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

Wed Oct 3 17:22:59 AKDT 2018

Thanks ken

Jonathan Bruml
Techstyles Sportswear

[cid:image001.png at 01CF137A.39C23340]<https://www.facebook.com/TechstylesSportswear>

From: Ken Dunlap [mailto:kdunlap at hotmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, October 03, 2018 6:17 PM
To: J <vellum2 at bellsouth.net>; Jon Bruml <jon at techstyles.com>; General pattern discussion <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Matt Finley ( F3A Moving Forward )

Joe what we need to do is kick AMA into overdrive. They are asleep at the switch. They have wasted the last two years and fiddled while Rome burned. They spent thousands of dollars a month on lobbying firms that have brought 0 results.  Let's start by holding AMA leadership accountable for their malpractice. They are not a charity they are a business and have blown their duty to protect this hobby. The very fact that the 400' limit now exists is a testament to their malpractice. So everyone responsible for advocacy on this issue should be sent packing. Next we hire advocates who know what they are doing. The AMA letter today was laughable and a sign of damage control and not reality. We lost a big battle and need to learn our lessons and hold this who blew it accountable. Sorry, but flying at pattern contest or practicing pattern was never a danger to national security, package delivery, or the autonomous world. Such an easy message to our government was blown.

Get Outlook for iOS<https://aka.ms/o0ukef>
________________________________
From: NSRCA-discussion <nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org<mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org>> on behalf of J via NSRCA-discussion <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org<mailto:nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>>
Sent: Wednesday, October 3, 2018 8:35:43 PM
To: Jon Bruml; General pattern discussion
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Matt Finley ( F3A Moving Forward )

Good evening Jon,
Our job as the BoD is to help mobile our membership to do whatever we can to keep our hobby alive and well. At this point, the best thing we can do is to contact your local representatives in the house and your senators and lobby for exceptions to the law that allow AMA sanctioned fields be exempt from the height limit. We will of course need to work with the AMA to keep our interests focused and productive.
Joe

On Oct 3, 2018, at 6:13 PM, Jon Bruml via NSRCA-discussion <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org<mailto:nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>> wrote:
What has our nsrca boards involvement been on this issue and shouldn't this have already been discussed

Jonathan Bruml
Techstyles
www.techstyles.com<https://nam02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.techstyles.com&data=02%7C01%7C%7C2fd2ebc0d6154b2e5bdf08d629915827%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C636742101559732470&sdata=VmBHOw4WkNr57jKjqGvmuBzj1iq0u4fB4sVJ4%2FfFnLg%3D&reserved=0>
________________________________
From: 20004120240n behalf of
Sent: Wednesday, October 3, 2018 3:09 PM
To: General pattern discussion
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Matt Finley ( F3A Moving Forward )

Class G<https://nam02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FAirspace_class_(United_States)%23Class_G&data=02%7C01%7C%7C2fd2ebc0d6154b2e5bdf08d629915827%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C636742101559888728&sdata=9LhJ9B9EQvMPHbin5xb426G%2F%2BlygYOZ0T%2BTy%2FIGb2o4%3D&reserved=0> 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://nam02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.faasafety.gov%2Fgslac%2FALC%2Fcourse_content.aspx%3FcID%3D42%26sID%3D505&data=02%7C01%7C%7C2fd2ebc0d6154b2e5bdf08d629915827%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C636742101559888728&sdata=qJSUhEv6T9Y9OmBN80qkDwRJlSiuO6P7CqsbeFyqs%2FY%3D&reserved=0> 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<mailto: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.
_______________________________________________
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<https://nam02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Flists.nsrca.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fnsrca-discussion&data=02%7C01%7C%7C2fd2ebc0d6154b2e5bdf08d629915827%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C636742101559888728&sdata=mSL9ji0MMghF6BpKOe62o8doNPJn5EhIZEZpMXuy2q4%3D&reserved=0>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20181004/23b22af9/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.png
Type: image/png
Size: 11890 bytes
Desc: image001.png
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20181004/23b22af9/attachment.png>