RE: JPO Statement
 

OK...but if they all expire JAN 1 then what no waiver holders are current to recertify the decertifed. CATCH-22

And a TCD told me it may be a pain in the butt to get your waiver, but once you have it you have it for life. Now i looks like you have it until the AMA says otherwise. Pity I miss the SFA.

RE: JPO Statement
 

Jeez, David...I didn't think we were arguing but having a meaningful discussion. You answered my questions and I thank you.[8D] This just happens to be a very hot and sensative topic where peoples' emotions can be misconstrued.

I guess that there really isn't much more to chew on until we get all of the information. I, as I would suspect all of us, would like to see the original regulations as passed as well as the changed ones (If they do get changed) for comparison. We really won't know much more until that happens.

Kevin

RE: JPO Statement
 

They don't expire as of Jan 1. You are reading far to much into this recertification process, if you currently have a waiver, and can fly and can get another turbine waiver to say you can fly then you will keep your waiver. If you are one of those guys that every time you fly people dive under the trucks and trailers in the parking lot you will likely be culled out.

RE: JPO Statement
 

David,

The intention is admirable but in my situation it IS a major stumbling block. I really just want to fly in my club where presently I am the ONLY turbine waiver holder. There are no waiver holders who would have an opportunity to observe me unless I seek them out or attend events. I have seen a couple others in this thread who are in the same position as me. That doesn't consider the MANY fliers who don't participate here.

I also question why the JPO didn't pursue less regulation on the whole instead of the compromise of less restriction on airframe but more on the pilot. That seems to benefit the current waiver holders and actually only those on the higher end of the turbine spectrum at the expense of guys like me who just want to fly a Roo at my club. Do we have an accurate picture of the costs incurred by the AMA for jet operations. If they are lower as a percentage of payout per pilot than the general membership shouldn't we use that to push for less regulation overall? In a perfect situation wouldn't we kill the waivers altogether and depend on the safety consciousness of those willing to make the investment in turbines? I know that may be pie in the sky but if that is not our goal then are we setting our sights high enough?

My other questions still stands regarding the waiver plane. It seems I should be able to count those flights toward my requirement for continued proficiency if they are good enough for proficiency toward the intial waiver. I would be much more likely to put 5 flights on that plane in a day than I would the turbine while I am still in learning mode.

It may seem premature to debate this but the information I receive here will form the basis of my communication to my DVP Charlie Bauer.

Keith

RE: JPO Statement
 

Well I have a pet peive (sp?) which all of this brings to light once again, as I was told when I was designated a "Leader Member" I would be consulted when important issues were pending that myself and other " Leader Members " of the AMA would be advised and allowed to comment on such issues, evidently that whole idea died on the vine???? And as I have just emailed Dave Brown and expressed my opinions on the issues I can only suggest that if you are not going to go to the AMA your self or at least let the JPO do it for you, that you are only hurting yourself. Or at least letting the AMA dictate to you.
Roger Shook

RE: JPO Statement
 

Keith,

You have some valid points and maybe the recertification process should include a CD in your local club but that is not the way it was set up by the committee. You will also see some changes in the aircraft requirements for doing the initial waiver flights, and the ability to utilize a buddy box for training, and waiver sign off purposes. I would love to see the waiver completely go away myself, I would love for there to be no restrictions on the speed I fly, or the type of engine I can use, or the max thrust I can install in an airframe. I want to fly a big twin engine airplane that I can blast off the runway and crank around for 10 minutes without worrying about the fuel running out because I have a limit on how much I can carry. I want to be able to enjoy flying at a jet rally with every other guy that wants to fly jets, or at the local field level I want to be able to see everyone that wants to fly a jet flying one. Quite frankly the guy that spends $5000+ on his airplane is going to be more concerned with the well being of that airplane than any AMA official ever will be. The regulations exist simply because your AMA says they have to so the committee made up of both JPO and AMA individuals all of which are high time turbine pilots tried to formulate what they felt was the best compromise of regulations to protect the percieved risk that the AMA has of us, vs the desires of all of us jet guys to just enjoy our hobby. It is a complicated problem further complicated by the fact that here in the US we live in the most litigous country on the planet. Ain't freedom great!

RE: JPO Statement
 

It seems like there are large parts of the agreement being aired in this thread. Can we just see the actual agreement? Or the draft? Or the full text of the innuendo? When I call everyone-and-their-mother tomorrow I would like to know what I am *****ing at them about.

RE: JPO Statement
 

I have to jump in and say that for me having an another waiver holder witness me fly 10 flight a year will impossible without attending events. There are no other jet pilots anywhere close. If I do attend events, then I will need to bother another pilot and be sure that he is watching me fly. Then I will need to track him down at the end of the year and get him to sign me off. Talk about a pain in the A@#. I hate to comment on this until I read the rules myself but this one bothered me. This whole post frustrates me because most of us are just speculating on the new rules and those who know for sure wont share it.

RE: JPO Statement
 

What if he was busy from work or what ever reason unable to reach the closet TCD in time?
He has to go over the same step again?
I don't think is logical to have this rule. Not everyone are fortune to have TCD nearby and some of them are very busy in life. Their only fly one day out of the months. To arrange time to get TCD is kind of a pain. I know that is a fact. Gordon is TCD. In order for him to sign someone off. It take many try before it can be happen.
This rule will drive more pilots aways.
Once again. This is my opinion to find this is not a solution.
I thinks is best to police the unsafe pilots and deal with indivual instead to make a rules for everyone hard to follow.
Myself have no problem with new rules.
I fly very often and couple CD fly with me occasionally.
I speak for those fly every weeken but no closet TCD hundred miles aways.
Tam

RE: JPO Statement
 

Tam,

You're missing the explanation. You don't need a TCD to recertify you every year.

RE: JPO Statement
 

Thanks you Doug.
Let me go back reading something I miss.[sm=cool.gif]

RE: JPO Statement
 

Why don't you guys just post the rule changes and let everybody see exactly what they are dealing with? I see a lot of speculation in this thread that would just go away if we all knew exactly what we are dealing with. However the real problem here is not the rules themselves, although keeping them secret does raise a lot of speculation, but the perceived ability of the AMA President to overturn a vote that was made by the EC.

Guys, we need to stop pissing and moaning here and just let our AMA representatives know that it is unacceptable that Dave Brown can overturn a vote by the EC that was held legally just because he doesn't agree with the outcome. I personally emailed the District X VP to let him know my disgust with the way Dave Brown is trying to overrule this vote. Who else has done the same? Not many of you I know!

All of the arguing just adds fuel to the fire that shows the AMA that jet pilots are a bunch of unruly individuals who need the regulation.

We all need to pull together with a single voice to be loud enough to be heard.

Has anybody ever done the math on how many waiver holders there really are? I did a quick count of document #566 on the AMA website and I got to about 750. That is only 750 Turbine Waivered AMA members out of some 170,000 total AMA members. This is only a number of less than half a percent. (1/2%)

With such a small representation we really need to stick together to present a united voice. I am not a JPO member, but right now it sure sounds like the JPO is the only organization doing anything that could be considered remotely positive for this situation.

RE: JPO Statement
 

I agree. If, as Dennis said above "Dave Brown may not want the details released because it would be more difficult to get it over turned if we all knew what was passed", then it seems to me that that is all the more reason for someone to "leak" the details in time for us to do something with them. Feel free to send it to me and I will publish it, and claim that I got it from the EC, not the JPO :D

Gordon

RE: JPO Statement
 

This doesn't look too bad to me. Allows the use of the buddy box with any waivered pilot and a turbine aircraft to get the waiver. Drops the speed requirement for the waiver aircraft from 150mph to 100mph, which is more realistic. The requirement for logging 20 flights in 2 years seems reasonable and is a good way to stay proficient and only needs to be done in front of any other waiver holder, not a TCD. All of this stuff looks good to me. I am just about to start my waiver process and the thought of being able to buddy box to get proficient makes me feel more comfortable. I can train with an experienced turbine pilot on the buddy box to get familiar with my plane and then disconnect the cable to do the waiver demonstration flight. This sounds like a positive step forward to me.

Now we just need to make sure Dave Brown cannot single-handedly overturn these rules that are already voted into law.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

23. Pilot Requirements for fixed wing aircraft

An experienced turbine pilot is defined as a pilot who has completed 20 or more turbine flights during the preceding 18 months and who has a current turbine waiver affidavit on file with the AMA. For confirmation purposes, the pilot is required to keep a written log of all flights.

All Pilots operating turbine powered model aircraft solo shall have a qualifying waiver affidavit on file with the AMA. Once the affidavit is received by AMA, a waiver will be issued and returned to the pilot

An AMA member may be permitted to fly a turbine powered model on the slave transmitter of a buddy box as long as the master transmitter is operated by an experienced waiver affidavit holder.

All waiver affidavit applicants should have accomplished at least 50 flights on a high performance model capable of sustained speeds of 100 mph or higher.

The pilot will successfully perform a qualification flight consisting of all flight maneuvers from AMA document 538 under the supervision of two experienced turbine pilots, one of whom is a contest director. The qualification flight shall be completed by one of the following two methods:

1) The qualification flight will be performed with a model capable of sustained speeds of 100mph or higher;

or

2) The qualification flight will be performed with a turbine powered model. The applicant must first have flown the turbine powered model on a buddy box with an experienced turbine pilot in control of the master transmitter. The experienced turbine pilot will assist the applicant with as many flights as necessary until he is satisfied that the applicant is prepared for the qualification flight after which the experienced turbine pilot will declare the applicant qualified to perform the qualification flight flying solo without buddy box assistance.

Following the successful completion of the qualification test flight the pilot will then submit AMA document 575 as proof of compliance with the above pilot requirements.

Each year the pilot will submit with their AMA annual renewal, or by December 15 for life members, AMA form 576 which attests that they have completed 20 turbine powered flights in the past 24 months. This form will also be attested by a second experienced turbine pilot attesting that the pilot is operating turbine powered models in a safe manner. Any pilot who’s qualifications lapses may re-qualify by successfully demonstrating the flight maneuvers from AMA document 538, with a turbine powered model, before two experienced turbine pilots, one being a Contest Director. The pilot will then re-submit AMA document 575 as proof of compliance

The first five solo flights shall be supervised by an experienced turbine pilot. The pilot must instruct the supervising individual on how to perform an emergency shutdown of the turbine in flight from the pilot’s transmitter and the supervising individual must be empowered by the pilot to shut the turbine down in flight in the event of a loss of control emergency. The following guidelines will apply to the first five flights:
• Airspeed should be controlled under 175 MPH.
• Flight operation should be limited to single engine turbine airplanes.

RE: JPO Statement
 

These look incomplete though as there is no mention of the change to dry weight, amount of fuel permitted or thrust allowances.

Thanks though.. the more info we get the better I think.

RE: JPO Statement
 

Great!! So now 'each year' I have to travel several hours and find a waiver holder to fly with that will sign me off!!! I qualified for the turbine waiver under the guidlines that once obtaining the waiver I would be qualified to fly turbines. Now I have to prove it to someone once a year!!! Anyone want to buy a kangaroo with a jetcat p120 RTF? Spring air retracts, tga retract locking system, upgraded ecu battery, hitec servos, gyro, bvm bladder tank, v4 ecu, tam smoke system, bvm wheels and brakes, etc.....

edited to add description of kangaroo:

http://homepage.mac.com/uncljoe/.Pic...28C55211D7.jpg

Jon

RE: JPO Statement
 

Ok guys I have been reading all of these posts and have been trying to collectively gather all information to make an educated guess as to whats going on. In my opinion the AMA is trying to limit there liability by having people re-qual every year. How liable would they be if they issued a waiver and the person did not fly for two years put an airplane together and flew it into something and people got hurt or something got damaged. Now why this doesnt apply to all aircraft is mind boggeling but I guess they feel that we as a group are what makes them most liable and I do not agree with that at all!!!!!! Seems to me that the buddy system is going to work here. If ten flights is the rule and another waiver holder has to sign you off, I think that guys are going to be willing to sign people off on a yearly basis. I understand some of you dont have other waiver holders close by, but come to a jet rally another reason for us all to get together and fly your airplane safely, and guys are going to be willing to sign you off. I dont think the sign-off is going to be a big deal here. Look at the flip side....if they allow us to do turbine waiver training on a buddy box with a real turbine jet, I think that is a much better training and evaluating process than we have now. Sounds to me that the most damaging part of this whle change is the ability of the AMA to dictate rule changes with the support of its membership. Thats what scares me the most. As far as the JPO is concerned I am not member but by the end of today I will be. I did not realize how much work they do on out behalf!! And to them all I want to say THANK YOU for all that you do. This hobby is an important part of our lives, and none of us want to jepordize it.
Just my two cents worth guys take it for what its worth....KEEP THE JET-A BURNIN!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Pete

RE: JPO Statement
 

Pete,

You my friend have just hit the nail exactly on the head! The AMA is not going to let us get by without regulations it's a crock of crap but that's the way it is. We have to make the best of it and this set of rules attempts to do just that. If most people would stop and think about it they know another guy that flies turbines. Good grief I know another 300 guys that fly turbines so it just does not seem like that big a challenge to get someone to say they have seen me fly. Out of around 700 guys that hold waivers surely you can find one more guy in your area that flies. The jet events have to be one of the most enjoyable aspects of the hobby, you get to see a lot of neat stuff, shoot the bull with guys that share the same interests as yourself, maybe even learn a little bit more about what is going on in the jet community.


FWIW in thinking about the "communication" issues that quite a few of you have been complaining about Steven Ellzey also spoke briefly at the Saturday morning pilots meeting at Superman, if you were there you heard about the rules change and I know could have discussed it there at Superman if you had asked.

RE: JPO Statement
 

PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE GUYS. Stop arguing about how the rules are going to "hurt me" and think about the big picture. The AMA approved SIG (JPO) and the EC agreed to and the EC passed a set of rules that govern our jets. As in any set of rules we all have to do a little give and take to survive. UNDERSTAND THIS - If DB gets his way and overrules the EC he now is the drivers seat and will dictate the way we get certified, the way we fly, and what equipment we have on our airplanes. Believe me he is not our friend, he's pissed off and we can expect retaliation. We will see major restrictions to our airplanes, our certification and possibly our opportunity to fly turbine powered airplanes. It is absolutely one of the most critical times we have experienced since we started flying turbines and could possibly be the make or break point. Whether you like the JPO, AMA or anything else, we as AMA members cannot set back and allow one individual dictate our hobby. Call or email your AMA elected officials and tell them what you think. Email addresses are available on the AMA web site. I'm not a JPO official or an AMA offical, just a guy who wants to continue to fly my jets.

RE: JPO Statement
 

Why is does everyone feel that Dave Brown is so against the flying of turbine powered aircraft. The above post says he is "pissed off". What is that all about?

Carl

RE: JPO Statement
 

Yup - he was showing only the portion relating to qualification. The other portions, including the info you have asked for, are as follows:

Airframe Requirements

1. The model may be equipped with production engine(s); kit built engine(s), built in compliance with document 544; or non-production engine(s), built in compliance with document 533.

2. AMA retains the right to exclude any engine, (individual or type), which is believed to exhibit a safety concern.

3. For Turbojets and Turbofans single engine static thrust shall not exceed 45 pound; multiple engine static thrust shall not exceed 50 pounds combined.

4. For fixed wing aircraft: The maximum velocity will be 200 mph.

For rotary wing aircraft: The output power of the turbine shall be governed such that the rotor head speed does not exceed the manufacturer’s recommended RPM for any rotor head component. In no case may the rotor head speed exceed 2000 RPM.

For control line aircraft the gross weight limit is 20 pounds. The maximum aircraft velocity allowed is 100 mph.

5. Enclosed multiple engines must be segregated in separate pods or partitions where exhaust gasses cannot mix causing cross-ignition.

6. For fixed wing aircraft: The model shall be able to come to a controlled stop on command with the engine at idle on a level hard surface.
For rotary wing aircraft: The rotor head must be disengaged from the power source and remain stationary when the engine is at idle.

7. Fuels are limited to kerosene and/or propane unless approved in writing by AMA.

8. The fuel tanks shall be of rigid construction with consideration given to burst and puncture resistance. Plasma bag fuel tanks are not allowed. Consideration shall be given that non-metallic fuel lines may not be able to contact hot parts of the engine as installed. The fuel system shall have two fuel shut-off provisions, one of which is manual and the other one must be remotely operated. An ECU operated solenoid valve is compliant as a remote shut-off if it closes with loss of power.

9. The radio and/or ECU shall be configured to at a minimum bring the engine to idle, or preferable to shutdown, within 2 seconds of fail safe activation. By January 1, 2005, all radios must be equipped with fail safe and ECUs shall be configured to shutdown the engine within 2 seconds of fail safe activation.

10. Controllable rudders are required on all RC aircraft.

11. Total fuel capacity shall not exceed 2.5 US gallons.

12. For control line models a restraining cable (minimum 0.035 stranded wire) shall be attached from the engine to the bellcrank mounting system.



Flight Line Requirements

13. A “B/C”-rated or equivalent fire extinguisher shall be present for all engine starts. Water based fire fighting equipment shall be present on the field.

14. A phone shall be present at the site, along with the phone number of the closest fire department or 911, whichever has been determined to be most effective for emergency response.

15. For all organized events, dedicated to jet models, a safety barrier shall be in place.

16. The pilot will exercise caution during ground operation so that the exhaust gasses from the engine do not impinge on any flammable object. For organized events the use of blast deflectors in the start up area is recommended.

17. No turbine powered model will be flown after dark, or in poor visibility conditions.


18. Enclosed engine installation must be designed with attention to flow path ducting, integration of related equipment, and fire containment and suppression on start up.

19. Afterburners are prohibited. Other special controls such as water injection, thrust reversers, variable nozzles, etc. are acceptable only if engine manufacturer provided and supported by development testing and user training.

20. Any engine involved in a crash where high G loads were probable must be examined and
certified as safe to operate by a manufacturer approved service center before operating and flying again.
21. Turbine powered aircraft will not be allowed in any speed or racing events.

22. De-tuned engine thrust settings will be accepted. The pilot must provide manufacturer documentation.

<... then the stuff that was posted earlier, and then>


25 The AMA, through the decision of its Special Services Director or its President, may remove a turbine waiver at any time. The waiver holder shall be notified of the removal in writing, including a short summary of the basis of the removal.

A waiver removal can be predicated on the oral or written complaint of any AMA member.

Where a Contest Director at a sanctioned event believes a turbine waiver holder is operating in a reckless or dangerous manner, the CD shall supply a written report to the AMA describing the infraction(s).

The turbine waiver holder who has had his waiver removed may appeal the removal within thirty (30) days of receipt of the removal. The appeal must be accompanied by all documentation which the appellant believes supports his/her position.

The AMA Safety Committee will consider the appeal, including the written documentation supplied by the appellant, and conduct any investigation or hold any hearing it deems appropriate, although it need not hold any formal hearing.

The majority decision of the AMA Safety Committee is final and binding.

If there is no appeal or the appeal is denied there will be a one-year waiting period required before applying for recertification.

<...some more unchanged stuff>

While foreign contestants don’t have to obtain a special turbine waiver they are still required to comply with the Safety Regulations for Model Aircraft Gas Turbines except for items 23 & 24.

RE: JPO Statement
 

It must be very convenient to have that luxury and to have jet events locally several times a year. What was wrong with the old waiver system. How many years has it worked successfully? Everyone automatically assumes that People don't usually just 'stop flying'. I don't fly just jets!!! People in the hobby don't just fly jets!!! Many of us fly lots of different aircraft, that keeps us proficient fliers!! I don't think someone is going to be foolish enough to take '2 years off' then run to the field and for the first flight in 2 years be stupid enough to put a jet in the air. If people are this foolish then we need way more regulation!

The 'big picture' is that we are getting regulated more and more. I thought that in the past by showing that the jet community was responsible with the waiver system restrictions would be relaxed, not more regulated!! I feel that the jpo and the ama have stabbed turbine waiver holders in the back! If the existing waiver holders are so unreliable and inexperienced fliers That they should be checked once a year, maybe they shouldn't have been issued the waiver in the first place which should put the experience of the turbine cd and witnesses in question who signed the waiver! If they want to 'recert' because of the supposed lifting of the weight requirement the many they should recert people who are flying over a 25lb or multi turbine jet. That would make more since.

We already have regulations. Why did we have to 'volunteer' to make more?





Jon

RE: JPO Statement
 

"A waiver removal can be predicated on the oral or written complaint of any AMA member. "

How does this address the fact that some guy with a greivance can get your waiver revoked, would it not be better to have a statement from more than one member?


"8. The fuel tanks shall be of rigid construction with consideration given to burst and puncture resistance. Plasma bag fuel tanks are not allowed. Consideration shall be given that non-metallic fuel lines may not be able to contact hot parts of the engine as installed. The fuel system shall have two fuel shut-off provisions, one of which is manual and the other one must be remotely operated. An ECU operated solenoid valve is compliant as a remote shut-off if it closes with loss of power."

Does this mean that my Kangaroo, which advocates using a 2 liter drink bottle for a tank, will not be allowed do fly, or is this considered a "rigid tank".

Tommy

RE: JPO Statement
 

Nothing in these new rules looks out of place to me at all. They look like solid, well hammered guidelines. There is one thing I see missing Gordon. Where is the provision that turbine models be weighed dry? I was under the impression this was a major point added to the new rules.

I sure hope our district reps stay to the wishes of the modelers, and don't just arbitrarily follow DB's desires.

Below is the email I received from Rich Hanson concerning the latest status:

"Hi Again Doug,

Yes, the conference call has been postponed until Friday. It is my understanding this was done to allow the Safety Committee chairman additional time to provide input to the Council.

The obvious topic for discussion in Friday's call will be the new turbine operating rules and related risk management concerns. The item that seems to be drawing the most attention is the elimination of the speed limiter, but that's not to say there won't be other aspects of the rules brought up in conversation. I'm not aware of any specific suggestions on the table; however, Dave is resolute in his belief that there are unresolved issues that need to be discussed.

Doug, I apologize for the way this is coming across and I realize this is not the best way to do business. However, as president, Dave does have the prerogative to call a meeting of the Council (i.e. conference call) to discuss issues he deems crucial to the organization, and there is always the possibility the Council will revisit and/or reconsider a previous decision. I wish I could say otherwise, but unfortunately we don't always get it right the first time.

Hopefully more definitive information will be available after Friday's call.

Rich Hanson"

RE: JPO Statement
 

Yup - you are right - this is one item that is not mentioned. Perhaps one of the JPO officers who frequent RCU could comment ?

Gordon