other changes recommended by the TRC are nothing but busy work -- not predicated on any demonstrated need for change.

I haven't witnessed one crash or incident that would have been prevented by any of the new rules suggested by the TRC, have you? Anyone please tell us about the incident and make the case if you can!

I haven't attended one Jet Rally where safety was put on the back shelf. Aircraft incidents / accidents will happen no matter how regulated we become. Our most efficient method for improving safety is right at each Jet Rally. Any pilot demonstrating poor judgment or questionable ability should be documented and reported as such to the AMA. These reports then can be compiled and wavier revocation then can be considered by the AMA Safety committee.
Lee H. DeMary
AMA 36099
Old 11-18-2003, 08:36 AM
  #36  
DavidR
Senior Member
My Feedback: (1)
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Oxford, MS
Posts: 3,241
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default RE: Turbine Regulations Saga

I for one don't believe
Lee,

This I think is the more predominant reason why the jet community consists of several splinter groups. The very nature of this facet of the hobby is that it is expensive, and tends to attract the individuals that can afford it. So you wind up with business owners, and individuals that are accomplished in their careers etc... Most of these individuals are independant and self driven. We each have our opinions and oftentimes are naturally in a position of leadership. I think the majority of us have to make decisions every day so naturally gather up every piece of information we feel is necessary to do such, and then we act. I am curious why the JPO is constantly criticised for not gathering information yet everytime we ask for opinons the majority of the community does not contribute suggestions. At Superman Steven gave a short talk at the pilot's meeting on Saturday morning, there were at least 100 people standing there yet very few people even asked him about anything further to do with the rules. Two or three years ago we were working on a new proposal we sent out letters to current and past JPO members, we made quite a few comments on the RC jet list, JPO list and RCO, there was even a new Jet Rules list formed that lasted maybe 6 weks before fizzling out. At that time a fair bit of discussion insued with maybe 40 at the most contributors. People did not seem to care until after the proposal that contained almost every idea that came out of those discussions went to the AMA. The proposal was posted on all the above lists, plus the JPO website and was hashed over in all of the above forums until it was felt it was ready to go to the AMA. Hardly kept from the membership, or keeping information from the membership like what is being claimed.

It is my feeling that if you don't become a part of an orginization you can't expect for that orginization to feel like your voice should carry considerable weight. You choose by not joining an orginization to not provide yor input to that orginization. I am an electrical contractor, and I do not belong to NECA (the national electrical contractors association) should I expect that they send me a letter or a poll everytime they are about to propose a legislative issue to congress? Should I also feel that they are not supporting my interests if I don't contribute anything to their orginization?
Old 11-18-2003, 11:23 AM
  #37  
Jetjock51
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Clinton, MS
Posts: 483
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default RE: Turbine Regulations Saga

Quote by RCDOC:
Gordon, I stand by my statement. Go to the 9 page thread on the issue and you will find a very well (better than my exhausted brain can do right now) about the options modelers have. Many choose to NOT fly at events...that's an option. Many choose to buy a dinner with their wife, or as I said some kero. SIG or no SIG, the JPO is not seen as worth the investment of a measely $25.oo by the majority of waver holders. The math speaks for itself. I've been a member for 6 or 7 years...to the chagrin of the 9 other jet flyers in the area.......not worth it to them. I hope you are more eloquent and able to convince others than I have been.
Remember, if something is not seen as worthwhile to an individual, there is no push for them to join/purchase/belong. Somehow the fence sitters need to be encouraged. Maybe this issue will do it.

Greg
[/quote]

Greg,

I am glad that you continue to support JPO. I think it is essential that we do so if we want to continue to fly turbine powered jets under the auspices of the AMA. However, I fail to see the logic for not joining JPO as stated by you above. I understand this may be the reason given by your 9 jet buddies, but I don't think they are valid reasons. With that kind of thinking, I guess the argument could be made that we should not support the AMA either. I believe, with it's 175,000 members, the AMA has a far lesser percentage of the total modeling community as members than the JPO has as a percentage of the total number of turbine waiver holders. It appears that JPO has approximately 1/3 of all waiver holders, while AMA has maybe half that number as a ratio of the total number of modelers in this country. Should we not support the AMA because they represent so few of the modelers in the nation? I don't think so. We need the AMA just like we need the JPO. Unfortunately, the majority always sits back and lets the minority do all the work to protect their rights, go through the laborious task of rules making, etc. As always, the same ones never fail to complain of being left out after the process is finished, in spite of multiple invitations to contribute. My feeling is, if they don't participate, they have no right to complain, just like going to the polls and voting. If you don't vote, don't waste your breath trying to tell me how it ought to be.

Dennis Lott
AMA voting member
JPO voting member
Old 11-18-2003, 01:43 PM
  #38  
F106A
My Feedback: (2)
 
F106A's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Clifton, NJ
Posts: 1,859
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default RE: Turbine Regulations Saga

Hi everyone,
Here's an overview provided by Dave Mathewson, DII VP.

This is an update I'm sending everyone in our district who has contacted me
regarding the revisions to the current turbine regulations (generally
referred to as the "JPO proposal"). At the bottom of this email is a note
District 10 VP, Rich Hanson, sent to the members in his district. It's
pretty complete so I've copied it here.

As most of you know, the AMA EC met via conference call on Friday night to
discuss the new turbine regulations that were passed on November 1, 2003.
AMA President Dave Brown expressed several concerns over these new
regulations and called for an emergency meeting of the EC, by conference
call, to discuss them. As a result of this meeting, the EC voted to hold
these new regulations "in abeyance" pending the gathering of more info.

What does this all mean (my thoughts, comments, opinions)? First, soon a
copy of the exact motion passed on Friday night along with a complete
version of the new regulations will be posted on the AMA Website. This
should clear up some of the erroneous info that's been floating around.

As Rich mentioned in his comments there are three areas of concern with the
new regulations. Personally, I believe two of them, the fuel issue and
thrust issue, can be cleared up rather easily. Simple changes should be able
to be made, with little affect on the intent of the original JPO proposal,
that will eliminate the concerns some have.

The primary issue is the removal of the requirement for a speed limiter
(which was required in the old regulations under certain conditions). When
the JPO Proposal was presented to the EC on 11/1 questions were raised about
removing the requirement for speed limiters. There was a concern that the
only method of determining the speed of the model would be by using the
visual judgment of the pilot (not very scientific or accurate). I wasn't
totally comfortable with this. On the other hand we were told that
aftermarket speed limiters were, at best, unreliable, and in some cases, not
available. With this being the only options, I was unwilling to vote in
favor of any policy that would require the use of a piece of equipment that
was known to be prone to problems or not available. Eliminating the
requirement for a speed limiter was, in my mind, the lesser of two evils.
The JPO proposal passed 8 to 3.

Shortly after the EC meeting, and as late as a couple hours before the
conference call on Friday, several companies have contacted AMA indicating
that they can produce an acceptable, working speed limiter. As the
conference call progressed several options were tossed out for
consideration, from rescinding the original November 1 motion; to doing
nothing; to holding up, slowing down, and waiting to decide what to
ultimately do until we have all the available information. A motion was made
and passed to hold the new regulations in abeyance.

What's the bottom line? First I think overall the JPO proposal is good work.
As a package, it has much more good in it than not. If the issue is raised,
I will not vote to rescind the motion of 11/1 that passed in favor of this
proposal. I will not vote in favor of a requirement for a speed limiter for
ALL turbine models. I would be receptive to a requirement for a speed
limiter for all turbine models capable of exceeding the 200 MPH limit. My
position would be subject to the wording of the rule and the availability of
an acceptable limiter.

Please don't misinterpret what happened at the conference call on Friday.
The motion to accept the JPO proposal has not been rescinded. Everyone in
our district that I have talked to agrees that a working speed limiter on
turbine models capable of exceeding the speed limit is a better alternative
than guessing. As a matter of fact, most turbine pilots I've spoken to that
have models capable of flying that fast prefer speed limiters and would
still use them whether it was required or not.
Let me know if you have any questions and I'll do my best to answer them. In
the meantime, as we work to put this issue to rest, I'll keep everyone
updated on whatever progress we're making.
Dave
Old 11-18-2003, 03:26 PM
  #39  
DavidR
Senior Member
My Feedback: (1)
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Oxford, MS
Posts: 3,241
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default RE: Turbine Regulations Saga

I would be receptive to a requirement for a speed
limiter for all turbine models capable of exceeding the 200 MPH limit. My
position would be subject to the wording of the rule and the availability of
an acceptable limiter.
I wonder who is going to decide what models are capable of 200 mph? And if this is the case are we going to see speedlimiters being a requirement on EVERY type of model capable of over 200 mph? What makes a giant scale racer safer at 200+ mph than a 200+ mph jet.
Old 11-18-2003, 06:37 PM
  #40  
diceman
My Feedback: (10)
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Lakeland, FL
Posts: 618
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default RE: Turbine Regulations Saga

Dave Brown told me in a conversation last Saturday that the 200 MPH speed limit has no basis in anything. It was simply pulled out of thin air.

He also confirmed that most of the "insurance dollar" goes to property / land owners coverage. It's not an airplane issue.

Speed limits are not needed - Totally uninforcable
Speed limitors are not needed - Undependable and can't be properly monitored - how they are set.
Fuel limits are not needed - none of us want's to carry any more than we need.

Folks; It's time to get into the 21st Century.

Here is another piece of information one may find interesting. What segment of model aviation is responsible for the largest claim every paid by the AMA? Free Flight.
Old 11-18-2003, 06:53 PM
  #41  
maverick
My Feedback: (12)
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 1,575
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default RE: Turbine Regulations Saga

ORIGINAL: diceman

Dave Brown told me in a conversation last Saturday that the 200 MPH speed limit has no basis in anything. It was simply pulled out of thin air.
So why is he pursuing it so vigorously?

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off


Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service -

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.