THe basic rationale given by the AMA for a speed limit was to contain a fire closer to the flying site. Basically, a faster plane will go farther when out of control than a slower one, all things being equal. This of course assumes that turbines burn in a crash more often than other planes.


There was another rationale given by the AMA for a speed limit. That is that if we have a big incident and we have no limits, then we are opening ourselves up to the potential for tight regulation by someone outside of the AMA. If we have limits, then at least we can claim we had SOME kind of restrictions, and then we can go on after the incident by just claiming it was a fluke, and that we were in control, and our existing regulations just needed some tweaking.


Of course the old rules had "restrictions" as well. Just a different kind. Sort of a 3 way restriction, balancing T/W ratio, speed limiters and overall turbine thrust. I think the assault on the speed limiter took away one leg of that 3 legged stool :-) That's when overall speed limits came in, I guess not really sure.

I still think the best approach is a super demanding test/waiver, very tough to pass, granted once a year in Muncie. The tiered system. When you get to that level you can fly anything you want. BV's original proposal, as it were.

IMHO from what I saw at Muncie first hand, the EC, the AMA Safety Committee, JPO, the TRC are working well together. I believe that new rules proposals will be entertained in the coming years, and we have a good group representing us in that process.