I just received an official AMA briefing on the new Turbine Rules passed by the EC last November. The briefing was conducted by Ilona Maine and Carl Maroney of the AMA Special Services. There was also representation from the Insurance Underwriter, but unfortunately I forgot the gentleman's name.

The new rules were well presented and reasonably explained. I have to say IMHO, in their totality they are very good. They seem to be supported by the EVP, Special Services, Insurance and at least 2 VPs that were there (Charlie Bauer and Rich Hanson). Many in attendance agreed that these rules will increase safety and provide for an increased level of "risk management".

A few questions were asked and answered, and then a questionnaire was passed out as additional information is being collected for the February EC meeting.

I offer my congratulations to the TRC on a job well done and I thank them for their effort.

mr_matt when will the new turbine rules be put in writing?


mark

Hi Mark,

I have no idea. They have already passed, but have had there effective date delayed. It should be on the agenda again at the Feb 7th EC meeting.

Matt,

would you be able to maybee sumarize some of the key changes that have been made ? We are all very qurious ... If "you" think that over all these changes are overall good, than it can't be that bad ... right ???


Wojtek

So in brief,what are the new rules.


NdFrSpeed

I thought they had been posted here? Haven't they already been on here??

If I can't find them I will summarize later.

matt,

was this at the convention who-haw shindig?

did they do a q & a?

Are these them Matt?

http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/m_12...2Crules/tm.htm

post #96....by none other than Gordon..

Yes those are them, they pretty much cover the technical requirements. But there are also new rules on getting and maintaining a waiver.

First, a huge safety improvement is allowing buddy boxing of any AMA member by any turbine waiver holder. Looks like this can even be done at events, so there are many opportunities for people to get stick time, either on their planes or someone else's. Also, you can get you turbine waiver "check flights" on a turbine powered plane (of course on the buddy box)

Turbine CDs as we know them are gone, and now the waiver applicant must get sigs from a CD that holds a waiver, and another waiver holder.

Everyone must recertify each year, with a statement that you have flown at least 20 logged turbine flights in the last 24 months. A witness must sign this too, but the witness need no have seen the flights (I think). For the first recert (which we will ALL have to do) we will need to get both sigs notarized. Subsequant recerts do not need to be notorized. The intent of this is to raise the level of "seriousness" of the sign off, as many think that in the past there may have been a little too much "buddy buddy" stuff on some of these sign offs. A little inconvenient, but I will take it.

As for who was there, from the AMA, Carl, Ilona, Doug Holland, , Insurance Rep, Charlie Bauer (EC VP), Rich Hanson (my VP), Sandy Frank (EC VP) (at the 4:00 o'clock)...plus a bucnh of members, maybe 20 or 25 at the morning meeting, and I heard maybe 10 at the afternoon.

this so far look slike great news !! what about the speed limit / weight issues ? any changes there ? Also, I am assuming the process of getting the waiver is the same for helis and jets ?? (refering to the buddy box thing, and using the turbine for signoff) ...

Anywa, its about time I get my waiver myself .. I finally have an AMA field i can fly at .... (been flying helis and jets at private airports so far, so no AMA req.... ..)



Wojtek

Yep, Items one through twelve just about covers it on the link above. Questions regarding the TWO notarized signatures came up, but this was just a forum, to let us know what is going on. AMA asked if you suggestions on how to make it better to contact your VP and pass it on. Clarification was asked specifically as to BRAKES will now be required on all aircraft (even if it does not roll with the Turbine at Idle. MAX take-off weight will still be 55lbs Wet.

Nice side chat about the Over weight jet s at many events, so don't not be surprised if anytime soon an addendum comes out asking for CD's to have to weigh airplanes right before take-off, if they appear to be over 20lbs or 30lbs or what ever number, but the bottom line is it will be across to board.


Local Jet freaks that cared enough to show up. (These are the only ones I recognized, so if I skip a name or spell someone's name wrong, please don't get offended, I was not there to take roll call).
Kent Nogy, John Redman, Matt Carroll, Bob Wilcox, Doug Kronkhite, Bill Brundel, Mike Sienarecki, Barry Maningly, Bob Reynolds, Rich Hansen, Charlie Bauer and yours truly. Those are the only people I recognized but there was a couple more. I know I butchered some of their names and for that I apologize. Bottom line is thanks for taking the time guys.
Turbulence

Well as for changes, it depends on what reference point you are starting from.

In the current rules, there is no speed limit if your installed dry T/W is .9 to 1 or lower. In the new rules there is a uniform 200 mph max speed limit (I assume if the airframe manufacturer sets a Vne at least that high)

THe new max thrust is 45 pounds for single, 50 for twin, so the max thrust overall (a twin) is substantially lower in the new rules, but the single is greater.

Speed limiters for over .9 to 1 T/W are no longer required.


It is hard to get a handle on what is going to happen at this vote on the 7th. Sounds like several groups have gone off to collect more data to give to the EC. Maybe those groups could say more about what they are doing...I do know AMA Special Services is collecting a survey (at least from the members at the convention) to get their feedback on what I can only suppose are considered the "controversial" items. I voted yes to all of them.

Oh and no love for the heli guys, it appears their waiver rules have not changed, and you still need the TCD for that. Phil Cole tried to stick up for you guys, but Carl said that would have to be looked at later. I have to agree, we need to get these rules apporved and consolidated to get past the stressful time for turbines.

Well it looks like the turbine manufactures got there way now,instead of haveing a bunch of 40+lb turbine paper weights, they can sell them now,but the guys wanting to build twin turbines are SOL.

NdFrSpeed

AMA has not thought this one out....Law of Unintended Consequences will often apply....i.e. takeoff weight of 55 lbs with 2.5 gallons of fuel and 50 lbs thrust....one quits.....that leaves 25 lbs effective thrust...wrong!....more like 18-20 lbs...remember, you always lose more than 50% effective thrust when one quits on a twin due to sideslip angle, control surface deflection to maintain straight and level flight, increased drag thru the dead engine intake, and complicated further if gear and takeoff flaps are down.....net result....low altitude stall-spin in many cases with one engine running at full bore and 2.5 gallons of kero on board.......just what that AMA is trying to avoid.....

We should encourage the AMA to re-think this one....perhaps allow a special maximum thrust waiver for that elite group of superb pilots that build and fly these $25,000+ twin-turbine museum pieces......

Tom

Hi Matt

The insurance guy was Larry Johnson, the AMA's insurance agent, not an underwriter. The row in the back, at the 11 o'clock meeting, where Bauer was, was all VPs, including Sandy Frank, Bruce Nelson, Bill Oberdieck, Russ Miller, Doug Holland EVP, and Charlie Bauer, while Rich Hanson was up near you. Each of them has been to jet rallies, and Charlie flys turbine CL and turbine planes.

JR

There was mention made of creating the heavy jet category but it wasn't really discussed too much in this forum. I suspect that is where you'll see the twin engine/greater than 55 pound aicraft discussed when the time comes.

Here are the complete new rules that have been put on hold:

http://www.modelaircraft.org/templat...Regulation.pdf

Pardon my ignorance (sincere on that, not tongue in cheek), but how are we going to ensure that we aren't exceeding 200 mph? The regs. have not gone so far as to require speed limiters. Why is that? Is it because the technology isn't good enough yet or is it because the consensus is that most airframe/engine combos aren't capable? What about the person who stuffs an AT400 or such into a Bandit? Do you guys who are more in touch with the decision makers believe that we will eventually see mandated speed control technology? If so do you think we will have to retrofit engines without that technology?

I guess my biggest concern, selfishly speaking, is that my existing engines that don't have speed limiting software/hardware and any future engines that I purchase that also don't have speed limiting software/hardware will be rendered obsolete at some point when these rules are either clarified or amended to ensure enforcement of 200 mph.

It is difficult enough to choose a manufacturer that you think will be there to support your engine many years down the line, but now are we adding another factor that could push our engines into obsolescence?

Matt do you have any insight? I know you are a JetCat guy so are not worried about the lack of speed limiter technology, but you also seem to be pretty objective in your opinions. What do you think? Am I off base with my concern?

Antony

That's a tough one, Anthony. There was not much discussion on speed limiters at the convention. I guess the people with the trouble were not at the meetings (hint). I have often defended speed limiters, as my position was if that is what we needed to keep 2.5M insurance for 58 bucks a year, then I am all for it. If we can get rid of them, I am all for that too. BTW, I voted yesterday for the regs that remove the speed limiter requirement, as did Bob Wilcox.

It is my understanding that the original proposal pulled speed limiters off of the table for technical reasons. It was made clear to me yesterday, that there has always been an understanding that at least one vendor has a decent, acceptable speed limiter on the market. The presentations to the EC were that there were no viable third party limiters available. That made me feel better, as I have not heard that from others. A lot of confusion here as you can see.

I only recently found out how simple the current third party speed limiter design really is. Let me confirm that in my opinion, from an engineering perspective, this currently available limiter cannot work well enough for general acceptance. So IMHO, if the AMA mandates speed limiters, they will need to have enough of a grace period for someone to come up with something, either a new third party limiter, or give the manufacturers time to make new ECUs.

In the past when I have said that, in my engineering judgment, a third party speed limiter could be made. I meant a unit that is technically far beyond the current unit. The limiter I am talking about would in some ways be almost as complex as the current ECUs are. Even with this complexity, in many ways it could never be as good as the current ECU integrated speed limiters (as are on the JetCat, and my understanding also on the BMT). But it still might be good enough.

So, in my opinion, if speed limiters were mandated, the best technical approach would be to add them to the various ECUs. The next best approach would be the development of a standard 3rd party speed limiter, that is then tightly coupled to each different ECU, with such data as the RPM and maybe even EGT brought out to the speed limiter. This would almost certainly need to be done with the cooperation of the ECU manufacturer, and might or might not be an upgrade to current ECUs. With the realities of the very small addressable market, the cost would be pretty high for such a unit. Maybe someone will come up with the ultimate ECU that everyone can adopt, I don't know.

I believe this is why many are trying to get away from a mandated speed limiter, because of the turmoil it would throw a lot of turbine manufacturers and customers (AMA members) into.

Here's my thing. Who is going to sign the first person's recert application. Under the new rules none of us are considered "experienced turbine pilots". To be an "experienced turbine pilot" you have to have 20 flights in the last 24 months and have another "experienced turbine pilot" sign your recert application.

Are a few going to be grand-fathered...or is no one going to get qualified?

I can see the process going like this.

1. Jet person from the boonies goes to a jet meet and finds someone witness them and to sign them off.
2. Jet person flies satisfactorily.
3. Witness take form home and then gets it notarised after the meet. If the witness has to use a public notary, then I guess the jet person will reimburse the witness for the notary's fee.
4. Witness posts form to jet person.
5. Jet person gets his signature notarised.
6. Form is sent to AMA.

Presumably the AMA will allow current waiver holders to sign each other off the first time around, due to the bootstapping problem Bob describes. The notarising is only required once. After that, I presume they assume that there will be enough experience waiver holders to get the job done, and the experienced waiver holders are trusted enough to not require the notarising.

The new waiver applications would appear to require notarising, but whether the signatures from the examining waiver holders need to notarised, I don't know. Form 575 is not posted on the AMA documents page.

There are a some other problems, like statement that maximum velocity is 200 mph. Subsequent discussion reveal that airspeed is what was actually meant (as reported on RCU, and I also asked Carl specifically). I don't know whether it's just the engineer in me, but I think documents like this should say exactly what the author means.

The TRC also made very few changes to the helicopter and control line requirements. TCDs are still required for these aircraft, but not for fixed wing aircraft. I have to ask how many TCDs (mostly fixed wing guys) would want to keep their positions just for helicopters and control line fliers? Note that the fixed wing requirement is for one of the waiver holders to be a CD, but it's not required to be on the TCD list. Helicopters and control line still require someone from the list.


One thing I just notices, but wan't mentioned at the meeting is that the ground school requirement is gone. With everyone having auto start engines now (according to the AMA definintion) I guess it isn't necessary to have specific manufacturer training - the flight demonstration will cover this adequately.

The reason I'm posting is to have others go through the document with an eye for detail and send comments, as requested in the email from Ilona before the February EC meeting. Don't just pick on the controversial issues, but go through the entire document and think through all the procedures to make sure they actually achieve the desired result, and don't have unfortunate consequences.

Quote:

ORIGINAL: sideshow

Here's my thing. Who is going to sign the first person's recert application. Under the new rules none of us are considered "experienced turbine pilots"

Oooops!! You noticed that too Bob.....wasn't going to mention it, but glad someone did....

Also, AMA continues to confuse the value of a Notarized Signature vs a Sworn Affidavit....The former offers no teeth in the AMA's fight against the "good ole buddy" sign-offs while the latter, as it does get lawyers and sworn statements involved, would get even the most egregious "good ole boy" offenders thinking, but we really don't need either....

IMO, the re-cert language is getting more complicated than necessary....just add a line to the AMA renewal form attesting to the fact that you have complied with the mandatory 20/24 rule if you are a waiver holder...then keep a very simple log to fall back on if the AMA calls for verification.....of course, anyone can still cheat, but stiff penalties, like losing your waiver for 1 year if caught signing a false declaration will ground most flagrant offenders....it's worked for years in full scale flying...

Tom

Glad to see it was not all negative.

I agree with Matt's assesment of the speedlimiter issue. If you are a JetCat user (or BMT i understand) you have an integrated fully functional speedlimiter that works acceptably. But if you have ANY other engine brand your are stuck with one choice that is a very simple design, that could potentially flameout your engine. If the AMA does mandate speedlimiters there needs to be several well designed and tested alternatives out there. Otherwise the rule that is attempting to "decrease" the number of crashes will actually increase them. But.....they are going on an assumption that speed is the cause of crashes and in my opinion that is a flawed assumption. Maybe speed is an issue for some but I have to believe the majority of us have enough sense to know how to work our left thumb. We already have a speedlimiter built into every radio, it's called the throttle. Pilot education will go further than any piece of mandated hardware ever can.

I could not agree with David even more (wish I could loose weight like him too!)

Maybe it is the responsibility that comes with age, but I have zero desire to see how fast I can get a model anymore. I'm petrified by the thought of hearing that horrible flutter buzz!

I think these new rules, in this form, are just what we need and are a step in the correct direction.

Matt,

You mentioned you and Wilcox voted. Please elaborate what the voting was for.

Thanks.

Art Gajewski
www.Arts-Hobby.com
JetCat Dealer
JPO District VII Rep
blah, blah, blah . . .