Bob,
I totally agree with Gary, and a big THANK YOU to you for leading the JPO and all your efforts, and especially for the extremely detailed response in this thread.
As I started the thread, I feel that your answers helped fill in the background that was lacking, and provided insightful info into some of the deliberations that you went through with the new proposals. It was a much more appropriate response than the ' don't argue/ be happy' response on RCG that shut down the discussion quickly.
However, as one (probably of many) that were not 'in the know' that rule changes were being discussed or that inputs were being sought, can I make a suggestion? This forum has a sticky thread entitled 'AMA Turbine Waiver Changes'. However it has not been updated since 2017. That would have been a great place to post that new changes were being considered and to highlight the process to provide inputs. Either that or start a new sticky thread to provide the info out into the wider community.
My main concern was over the consistency of the Safety argument applicable for DIY conversions and the potential mitigation via a Restricted Waiver, but as you stated that the Restricted Waiver was discussed and rejected I am content that it was at least considered.
Thank you again.
To the other point about more insurance claims being processed from non-turbine accidents - I believe that this then demonstrates that the Waiver process works - it helps maintain the high standard that we continually see demonstrated. Without that process and the checks and balances that it brings for entry into the hobby and leading by example, I fear that we would see significantly more turbine accident claims. Let's work to maintain that good safety record.
Paul