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