ORIGINAL: Ray Davis
I thought Pete O's article was very good/pretty complete....certainly nothing significant there that would truly mislead newbies (at whom it was directed....). One whole point missed, however, was any enumeration of the distinct differences in flying turbines vs prop models (turbine response, wingloading, energy management, anticipation, lack of propwash, etc.). Very important, IMO.
But, unless MA actually solicited Waiver holders...and particularly the JPO for its input....then I agree MA was both remiss and disrespectful...if not downright dumb. Such an issue takes great planning and lead time.....if they ignored the obvious expert sources, e.g., by not making the JPO aware that input was sought....Harley is dead right. OTOH...if Waiver holders and the JPO were consulted and just failed to contribute.....then they really fell down on the job! Or, maybe it was just a case of selecting 'the best' of many inputs.
Anyone truly know?
Ray
The JPO was not approached. As I said earlier, I don't think it was out of malice or an intentional snub. We are a small SIG and probably not very visible to the editors. We will find a way to introduce ourselves on a positive note and next time around perhaps we can be a more active contributor.
I do find it encouraging that the AMA would give so much positive press to our small corner of the hobby. I'm not sure that would have happened in the past ..... it says we are making progress.