Doug

I do not know the substance and reasoning for the conference call. I don't like guessing. Rich Hanson makes reference to "legal and risk management concerns". What does that mean? Is it real or imagined? If it is imagined, I would think the EC would hold their ground. IF it is real, there may be cause for reconsideration. I would hope that regardless of the outcome, the AMA makes the results known publicy and quickly.

JR

Now I have heard that we want to limit twins to 50 pounds thrust, and 1.5 gallons of fule total? What a giant step backwards.

I think someone in the JPO had better post what the hell is going on "officially" so I can get on the horn. I think the time for silence is over.

Could not agree with you more Matt. I have to wonder why the shroud of secrecy is in place?

Call DB or your VP (Rich). They may or may not be willing to talk, but, they will not lie to you.

JR

Dave Brown is non-responsive at this point. He has not returned either email or phone call from me.

Rich Hanson just replied to my last email. His response is as follows.

"Thanks Doug,

I sincerely appreciate your interest and concern regarding this issue. And, I will certainly pass on your views and keep your concerns in mind as this issue progresses.

Just as an FYI... I have also heard from Steven Ellzey, Kevin Whitlow, Gordon Dickens and Scott Villiers. They have all expressed similar concerns and share your views.

Talk to you again soon,

Rich Hanson"

Yes, that is me. I emailed Rich about half an hour ago and got a response already. At least he is listening.

Hi,
The silence is what prompted my question in the jet forum that started this whole sub thread.
Just tell us what's going on, why the secrecy? I was told to be patient; they'll be posted soon.
I just don't get it.
Jon

Jon and everyone else,

Consider this, the reason that all of the new rules have NOT been posted yet is it will cloud the issue at hand here. What the Jet community does not need at this time is splinter groups that are complaining about the various differnet segments of the new rules. The JPO/AMA committee that worked so hard for this is comprised of some well respected jet modellers all of which have been actively involved in the jet community for a long time. They feel that the best voice for the jet community is one of unity, we don't all know what the new rules are but we support the rules makers and the process that has ALREADY taken place. We should all be asking who is next? This is going beyond the jet community.

in other words folks
yer jpo feels that what they have done is good, and do not want any more input of fiddling from the jet pilots on the matter.
they just want you to blindly support what they, the commitee folks, have arrived at.

chris zonio posted this on the jet side

>>>>>>>>
Here's some info on the proposals:

One of the proposals is for re-certification of turbine waivers on an annual basis. The recert requires a minimum 18 turbine flights during the previous year to be signed off by a turbine CD.


The other proposals are to change the turbine model weight limit to 55 lbs measured DRY and limit the fuel capacity to 1 and 1/2 gallons per engine.


Buddy box training is also proposed. Finally, a proposal to eliminate T/W ratios and speed limiters is included with an thrust increase to 70 lbs static.

Chris
<<<<<<<<

there are two things at work here, first the rule set itself. but then the manner in which they are being handled.

in the AMA bylaws, Article VIII, section 2

"Special Executive Council meetings may be called by the President, or
by any five Executive Council members, or shall be called upon the
written request of 5% of voting members of the Academy. The purpose of
a Special meeting shall be stated in the call. Except in cases of
emergency, as determined by the President, at least 15 day notice shall be given."

It just seems a little odd how this issue is being handled so quickly.

mongo it was not all jpo members from what I understand. these changes are a response to a request made by the ama apparently.

Mongo (Mark)

Does it not make sense to you that a unnified voice instead of a whole lot of different opinions is a valid approach to take? How many times have you EVER been able to get a group of 10 people to agree on all of ten different topics? You make your comments and try to criticise JPO for it's efforts, what is going to happen when it becomes helicopters (that you enjoy flying) next? DO you not want someone to grab the proverbial bull by the horns and decide to lead the way, or would you rather each of the 10,000 helicopter pilots try to speak up at one time with what each of them feels is important. Imagine that mayhem. This is a critical time for the modelling community.

Ouch!! Did I read this one right? That once a year you have to find a turbine cd to recert you? That would mean I have to drive to tim buck two once a year and go thru everything again...sure hope not!!!!

Jon

ok, I' m convinced. This went out to SF today...

No you read it correctly but you read what someone had quoted incorrectly. You will have to recert but you will not have to do it with a Turbine CD.

This is a prime example of what can happen when several people start to interpret the rules and see something that they personally disagree with in the rules.

it is no secret that i do not think that turbins require any more special handling than trainers or warbirds. the whole waiver idea is flawed.
however, what i said up above was not critical, but rather a statement by someone who has been on a commitee to get things done, and who knows that sometimes ya just take what ya can get fer now, and everybody else please shut up.
so david, stand down, ok.

I know this is not going to answer all the questions, but;

The proposal in question was prepared by an Ad-Hoc committee at the request of AMA safety committee chairman Don Lowe. The committee was composed of 6 high flight time turbine pilots, three of Don Lowe’s choosing and three of mine, of whom one was me. The proposal was based on our experience, ideas from many others, and a few discussion right here on RCU found their way into it. Terry Nitsch and myself presented the proposal to the AMA safety committee on Oct 31. The safety committee spent the better part of a day going through it. During this process some parts where deleted which actually made things a bit more liberal, and a few thing where added which made it a bit more conservative, but on balance it was still pretty much what we where aiming for. The following day we presented it to the EC. It was discussed at length there, and a few modifications where made, mostly grammatical (did you know a CD is a person and not a thing?). A vote was taken and the proposal was accepted as the new regulations.

Now at this point there was no intention to keep things a secret. The regulations were still having corrections from the EC meeting added, and a common announcement was being drafted. It was about a week before the regulations had past their final proof reading along with the announcement. I was operating under the information that the EC minutes, which would include the new regulations, would be posted Monday night/Tuesday morning which of course has not happened. I felt that trying to discuss the new regulations without them being available for every one to review would simple be to confusing.

On Monday I found out that the announcement and posting of information was on hold, and I was asked to hold off on posting the new regulations ( I don’t even have the finial version) and the announcement on the JPO website. This request came from someone who is as confused as to what is going on as the rest of us. The reason I still do not want to post the new regulations is the folks at Muncie have been very friendly and very supportive of this effort and I do not want to do something that might make their life harder. Being Veterans Day, the AMA was closed today, and the guy I really need to talk to about this is not going to be in until Thursday. So please be patient.

I will comment that some of the reports floating around in discussions here as to what the regulations are, are out in left field.

Now it appears that some are wanting to change what has been done. The new regulations, as they are right now, have several increases in pilot requirements, but it was felt that the reductions in airframe restrictions more than offset this. The net result being a safer set of regulations that are more fun for the pilots and better for all. My concern is that if more conservative airframe requirement are added to the increase in pilot requirements, the end result will simply be more restrictive regulations. This was not the goal, and if it does come to this I am truly sorry for having gone down this path.

Steven Ellzey
President, Jet Pilot’s Organization

just for information, which side, jpo or safety commitee, felt that tighter pilot requirements were in order?
i realise that this was a comitte decision, but who brought it up is, i guess, my concern.

Mongo,

The emphasis of all off the turbine regulations has always been restrictions to the airframe not to the pilot. The new proposal attempted to change that and place more emphasis on the pilot and less emphasis on the airframe.

Steve,

I fail to understand how keeping your people (jet pilots) in the dark about the rules you are proposing for us can cloud the issue. Keeping a unified voice is great, but by keeping people in the dark you're in effect forcing speculation, which divides our voice. Exactly what you hoped to keep from happening.

Clarification,
The AMA president has a vote, ONLY IN CASE OF AN EC TIE VOTE ON A MOTION
ART.VIII The President can call a special meeting that does not require a 15 day notice, check
ART VIII section 2, end of fourth sentence except in case of emergency.
So until an official announcement is made, all your posts are speculation, rumors, hearsay and what other garbage is thrown in to cloud the issue.I'm sure there are legitimate reasons behind this issue.
By the way, did anyone consider the fact that if there is a special meeting called that it just might not be about the Turbines, HELLO< DUH,

The AMA President has a vote any time he wants it. It has been traditional to only cast his vote in the case of a tie.

Stalspin, the reason for the meeting has been confirmed by seveal VP's.... DUH

Your not doing well for an AVP

JR

If what I'm hearing is true, and Dave Brown is really doing what is being reported, then we need EVERYONE on board in stopping the misuse of his office. Everyone needs to contact their respective EC members and make their opinions known that they want the JPO proposal unaltered.

Contact your EC member NOW.

In a way I hope the new rules aren't put into effect. I'm not to crazy about having to 'recert' and also put in 18 turbine flights the previous year. Being that we've had a short flying season I would have to primarily focus on the jet aspect then try to find a turbine waiver again to recert!!!! I'm involved in giant scale aerobatic planes, warbirds etc and don't want to have to take time and focus away from my other interests just to keep my waiver up to date!!


Jon

Jon,

18 turbine flights can be done in 2 days, if you are not flying a turbine airplane at least 20 flights a year you are not maintianing a level of proficiency with it. I'm sorry but that's the fact, it's a matter of experience level.

This effort was announced about 5 mounths ago. One whole guy bothered to give inputs to the committee, and his inputs were incorporated. About one week before the first draft was due to the AMA one other guy wanted to review and make comments, that one did not happen. There was no secrecy.