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

Robert L. Beaubien rob at koolsoft.com
Thu Oct 4 20:15:06 AKDT 2018 

The line of sight limitation is not a real issue and I believe that is/should be handled by the Part 107 license.  Anyone flying beyond line of sight needs to have a better understanding of the airspace rules and regs and that should not be left to untrained individuals.  Yes there are DJI pilots that insist they can fly well beyond line of sight, but the safety aspects of long range flight make this ill advisable.

The primary issue that FPV pilots have with the AMA rules is the spotter rule.  It’s not reasonable to require a spotter in most instances for FPV.  The pilot can SEE what is around them. The typical camera has at 150°+ FOV.

They also feel that the AMA has not been active in state/city attempts to (in many cases) crack down and make any model flying illegal.  I have been to 6 city council meetings and 2 state meetings to affect some of these attempts with limited effect.  AMA’s presence and/or guidance would have been helpful.


  *   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: tjpritchett at aol.com <tjpritchett at aol.com>
Sent: Thursday, October 4, 2018 4:33 AM
To: Robert L. Beaubien <rob at koolsoft.com>; nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Matt Finley ( F3A Moving Forward )

Robert,
   My immediate question was; doesn't the direct line of sight requirement affect all (or most) FPV flying?  I'd think that drone (quadcopter) flying of all types would be the primary focus for changing the bill, since you don't really see fixed wings landing on the White House lawn, or on the 11 oclock news.  That would surely be the purpose for corporate backing for company's like Amazon, who would want a clear sky for commercialization.
__

   It does seem like there's ups and downs to this - downs being the heavy favorite.  As mentioned, 'potential' membership to clubs, SIG's, and the AMA has been lost for many years due to the ease of flying conveniently around homes, parks, or any open space (I bought a helicopter for this very purpose, in 1993!).  That's the direction the technology has led.  So if clubs/AMA get waivers somehow for flying fields, there will be a membership surge for all of us wanting to continue to fly, legally at least.  I'm sure AMA has considered this.

   On the other hand, RC aviation will decline overall, as many casual flyers will just not bother with the hassle of going to a field.  For a Christmas drone flyer, they  won't know about any of this, and just continue flying in the driveway.

   Overall, it's certainly a negative for all RC aircraft.  And, we all have work to do.

-----Original Message-----
From: Robert L. Beaubien via NSRCA-discussion <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org<mailto:nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>>
To: General pattern discussion <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org<mailto:nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>>
Sent: Wed, Oct 3, 2018 11:30 pm
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<mailto:ldiamond at diamondrc.com>>
Sent: Wednesday, October 3, 2018 7:24 PM
To: Robert L. Beaubien <rob at koolsoft.com<mailto:rob at koolsoft.com>>; General pattern discussion <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org<mailto: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 S® 6, an AT&T 4G LTE smartphone

-------- Original message --------
From: "Robert L. Beaubien via NSRCA-discussion" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org<mailto:nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>>
Date: 10/3/18 8:47 PM (GMT-06:00)
To: General pattern discussion <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org<mailto: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 <nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org<mailto: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 <vellum2 at bellsouth.net<mailto:vellum2 at bellsouth.net>>; Jon Bruml <jon at techstyles.com<mailto:jon at techstyles.com>>; General pattern discussion <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org<mailto: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>
_______________________________________________
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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20181005/2048fb6e/attachment.html>

More information about the NSRCA-discussion mailing list