Experimental Permit and Jets Discussion
 

Giving it a try here with no scandals attached...

Recently, we have all read about the concerns for this topic and how can effect flying jets now and in the future. Lets discuss what we can do to 1.) make sure there is an understanding of responsibility to follow the AMA rules 2.) working with the manufacturers to get involved in the "certified airframe weights" disclosure +/- 5% "ish" 3.) Open up the opportunity to educate folks on the the process to get their plane weighed and inspected.

Right now, I have a plane coming I will be building and flying for a guy that I know will be over 55 lbs. I am planning pro-activity with my Inspector as the plane is being assembled...won't cost him a penny in gas...just a few minutes as I take the tailsection to his home after I install the rudder and elev mechanisms and load the servos.

Any takers????

Rex

RE: Experimental Permit and Jets Discussion
 

I had someone just ask me if thought Jet Rally attendance would go down if all Jet events had a scale to verify any airframes that seemed questionable!!!!:eek:

RE: Experimental Permit and Jets Discussion
 

I doubt it.

.. and even if one or two guys do stay away from a rally because they don't want their jets to be weighed and found to be over 55lb - those are the kind of guys you don't want at your rally anyway.

If any event CD - or even just any guy walking up to me at the flightline at my regular club - wants to weigh my aircraft (in a non-destructive way of course !), wants to put a radar gun on my jet, wants me to demonstrate that my jet has working brakes, or that the failsafe IS programmed to shut the engine down - I will happily comply.

Safety is important ; IMO transparency of safety is just as important, and we should at all times be willing to demonstrate that we are in compliance with the regs.

Gordon

RE: Experimental Permit and Jets Discussion
 

All true and all valid points!

So what would keep someone from getting his "Experimental Permit"?
-He's just planning to fly at his home field and no one checks?
-Worried that once it goes on the list...he won't be able to sell it as easily?
-The Inspector in his area is a jerk?
-Lack of knowledge about it?

None are excuses to diminish compliance but they are what goes through the brain, I am sure!

Honestly, I think no one really reads the rules until they are faced with the confrontation! Unfortunately, it's too late at that point.

RE: Experimental Permit and Jets Discussion
 

28 pages!!
http://www.modelaircraft.org/files/520-a.pdf
scott

RE: Experimental Permit and Jets Discussion
 

Just FYI, the AMA rules apply to AMA members regardless of where they fly. I know that a lot of people think otherwise, but the way the AMA membership, rules, insurance etc are set up, you are required to apply by the reg's even if you are flying in your own back yard. I know that sounds dumb, and I wish it were not that way - but that's how it is currently set up.

IMO, if someone is so worried about reselling the aircraft that they would deliberately bust the rules like that, then they should not buy / build it in the first place.

Perhaps he should look for another inspector. If there are none locally, consider travelling, or talk to one of the non-jerk waivered guys in your area to consider becoming an inspector. (Surely they can't ALL be jerks ?).

Technically, ignorance is no defense. With that said, I personally would see this as a less egregious violation of the safety reg's, as it at least is not a wilfull intent to ignore the rules.

Seems to me that all of us could get caught out by an 'ooftah!' mistake like this, so in my personal opinion what is really telling about a mistake like that is how you handle it afterwards. Ideally there should be no excuses, no evasions of the facts, just a simple 'mea culpa - I will take care of it now and will help spread the word to others too'

Perhaps this is a good time for everyone to go refamiliarize themselves with the reg's, so that they can't say "I didn't know".

Gordon

RE: Experimental Permit and Jets Discussion
 

Hi Rex,

With the event season in full swing, this is a good subject to look at. Thanks for starting the thread.

From a CDs position....at the Liberty Bell Jet Rally we will expect that the pilot of any jet that falls into the experimental category shall have the permit in his/her possession and will display the permit when asked to do so. So guys, do not forget to have the permit with you.

For others looking to glide under the radar, I believe that Gordon has said it best..... "and even if one or two guys do stay away from a rally because they don't want their jets to be weighed and found to be over 55lb - those are the kind of guys you don't want at your rally anyway."

Rex, you hit the nail on head about being pro-active. Doing so during the building phase will carry through to the flying phase. As the FAA looks at us closer, our safety and professionalism will speak the loudest.

RE: Experimental Permit and Jets Discussion
 

Rex:

Thanks for the excellent suggestion. The 2010 Safety Code stipulates: 4. The maximum takeoff weight of a model aircraft, including fuel, is 55 pounds, except for those flown under the AMA Experimental Aircraft Rules. This means that a 52 lb model would fall into the experimental class if it was over 55 lbs with fuel.

The Experimental RC Aircraft Program Requirements and Inspector Information are contained the attached AMA document 520-A [link]http://www.modelaircraft.org/files/520-a.pdf[/link]; the current inspector list is 520-B which can be found in the members only documents section. The program has an excellent record and was designed to provide for insurance to AMA members wishing to fly models between 55 and 100 lbs. Thus, a member would not have AMA liability coverage while flying an aircraft exceeding 55 lbs without having met these requirements.

A distilled version of the requirements are highlighted below, but interested folks should read and understand the full document.

"Definition: An Experimental Radio Controlled Aircraft is one that is produced under the strict guidelines and regulations set forth in these conditions as stated herein. Aircraft models considered experimental in design and concept shall weigh no less than 55 pounds nor exceed 100 pounds maximum, with fuel, ready to fly." Turbine aircraft may not exceed 75 lbs with full fuel tanks.

Aircraft must undergo an initial inspection and be granted a one day Temporary Authorization to Fly for test flights which must be performed in the presence of the inspector. Following a minimum of 2 satisfactory test flights, the inspector will issue a Permit to Fly. Any problems encountered during the test flights must be addressed and the process repeated. Authorizations "must be renewed ANNUALLY and require the same pre-flight inspection, and two check-out flights of 8 to 10 minutes duration".

A permit to fly is suspended for a variety of reasons including:
(a) suffers damage to its primary structure or any control surface
(b) suffers any control malfunction during flight
(c) is structurally or aerodynamically modified
(d) is fitted with a different type or size of engine or engine mount
(e) is fitted with a different type or size of servo operating a control surface
(f) is fitted with a different type of battery or a battery with a lower capacity
(g) is fitted with a different type of radio receiver
(h) is fitted with any device which alters the control system
(i) has any control surface re-covered or repainted so that its unbalanced weight is increased
(j) is not routinely inspected before flight
(k) has not been flown during a period of twelve months
(l) is operated outside the flight envelope defined in its Permit to Fly
(m) undergoes a change of ownership

Additional turbine specific information is contained in Appendix A which states that "An Experimental Turbine Powered Class model shall be a model that has a flight weight, with full fuel tanks, of no more than 75 lbs." There are two turbine classes based on aircraft maximum speed and the pilot's qualification/experience.

Hope this helps to inform the discussion.

RE: Experimental Permit and Jets Discussion
 

Mike and others,
Great words and responses!

Personally, I think the Experimental guidelines are dead on for weight and inspection process. I have flown several hundred flight with jets at the line and under and now, I have flown a jet that exceeds the 55lb. threshold...and there is a difference, IMO!

So, the foundation is there. It's a matter of creating more safety barriers as things progress to the pilot, owners AND the manufacturers too. I have yet to be at an event where any aircraft was ever called in to verify weight when it is absolutely possible that the plane is over the 55lbs. Is this just a coincidence or is it more of a "don't ask, don't tell thing"?

If there is a movement that a pilot has the possibility of loosing his/her Waiver over an infraction like this...that is serious stuff and ought to be taken more seriously throughout the jet community...REGARDLESS of who owns the plane or is piloting it!!!

If someone does not want to encouter the 55lb weight issue...then stay with jets and aircraft that will not touch that side of the rules. But I think there is a good market and great folks that really want in to the larger airframes but are afraid of the process. But, everyone needs to understand, as Gordon and Michael have said...these rules ALWAYS apply, not just at events!

Mike Lesher...I consider you to be one of the most "on the ball" CD's because you run top notch events each year...plus I have seen you in action when come to an unsafe pilot!!! You worked directly, swiftly, called for advise right away and added no politics...just safety!

SO, does this start at the club level...with clubs wanting verifiable info on their members planes that may be around 55lbs. or over? Does the CD state that he will be enforcing the 55lb weight limit rule with a verification scale for planes that appear over 55lbs but do not have a Experimental Permit? Do we get the manufacturer to place a "true weight" on their airframes to let the buyer be aware that this plane could become an Experimental Class???

Also, what about all the folks out there that have the planes now...been flying for a while andnow, need their to be permitted???? They are then on the block for the infraction of flying in violation of a rule that may cost them their Waiver!!!

Rex

RE: Experimental Permit and Jets Discussion
 

Rex,

I personally never even considered not having my plane inspected, and was instead, proactively looking for an inspector when the time arose. Do you want to guess why Bob Klenke is an inspector?

I'm not sure what the apprehension is to having it done, but I would think it could only be beneficial to have someone double-check everything in case something was inadvertently missed. This not only could save your "investment", but cover your butt as well.

RE: Experimental Permit and Jets Discussion
 

A couple of comments from the perspective of an inspector...

First, as I mentioned in the other thread, there is no *requirement* for inspection of the aircraft during construction. Thus, the inspection/certification process can take place in one day. Also, there are inspection and preflight checklists provided (which take up much of the 28 pages), but there is no *requirement* for the inspector to insist that the aircraft be disassembled so that the inspector can see all of the internals of the aircraft. In addition, if the plane is a kit or plans, the servos must be as specified by the manufacturer - the calculations for required servo torque are not *required* if the manufacturer (or designer) has specified the required servo torque. Finally, although the regs state that the inspector must push and pull on the surfaces to insure that they seem to be up to the job, the main testing of the aircraft for the expected flight loads is supposed to take place in flight - in a build-up process that keeps the aircraft as safe as possible while the aircraft is tested for structural strength and flutter resistance.

To me, this is an important distinction. I'm not a structural or aero engineer and I don't have access to Solidworks or ProE or a numerical wind tunnel modeling program that would be required to determine if a certain metal or composite part is strong enough for the load it will bear in flight. I can't perform that task, nor would I want to be responsible for it. My job as an inspector is to determine if the aircraft *looks* flight-worthy for the 2 required test flights (and that the pilot is up to it and the site is safe for it), and to then witness the 2 test flights to determine if all of the required maneuvers to simulate normal operation were done and that the aircraft handled it OK. Then I sign off that the required procedure has been followed and the aircraft is OK to fly *in the same configuration and same manner as the test flights*. If something substantial changes then the process must be repeated.

In all of this, the owner and the manufacturer are the ones ultimately responsible for insuring that the aircraft is up to the job. Since few, if any, model manufacturers have the expertise themselves to do all of the structural modeling during design, most use the "common practices" followed by flight testing to determine if the structure is OK. It would be nice if all manufacturers were able to do all of that in-house before any aircraft were sold, but having reps do it for them is a valid method that more than one manufacturer uses...

Bob

RE: Experimental Permit and Jets Discussion
 

George,

Thanks for the "encouragement," I'm glad I did it! I would have liked to see that original project fly too! :D

Bob

RE: Experimental Permit and Jets Discussion
 

NO, thank YOU!!!

And you ain't kidding!!!!!!

BTW, If anyone needs a plane weighed at FIF, I'll have the proper equipment.

RE: Experimental Permit and Jets Discussion
 

Yea, I am fortunate too. I have some reallt good "eyes" near by that can be called on any time to ask or take a look at something I am not sure about. I like having someone looks things over before I go out and fly a maiden. Maybe thats the root of things here...people don;t want others to tell them what do to or by asking for some help, they become a lesser animal for it!

I also think many jet owners had no intention whatsoever to have a 55 lb plane but got one when it was all said and done...when the fuel went in and topped off...they went, "Oh Crap!" I didn't want this and now it's a secret!

ALSO...we do have the JPO to help us out here on all of this.

Rex

RE: Experimental Permit and Jets Discussion
 

Whether it is a 55lb experimental or a 25lb sport model, we all need to be aware of the rules and abide by them. 25# going 200mph is quite capable of doing serious damage to property not to say what it could to if it hit someone. With the FAA closely looking at our hobby we all need to be squeaky clean...all the time. If the CD doesnt enforce OUR safety rules then we as fellow modelers need to step up. One rogue can kill our hobby for all of us. Some of the best friends I've ever had are associated with flying model airplanes and I personally dont want to lose the privilege of a trip to field with my friends. Lets fly by the rules and protect our hobby!

RE: Experimental Permit and Jets Discussion
 

Tom, I agree. I was just thinking...I bet the culprit is fuel loads that takes the plane waaaaay past what people think. My plane that has an "Experimental Permit" can carry 244 oz. of fuel!!! that's around 1 3/4 gallons of fuel x weight of Kero....adding about 14 lbs. of fuel!!! That's, I think where the planes get in trouble IMO...and the pilot is freakin out but just lets it go!

RE: Experimental Permit and Jets Discussion
 

Yep, fuel adds a tremendous amount of weight to the plane. My Gripen weighs about 25.5 pounds dry (UAT full). I added additional fuel tanks to give the plane a capacity of 116oz. Kerosene weighs about 6.82 pounds/US gallon so the weight of the fuel is 6.8 pounds and the wet weight of the plane is 32.3 pounds.

These days with larger engines and airframes becoming popular, I suspect that more and more aircraft will be getting close to or will exceed the AMA 55 lb weight limit. Indeed there is a new thread today on a beautiful Mirage in France that just maidened. It's WET weight is 23 Kg (50.6 pounds). Should an AMA member choose to build/fly this model, there is a 4.1 pound margin before reaching the 55 pound limit.

Now this brings up a couple of items...
- such a model would weight less than the 55 lb limit and, strictly speaking, doesn't need to be inspected and certified for the Experimental class. However, it's likely a good idea (especially if the owner/builder/pilot doesn't have a lot of experience with large jets) to have it inspected by someone with experience. The inspection may find an issue which can be corrected and an incident avoided not to mention helping to preserve the owner/builder/pilot's investment.
- 4.1 pounds isn't really that big a margin in the grand scheme of things. The installation of additional items (lights, bigger batteries, redundant components, or other scale details) or even any subsequent repairs can eat away at the margin and the 55 pound limit could be reached or exceeded.

An AMA member planning to build a large model aircraft (say 50+ pounds wet) should recognize that they are getting close to the limit and, either sooner or later, may have to deal with the experimental class requirements.

The Mibo A-10 is a well known large model and any AMA member considering one of these planes should plan that it will be in the Experimental class (I'm not sure if it can actually be built lighter than 55lbs wet).

The FEJ 1/6 scale F/A-18 is another beautiful large jet. Per the manufacturer's website, the finished model is expected to have a DRY weight of 20Kg (44 pounds) for the Standard Version and 22.5Kg (49.5 pounds) for the Advanced Version (without the vectored nozzles).

Therefore, the Advanced Version only has a 5.5 pounds margin for fuel. At 6.82 pounds/US gallon, that allows for only 103 oz of fuel.

Undoubtedly, the fuel tanks in this model are larger than 103 oz. I suspect that the model has a fuel capacity of about 1.5 gallons (192 oz) which would weigh 10.2 pounds bringing the wet weight of the model to 59.7 pounds (and possibly even heavier due to any extra features/structure added by the builder).

While the weight limits for jets in the Experimental class are 55 lb to 75 lb, and therefore any jet weighing 54.9999 lbs wet or less doesn't have to be inspected and certified, I hope that we would all recognize that a second set of eyes looking at ANY plane is a good idea regardless of the weight.

Regards,

Jim

RE: Experimental Permit and Jets Discussion
 

Sorry, But that is Wrong Answer... If you are at a Public Field, You DO NOT have to have AMA... This was checked out and found to be true. Where I fly is a Public Field and Some of the Pilots do Not Belong to AMA nor the Club! You can't kick them out.. Its PUBLIC.... Can't tell them to Join.... Its Public...... Can't tell them they need AMA.... Its Public.....

It hurts the rest of us But Nothing we can do...... NOW, You can go to a Council Meeting an try to get it changed.... But that is another can of WORMS!!!!

Gerry Hinshaw



Just FYI, the AMA rules apply to AMA members regardless of where they fly. I know that a lot of people think otherwise, but the way the AMA membership, rules, insurance etc are set up, you are required to apply by the reg's even if you are flying in your own back yard. I know that sounds dumb, and I wish it were not that way - but that's how it is currently set up.

Read more: http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/m_97...#ixzz0oyYyu5C8

RE: Experimental Permit and Jets Discussion
 

It might help if you quoted, or otherwise indicated, which comment / post you are replying to.

RE: Experimental Permit and Jets Discussion
 

Actually what you say is true, if the field is on public property (such as a public park), then non-AMA members can fly there - this is a known fact.

What the original poster was referring to is a normal AMA member (someone who is already a member of AMA) going somewhere out in the wide-open spaces and then "recinding" their AMA membership and flying anything they wanted. This *other* scenario is an FAQ and has been re-hashed here on RCU many times, but the bottom line is, according to AMA, if you are an AMA member, then AMA rules *always* apply to you because if you screw up when your AMA membership is valid (i.e., current and paid for) then they will get sued along with you...

Bob

RE: Experimental Permit and Jets Discussion
 

Gerry,

You are quite wrong with your post on AMA membership. You made a blanket statement...and it is incorrect. I believe if you do a little research, you will discover that AMA membership is required at most public airfields. The reason is that the park is typically government owned (county, state ETC) and most local or state governments will require AMA membership to get the insurance coverage to assist in the parks protection. Where I live, I fly at 3 public parks and all 3 require AMA membership to use the facility.

I guess you field is different...but is for sure the exception instead of the norm.

Beave

RE: Experimental Permit and Jets Discussion
 

Another factor that isn't discussed is site requirements. Pilot must be back 50' from the runway and spectators 200' back. How many sites can do this?

RE: Experimental Permit and Jets Discussion
 

whats AMA ? lol :D


i would have no promblem accepting inspection in my jets.this is what makes us"friendly" to other people[sm=thumbup.gif]

RE: Experimental Permit and Jets Discussion
 

Huh ? My post clearly talks about how the rules apply to AMA members - and now you appear to be off talking about people not having to become members ??? I have no idea what you are trying to get at.

RE: Experimental Permit and Jets Discussion
 

In the some 30+ years of flying RC, I have flown at only three fields that were part of a city or state owned public park. Not a single one required AMA membership. In fact city managers were of the opinion that since the field was on public park property, paid for by the taxes of all citizens, they could not require citizens to join or be part of any "qualifying" organization, including the local club. The difference revolved around whether or not the club was in fact leasing or in some legal fashion taking control of the grounds from the city. As a part of the lease the city could require AMA insurance coverage and therefore any one flying would have to be a member. But if the field is simply a park provided field, legally it's use could not be restricted.

David S