[NSRCA-discussion] Update - UAS Registration Frequently Asked Questions | AMA Government Relations Blog

Keith Hoard klhoard at outlook.com
Sat Jan 16 15:03:32 AKST 2016


We could build a bridge out of them?

Sent from Outlook Mail<http://go.microsoft.com/fwlink/?LinkId=550987> for Windows 10 phone


From: John Gayer via NSRCA-discussion<mailto:nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
Sent: Saturday, January 16, 2016 17:44
To: DaveL322<mailto:DaveL322 at comcast.net>; General pattern discussion<mailto:nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Update - UAS Registration Frequently Asked Questions | AMA Government Relations Blog

That unit of measure being undefined with a possibility of the delay
being zero, I suggest using the holy hand grenade to eliminate the intruder.

On 1/16/2016 3:19 PM, DaveL322 via NSRCA-discussion wrote:
> I believe the appropriate unit of measure for the "return time" is 1
> migration cycle for an african swallow.
>
> Regards,
>
> Dave
>
> Sent on a Sprint Samsung Galaxy Note® 3
>
>
> -------- Original message --------
> From: Phil Spelt via NSRCA-discussion <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
> Date: 01/16/2016 16:14 (GMT-05:00)
> To: Keith Hoard <klhoard at outlook.com>, nsrca-discussion
> <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Update - UAS Registration Frequently
> Asked Questions | AMA Government Relations Blog
>
> How long do we have to wait for them to surface, Keith?  A week  --  2
> weeks?  How long?
>
> Do we have free reign with them after they surface?
>
> /*Phil Spelt, KCRC Emeritus, Secretary
> AMA 1294, Scientific Leader Member
> SPA L-18, Board Member
> (865) 435-1476v  (865) 604-0541c**
> */
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> We must give them the “float test”.
>
> Throw them and their multi-rotors in the AMA pond in Muncie.  If they
> float, then they're a witch.  If they don’t return to the surface,
> then they're OK.
>
> Sent from Outlook Mail <http://go.microsoft.com/fwlink/?LinkId=550987>
> for Windows 10 phone
>
>
> *From: *Ed Alt via NSRCA-discussion
> <mailto:nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
> *Sent: *Saturday, January 16, 2016 12:25
> *To: *Peter Vogel <mailto:vogel.peter at gmail.com>; NSRCA List
> <mailto:nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
> *Subject: *Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Update - UAS Registration Frequently
> Asked Questions | AMA Government Relations Blog
>
> The multi-rotor scourge is in no way comparable to helis.  Heli's
> require smarts, skill, patience.  They exist for entirely different
> reasons than do autonomous multi-rotor stuff.  This is entirely
> different.  It's a completely incompatible activity at an RC field if
> a dozen or so Joe Blow's show up with them.  They aren't hobbyists and
> you will scarcely get converts.
>
> Ed
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Date: Sat, 16 Jan 2016 18:17:35 +0000
> From: vogel.peter at gmail.com
> To: burtona at atmc.net; ed_alt at hotmail.com; nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Update - UAS Registration Frequently
> Asked Questions | AMA Government Relations Blog
>
> Same arguments were made regarding helicopters at many fields.
>
> Fundamentally, if a multi rotor pilot comes to the field (and they
> have), I'm going to welcome them and teach them the rules of the field
> (which includes the AMA safety code and how to react when full scale
> flys by low on their way to the airfield 6 miles down the road, or the
> police helicopter flies by very low doing speed control on hwy 101).
>
> It's our only hope: embrace and educate.  The alternative is shun and
> lose all opportunity to discourage unsafe/irresponsible use.
>
> If you educate one in responsible use, there's a possibility they will
> spread that knowledge to others in the community of multi rotor pilots.
>
> Peter+
>
> Sent from Outlook Mobile <https://aka.ms/qtex0l>
>
>
>
>
> On Sat, Jan 16, 2016 at 10:05 AM -0800, "Ed Alt via NSRCA-discussion"
> <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> <mailto:nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>> wrote:
>
>     Dave:
>
>     Yeah, I know that idiots are the problem.  Until we figure out how
>     to fix stupid, we should separate ourselves from the stuff that
>     those idiots are drawn to. There's no particular reason for some
>     clown from the non-modeling public to come to an AMA flying field.
>      Nothing much to video, right?  We'll never, ever attract them to
>     the AMA in any kind of meaningful numbers and actually, God help
>     us if we did.  Good flying fields are hard enough to come by.  Do
>     you really want to be competing for air time against dozens of
>     bozos who might show up just to fly a multi-rotor?  No thanks.
>
>     Ed
>     ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>     From: burtona at atmc.net
>     To: ed_alt at hotmail.com; nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
>     Subject: RE: [NSRCA-discussion] Update - UAS Registration
>     Frequently Asked Questions | AMA Government Relations Blog
>     Date: Sat, 16 Jan 2016 12:48:12 -0500
>
>     Multi rotors are not the problem. Idiots are the problem. We have
>     a few idiots flying every type of model. I've seen an idiot
>     chasing after a small full scale trying to get close. That was
>     with some kind of sport airplane.  Would you keep a guy away from
>     an AMA field if he brought out a Giant scale, a pattern plane, and
>     a multi rotor to fly all of them. I'm of the opinion I'd rather
>     have multi rotors at an AMA field environment rather than a mall
>     parking lot or somewhere else just a stupid.
>
>     Dave
>
>     *From:*NSRCA-discussion
>     [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] *On Behalf Of
>     *Ed Alt via NSRCA-discussion
>     *Sent:* Saturday, January 16, 2016 11:31 AM
>     *To:* John Gayer; Larry Diamond; NSRCA List
>     *Subject:* Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Update - UAS Registration
>     Frequently Asked Questions | AMA Government Relations Blog
>
>     This is why it's a mistake to continue to allow multi-rotor
>     (actual) drones at any AMA flying field.  It doesn't matter that
>     most AMA members are very responsible.  It takes perhaps only one
>     full scale incident and we could be done.  I think that if you've
>     got them, take them somewhere else.
>
>     Ed
>
>     ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>     To: ldiamond at diamondrc.com <mailto:ldiamond at diamondrc.com>;
>     nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
>     <mailto:nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
>     Date: Sat, 16 Jan 2016 09:19:42 -0700
>     Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Update - UAS Registration
>     Frequently Asked Questions | AMA Government Relations Blog
>     From: nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
>     <mailto:nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
>
>     The only time there will be a problem is with full-scale
>     incidents. You then have a pilot saying he was at 600 feet and
>     this "drone" shot past him vertically and it looked like the
>     "drone" was trying to hit him. Then the only issue is who was
>     flying the model. That is relatively simple at an AMA field given
>     a description of the model.
>
>     A few incidents like that and we will have a hard 400 foot limit
>     (or lower).
>
>     John
>
>     On 1/16/2016 3:25 AM, Larry Diamond via NSRCA-discussion wrote:
>
>         The 400’ foot discussion has been interesting to follow.
>
>         Think about how they would enforce this if it were regulation
>         and you were at a flying site.
>
>         1)If they show up to the flying site, they would be
>         conspicuous with equipment trying to document the fact you are
>         above 400’. They must have physical evidence for it to stand
>         up in court if the citation is issued. You simply bring your
>         plan down to 400’ or don’t fly.
>
>         2)If they were off site, it is no different than issuing
>         speeding tickets. They must have evidence the plane they
>         document belongs to you and they must be able to demonstrate a
>         violation occurred and the history to show it is you without
>         question. This will not be enforceable if they can’t testify
>         you were physically flying the drone over 400’.
>
>         a.Example: An enforcement officer locks there radar on you for
>         speeding. The officer is charged with the responsibility of
>         maintaining a visual on you (history) or have video to show
>         your vehicle was the one speeding. If it is only a video
>         correlation, they must be able to demonstrate (testify) it was
>         you driving and not somebody else, typically pulling you over
>         within a couple of minutes. If this can’t be demonstrated
>         (testified) to the level of beyond reasonable doubt, the
>         charge/citation will not stick and it will be dismissed.
>
>         Were the 400’ policy does get enforced with certainty will be
>         a post mortem event. i.e. midair collision… Outside of this
>         type of event, it will be very difficult to police and enforce.
>
>         It is one thing to have a policy out there. It is much
>         different when the policy is executed and then tested in the
>         court system.
>
>         Over simplified but the point is clear for me.
>
>         As my favorite comedian always says, “It is only my opinion, I
>         could be wrong”.
>
>         Larry
>
>         *From:*NSRCA-discussion
>         [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] *On Behalf
>         Of *Dana Beaton via NSRCA-discussion
>         *Sent:* Friday, January 15, 2016 9:48 PM
>         *To:* Peter Vogel <vogel.peter at gmail.com>
>         <mailto:vogel.peter at gmail.com>
>         *Cc:* John Pavlick <jpavlick26 at att.net>
>         <mailto:jpavlick26 at att.net>; General pattern discussion
>         <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
>         <mailto:nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
>         *Subject:* Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Update - UAS Registration
>         Frequently Asked Questions | AMA Government Relations Blog
>
>         I hear you but every time the 400' thing comes up again it's
>         in the wrong direction and the reassurances carry no weight
>         whatsoever in light of what has been published for us to
>         observe to date.  The distinctions will be costly for any one
>         individual to make if unlucky to find oneself in a process.
>          While our risk may be low flying at our club fields, times
>         have definitely changed...
>
>         The ERAU UAS course is also a real eye-opener in many
>         respects.  I think it is still open if anyone is interested.
>
>         Sent from my iPad
>
>
>         On Jan 15, 2016, at 9:27 PM, Peter Vogel
>         <vogel.peter at gmail.com <mailto:vogel.peter at gmail.com>> wrote:
>
>             6.e uses the word "should", not "must" and that's a very
>             important legal distinction, making that a guideline, not
>             a requirement. Further, as they said on Sunday, they are
>             aware they got that wrong and are working with the AMA to
>             fix it.
>
>             Peter+
>
>             On Fri, Jan 15, 2016 at 7:10 PM, Dana Beaton via
>             NSRCA-discussion <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
>             <mailto:nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>> wrote:
>
>                 6.e is a real eye-opener, and a lot less ambiguous
>                 than 91-57 was in its original form. Will be
>                 interesting to see what AMA gas to say about it.
>                 Thanks for the link!
>
>                 Sent from my iPad
>
>
>                 On Jan 15, 2016, at 7:59 PM, Mking via
>                 NSRCA-discussion <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
>                 <mailto:nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>> wrote:
>
>                     Has anyone from the AMA commented on the new FAA
>                     Advisory Circular 91-57A Change 1?
>
>                     http://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/media/Advisory_Circular/AC_91-57A_Ch_1.pdf
>
>                     Marty King
>
>                     A&P/IA
>
>                     mking at kingaeroaviation.com
>                     <mailto:mking at kingaeroaviation.com>
>
>                     King Aero Aviation, Inc.
>
>                     574-304-5781
>
>                     Shop:
>
>                     24751 US 6
>
>                     Nappanee, Indiana 46550
>
>                     Office:
>
>                     56632 Boss Blvd
>
>                     Elkhart, Indiana 46516
>
>                     www.kingaeroaviation.com
>                     <http://www.kingaeroaviation.com>
>
>
>                     On Jan 15, 2016, at 8:32 PM, John Pavlick via
>                     NSRCA-discussion <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
>                     <mailto:nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>> wrote:
>
>                         And to that end I PROMISE not to shoot anyone
>                         unless they actually break into my house. Now
>                         is it OK if I buy some 30 round mag’s for my
>                         AR-15? LOL
>
>                         John Pavlick
>
>                         Cell: 203-417-4971
>
>                         <image001.png>
>
>                         Integrated Development Services
>
>                         *From:*NSRCA-discussion
>                         [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org]
>                         *On Behalf Of *Ed Alt via NSRCA-discussion
>                         *Sent:* Friday, January 15, 2016 7:09 PM
>                         *To:* Dave Lockhart
>                         *Cc:* General pattern discussion
>                         *Subject:* Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Update - UAS
>                         Registration Frequently Asked Questions | AMA
>                         Government Relations Blog
>
>                         But Dave, did you like your doctor? The
>                         promise was "if you like your doctor, you can
>                         keep your doctor".
>
>
>                         On Jan 15, 2016, at 7:06 PM, Dave Lockhart
>                         <davel322 at comcast.net
>                         <mailto:davel322 at comcast.net>> wrote:
>
>                             I have lots of video promising I can keep
>                             my doctor……
>
>                             *From:*NSRCA-discussion
>                             [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org]
>                             *On Behalf Of *Ed Alt via NSRCA-discussion
>                             *Sent:* Friday, January 15, 2016 6:42 PM
>                             *To:* Peter Vogel <vogel.peter at gmail.com
>                             <mailto:vogel.peter at gmail.com>>; John
>                             Gayer <jgghome at comcast.net
>                             <mailto:jgghome at comcast.net>>; NSRCA List
>                             <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
>                             <mailto:nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>>
>                             *Subject:* Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Update -
>                             UAS Registration Frequently Asked
>                             Questions | AMA Government Relations Blog
>
>                             Anyone get that on video?  It's just
>                             hearsay until they put it into their
>                             regulations. Meanwhile, we're signing up
>                             to a promise not to exceed 400'.  It would
>                             be nice to have that video for the trial.  lol
>
>                             ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>                             Date: Fri, 15 Jan 2016 15:39:07 -0800
>                             To: jgghome at comcast.net
>                             <mailto:jgghome at comcast.net>;
>                             nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
>                             <mailto:nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
>                             Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Update -
>                             UAS Registration Frequently Asked
>                             Questions | AMA Government Relations Blog
>                             From: nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
>                             <mailto:nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
>
>                             Yep. This was brought up directly with the
>                             FAA guy at the AMA Expo, he indicated that
>                             they got the 400' thing wrong and will be
>                             working to clarify their guidance.  The
>                             guidance on the web site right now is for
>                             people not flying under an approved set of
>                             rules from a community based organization
>                             like the AMA.
>
>                             Peter+
>
>                             On Fri, Jan 15, 2016 at 3:32 PM, John
>                             Gayer via NSRCA-discussion
>                             <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
>                             <mailto:nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>>
>                             wrote:
>
>                                 This is what the AMA says about the
>                                 400 foot barrier on the FAQs page:
>
>
>                                 *Q: Am I permitted to fly above 400
>                                 feet? What if I had to check a box
>                                 saying otherwise on the federal
>                                 registration website?*
>
>                                 A: Yes. AMA members who abide by the
>                                 AMA Safety Code, which permits flights
>                                 above 400 feet under appropriate
>                                 circumstances, and are protected by
>                                 the Special Rule for Model Aircraft
>                                 under the 2012 FAA Modernization and
>                                 Reform Act. Checking the box on the
>                                 federal registration webpage signifies
>                                 an understanding of the 400 foot
>                                 guideline. This is an important safety
>                                 principle that all UAS operators need
>                                 to be aware of, and is the same
>                                 guideline established in AC 91-57
>                                 published in 1981. However, the
>                                 placement of this guideline on the FAA
>                                 website is intended as an educational
>                                 piece and more specifically intended
>                                 for those operating outside of AMA’s
>                                 safey program.  We have been in
>                                 discussions with the FAA about this
>                                 point and the agency has indicted that
>                                 it will be updating its website in the
>                                 next week to make clear that this
>                                 altitude guideline is not intended to
>                                 supplant the guidance and safety
>                                 procedures established in AMA’s safety
>                                 program.
>
>
>                                 Sounds clear, right? No 400 foot
>                                 barrier need apply.
>                                 However, the following is what you
>                                 have to "read, understand and follow",
>                                 according to the FAA.
>
>
>                                   Acknowledgement of Safety Guidance
>
>                                   * I will fly below 400 feet
>                                   * I will fly within visual line of sight
>                                   * I will be aware of FAA airspace
>                                     requirements:
>                                     www.faa.gov/go/uastfr
>                                     <http://www.faa.gov/go/uastfr>
>                                   * I will not fly directly over people
>                                   * I will not fly over stadiums and
>                                     sports events
>                                   * I will not fly near emergency
>                                     response efforts such as fires
>                                   * I will not fly near aircraft,
>                                     especially near airports
>                                   * I will not fly under the influence
>
>                                 Learn More
>                                 <http://www.faa.gov/uas/publications/model_aircraft_operators/>
>
>                                 [ ] I have read, understand and intend
>                                 to follow the safety guidance.
>
>
>                                 Under the "learn more" link, we find
>                                 the following:
>
>
>                                     Model Aircraft Operations Limits
>
>                                 According to the FAA Modernization and
>                                 Reform Act of 2012 as (1) the aircraft
>                                 is flown strictly for hobby or
>                                 recreational use; (2) the aircraft is
>                                 operated in accordance with a
>                                 community-based set of safety
>                                 guidelines and within the programming
>                                 of a nationwide community-based
>                                 organization; (3) the aircraft is
>                                 limited to not more than 55 pounds
>                                 unless otherwise certified through a
>                                 design, construction, inspection,
>                                 flight test, and operational safety
>                                 program administered by a
>                                 community-based organization; (4) the
>                                 aircraft is operated in a manner that
>                                 does not interfere with and gives way
>                                 to any manned aircraft; (5) when flown
>                                 within 5 miles of an airport, the
>                                 operator of the aircraft provides the
>                                 airport operator and the airport air
>                                 traffic control tower…with prior
>                                 notice of the operation; and (6) the
>                                 aircraft is flown within visual line
>                                 sight of the operator.
>
>                                   * More information about safety and
>                                     training guidelines
>                                     <http://www.faa.gov/exit/?pageName=More%20information%20about%20safety%20and%20training%20guidelines&pgLnk=http://www.modelaircraft.org/>
>                                   * Visit knowbeforeyoufly.org
>                                     <http://www.faa.gov/exit/?pageName=Visit%20knowbeforeyoufly.org&pgLnk=http://www.knowbeforeyoufly.org/>
>
>                                 This implies that the 400 foot barrier
>                                 is not a limit for model aircraft and
>                                 also refers you back to the AMA FAQs
>                                 above.  Since the "learn more" link
>                                 eventually refers you back to the AMA
>                                 position on 400 feet under the "more
>                                 info about safety" link, it very
>                                 fuzzily appears to be supporting the
>                                 position that we can still fly pattern
>                                 without lying to the FAA even though
>                                 we appear to be agreeing to such a
>                                 limit in the "Acknowledgement".
>
>                                 Guess I'll register.
>
>                                 On 1/15/2016 3:56 PM, Patternpilot One
>                                 via NSRCA-discussion wrote:
>
>                                     Here is what I got from Mark
>                                     Radcliff just after  midnight
>                                     Monday morning.
>
>                                     He was at the Expo.  It has been
>                                     posted all over Facebook.
>
>                                     http://amablog.modelaircraft.org/amagov/2016/01/11/update-uas-registration-frequently-asked-questions/
>
>
>                                     Sa.
>
>                                     Sent from my Verizon Wireless 4G
>                                     LTE smartphone
>
>                                     _______________________________________________
>
>                                     NSRCA-discussion mailing list
>
>                                     NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
>                                     <mailto:NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
>
>                                     http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
>
>
>                                 _______________________________________________
>                                 NSRCA-discussion mailing list
>                                 NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
>                                 <mailto: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
>
>                             Associate Vice President, Academy of Model
>                             Aeronautics District X
>
>                             Treasurer, National Society of Radio
>                             Control Aerobatics (NSRCA)
>
>                             <image001.jpg><image002.jpg>
>
>
>                             _______________________________________________
>                             NSRCA-discussion mailing list
>                             NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
>                             <mailto:NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
>                             http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
>
>                         _______________________________________________
>                         NSRCA-discussion mailing list
>                         NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
>                         <mailto:NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
>                         http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
>
>                     _______________________________________________
>                     NSRCA-discussion mailing list
>                     NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
>                     <mailto:NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
>                     http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
>
>
>                 _______________________________________________
>                 NSRCA-discussion mailing list
>                 NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
>                 <mailto: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
>
>             Associate Vice President, Academy of Model Aeronautics
>             District X
>
>             Treasurer, National Society of Radio Control Aerobatics
>             (NSRCA)
>
>
>
>         _______________________________________________
>
>         NSRCA-discussion mailing list
>
>         NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
>         <mailto:NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
>
>         http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
>
>
>
>     _______________________________________________ NSRCA-discussion
>     mailing list NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
>     <mailto:NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
>     http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
>
>     ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>     No virus found in this message.
>     Checked by AVG - www.avg.com <http://www.avg.com>
>     Version: 2015.0.6176 / Virus Database: 4489/11411 - Release Date:
>     01/15/16
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20160117/4bba9dc4/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
_______________________________________________
NSRCA-discussion mailing list
NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion


More information about the NSRCA-discussion mailing list