Hi guys,

The proposal that was discussed earlier that, if adopted, would permit buddy box training for turbine pilots, was delivered to the AMA several week ago. Now would be a good time for all of those who would like to see this proposal be adopted to contact your AMA district VP and let him know that you support this effort and would appreciate his support. The AMA is a democratic organization and they would like to see the community support the regulations that they enacted. By voicing your support directly to them, they know that this is a popular approach to a growing problem; how to get new pilots into turbines with a reasonable effort. A unified voice coming from the jet community would help to make this proposal a regulation.

Thank You,

Steven Ellzey
President, Jet Pilot’s Organization

Is there a way we could get some sort of "buddy box traing for the Ama VP's and district VP's?

As a turbine Cd I fully support this proposal and will be on the horn first thing in the morining with Jim McNeil. Thanks for making th efforts, it is truly appreciated.

Todd Witkoff

I would agree with this proposal. Show us the road to follow and we will go down it. GREAT IDEA :sunsmiley

Dave R

I sent my DVP (Rich Hanson) a note this morning, explaining why I thought he should support this proposal.

Hope some more of you pitch in and do the same.

Gordon

Where can I find a copy of the original proposal so that I may read it to see if I agree with it, before blindly supporting something without any knowledge of it?

Here it is Mav :

http://www.jetpilots.org/prop2rev5.htm

I re-read it just this morning so that I could make a logical case to Rich when I asked for his support.

Gordon

Thanks. I just read it, but where can I find the original Paragraph 18 of form 513 so that I may see what has been changed?

It's on the doc's page in the AMA site:

http://www.modelaircraft.org/templat...-files/513.pdf

Gordon

Don't worry....I just found it on the AMA site!

OK. So in summary the changes seem to be the lowering of the 150mph flight proficiency requirement to 110mph to allow an interim turbine waiver to be issued, whereby the pilot can fly turbine aircraft via buddy box until such time as they can then demonstrate turbine flight proficiency via a solo flight.

Sounds reasonable to me!

Time to email Richard Hanson.

Email has been sent to Rich Hanson explaining my support for the proposal and why he should do likewise.

I just received a response from Rich Hanson, indicating that the EC did pass two turbine related proposals at last weekend's council meeting.

One was for the turbine helicopters, for which the AMA now has the docs on it's website.

The other is for for a "provisional program which allows waiver candidates to begin the waiver approval process at local jet events". I didn't see the connection between that and the JPO proposal, so I called Ilona (AMA) this morning and asked. Looks like there were multiple proposals provided to the AMA (not just the JPO one), and these were amalgamated into one proposal that was put before the EC. Ilona said it would take a while to explain it by phone, and that we should wait until next week, when they hope to have the website updated with the latest docs.

Regards,
Gordon

Huh.... Ok, maybe I am too dumb or not in the US since long enough, but I would need some explanations here.

JPO is the SIG for jets. How come that other proposals can be made without knowledge by the JPO ? Does this happens for the pattern guys, or pylons guys ? If yes, what SIG are made for? If No, why the AMA is messing in our backs ?

Just in need of some clarification.

Bernard

I never received a response from the man! I also emailed him in support of the JPO proposal and never heard a thing from him......nice representation!

Hey Guys.

I called my district VP Jim McNeil this morning to voice my support of the proposal.
Either he was just getting out of bed at 11:45am or he was completely disinterested in what I had to say. I thought he was gonna ask me what's an RC jet.

Anyway, I tried something. Any other suggestions??

Thanks
Jeremy Smith

Well I guess it is better late than never! I finally received a response from Richard Hanson today.

Pathetic! I sent Jim an email and never even received a reply....But then again, this IDIOT supports the Deland Goons too

Someone really needs to :boxing: him....

The vote has been taken, at the last EC meeting, held on Oct 26. You can see how the VPs voted on the AMA website.

Hi Jeremy,

A couple of years ago Jim McNeil came over to Jackson, Mississippi to visit our club at a fly-in we had. You know, the year before our AMA VP elections. At the time, I was the JPO Dist. V Rep. I thought it would be a good time to speak with Jim about JPO and jet issues. I introduced myself as the JPO Dist. V Rep., and he wanted to know if JPO was one of the SIGs!! I told him yes, and I wanted to talk to him about some of the jet issues before the executive council, and get his view of what was being discussed, etc, etc. He immediately blew me off, and would not talk to me. He told me to put any questions in writing and mail it to him via the postal service. I couldn't believe it. I know he didn't have a clue what I was talking about, and was not going to embarrass himself by trying to discuss jets issues. I am not surprised in the least that you might have had to explain to him what a jet was. It is too bad Dist. V didn't elect Tony Stillman as VP in the last election. He is an active, concerned modeler with ears.

After Steven started this thread by asking us to write our Dist. VPs, I said what the heck, I would write to McNeil anyway, so I sent him an email. I never heard from him.

I am convinced that before Dist. V can have any representation and input to AMA, we have to elect a new VP.

Better luck to all the other districts out there. Maybe us Dist. V guys could write to another Dist. VP who cares.

Dennis Lott

Same here.....no answer. McNeil is only interested in being an AMA VP so that he can get his expenses paid to travel to Florida. He shows up at a fly in for maybe 30 minutes, takes a few pictures of the old farts on the benches (he doesn't know that there are actually airplanes at these events) hands out 10 copies of Robert's Rules of Order, 5 First aid kits and goes then leaves to enjoy the rest of the weekend playing shuffle board with the rest of the geezers. This old fart has not even seen a model airplane for years and yet he was almost responsible for eliminating combat flying a couple of years ago. The ONLY way he got back into office this last time was because he managed to convince one of his cronies to run against him as a spoiler. McNeil has done absoutely NOTHING for District V for many many years. Pathetic!!!!

David Reid

Here it is:

MOTION VI: Moved by R. Miller (IX), seconded by B. Nelson (XI), to accept document titled FLIGHT DEMONSTRATION WAIVER PROGRAM FOR FIXED WING AIRCRAFT. MOTION passed: 8 yes; 4 no (I, II, V, VII).

Taken from:

http://modelaircraft.org/templates/a...2ecmotions.asp

So we can see that Districts I, II, V and VII voted against this proposal.

Anybody from these districts care to ask their VP for clarification as to why they voted against the proposal?

Hey guys.

Thanks for the responses. Yup, Tony Stillman got my vote. Just to keep the conversation going, I asked McNeil what he flys and he said that he doesn't fly cause the VP takes up so much of his time. He just wished me luck in jet modeling. I felt he was almost threatening my hobby, and now I can see why.
IMHO the crap that they passed was a complete waste of time. After reading the Docs. it seems like it would be a much tougher route to follow.
Just go fly the demos, pass the tests and be done.
These ama guys are just plane ignorant.

OK I'm done venting. I'm deffinately gonna call the Old Man and ask him Whazzzz up!

Jeremy Smith

Hi Guy's

The VPs that voted against the proposal that was passed a few weeks back may have been doing you a favor. That proposal, now regulation, has several flaws that need to be worked out, and may be a bit of a problem for getting the JPO buddy box proposal through. See the thread "what happened to the JPO proposal" for more details.

Steven Ellzey
President, JPO

Hi everyone,
I talked to Dave Mathewson, Dist II VP and he voted against it because he felt that the JPO proposal was much better than this "combination" proposal. I have to say Dave has been very open and candid with me every time I've talked to him. He did say that the JPO proposal was never formally introduced to the EC by the JPO and that's why it was never voted on. Maybe Steve can comment? At least that's how I interpreted our conversation. He lurks around RCU.
I didn't have time, I was at work during our conversation, to ask him how JPO's proposal got combined with the proposal from a "member's" , but I will.
Regards,
Jon