[NSRCA-discussion] Matt Finley ( F3A Moving Forward )

[Duane Beck]

Class G https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airspace_class_(United_States)#Class_G is uncontrolled airspace below 14,500 feet Mean Sea Level (MSL).  Basically, anything far from an airport, unless it falls under Class E.  I think much of the airspace in the U.S. more than 1200 feet Above Ground Level (AGL) is Class E.  See FAA's description https://www.faasafety.gov/gslac/ALC/course_content.aspx?cID=42&sID=505 of airspace classes.


We will have to wait until FAA issues a Notice of Proposed Rule Making (NPRM) to find out how they're going to regulate the new statutes, and whether there will be any waiver process.  The bill does seem to require some degree of training and certification for all unmanned aircraft operators (including models).


Duane

> On October 3, 2018 at 5:47 PM Bill Kutchell via NSRCA-discussion <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org> wrote:
> 
>     [image1.png]
> 
>     I have a question, what is class G in the text above and is there something that we can do to be authorized to fly above 400 feet? Like a certification or license that we can get to be aloud too. 
> 
>     Just some thoughts maybe you guys have some answers. 
> 
>     Bill
> 
>     Sent from my iPhone
> 
>     On Sep 27, 2018, at 8:01 AM, Vicente Bortone via NSRCA-discussion < nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org mailto:nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org > wrote:
> 
> 
>         > >         My interpretation.  If we flight in AMA certified field with spotter we could go over 400’.  I hope I am not wrong.  
> > 
> >         Vicente “Vince” Bortone 
> > 
> >         On Thu, Sep 27, 2018 at 4:39 AM Matthew Finley via NSRCA-discussion < nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org mailto:nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org > wrote:
> > 
> >             > > >             Thinking Ahead...... Worse Case Scenario.......
> > > 
> > >             I always try to stay positive in my attitude, and Outlook in life. With this being said, I highly recommend or hope the following is thought about soon in preparation of let's say a " worse case scenario ".... Maybe it already has ?
> > > 
> > >             I recommend if it has not already been thought about, have the sequence committee or other powers at be start planning for the 400' restriction. I understand this would be a big change, but one that would be necessary if the FAA reauthorization bill comes in effect if it is passed by the senate..
> > > 
> > >             Even though this would put a huge impact on large vertical manuvers, tall centered manuvers, or tall  turn-around manuvers, there are as many, or even more sub up to 400' manuvers one could come up with that would still allow us to hone our skills,  continue our passion, and still remain within the 400' cieling.
> > > 
> > >             Yes...  Manuvers would need to be modified and even quite a few removed completely to stay within the limits. However talking in "future" speak, in my eyes, and opinion, it would be crazy, and yes I will say it ludicrous to just say " With the 400' cieling limit, I guess we can no longer fly Precision Aerobatics "
> > > 
> > >             This subject the past few days ever since learning about this new issue, it has weighed very heavy on my mind, as I'm sure it has all of you, and I know as a group we can come up with a positive outcome from all of this, and continue our passion.
> > > 
> > > 
> > >             My .02 cents worth.
> > > 
> > >         > > 
> >     > 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20181003/f197cc11/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image1.png
Type: image/png
Size: 141279 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20181003/f197cc11/attachment.png>