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

Thu Oct 4 06:56:49 AKDT 2018

https://amablog.modelaircraft.org/amadistrict-v/files/2018/02/Aviation-group
s-want-FAA-control-over-model-aircraft.pdf

This is the attitude that AMA has been fighting.    While we outnumber them
we do not out "clout" them.    We need a billionaire AMA member who is
willing to donate millions to fight all the other aviation special interest
groups that have a far larger influence on Congress.    Any volunteers to be
that billionaire???

From: NSRCA-discussion [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On
Behalf Of Frackowiak Tony via NSRCA-discussion
Sent: Thursday, October 4, 2018 12:12 AM
To: Vogel Pete; General pattern discussion
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Matt Finley ( F3A Moving Forward )

Could be right. I don't know. What I do know is that we have the best
government money can buy, and it is bought outright. Whatever AMA may have
spent on this issue is a drop in the bucket to what Amazon could spend. I
doubt that whatever the AMA may have been able to do had very little effect
on the outcome.

And this problem goes back to the 70's when the FAA issued the first
Advisory Circular and mentioned 400' as a model limit. Once that was even
mentioned that became the number. It should have been fought then.

And as far as the NSRCA is concerned, we have a President who can't even
reliably get articles in to the K-Factor, let alone champion a cause such as
this.

Tony Frackowiak

On Oct 3, 2018, at 9:33 PM, Peter Vogel via NSRCA-discussion
<nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org> wrote:

If you want to lay this at AMA leadership's door (I, for one, do!) then lay
it where it belongs:  on Rich Hansen's utter trust of the FAA and congress
while they blow smoke up his *ss.  He was originally our "advocate" in
Washington and recently got elected to AMA presidency while continuing a
ridiculously weak and un-nuanced approach to the FAA reauthorization,
focused entirely in getting the AMA recognized as a "CBO" rather than on
having club fields designated as RC fly zones which would have
re-invigorated AMA membership and clubs and helped to educate the masses on
safe flying, even of so-called "drones".

Get  <https://aka.ms/o0ukef> Outlook for iOS

  _____  

From: NSRCA-discussion <nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org> on behalf
of Robert L. Beaubien via NSRCA-discussion
<nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
Sent: Wednesday, October 3, 2018 8:30:24 PM
To: General pattern discussion
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Matt Finley ( F3A Moving Forward )

I'd have to respectfully disagree.  While the AMA has done well representing
the current membership. They do nothing to entice virtually any form of the
drone pilot population.  I fly FPV racing/freestyle drones a lot more than
pattern because of the ease of going to the local park to fly vs finding a
field that allows pattern flying (closest to me is about 30 miles away).
None of my drone friends have any interest in the AMA, primarily because
they don't foster a rule set that is more in line with the reality of park
flying.  And this new law does NOT affect my FPV flying at all, only pattern
flying with the altitude limit, but it does address the stupid among us that
insist on flying near airports and doing generally moronic stuff.

I think AMA's voice is much weaker because they do not try to work with this
new group of pilots.

*	Robert Beaubien
*	Drone Plastics

"What do you call a firm of lawyers buried up to their necks in concrete?
A failure to estimate the proper amount of concrete."

From: Larry Diamond <ldiamond at diamondrc.com> 
Sent: Wednesday, October 3, 2018 7:24 PM
To: Robert L. Beaubien <rob at koolsoft.com>; General pattern discussion
<nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Matt Finley ( F3A Moving Forward )

Only my .02...

I would agree the bill was not read all the way through, page by page.
That's politics, with horse trading a bill. Not much people can do
regardless of how many of us call. They get a deal that betters their state
or political status, they will sell any small group out.

Secondly, but not least. IMHO, it is not fair to state the AMA has failed us
or has done a poor job. I believe they have done an outstanding job even
through different leadership. This is not a new issue. It started on
9/11/2001. I feel it is disrespectful to publicly chastise anyone unless
there is direct knowledge of malpractice.

We are reacting to results. If we wish to look at root-cause, we need to
look at the industry, not AMA. Drones, park flyers, etc. Has put radio
control in front of many more people than ever in the past Then the few take
issues and the public cries out for regulation in a significantly higher
number than AMA as a whole.

FAA's involvement is a direct result of these new technologies that drive
fear with the public. We've all read about abuse of drones with cameras,
people flying recklessly. It is only a matter of time before regulations
come to pass. I 100% would prefer the AMA work with the FAA than try to
engage in a battle that can't be won.

As my favorite comedian says, " That is only my opinion, I could be wrong"
DM

Larry Diamond.

Sent via the Samsung Galaxy SR 6, an AT&T 4G LTE smartphone

-------- Original message --------

From: "Robert L. Beaubien via NSRCA-discussion" <
<mailto:nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org> nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>

Date: 10/3/18 8:47 PM (GMT-06:00) 

To: General pattern discussion < <mailto:nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>

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

I agree AMA has done a poor job handling this and a poor job of appealing to
the millions of drone pilots to increase their ranks.  But I also think the
House and Senate have failed us here too.   The final version of the FAA
Reauth Act was released and the house voted on it within 7 days.  There is
NO WAY in hell they could have read the entire 1200 + pages of the bill in
that short of time, never mind digesting and analyzing the potential
ramifications of everything in it.

*	Robert Beaubien
*	Drone Plastics

"What do you call a firm of lawyers buried up to their necks in concrete?
A failure to estimate the proper amount of concrete."

From: NSRCA-discussion < <mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org>
nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org> On Behalf Of Ken Dunlap via
NSRCA-discussion
Sent: Wednesday, October 3, 2018 6:17 PM
To: J < <mailto:vellum2 at bellsouth.net> vellum2 at bellsouthnet>; Jon Bruml <
<mailto:jon at techstyles.com> jon at techstyles.com>; General pattern discussion
< <mailto:nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
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  <https://aka.ms/o0ukef> Outlook for iOS

  _____  

From: NSRCA-discussion < <mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org>
nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org> on behalf of J via
NSRCA-discussion < <mailto:nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
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 <
<mailto:nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org> 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

<https://nam02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.techst
yles.com&data=02%7C01%7C%7C2fd2ebc0d6154b2e5bdf08d629915827%7C84df9e7fe9f640
afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C636742101559732470&sdata=VmBHOw4WkNr57jKjqGvmuB
zj1iq0u4fB4sVJ4%2FfFnLg%3D&reserved=0> www.techstyles.com

  _____  

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 ) 

<https://nam02.safelinks.protection.outlookcom/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fen.wikiped
ia.org%2Fwiki%2FAirspace_class_(United_States)%23Class_G&data=02%7C01%7C%7C2
fd2ebc0d6154b2e5bdf08d629915827%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7
C636742101559888728&sdata=9LhJ9B9EQvMPHbin5xb426G%2F%2BlygYOZ0T%2BTy%2FIGb2o
4%3D&reserved=0> 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
<https://nam02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.faasa
fety.gov%2Fgslac%2FALC%2Fcourse_content.aspx%3FcID%3D42%26sID%3D505&data=02%
7C01%7C%7C2fd2ebc0d6154b2e5bdf08d629915827%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaa
a%7C1%7C0%7C636742101559888728&sdata=qJSUhEv6T9Y9OmBN80qkDwRJlSiuO6P7CqsbeFy
qs%2FY%3D&reserved=0> FAA's description 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 <
<mailto:nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org> 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 <
<mailto:nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org> 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 <
<mailto:nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org> 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
 <mailto:NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org> NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org

<https://nam02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Flists.nsrc
a.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fnsrca-discussion&data=02%7C01%7C%7C2fd2ebc0d615
4b2e5bdf08d629915827%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C6367421015
59888728&sdata=mSL9ji0MMghF6BpKOe62o8doNPJn5EhIZEZpMXuy2q4%3D&reserved=0>
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/20181004/c5181953/attachment.html>