Go Back  RCU Forums > RC Airplanes > RC Jets
Reload this Page >

Turbine Waiver Rule Changes

Notices
RC Jets Discuss RC jets in this forum plus rc turbines and ducted fan power systems

Turbine Waiver Rule Changes

Old 06-08-2021, 03:46 AM
  #26  
Vincent
My Feedback: (61)
 
Vincent's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Arizona / Colorado
Posts: 4,897
Likes: 0
Received 5 Likes on 4 Posts
Default

I could never understand why the AMA is ok with someone going from a motion foamie to a 30 or 40% with no supervision yet the turbine jet is loaded hoops to jump thru.
Old 06-08-2021, 04:00 AM
  #27  
RCFlyerDan
My Feedback: (54)
 
RCFlyerDan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Cape Coral
Posts: 1,801
Received 10 Likes on 10 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by Vincent View Post
I could never understand why the AMA is ok with someone going from a motion foamie to a 30 or 40% with no supervision yet the turbine jet is loaded hoops to jump thru.
It's because the rules were made 20+ years ago when the engines were difficult to start. My first turbine was an 11# thrust Mamba. To start it, the turbine had to be blown with air from a scuba tank, propane from a bottle with a valve, and an igniter for the glow plug. It was a pain in the rear to start. Sometimes taking me 45 minutes to start, because I didn't have the touch of the air and propane. When it finally started 45 minutes later in 94 degree weather during the summer here in Florida, I was too hot to fly. But did anyway, because it started.

Now a days, push a button and move the throttle, and it starts.

Last edited by RCFlyerDan; 06-08-2021 at 04:04 AM.
Old 06-08-2021, 05:46 AM
  #28  
BarracudaHockey
My Feedback: (11)
 
BarracudaHockey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Jacksonville, FL
Posts: 24,832
Received 102 Likes on 84 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by Vincent View Post
I could never understand why the AMA is ok with someone going from a motion foamie to a 30 or 40% with no supervision yet the turbine jet is loaded hoops to jump thru.
Simple.

Insurance

In order to be insured to operate gas turbines we needed a training system in place that demonstrated a higher level of understanding and operator proficiency
Old 06-08-2021, 06:26 AM
  #29  
Bandetx
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Posts: 21
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Default

The weight requirement change is fine, it was made in a time before foamy PNP turbines exist and should be amended. They have been mainstream in the hobby for several years now and have proven themselves as a decent entry level turbine.

Of course some old fogeys are upset that "peasants" can afford turbines, but that's to be expected and they just have to deal with changing times.
The following users liked this post:
why_fly_high (06-08-2021)
Old 06-08-2021, 08:05 AM
  #30  
ira d
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Maricopa County AZ
Posts: 3,207
Received 5 Likes on 5 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by BarracudaHockey View Post
Simple.

Insurance

In order to be insured to operate gas turbines we needed a training system in place that demonstrated a higher level of understanding and operator proficiency
As far as I can see the AMA has not provided any training on turbine operations on either engine or airframes. You figure it out on your own and of course you
may receive some tips or guidance from more experienced flyers but that's it.
The following users liked this post:
why_fly_high (06-08-2021)
Old 06-08-2021, 08:24 AM
  #31  
BarracudaHockey
My Feedback: (11)
 
BarracudaHockey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Jacksonville, FL
Posts: 24,832
Received 102 Likes on 84 Posts
Default

I had lots of training and several buddy box flights from other members to get my waiver.

Old 06-08-2021, 08:27 AM
  #32  
Bandetx
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Posts: 21
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Default

Originally Posted by BarracudaHockey View Post
I had lots of training and several buddy box flights from other members to get my waiver.
Lots of training is not actually required though. Like, there's nothing stopping people from just signing off. That's why rules about training requirements are silly unless they find a way to verify to some extent.

Complaints about bad turbine pilots should be directed at those who signed them off when they aren't ready, not at the AMA for not making unenforceable rules.
Old 06-08-2021, 09:16 AM
  #33  
Desertlakesflying
My Feedback: (28)
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Sun Valley, NV
Posts: 2,805
Received 34 Likes on 30 Posts
Default

This thread takes away all wonder how we got a government that is wrecking America in 2020.
The following 2 users liked this post by Desertlakesflying:
csandt051196 (06-08-2021), uncleTom (06-08-2021)
Old 06-08-2021, 09:58 AM
  #34  
mongo
My Feedback: (14)
 
mongo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Midland, TX
Posts: 2,940
Received 24 Likes on 21 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by BarracudaHockey View Post
Simple.

Insurance

In order to be insured to operate gas turbines we needed a training system in place that demonstrated a higher level of understanding and operator proficiency
NEEDED IS THE OPERATIVE WORD IN THAT STATEMENT.
we needed to give the insurance folk some data to base their coverage decisions on, they have got that now.
and actually, the old safety code forbid turbine engines, and the waiver was actually a waiver of the safety code, so we could demonstrate our ability to safely operate turbines to everybody.
Old 06-08-2021, 10:58 AM
  #35  
rhklenke
My Feedback: (24)
 
rhklenke's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Richmond, VA
Posts: 5,948
Likes: 0
Received 13 Likes on 7 Posts
Default New proposed rules

Guys,

Let me just make a comment on the new proposed rules and the process we go through to bring them up for consideration.

The AMA Safety Committee and the Executive Committee (EC) are the keepers of the rules. Everything must go through them for discussion and ultimately for approval.

The JPO is a Special Interest Group (SIG) of the AMA. Like other SIGs, the Safety Committee and the EC use the SIGs as the technical experts in their areas. Sometimes the SIGs propose new or updated rules based on inputs from their constituents, and sometimes the EC and Safety Committee ask the SIGs to propose new rules based on their discussions and knowledge.

In this case, it was a mix of both. The JPO received significant inputs from AMA turbine waiver holders (probably the majority of whom are not JPO members) requesting some updates to the waiver signoff process. After receiving those inputs, we further discussed the proposals with members of the turbine community (again not all JPO members). Some of the suggestions were not further proposed to the AMA for numerous reasons, and some of them were. Before they were included in the proposed rule update, we talked with quite a few members of the community and got, and listened to, their feedback. During this process, we didn’t even ask if they were JPO members, nor was it a consideration in evaluating the feedback (do you sense a theme here yet?)

As for the 12 lb rule, some on the EC and Safety Committee had received requests to revisit this provision – primarily because the technology has advanced significantly since it was instituted and with the proliferation of many excellent lower-cost small turbines, it is now possible to have a fully functional turbine-powered aircraft that is less than 12 lbs dry. It was felt by many that the hard 12 lb limit for waiver flights was too exclusionary.

In evaluating this requested change, we considered all alternatives, from not changing the rule at all, to elimination any minimum weight requirement, to adding a “small turbine” waiver class that was separate from the normal turbine waiver. Again, with feedback from members of the turbine community, we suggested that allowing aircraft less than 12 lbs dry for the waiver flight with some minimum requirements was the best alternative and answered the concerns of most of the constituents who expressed an opinion on the subject. Thus, that is what we proposed to the Safety Committee for their consideration.

You can easily see from the previous comments in this thread, that opinions on exactly how we should address this issue are a numerous as the number of people who hold them. *Every* alternative is a compromise and will not make everyone happy, but we felt that what we proposed was the best choice. If the Safety Committee and the EC agree, then that is what will be adopted. In the future, changes can always be proposed if a better alternative emerges.

As for the comments on the process and the JPO, they are, to be polite, a bunch of baloney. I am the President of the JPO for one simple reason – I was asked to volunteer for the job and I agreed. I agreed for one simple reason – because I love this hobby and I believe that the turbine community needs a knowledgeable voice within the AMA to help guide issues, like this rules proposal, that affect us. Frankly, it takes a significant amount of my time, but I think it’s worth it. The other *volunteer* officers of the JPO feel the same.

I fly my “JPO President” flag at all of the events I attend, First in Flight, Kentucky Jets, Tiger Meet, Super Jets South, among others. I am always open to talking with anyone about any issue that affects the hobby (unless I’m actually flying, getting ready to fly, or are elbow deep inside a jet – you know how that goes, right?). I *never* preface the conversation with “are you a member of the JPO?” It doesn’t matter, the JPO represents *all* the jet community, not just the members.

Being a member of the JPO costs $25 per year. This cost just barely covers the costs of our quarterly newletter, “Contrails,” which done completely by volunteers, including our really hard-working editor, Greg Moore, and the JPO “Top Gun” Trophy that is awarded at many jet events. You can easily join or renew your JPO membership at www.jetpilots.org using Paypal. All of the JPO activities, including the publishing of Contrails and providing the Top Gun trophies are completed by *volunteers* - turbine community members, who like me, believe that supporting our part of the hobby in an organized manner is worth their time.

If you go to the JPO website, you will notice that some of our districts do not have a dedicated representative. That is not because there are no turbine waiver holders in that district, but because no member of the community in that district has volunteered their time to fill that position.

For those who grumble about not being part of the process or not being asked for their opinion, I have one suggestion - get involved, it’s as simple as that. If you are a member of the jet community in a District without a JPO Rep, volunteer for the position. If you have a District Rep, talk to them and see how you can help out. If all else fails, talk to me. I guarantee I’ll listen (unless I’m occupied as outlined above!), and I'll be happy to find a way for you to help out.



Bob Klenke

JPO President

[email protected]

Last edited by rhklenke; 06-08-2021 at 11:16 AM.
The following 5 users liked this post by rhklenke:
Auburn02 (06-08-2021), CraigG (06-09-2021), Ron S (06-09-2021), Sparhawk (Yesterday), Viper1GJ (06-08-2021)
Old 06-08-2021, 11:00 AM
  #36  
rhklenke
My Feedback: (24)
 
rhklenke's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Richmond, VA
Posts: 5,948
Likes: 0
Received 13 Likes on 7 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by ira d View Post
As far as I can see the AMA has not provided any training on turbine operations on either engine or airframes. You figure it out on your own and of course you
may receive some tips or guidance from more experienced flyers but that's it.
The JPO is addressing that need. We should have something available soon.

Bob
The following users liked this post:
Viper1GJ (06-08-2021)
Old 06-08-2021, 02:06 PM
  #37  
Vincent
My Feedback: (61)
 
Vincent's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Arizona / Colorado
Posts: 4,897
Likes: 0
Received 5 Likes on 4 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by BarracudaHockey View Post
Simple.

Insurance

In order to be insured to operate gas turbines we needed a training system in place that demonstrated a higher level of understanding and operator proficiency
yet the vast majority of insurance claims are prop strikes, both elec and gas.
Old 06-08-2021, 02:27 PM
  #38  
Auburn02
My Feedback: (1)
 
Auburn02's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 980
Received 14 Likes on 11 Posts
Default

Lots of people want to make this about more bureaucracy, or somehow politics (seriously? get a life), but it sounds to me like in this particular instance they are trying to make it simpler to get into turbines, not harder. You can yell about the waiver program in its entirety until you're blue in the face, but all you're going to get is out of breath. But again, this change appears to be an effort to make things easier. How is that possibly worth complaining about?
Old 06-08-2021, 02:51 PM
  #39  
Viper1GJ
My Feedback: (20)
 
Viper1GJ's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Saint George , SC
Posts: 1,925
Received 118 Likes on 95 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by rhklenke View Post

Guys,

Let me just make a comment on the new proposed rules and the process we go through to bring them up for consideration.......
.....and I'll be happy to find a way for you to help out.

Bob Klenke
JPO President
[email protected]
Hey Bob,
Well said. Thank you for all the time you spend and work you do helping us in the turbine community, and thanks for all the JPO volunteers too.
Gary
The following users liked this post:
CraigG (06-09-2021)
Old 06-08-2021, 04:53 PM
  #40  
JSF-TC
Thread Starter
My Feedback: (2)
 
JSF-TC's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Fort Worth, TX
Posts: 1,190
Likes: 0
Received 41 Likes on 33 Posts
Default

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
The following 2 users liked this post by JSF-TC:
patf (06-10-2021), Viper1GJ (06-08-2021)
Old 06-08-2021, 09:02 PM
  #41  
mongo
My Feedback: (14)
 
mongo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Midland, TX
Posts: 2,940
Received 24 Likes on 21 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by JSF-TC View Post
Bob,




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
the ONLY way you can realistically make this claim, is to know how many of the claims from non turbine incidents were also involving only non waivered pilots.

there is NOTHING about the waiver process that removes sheer stupidity type accidents, which the bulk of claims are.
Old 06-09-2021, 05:15 AM
  #42  
why_fly_high
My Feedback: (19)
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Edmond, OK
Posts: 696
Received 3 Likes on 2 Posts
Default

I was just thinking about the waiver process. If turbines were dropped on the planet in their current form there would likely not be a need for a turbine waiver process due to insurance. When turbine first came on the scene they were difficult. Now you would just show the insurance companies, "Look, the engines start themselves! No hands flipping 32" propellers. We'll make sure they have a fire extinguisher ready. We will limit the speed even though electrics and gas planes you already cover go faster."
Old 06-09-2021, 06:30 PM
  #43  
Pylonracr
 
Pylonracr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Reno, NV
Posts: 915
Likes: 0
Received 4 Likes on 4 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by why_fly_high View Post
I was just thinking about the waiver process. If turbines were dropped on the planet in their current form there would likely not be a need for a turbine waiver process due to insurance. When turbine first came on the scene they were difficult. Now you would just show the insurance companies, "Look, the engines start themselves! No hands flipping 32" propellers. We'll make sure they have a fire extinguisher ready. We will limit the speed even though electrics and gas planes you already cover go faster."

Well stated Dan.
I fly planes that go faster than your turbines go, because I know that you follow the rules. I still bear the scars from a prop bite 25 years ago that took 3 fingers down to the bone. I went to the ER and had my hand sewn back together and it works fairly well. There are a couple of turbine waivered pilots that I know, one of which is a turbine rated CD, that are terrible pilots and have trouble hitting the runway... All that being said I am certainly NOT in favor of any more regulation in our hobby. If a pilot can not fly their plane, be it turbine or glow, they are going to crash it.

Scott
Old 06-12-2021, 06:52 AM
  #44  
rhklenke
My Feedback: (24)
 
rhklenke's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Richmond, VA
Posts: 5,948
Likes: 0
Received 13 Likes on 7 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by rhklenke View Post
The JPO is addressing that need. We should have something available soon.

Bob
The turbine waiver preperation training materials developed by the JPO have been published. They are available on the JPO website on the page labled "Resources"

https://www.jetpilots.org/resources

Bob Klenke
JPO President
Old 06-12-2021, 07:22 AM
  #45  
T_CAT
 
T_CAT's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Posts: 133
Likes: 0
Received 10 Likes on 8 Posts
Default

Is there a rough ETA on when the proposed rules would go into effect (assuming all pass as is)?

Last edited by T_CAT; 06-12-2021 at 12:10 PM.
Old 06-12-2021, 11:29 AM
  #46  
rhklenke
My Feedback: (24)
 
rhklenke's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Richmond, VA
Posts: 5,948
Likes: 0
Received 13 Likes on 7 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by T_CAT View Post
Is there a rough ETA on when the proposed rules would go into affect (assuming all pass as is)?
Well, the process moves at its own pace, so there's no definitive answer. I may make it to the July EC meeting, but it not, it sould surly make it to the October EC meeting.

Bob
Old 06-12-2021, 12:10 PM
  #47  
T_CAT
 
T_CAT's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Posts: 133
Likes: 0
Received 10 Likes on 8 Posts
Default

Thank you, Bob.
Old 06-13-2021, 05:55 PM
  #48  
ira d
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Maricopa County AZ
Posts: 3,207
Received 5 Likes on 5 Posts
Default

This just my opinion of course but I don't think it is necessary to have seperate waivers for fixed wing and turboprop.
Old Yesterday, 03:02 PM
  #49  
rhklenke
My Feedback: (24)
 
rhklenke's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Richmond, VA
Posts: 5,948
Likes: 0
Received 13 Likes on 7 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by ira d View Post
This just my opinion of course but I don't think it is necessary to have seperate waivers for fixed wing and turboprop.
That was mainly at the request of the turboprop flyers - the reasoning was "why to I have to do a waiver flight on a jet when I don't want to fly jets, only a turboprop."

Note that if you have a standard turbine waiver, you don't need a "turboprop waiver" to fly a turboprop...

Bob
Old Yesterday, 03:48 PM
  #50  
ira d
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Maricopa County AZ
Posts: 3,207
Received 5 Likes on 5 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by rhklenke View Post
That was mainly at the request of the turboprop flyers - the reasoning was "why to I have to do a waiver flight on a jet when I don't want to fly jets, only a turboprop."

Note that if you have a standard turbine waiver, you don't need a "turboprop waiver" to fly a turboprop...

Bob
Ok Thanks for the response.

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information -

Copyright © 2021 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.