[NSRCA-discussion] FAA Rules

[DaveL322]

Exactly.

While the capability exists, 400' is not routinely knowingly exceeded.  I have no emails currently or on historical crashed hard drives that would counter this statement.


Regards,

Dave

Sent from my Samsung Galaxy Note® 3

<div>-------- Original message --------</div><div>From: "Dr. Michael Harrison, DDS via NSRCA-discussion" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org> </div><div>Date:06/24/2014  3:42 PM  (GMT-05:00) </div><div>To: 'Peter Vogel' <vogel.peter at gmail.com>,'General pattern discussion' <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org> </div><div>Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] FAA Rules </div><div>
</div>HEY!!! Everybody!!!SHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!
 
From: NSRCA-discussion [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of Peter Vogel via NSRCA-discussion
Sent: Tuesday, June 24, 2014 2:23 PM
To: Larry and Eileen; General pattern discussion
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] FAA Rules
 
The 400 foot rule used to be vague and open to the interpretation that it applied only within 3 miles of an airport.  The current interpretation document eliminates the vagueness and not in our favor!
 
Peter+
 

On Tue, Jun 24, 2014 at 12:16 PM, Larry and Eileen via NSRCA-discussion <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org> wrote:
The 400 ft. rule is not new, and everyone one in R/C has violated the rule at some point in time.  If enforced, the limit will put an end to aerotowing, and most gliding as well.  It’s never been an issue, because no one ever enforced the limit.
 
Larry Fitch
 
From: NSRCA-discussion [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of Stuart Chale via NSRCA-discussion
Sent: Tuesday, June 24, 2014 11:39 AM
To: Robert L. Beaubien; General pattern discussion

Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] FAA Rules
 
We could not fly with a 400 foot limit either.  Patterns would have to change, planes probably even slower or smaller.

On 6/24/2014 2:34 PM, Robert L. Beaubien via NSRCA-discussion wrote:
Actually it is 303m or 994 ft at 175m.
 
 
-           Robert Beaubien
-           Sr. Software Architect
-           Kool Software LLC
 
"No trees were harmed in the sending of this message, however a large number of electrons were terribly inconvenienced."
 
From: NSRCA-discussion [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of Duane Beck via NSRCA-discussion
Sent: Tuesday, June 24, 2014 11:29 AM
To: Patrick Harris; General pattern discussion
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] FAA Rules
 
Top of a 60 degree box at 175 meters out is almost 500'
 
Duane
 
From: "Patrick Harris via NSRCA-discussion" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
To: "Peter Vogel" <vogel.peter at gmail.com>, "General pattern discussion" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
Sent: Tuesday, June 24, 2014 2:20:47 PM
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] FAA Rules
 
The IMAC boys will have a cow over the 400 foot rule. 
 



_______________________________________________
NSRCA-discussion mailing list
NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
 

_______________________________________________
NSRCA-discussion mailing list
NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion


 
--
Director, Fixed Wing Flight Training
Santa Clara County Model Aircraft Skypark
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20140624/cdafd4ac/attachment.html>