Turbine Waiver Rule Changes
06-04-2021, 08:33 AM
#1
Turbine Waiver Rule Changes
I have not seen it mentioned here on RCU, but over on RCG there is a thread running where it was stated recently (24 May) by the Exec VP of the JPO that a GTP (Gas Turbine Program) rule change package was submitted to the AMA on 24 May 2021.
Whilst I don't see many (if any) substantive changes that would impact existing Waiver holders, there are some that affect us when signing off new applicants.
The 12lb rule change seems somewhat strange, but after asking some clarifying questions on RCG, I sort of follow their logic but I don't necessarily agree with the implementation of it.
To me though, the bigger issue seems to be the lack of transparency in setting these rules. Whilst I am not a member of JPO, I am an AMA member, but I don't recall seeing any formal AMA notification to members that a rule change is under consideration or requesting a solicitation for inputs. Are these an unsolicited proposal from the JPO that only JPO members got notification/ input into?
When submitted to the AMA Safety Committee will they (AMA) just vote on them or will they send out a notification for member inputs before voting & enacting them?
At least the FAA sent out a draft UAS rules package requesting inputs before finally enacting the final updated version. Even though we don't like the outcome it at least seemed a fair process.
Page 21, Post #309
https://www.rcgroups.com/forums/show...r-Rules/page21
Paul
Whilst I don't see many (if any) substantive changes that would impact existing Waiver holders, there are some that affect us when signing off new applicants.
The 12lb rule change seems somewhat strange, but after asking some clarifying questions on RCG, I sort of follow their logic but I don't necessarily agree with the implementation of it.
To me though, the bigger issue seems to be the lack of transparency in setting these rules. Whilst I am not a member of JPO, I am an AMA member, but I don't recall seeing any formal AMA notification to members that a rule change is under consideration or requesting a solicitation for inputs. Are these an unsolicited proposal from the JPO that only JPO members got notification/ input into?
When submitted to the AMA Safety Committee will they (AMA) just vote on them or will they send out a notification for member inputs before voting & enacting them?
At least the FAA sent out a draft UAS rules package requesting inputs before finally enacting the final updated version. Even though we don't like the outcome it at least seemed a fair process.
Page 21, Post #309
https://www.rcgroups.com/forums/show...r-Rules/page21
The JPO this morning submitted a GTP change proposal package to the AMA for their consideration by the safety committee. The proposal is quite extensive (~100 pages of documents and support information) but I'll give you the "Cliff Notes" version:
So that's the package but here is the nitty-gritty of what it contains. These are divided into substantive changes (which are "real" changes) and non-substantive changes (which are minor changes such as reordering existing rules, correcting typos, adding clarifications, etc).
Substantive Changes
Unsubstantive Changes
The JPO would like to thank the many folks from across the country for their input to this process.
Regards,
Jim McEwen
Exec VP - Jet Pilots Organization
- Change Proposal Package Overview - this is a presentation which provides a overview of what the proposal package includes, a summary of what proposed changes are being made and why. It serves as an introduction to the proposal package.
- Proposed revision to the GTP - this essentially is the GTP document (AMA #510a) that would be adopted if all the proposed changes are approved.
- Proposed changes to the the GTP - this is detailed list of changes, in order or appearance in the GTP, of what is proposed to change. It is given in a "Was/Proposed" format. This gives the reader a specific list of changes and saves having to compare the old version and the new version side-by-side which is particularly problematic if old and the proposed document don't follow the same order.
- Proposed revision to the waiver application (AMA #510d) including renaming the document from "Fixed Wing Turbine Waiver Application" to the proposed title of "Turbine Waiver Qualification Guide and Waiver Application" - similar to item 2 except this is the waiver document, not the GTP document.
- Proposed changes to the waiver application - similar to item 3 except this being for the waiver, not the GTP.
- A training presentation (separate from the GTP and the waiver. This would be a new document to provide ground operations and flight skills training to turbine waiver applicants
So that's the package but here is the nitty-gritty of what it contains. These are divided into substantive changes (which are "real" changes) and non-substantive changes (which are minor changes such as reordering existing rules, correcting typos, adding clarifications, etc).
Substantive Changes
- Prior to the waiver flight(s), applicant must have completed a buddy box flight with one of the experienced turbine pilots supervising the waiver flight. This is intended to cover the case where an "unknown" pilot shows up at a field or event, claims that he's ready for a waiver flight, and is given one. Keep in mind that a waiver flight is solo (no buddy box). By first performing a buddy box flight, the supervising pilots can evaluate the applicant and be reasonably sure that they can safely control the model. Also keep in mind that this new rule has no effect on anyone who already has their waiver. For the overwhelming majority of potential turbine applicants, during their instruction they received buddy box training with their instructor, who is typically one of the two supervising pilots of the waiver flight. Essentially, the only people who are affected are folks to travel to events or alternate fields to get a waiver; all that is being asked is that they do a buddy box flight first.
- Added a reminder that waiver flights, LTMA certification flights, maiden flights are not to be performed during official event hours. They can be performed before/after official event hours. There is nothing new about this rule, it is just being restated in the GTP since it is hard to find in other AMA documents. To this reminder was added a proposed requirement that test flights (following a major repair to the aircraft structure, propulsion system, or control system) cannot be performed during an event but can be performed before/after official event hours. Major repairs are defined as those which substantially modify or repair portions of the model such that the result differs from the original form. Replacement of parts with the same or equivalent parts is not considered a major repair. This rule is basically an extension of the "maiden" flight rule which is intended to prevent untested aircraft from flying at an event in front of spectators. It applies to cases where a previously flown model has received some major damage, is repaired, and should be test flown to make sure everything is OK before it is flown in front of spectators. Examples include structural damage, installing a larger turbine, or replacing the receiver/power distribution system with an entirely different system.
- The required features and weight of models to be used in waiver flights were also examined. There were two changes to this section. Firstly, flaps/flaperons or a speed brake was added to the list of required features (controllable rudders, brake feature, etc). This was to ensure that the applicant could safely reconfigure the aircraft for landing while the model is in flight.
- The weight requirement (currently 12 lbs dry) does not apply in cases where the waiver aircraft is an ARF that's been designed specifically for turbine power and has all of the features listed above. For these models, conversion to turbine power is allowed if the conversion kit is provided by the airframe manufacturer. In other words, you can buy a turbine ARF (that will weigh less than 12 lbs when completed) and use it for your training and waiver model. You cannot use your old EDF foamy, replace the engine and battery with a turbine and fuel tank, and use it for your waiver aircraft because you didn't use a conversion kit from the airframe manufacturer but rather you used some other conversion kit NOT approved by the manufacturer or you developed your own.
Unsubstantive Changes
- Reformatted the document, reordered existing regulations (such as those applying to the fuel system) to be listed together, added clarifications (without changing the intent), corrected typos, etc.
- Added the updated GTP rules to the waiver application to clarify what rules apply to waiver aircraft. This spares the applicant from having to do a line-by-line sweep of the GTP. This puts the info the applicant needs in one place (one-stop shopping).
- Added a checklist to the reverse side of the waiver for use by the supervising pilots during the waiver qualification.
- Added specific list of items to be checked in the ground operations (as opposed to "typical" items)
The JPO would like to thank the many folks from across the country for their input to this process.
Regards,
Jim McEwen
Exec VP - Jet Pilots Organization
Paul
06-04-2021, 06:08 PM
#2
I was pretty vocal on that thread, I don't agree with it nor do I support any organization outside the AMA having a say so in the rules and recommendations within an organization I pay dues to.
Last edited by FenderBean; 06-04-2021 at 06:30 PM.
The following 2 users liked this post by FenderBean:
bodywerks (06-10-2021),
Desertlakesflying (06-05-2021)
06-04-2021, 09:11 PM
#3
06-05-2021, 03:34 AM
#4
To me though, the bigger issue seems to be the lack of transparency in setting these rules. Whilst I am not a member of JPO, I am an AMA member, but I don't recall seeing any formal AMA notification to members that a rule change is under consideration or requesting a solicitation for inputs. Are these an unsolicited proposal from the JPO that only JPO members got notification/ input into?
As proof, one needs look no further than years of EC meeting agendas vs. minutes. ED publishes draft agenda devoid of detail and more often than not, it does not even note what items will be voted upon. A month or more AFTER the EC meeting, the ED publishes minutes, which show that they actually voted on a number of issues.
What that means is just like you saw in this event, members had no idea what their representatives were voting on until AFTER the votes are cast and it's too late. They do this not just with rules, like you noted above, but with spending member money as well. I see that as particularly serious.
I submit that the AMA will continue to function this way, with the corresponding lack of transparency, until members start holding their representative accountable.
06-05-2021, 09:36 AM
#5
My Feedback: (28)
I have not seen it mentioned here on RCU, but over on RCG there is a thread running where it was stated recently (24 May) by the Exec VP of the JPO that a GTP (Gas Turbine Program) rule change package was submitted to the AMA on 24 May 2021.
Whilst I don't see many (if any) substantive changes that would impact existing Waiver holders, there are some that affect us when signing off new applicants.
The 12lb rule change seems somewhat strange, but after asking some clarifying questions on RCG, I sort of follow their logic but I don't necessarily agree with the implementation of it.
To me though, the bigger issue seems to be the lack of transparency in setting these rules. Whilst I am not a member of JPO, I am an AMA member, but I don't recall seeing any formal AMA notification to members that a rule change is under consideration or requesting a solicitation for inputs. Are these an unsolicited proposal from the JPO that only JPO members got notification/ input into?
When submitted to the AMA Safety Committee will they (AMA) just vote on them or will they send out a notification for member inputs before voting & enacting them?
At least the FAA sent out a draft UAS rules package requesting inputs before finally enacting the final updated version. Even though we don't like the outcome it at least seemed a fair process.
Page 21, Post #309
https://www.rcgroups.com/forums/show...r-Rules/page21
Paul
Whilst I don't see many (if any) substantive changes that would impact existing Waiver holders, there are some that affect us when signing off new applicants.
The 12lb rule change seems somewhat strange, but after asking some clarifying questions on RCG, I sort of follow their logic but I don't necessarily agree with the implementation of it.
To me though, the bigger issue seems to be the lack of transparency in setting these rules. Whilst I am not a member of JPO, I am an AMA member, but I don't recall seeing any formal AMA notification to members that a rule change is under consideration or requesting a solicitation for inputs. Are these an unsolicited proposal from the JPO that only JPO members got notification/ input into?
When submitted to the AMA Safety Committee will they (AMA) just vote on them or will they send out a notification for member inputs before voting & enacting them?
At least the FAA sent out a draft UAS rules package requesting inputs before finally enacting the final updated version. Even though we don't like the outcome it at least seemed a fair process.
Page 21, Post #309
https://www.rcgroups.com/forums/show...r-Rules/page21
Paul
06-06-2021, 04:56 AM
#6
Bet we need more government to control our lives too... I've read that thread and it reads like the few trying to keep the "riff-raff" out of the jets, and not about any kind of safety. It reminds me more of this hysteria over covid that is forcing everyone down and giving the few at the top more power. But I'm willing to bet that is what the OP really desires from reading his responses on the other site.
Bet you are wrong. I do not know you and I don't believe that you know me, Please do not try to tell others what my desires are. You have no clue.
That thread on RCG was started because some one had asked a question about getting his waiver and the thread quickly was turning into a general waiver discussion. I started the waiver thread to help the poor guy get answers to his question and move the waiver discussion to its own thread. Sorry to disappoint but it is really that simple, no power grab, no agenda.
If you had actually read my posts you would have noticed that I was advocating for LESS restrictive regulations. I am not sure how you feel that is a power grab??
I agree that there are some in that thread that read like trying to keep the "riff-raff" out. The OP has no control over others opinions.
06-06-2021, 02:09 PM
#7
Bet we need more government to control our lives too... I've read that thread and it reads like the few trying to keep the "riff-raff" out of the jets, and not about any kind of safety. It reminds me more of this hysteria over covid that is forcing everyone down and giving the few at the top more power. But I'm willing to bet that is what the OP really desires from reading his responses on the other site.
The following users liked this post:
flyalan (06-06-2021)
The following users liked this post:
u2fast (06-07-2021)
06-07-2021, 09:08 AM
#11
Seems to be a lot of folks around that think they should have a say our your hobby and enjoyment of it, that's not how it should be and just ruins the fun of it. These are purely my opinions and should never be taken serious of course.
06-07-2021, 11:32 AM
#13
I haven't been following the RCG thread, and only came across it recently, and have not read it all.
I welcome efforts to help new turbine pilots enter this area of the hobby.
The most significant proposed changes to the rules center around the 12lb weight limit. However, I struggled (and still do) with the way this is being implemented.
I also see little to help a new turbine pilot that gets their waiver on a 6-8lb foamy who is then fully permitted to fly a 30-40lb high-wing loading complex turbine that is night-and-day away from their experience and probably ability.
The prohibition of DIY conversions of light weight (<12lb) models for the waiver flight, based on the argument that these models are unsafe, does not seem to be consistent with an overall concern for safety. If these DIY conversions are unsafe for a supervised waiver flight, then by definition, the same 'unsafe' model is still unsafe once the newly approved waiver holder is then 'legally' allowed to fly his DIY conversion unsupervised.
My feeling is that 'foamy' flying promotes a very casual and care-free style of flying. How many times have we seen foamy models being flown with no regard to traffic patterns or other models, and being flown aggressively leading to in-flight failure or crashes; repairs to foamy models performed with 'duct-tape', gear broken off, only to be hand-launched etc. to keep flying? If a foamy crashes in a shower of foam, it is laughed off and another one picked up to continue flying.
While I do think foamy models, by their casual/ expendable nature help improve stick/ rudder skills without much concern for the investment or damage that a crash can cause, I do seriously think that they also do not build the flying discipline that the vast majority of current turbine pilots demonstrate. Also, I do not see much appreciation for basic airmanship and structural loads that can get imparted on models due to aggressive control inputs, especially at high speed, which will quickly spell disaster as models weight/ speed increase.
I would like to see some discussion about the introduction of a 'Restricted Waiver' category for these <12lb models.
Whilst no rule is perfect, having a Restricted Waiver for <12lb models (with a no DIY conversion caveat), along with a simple upgrade path later via a flight assessment with a >12lb model to the current full Waiver if the pilot wants to progress to heavier models would allow a low-cost entry to this segment of the hobby.
I agree with the argument that the current generation of foamy & ARF/ PNP modellers have very little (if any) building experience or empathy with all aspects of model design/ build/ flying / maintenance (hence the no DIY conversion rule), the flying of the larger (>12lb) models should demonstrate some level of overall airmanship and understanding/ knowledge of all aspects of the hobby applicable to being able to safely design/ build/ convert/ fly any form of turbine model.
Over on RCG, when questions over the proposed changes were raised, the stock answer was 'We don't think so' and 'Don't complain/ be happy', rather than indicating that alternative options were considered before the current package was adopted, which seems to indicate a lack of willingness to involve the members.
Overall, I think we need an updated waiver process (GTP) that reflects the current development of light-weight foamy models, but also provides guidelines/ boundaries as the new pilots progress and expand their experience into larger, more traditional models. I'm just not sure the current proposal does that fully or as well as it could.
Thoughts?
Paul
I welcome efforts to help new turbine pilots enter this area of the hobby.
The most significant proposed changes to the rules center around the 12lb weight limit. However, I struggled (and still do) with the way this is being implemented.
I also see little to help a new turbine pilot that gets their waiver on a 6-8lb foamy who is then fully permitted to fly a 30-40lb high-wing loading complex turbine that is night-and-day away from their experience and probably ability.
The prohibition of DIY conversions of light weight (<12lb) models for the waiver flight, based on the argument that these models are unsafe, does not seem to be consistent with an overall concern for safety. If these DIY conversions are unsafe for a supervised waiver flight, then by definition, the same 'unsafe' model is still unsafe once the newly approved waiver holder is then 'legally' allowed to fly his DIY conversion unsupervised.
My feeling is that 'foamy' flying promotes a very casual and care-free style of flying. How many times have we seen foamy models being flown with no regard to traffic patterns or other models, and being flown aggressively leading to in-flight failure or crashes; repairs to foamy models performed with 'duct-tape', gear broken off, only to be hand-launched etc. to keep flying? If a foamy crashes in a shower of foam, it is laughed off and another one picked up to continue flying.
While I do think foamy models, by their casual/ expendable nature help improve stick/ rudder skills without much concern for the investment or damage that a crash can cause, I do seriously think that they also do not build the flying discipline that the vast majority of current turbine pilots demonstrate. Also, I do not see much appreciation for basic airmanship and structural loads that can get imparted on models due to aggressive control inputs, especially at high speed, which will quickly spell disaster as models weight/ speed increase.
I would like to see some discussion about the introduction of a 'Restricted Waiver' category for these <12lb models.
Whilst no rule is perfect, having a Restricted Waiver for <12lb models (with a no DIY conversion caveat), along with a simple upgrade path later via a flight assessment with a >12lb model to the current full Waiver if the pilot wants to progress to heavier models would allow a low-cost entry to this segment of the hobby.
I agree with the argument that the current generation of foamy & ARF/ PNP modellers have very little (if any) building experience or empathy with all aspects of model design/ build/ flying / maintenance (hence the no DIY conversion rule), the flying of the larger (>12lb) models should demonstrate some level of overall airmanship and understanding/ knowledge of all aspects of the hobby applicable to being able to safely design/ build/ convert/ fly any form of turbine model.
Over on RCG, when questions over the proposed changes were raised, the stock answer was 'We don't think so' and 'Don't complain/ be happy', rather than indicating that alternative options were considered before the current package was adopted, which seems to indicate a lack of willingness to involve the members.
Overall, I think we need an updated waiver process (GTP) that reflects the current development of light-weight foamy models, but also provides guidelines/ boundaries as the new pilots progress and expand their experience into larger, more traditional models. I'm just not sure the current proposal does that fully or as well as it could.
Thoughts?
Paul
06-07-2021, 11:42 AM
#14
Cheers!
Last edited by FenderBean; 06-07-2021 at 11:45 AM.
06-07-2021, 12:05 PM
#15
My Feedback: (19)
I haven't been following the RCG thread, and only came across it recently, and have not read it all.
I welcome efforts to help new turbine pilots enter this area of the hobby.
The most significant proposed changes to the rules center around the 12lb weight limit. However, I struggled (and still do) with the way this is being implemented.
I also see little to help a new turbine pilot that gets their waiver on a 6-8lb foamy who is then fully permitted to fly a 30-40lb high-wing loading complex turbine that is night-and-day away from their experience and probably ability.
The prohibition of DIY conversions of light weight (<12lb) models for the waiver flight, based on the argument that these models are unsafe, does not seem to be consistent with an overall concern for safety. If these DIY conversions are unsafe for a supervised waiver flight, then by definition, the same 'unsafe' model is still unsafe once the newly approved waiver holder is then 'legally' allowed to fly his DIY conversion unsupervised.
My feeling is that 'foamy' flying promotes a very casual and care-free style of flying. How many times have we seen foamy models being flown with no regard to traffic patterns or other models, and being flown aggressively leading to in-flight failure or crashes; repairs to foamy models performed with 'duct-tape', gear broken off, only to be hand-launched etc. to keep flying? If a foamy crashes in a shower of foam, it is laughed off and another one picked up to continue flying.
While I do think foamy models, by their casual/ expendable nature help improve stick/ rudder skills without much concern for the investment or damage that a crash can cause, I do seriously think that they also do not build the flying discipline that the vast majority of current turbine pilots demonstrate. Also, I do not see much appreciation for basic airmanship and structural loads that can get imparted on models due to aggressive control inputs, especially at high speed, which will quickly spell disaster as models weight/ speed increase.
I would like to see some discussion about the introduction of a 'Restricted Waiver' category for these <12lb models.
Whilst no rule is perfect, having a Restricted Waiver for <12lb models (with a no DIY conversion caveat), along with a simple upgrade path later via a flight assessment with a >12lb model to the current full Waiver if the pilot wants to progress to heavier models would allow a low-cost entry to this segment of the hobby.
I agree with the argument that the current generation of foamy & ARF/ PNP modellers have very little (if any) building experience or empathy with all aspects of model design/ build/ flying / maintenance (hence the no DIY conversion rule), the flying of the larger (>12lb) models should demonstrate some level of overall airmanship and understanding/ knowledge of all aspects of the hobby applicable to being able to safely design/ build/ convert/ fly any form of turbine model.
Over on RCG, when questions over the proposed changes were raised, the stock answer was 'We don't think so' and 'Don't complain/ be happy', rather than indicating that alternative options were considered before the current package was adopted, which seems to indicate a lack of willingness to involve the members.
Overall, I think we need an updated waiver process (GTP) that reflects the current development of light-weight foamy models, but also provides guidelines/ boundaries as the new pilots progress and expand their experience into larger, more traditional models. I'm just not sure the current proposal does that fully or as well as it could.
Thoughts?
Paul
I welcome efforts to help new turbine pilots enter this area of the hobby.
The most significant proposed changes to the rules center around the 12lb weight limit. However, I struggled (and still do) with the way this is being implemented.
I also see little to help a new turbine pilot that gets their waiver on a 6-8lb foamy who is then fully permitted to fly a 30-40lb high-wing loading complex turbine that is night-and-day away from their experience and probably ability.
The prohibition of DIY conversions of light weight (<12lb) models for the waiver flight, based on the argument that these models are unsafe, does not seem to be consistent with an overall concern for safety. If these DIY conversions are unsafe for a supervised waiver flight, then by definition, the same 'unsafe' model is still unsafe once the newly approved waiver holder is then 'legally' allowed to fly his DIY conversion unsupervised.
My feeling is that 'foamy' flying promotes a very casual and care-free style of flying. How many times have we seen foamy models being flown with no regard to traffic patterns or other models, and being flown aggressively leading to in-flight failure or crashes; repairs to foamy models performed with 'duct-tape', gear broken off, only to be hand-launched etc. to keep flying? If a foamy crashes in a shower of foam, it is laughed off and another one picked up to continue flying.
While I do think foamy models, by their casual/ expendable nature help improve stick/ rudder skills without much concern for the investment or damage that a crash can cause, I do seriously think that they also do not build the flying discipline that the vast majority of current turbine pilots demonstrate. Also, I do not see much appreciation for basic airmanship and structural loads that can get imparted on models due to aggressive control inputs, especially at high speed, which will quickly spell disaster as models weight/ speed increase.
I would like to see some discussion about the introduction of a 'Restricted Waiver' category for these <12lb models.
Whilst no rule is perfect, having a Restricted Waiver for <12lb models (with a no DIY conversion caveat), along with a simple upgrade path later via a flight assessment with a >12lb model to the current full Waiver if the pilot wants to progress to heavier models would allow a low-cost entry to this segment of the hobby.
I agree with the argument that the current generation of foamy & ARF/ PNP modellers have very little (if any) building experience or empathy with all aspects of model design/ build/ flying / maintenance (hence the no DIY conversion rule), the flying of the larger (>12lb) models should demonstrate some level of overall airmanship and understanding/ knowledge of all aspects of the hobby applicable to being able to safely design/ build/ convert/ fly any form of turbine model.
Over on RCG, when questions over the proposed changes were raised, the stock answer was 'We don't think so' and 'Don't complain/ be happy', rather than indicating that alternative options were considered before the current package was adopted, which seems to indicate a lack of willingness to involve the members.
Overall, I think we need an updated waiver process (GTP) that reflects the current development of light-weight foamy models, but also provides guidelines/ boundaries as the new pilots progress and expand their experience into larger, more traditional models. I'm just not sure the current proposal does that fully or as well as it could.
Thoughts?
Paul
06-07-2021, 12:32 PM
#16
Do we really think there is a substantive difference between the Ugly Stick conversion and a built-up Reaction, especially with regard to the Waiver?
Yes, the Reaction has retracts, but apart from that I think they are equivalent. I think any perceived negative about the Ugly Stick is more about what we want to think a jet model should look like.
(Disclaimer - neither of them are what I would choose to own/ build/ fly - jets should be pointy with swept wings (said in jest);-))
I do agree that the small/ light weight models can be harder to fly at times, but they do little to teach 'big model' skills such as energy management, smooth flying, proper circuit planning etc. That is where the skills need to be developed in progressing to larger/ heaver/ faster models, and that a 6-8lb waiver model does little to help evaluate the necessary skills.
Paul
Yes, the Reaction has retracts, but apart from that I think they are equivalent. I think any perceived negative about the Ugly Stick is more about what we want to think a jet model should look like.
(Disclaimer - neither of them are what I would choose to own/ build/ fly - jets should be pointy with swept wings (said in jest);-))
I do agree that the small/ light weight models can be harder to fly at times, but they do little to teach 'big model' skills such as energy management, smooth flying, proper circuit planning etc. That is where the skills need to be developed in progressing to larger/ heaver/ faster models, and that a 6-8lb waiver model does little to help evaluate the necessary skills.
Paul
06-07-2021, 01:02 PM
#17
My Feedback: (19)
Paul,
No, not much difference at all.
Same still applies though, just because you can fly those doesn't mean you are any more ready for a 45lb F18 than if you fly a 10lb sport jet. And as far as planning and energy management, the high residual thrust of the K30 and K45 compared to a lot of turbines actually makes pattern work and planning even more difficult.
Dan
No, not much difference at all.
Same still applies though, just because you can fly those doesn't mean you are any more ready for a 45lb F18 than if you fly a 10lb sport jet. And as far as planning and energy management, the high residual thrust of the K30 and K45 compared to a lot of turbines actually makes pattern work and planning even more difficult.Dan
06-07-2021, 01:34 PM
#18
Dan,
I agree with you. Which proves that like all rules, there is no clear cut demarcation based on any clearly defined criteria that makes one-side of a boundary anything much different that the other side, and there will always be examples to prove each side of the argument correct. Some group(s) will always feel alienated/ left out, no matter what is done.
The 12lb rule has served us well for years, even though there is nothing 'magic' about above/ below exactly 12lb. Adding the flap/ speedbrake requirement is a good thing to add complexity to the model.
Maybe the waiver flight should be more than just stick/ rudder/ throttle skills to fly a consistent landing - it needs to stress demonstration/ understanding of discipline towards flying and 'respect' and empathy towards the model, and not the 'casual' flying style that foamies promote/ encourage. That's hard to put into words suitable for a rule.
The responses from the JPO on RCG stressed the safety concern over lack of design understanding and building skills as the reason behind the DIY conversion prohibition for <12lb models. If that concern is real, then one proposal would be to introduce a Restricted Waiver and keep the DIY prohibition in that category only. That way, you don't stop experienced modellers with a Full Waiver from sensibly converting small models (such as the Freewing F-22/ Mig-29).
Paul
I agree with you. Which proves that like all rules, there is no clear cut demarcation based on any clearly defined criteria that makes one-side of a boundary anything much different that the other side, and there will always be examples to prove each side of the argument correct. Some group(s) will always feel alienated/ left out, no matter what is done.
The 12lb rule has served us well for years, even though there is nothing 'magic' about above/ below exactly 12lb. Adding the flap/ speedbrake requirement is a good thing to add complexity to the model.
Maybe the waiver flight should be more than just stick/ rudder/ throttle skills to fly a consistent landing - it needs to stress demonstration/ understanding of discipline towards flying and 'respect' and empathy towards the model, and not the 'casual' flying style that foamies promote/ encourage. That's hard to put into words suitable for a rule.
The responses from the JPO on RCG stressed the safety concern over lack of design understanding and building skills as the reason behind the DIY conversion prohibition for <12lb models. If that concern is real, then one proposal would be to introduce a Restricted Waiver and keep the DIY prohibition in that category only. That way, you don't stop experienced modellers with a Full Waiver from sensibly converting small models (such as the Freewing F-22/ Mig-29).
Paul
06-07-2021, 04:37 PM
#19
Guys, I dont know about your area, but we are seeing guys get waivers that should not have them. I dont know what the answer is but, we need to as a community to really think about the person we are singing off. It should not matter if he is your friend or not and I dont think one or two flights is enough to determine if a person can handle a turbine jet or not. I am all for helping grow this part of the hobby but we must be smart about it and safe. I think some of these rules are being put in place because of actions of people in our own community.
06-07-2021, 05:26 PM
#20
This goes back to my post #303 on RCG. I know guys that are not current by the Termanology of the AMA of an Experienced Turbine Pilot. That's because full-scale pilots know the definition difference between current and experienced. I know of guys that are not current yet have the experience of flying turbines in the past that are signing people off because they believe that they are experienced enough to sign an applicant off. Mostly for their egos to look like big men in the Club. But, I also understand self worth. If confronted, they just say that they will pencil whip a log book to meet the requirements if asked. There are no checks and balances during the AMA application being processed at the AMA Headquarters to follow up on whether the Turbine CD signing the application meets the Experienced definition by the AMA. Or whether the second Turbine Pilot meets the definition, if the CD doesn't care or check. Why have excessive rules that aren't followed nor enforced until a lawsuit. After all, that is why most of the rules are there for anything in our society.
I also believe that the jet pilots that are currently flying want more jet pilots at the field for voting clout in the Club against those who don't want turbines at the field. So guys who shouldn't get signed off, do. I also believe that the engine, airframe and jet hobby shops bare some responsibility. They sign guys off to get a customer.
Stay Safe! Stay Well! Dan
This goes back to my post #303 on RCG. I know guys that are not current by the Termanology of the AMA of an Experienced Turbine Pilot. That's because full-scale pilots know the definition difference between current and experienced. I know of guys that are not current yet have the experience of flying turbines in the past that are signing people off because they believe that they are experienced enough to sign an applicant off. Mostly for their egos to look like big men in the Club. But, I also understand self worth. If confronted, they just say that they will pencil whip a log book to meet the requirements if asked. There are no checks and balances during the AMA application being processed at the AMA Headquarters to follow up on whether the Turbine CD signing the application meets the Experienced definition by the AMA. Or whether the second Turbine Pilot meets the definition, if the CD doesn't care or check. Why have excessive rules that aren't followed nor enforced until a lawsuit. After all, that is why most of the rules are there for anything in our society.
I also believe that the jet pilots that are currently flying want more jet pilots at the field for voting clout in the Club against those who don't want turbines at the field. So guys who shouldn't get signed off, do. I also believe that the engine, airframe and jet hobby shops bare some responsibility. They sign guys off to get a customer.
Stay Safe! Stay Well! Dan
Last edited by RCFlyerDan; 06-07-2021 at 05:41 PM.
06-07-2021, 05:45 PM
#21
probably time for the whole idea of a required waiver to just sunset, and transfer all the needed rules over to just being part of the safety code. we were told, way back when, that that was the idea. once we had demonstrated to the ins folk that we could handle the turbines properly and safely, then there would be no more need of a waiver.
then, once we had the ability to waiver folks, well, it became a necessity to waiver anyone who wanted to do the turbines, with no more thought of actually ever ending the waiver program. the actual reason i left the jpo decades ago.
then, once we had the ability to waiver folks, well, it became a necessity to waiver anyone who wanted to do the turbines, with no more thought of actually ever ending the waiver program. the actual reason i left the jpo decades ago.
Last edited by mongo; 06-08-2021 at 10:03 AM. Reason: fat fingered spelling mistakes
06-07-2021, 06:20 PM
#23
What's the difference of a 150cc 40# Extra being controlled by a guy who can't fly a right hand traffic pattern? If he hits someone, they are hurt just as much or more, due to a 36" prop coming at you. We have several older gentleman that are flying 100cc-150cc Extras. They won't and don't fly if they have to fly a right pattern. Most of the year it is left at our field. Most guys know their limits, and if not, the pocket book usually controls how long they fly jets. Most don't want to loose $4k for the cheaper jets, so they don't fly, anymore then they would fly their 40% Extra.
06-07-2021, 11:14 PM
#24
probably time for the whole idea of a required waiver to just sunset, and transfer all the needed rules over to just being part of the safety code. we were told, way back when, that that was the idea. once we had demonstrated to the ins folk that we could handle the turbines properly and safely, then there would be no more need of a waiver.
then, once we had the ability yo waiver folks, well, it became a necessity to waiver anyone who wanted to do the turbines, with no more thought of actually ever ending the waiver program. the actual reason i left the jpo decades ago.
then, once we had the ability yo waiver folks, well, it became a necessity to waiver anyone who wanted to do the turbines, with no more thought of actually ever ending the waiver program. the actual reason i left the jpo decades ago.
their will always various sizes and types of models such as multi engine and also types that some modelers will never fly. I think if a person buys a aircraft that he can't safely operate then its on them and
having a model that you may not be able to fly properly can happen to anyone even a experienced flyer.
06-08-2021, 03:30 AM
#25
I agree and would be in favor of ending the waiver program or change it to some test that could be done online and verified with video to show that a person understands how to safely operate a turbine aircraft. IMO
their will always various sizes and types of models such as multi engine and also types that some modelers will never fly. I think if a person buys a aircraft that he can't safely operate then its on them and
having a model that you may not be able to fly properly can happen to anyone even a experienced flyer.
their will always various sizes and types of models such as multi engine and also types that some modelers will never fly. I think if a person buys a aircraft that he can't safely operate then its on them and
having a model that you may not be able to fly properly can happen to anyone even a experienced flyer.
Getting rid of the waiver would also cut cost at AMA by getting rid of the employees required for the department.
Last edited by RCFlyerDan; 06-08-2021 at 03:36 AM.