Gordon_Dickens

My Feedback: (1)

Hello Everybody,

The JPO has published a [link=http://www.jetpilots.org/PDF%20files/JPO%20position%20paper%20on%20new%20regs-ver2.pdf]Position Paper[/link] regarding the new turbine regulations that were enacted on November 1, 2003 and subsequently suspended. The [link=http://www.jetpilots.org/PDF%20files/JPO%20position%20paper%20on%20new%20regs-ver2.pdf]Position Paper[/link] may be viewed at the JPO website at:

http://www.jetpilots.org/

FYI,

Gordon Dickens
JPO District V Rep.

Doug Cronkhite

My Feedback: (34)

Gordon..

This is a well written response to the actions of the EC and I hope they take heed.

Off Topic: I signed up for the JPO via the website, my credit card was charged (paypal), yet I have received nothing as yet. I signed up in November.

bcovish

My Feedback: (8)

Steven

Very well written.

Now back to building the KingCat.

TonyF

My Feedback: (92)

I agree with everything in the paper, and I only hope they will remove the requirement to have signatures notarized that the EC added. That will be a real PITA if it stays.

NdFrSpeed

My Feedback: (1)

I can't get into the paper and read it,it must be PDF format.


NdFrSpeed

johnnyjet

My Feedback: (4)

good job Gordon

Johnny

DavidR

My Feedback: (1)

It is pdf format all you need to do is download adobe reader and you CAN read it.

F106A

My Feedback: (2)

Hi,
Does all of this apply to new waiver holders or will all waiver holders have to jump through the hoops again?
Jon

Steve S

My Feedback: (54)

I just read & printed the new imposed turbine Regs.What I am still not clear on is this, are these gonna be the new AMA Regs or are they just a proposal as of now?As a df jet pilot currently ,I have my first turbine jet nearly complete-a BVM Bobcat Xl.I plan to get my waiver in the next 2-3 months ,and I would like to know if these Regs are going to get passed & if so what is the projected effective date(s) of these new Regs?Obviously my question(s) play a big part in how I proceed as I was getting ready to submit the pilots questionaire which now wont be required anymore under the new provisions set forth.Sorry if I missed something as to my questions already being answered ,altho I didnt see my questions content covered in my reading of the printed material [8D]

Steve

Gordito Volador

My Feedback: (1)

Excellent work!

Bill Adkins

Gordon_Dickens

My Feedback: (1)

Hi Doug,

You should have received a membership card shortly after signing up. Sorry....

I have asked the other JPO officers that take care of the membership to verify your membership. I will let you know as soon as I know more.

Gordon
JPO District V Rep.

Steve S

My Feedback: (54)

Can someone please address the Questions I asked above in my post?

thank you,Steve

Ron Stahl

My Feedback: (12)

BRAVO! to the JPO!

patf

My Feedback: (4)

Steve,

technically they are the new regs as approved in the October Meeting to be effecting November 1 2003, their implementation has been put on hold until further notice at the following emergency meeting. Hopefully they will be "released" by the EC (again) at the February Meeting. We are currently operating under the previous regs. Until the EC meets it is anybody's guess when the new regs will take effect. Probably within a few days after the scheduled EC meeting .... check the ama site for that date....

F106A

My Feedback: (2)

Steve,
No one knows if they're going to be passed or not. Depends on the mood Dave Brown is in, since he's controlling this whole episode.
I would wait another 10 days and see what happens. IMHO I think that the vote is going to be postponed until the NEXT meeting in the spring to allow more time to see if there is any way of making speedlimiters work reliably. The speedlimiter issue is stuck in Dave's head and he's not letting go of it until it's proved to him there's no way to make them reliable. Just my opinion.
BRG,
Jon

Kevin_W

My Feedback: (1)

Steve,

The new rules were voted on and passed by the AMA EC on Nov 1 of last year, two weeks later there was a conference call of the EC during which they voted to have these new rules put into abeyance (basically "on hold" ) until "further information can be compiled on the viability of speed limiters". This issue is on the agenda for the Feb 7 EC meeting. JPO (and many members of the jet community) will be in attendance at that meeting in an effort to provide that information and have the new rules re-instated.
Please write to your AMA district VP and voice your opinion of the new rules.

Edit; smily not intended.

Steve S

My Feedback: (54)

Thanks guys for clearing this up for me,I really appreciate it.I will just proceed with the "old guidelines" & get this written pilot's test complete. Then I will go ahead as previously planed & get the other required steps complete in the next 2-3 months

thanks,Steve

patf

My Feedback: (4)

FWIW the EC meeting is February 7th and 8th.

J_R

There are two points in the logic that I question.

1. The existing rules allow for 70 pounds of thrust on twins. Reducing it to 50 pounds would seem to allow longer flight times on the existing aircraft, but, at the same time, would appear to make the aircraft less safe in the sense that the aircraft would be difficult, if not impossible, to control on the lower thrust of one engine (a flame out on one engine).

2. The argument of “mean time between failure” appears to be a poor use of logic. If the statement that “it isn't whether the speed sensor will have a hardware failure but when it will fail” applies equally to all electronic parts. If that is true, the ECU is not reliable either. That reasoning calls into question the safety of turbines in general, and, IMHO the entire argument should be scrapped.

Gordon Mc

My Feedback: (11)

Perhaps the point that the paper tries to make (but doesn't do very well, if that is the intention) is that MTBF applies to all components, and therefrore the more components you are forced to install IN SERIES, the more chance there is that the overall system integrity is compromised (especially if one is known to be a weak link). If the speed limiter could be installed IN PARALLEL in such a way that failure of the speed limiter basically just makes the limiter invisible then no such issue would apply. As I understand it, the only currently available 3rd party limiter must be installed in series between the engine and the throttle channel of the RX. I am not 100% sure how the Jetcat or BMT integrated system is actually implemented, but having the limiter integrated would at least mean that the designer has the option of doing an integrity check of the system and ignoring the limiter input value if it seems eratic, garbled, or otherwise compormised.

Gordon

CFII1974

My Feedback: (5)

A well written paper and I hope it does the job, I do agree with J_R on the -it will fail- argument. All things will fail given the right amount of time and use.
I also have a concern about supervised first flights. What of the people (like myself) that have no other turbine pilots anywhere close. I know there are 3 in my state that have waivers including myself and I don't know any of them. I would hate to drive 3 hours (minimum) just to fly my plane for the first 5 times

Phil Cole

Regarding MTBF...

It's much easier to think in terms of failure rate. Failure rate is defined as the number of failure that occur in a large number of hours over a large number of units.

If you have a system comprised of a number of discrete units, then the failure rate of the system is the sum of the failure rates of the individual units in the system.

So, if you add a component that is not essential to the system functioning adequately, and that component has failure modes that can cause the system to fail, the failure rate of the system has been increased unecessarily. This is what I believe that the position statement was trying to get across, but knowing what they were trying to say, I still had to read that bit twice. The JPO will have someone at the meeting to clarify the point, so the clumsy wording isn't a big problem.


MTBF is basically the reciprocal of failure rate. When I'm calculating system MTBFs I convert everything to failure rates (usually failures in 10^9 hours) and add them up. For electronic components (resistors, ICs, solder joints, connectors, ...) there are published tables showing failure rates and how the failure rates vary with stress (temperature is the big one, but voltage is also important to some components). The stuff I design sits in air conditioned rooms, so vibration, corrosive environments, and temperature cycling are not things that I have to worry about.

After I have the total failure rate, I have to convert it back to MTBF, so managers can have a number they think they understand.


What I didn't follow was why singles are limited to 45 lb thrust engines, and multi-engine installations are limited to a total of 50 lb. Why not just simply say total thrust is limited to 50 lb, without any mention of the number of engines? If a 50 lb thrust engine meets the AMA type acceptance requirements at 50 lb then it should be just as acceptable as another engine that is actually rated at 45 lb.

J_R

I guess I have bought into the statements made that a third party stand alone speed limiter is not a viable solution. In the wording in the document, I can't see that it was made clear whether a speed limiter integrated into the ECU was not the topic as well, and that is where my concern with the logic is. A "series" type device should be able to be argued against with the logic, but, how about an integrated device?

I thought it was implied that waiver holders would be more likely to embrace a speed limiter if it cost substantially more than $100. I don't really think that was the intent, but, it is the implication.

S_Ellzey

Concerning The thrust limits: 45 Lbs is the biggest that any one is going to allow, it is also the largest commonly built engine, AMT Olympus and JetCat p200. We originally went in with a 70 lb twin requirement, thinking as many of you do, that was currently allowed. Go look at the regs, it does not say 70 lbs, it may have at one time, but not now. 50 was as big as any one was willing to go, this is basically two P-120s, Pegasus or Ram 1000s after installation. That is where the numbers came from, they are as much as we could get.

Steven

mr_matt

My Feedback: (10)

Hi Steven,

Is it really 50 pounds "after installation"?

Thanks to Gordon, Kevin and yourself (and all of the rest of the TRC) for all of the hard work


Matt