[NSRCA-discussion] the future

Fri Jan 8 16:45:11 AKST 2016

Copy of my email to the faa chief

Dear Sir..

To make my message short and to the point.. The FAA’s new registration policy for unmanned aerial aircraft is poorly thought out. Moreover it makes the FAA
Look inept .. It is truly obvious that the FAA does not understand the community they are trying to police..

I have been flying R/C for more than 25 yrs one thing we do well is self-police..  The people that this new regulation is trying to police are not mainstream modelers and
they do not care about following the rules and will not mark their aircraft because if they are flying in restricted airspace they already know they are doing wrong.

Do not continue to knee jerk and bow to the political up in arms the sky is falling no nothing about what they are complaining about politicians.

Listen to the R/C community ..

Gary Courtney

 from my iPhone

> On Jan 8, 2016, at 3:49 PM, Dana Beaton via NSRCA-discussion <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org> wrote:
> 
> Good post Matt.  The most important thing is that we get a response into the system so we are heard numerically.  Happy New Year BTW LOL!
> 
> 
>> On Jan 8, 2016, at 4:15 PM, Matthew Kebabjian <rcmaster199 at aol.com> wrote:
>> 
>> Dana,
>> It's well written but it is too long. I doubt these guys spend more than a few seconds reading these types of notes. My suggestion is to keep any such notes short, sweet and make the point immediately. 
>> 
>> 
>> Matt Kebabjian
>> 
>> 
>>> On Jan 8, 2016, at 3:38 PM, Dana Beaton via NSRCA-discussion <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org> wrote:
>>> 
>>> FWIW here is what my comments looked like based on AMA’s suggestion:
>>> 
>>> As a member of the Academy of Model Aeronautics (AMA), I am disappointed with the new rule for UAS registration. I am a long time model aircraft flyer, who has operated under the guidance of the largest community-based organization (CBO) in the world for many years. 
>>>  
>>> Since 1936, AMA has published safety standards and offered training programs for our members - more than 20 years before the FAA was created. Our National Model Aircraft Safety Code has been recognized by Congress as well as by state legislatures as a safe and effective means of managing model aircraft enthusiasts like me.
>>> 
>>> Additionally, AMA's safety program already instructs me to place my AMA number or name and address on or within my model aircraft(s), effectively accomplishing the safety and accountability objectives of the interim rule. 
>>>  
>>> The new rule is contrary to the intent of Congress in Section 336 of the 2012 FAA Modernization and Reform Act. Section 336, also referred to as the "Special Rule for Model Aircraft," clearly prohibits the FAA from promulgating any new rules for recreational users operating within the safety guidelines of a CBO. In addition, the FAA's contention that model aircraft should be considered aircraft is currently the subject of pending litigation. 
>>>  
>>> The registration process is an unnecessary burden for me and the more than 185,000 other AMA members. AMA members should not be required to register with the FAA.
>>> 
>>> (All comments can be submitted at http://1.usa.gov/1Jegj0C)
>>> 
>>>> On Jan 8, 2016, at 3:23 PM, ronlock--- via NSRCA-discussion <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> If we want to take a shot at keeping what we have, the deadline for comments to FAA is Jan 15th.
>>>>  
>>>> Find form to make online comments and AMA suggestions for content here:
>>>> http://amablog.modelaircraft.org/amagov/2015/12/28/guidance-on-submitting-comments-to-the-faas-interim-rule-on-uas-registration/
>>>>  
>>>> Find your state Senators and House representative, and addresses here:
>>>> http://www.house.gov/content/learn/partners/senate.php
>>>> 
>>>> Ron Lockhart
>>>> From: "John Gayer via NSRCA-discussion" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
>>>> To: "NSRCA Mailing List" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
>>>> Sent: Friday, January 8, 2016 1:36:09 PM
>>>> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] the future
>>>> 
>>>> As I recall, there was a lot of beer involved in those minimum altitude rolls.
>>>> Hmmmm, rolling the clock back might work....
>>>> 
>>>> On 1/8/2016 11:14 AM, cahochhalter wrote:
>>>> We could go back to pre turnaround, with a minimum speed of 100mph, max height of 100ft, bonus points for under 20ft.
>>>> 
>>>> Chuck
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> Sent from my Verizon Wireless 4G LTE smartphone
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> -------- Original message --------
>>>> From: John Gayer via NSRCA-discussion <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org> 
>>>> Date: 01/08/2016 11:53 AM (GMT-06:00) 
>>>> To: NSRCA Mailing List <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org> 
>>>> Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] the future 
>>>> 
>>>> If the 400 foot rule ends up being enforced(by AMA), this would be a fun alternative that might keep me from retiring and taking up bridge.
>>>> 
>>>> If you can't beat em, join em.
>>>> 
>>>> http://www.uavexpertnews.com/drone-racing-aiming-to-be-the-next-big-extreme-sport/
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> 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
>>> 
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20160109/12d937df/attachment.html>