<html><head><meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"></head><body dir="auto"><div></div><div>Just a side note: AMA does not sanction fields. They sanction clubs and chapters. The AMA offers supplemental insurance for sites that may need extra coverage. I’m all for getting some kind of designation for AMA club/chapter operated fields. But, there are a lot of pattern fliers that fly privately or “rogue”, if you will, so hopefully a more generic approach can work. </div><div><br>On Oct 3, 2018, at 17:35, J via NSRCA-discussion <<a href="mailto:nsrca-discussion@lists.nsrca.org">nsrca-discussion@lists.nsrca.org</a>> wrote:<br><br></div><blockquote type="cite"><div><meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">Good evening Jon,<div>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. <br><br><div id="AppleMailSignature" dir="ltr">Joe</div><div dir="ltr"><br>On Oct 3, 2018, at 6:13 PM, Jon Bruml via NSRCA-discussion <<a href="mailto:nsrca-discussion@lists.nsrca.org">nsrca-discussion@lists.nsrca.org</a>> wrote:<br><br></div><div dir="ltr"><!-- This file has been automatically generated. See web/README.md -->
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=Windows-1252">
<div id="compose-container" style="direction: ltr" itemscope="" itemtype="https://schema.org/EmailMessage">
<span itemprop="creator" itemscope="" itemtype="https://schema.org/Organization"><span itemprop="name" content="Outlook Mobile for iOS"></span></span>
<div>
<div style="direction: ltr;">What has our nsrca boards involvement been on this issue and shouldn’t this have already been discussed </div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div class="acompli_signature">
<div style="direction: ltr;">Jonathan Bruml</div>
<div style="direction: ltr;">Techstyles</div>
<div style="direction: ltr;"><a href="http://www.techstyles.com">www.techstyles.com</a></div>
</div>
<div class="gmail_quote">
<hr style="display:inline-block;width:98%" tabindex="-1">
<div id="divRplyFwdMsg" dir="dir="ltr""><font face="Calibri, sans-serif" style="font-size:11pt" color="#000000"><b>From:</b> 20004120240n behalf of
<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Wednesday, October 3, 2018 3:09 PM<br>
<b>To:</b> General pattern discussion<br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Matt Finley ( F3A Moving Forward )
<div> </div>
</font></div>
<meta content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
<p style="font-size:12pt; font-family:helvetica,arial,sans-serif; color:rgb(51,51,51)">
<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airspace_class_(United_States)#Class_G">Class G</a> 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 <a href="https://www.faasafety.gov/gslac/ALC/course_content.aspx?cID=42&sID=505">
FAA's description</a> of airspace classes.<br>
</p>
<p style="font-size:12pt; font-family:helvetica,arial,sans-serif; color:rgb(51,51,51)">
<br>
</p>
<p style="font-size:12pt; font-family:helvetica,arial,sans-serif; color:rgb(51,51,51)">
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).<br>
</p>
<p style="font-size:12pt; font-family:helvetica,arial,sans-serif; color:rgb(51,51,51)">
<br>
</p>
<p style="font-size:12pt; font-family:helvetica,arial,sans-serif; color:rgb(51,51,51)">
Duane<br>
</p>
<blockquote type="cite">On October 3, 2018 at 5:47 PM Bill Kutchell via NSRCA-discussion <<a href="mailto:nsrca-discussion@lists.nsrca.org">nsrca-discussion@lists.nsrca.org</a>> wrote:<br>
<br>
<image1.png>
<div><br>
<div>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. </div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Just some thoughts maybe you guys have some answers. </div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Bill<br>
<br>
<div id="ox-d9a3010de0-AppleMailSignature" dir="ltr">Sent from my iPhone</div>
<div dir="ltr"><br>
On Sep 27, 2018, at 8:01 AM, Vicente Bortone via NSRCA-discussion < <a href="mailto:nsrca-discussion@lists.nsrca.org">
nsrca-discussion@lists.nsrca.org</a>> wrote: <br>
<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">
<div>
<div dir="auto">My interpretation. If we flight in AMA certified field with spotter we could go over 400’. I hope I am not wrong. </div>
</div>
<div dir="auto"><br>
</div>
<div dir="auto">Vicente “Vince” Bortone </div>
<div><br>
<div class="ox-d9a3010de0-gmail_quote">
<div dir="ltr">On Thu, Sep 27, 2018 at 4:39 AM Matthew Finley via NSRCA-discussion <<a href="mailto:nsrca-discussion@lists.nsrca.org">nsrca-discussion@lists.nsrca.org</a>> wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote>
<div>
<div dir="auto" style="direction:ltr; margin:0; padding:0; font-family:sans-serif; font-size:11pt; color:black">
Thinking Ahead...... Worse Case Scenario....... <br>
<br>
</div>
<div dir="auto" style="direction:ltr; margin:0; padding:0; font-family:sans-serif; font-size:11pt; color:black">
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 ?<br>
<br>
</div>
<div dir="auto" style="direction:ltr; margin:0; padding:0; font-family:sans-serif; font-size:11pt; color:black">
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.. <br>
<br>
</div>
<div dir="auto" style="direction:ltr; margin:0; padding:0; font-family:sans-serif; font-size:11pt; color:black">
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. <br>
<br>
</div>
<div dir="auto" style="direction:ltr; margin:0; padding:0; font-family:sans-serif; font-size:11pt; color:black">
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 " <br>
<br>
</div>
<div dir="auto" style="direction:ltr; margin:0; padding:0; font-family:sans-serif; font-size:11pt; color:black">
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.<br>
<br>
<br>
</div>
<div dir="auto" style="direction:ltr; margin:0; padding:0; font-family:sans-serif; font-size:11pt; color:black">
My .02 cents worth.</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div><div dir="ltr"><span>_______________________________________________</span><br><span>NSRCA-discussion mailing list</span><br><span><a href="mailto:NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org">NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org</a></span><br><span><a href="http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion">http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion</a></span></div></div></div></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><div><span>_______________________________________________</span><br><span>NSRCA-discussion mailing list</span><br><span><a href="mailto:NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org">NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org</a></span><br><span><a href="http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion">http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion</a></span></div></blockquote></body></html>