Protocol on a mid-air?

Mid air collisions are very rare, but they do happen. In ten years of flying, I have been involved in two. Suggesting that someone pay for the damages of an accidental collision is ludicrous.
Reply to
me
Loading thread data ...
Gee! As my daughter would say, "Sucks to be you!" However, if you would apply some of that claimed education, you would see where I support the accepting of responsibility more than the application of blame. But I can see where you would miss such a thing!
Lifestyle?
Reply to
C.O.Jones
If someone mid-aired MY plane due to careless or reckless flying, I GUARANTEE he'd pay: one way or another.
Anyone want to take this further? Perhaps to center-punching a car windshield or hitting a spectator or fellow R/Cer? Just where does responsibility start and stop?
Negligence and reckless endangerment are just two of the legal terms that can be applied. Dr.1 Driver "There's a Hun in the sun!"
Reply to
Dr1Driver
I think that a lot of this goes back to curtailing the "reckless" flyer before something bad like that happens. At all our fun flys I tell everyone at the pilots meeting that all midairs are "no fault" I do think this is a little broad though. We had a midair over the runway not to long ago and both planes were destroyed. Needless to say, one of the flyers was following the pattern and one was not. I would say the guy that was against the pattern was at fault. However he should have been called to the side for that behavior before the midair happened. Simple safety rules prevent much but only if they are inforced. Much diligence s needed in that respect. Do it and don't wait till something bad happens. However making someone pay one way or the other is rather a hard line to take. No one wants to have their plane damaged. Just me thoughts. Eddie Fulmer AMA 63713 (old fart)
Reply to
Efulmer
Read the post, I said "ACCIDENTAL" meaning just that, an accident. How do you define "careless or reckless?" Flying fast? Would a guy doing a loop when everyone else is flying straight and level be considered reckless? As far as your "I GUARANTEE he'd pay: one way or another." remember, two can play that game! I sure am glad we live in different parts of the country, and will never occupy the same air space.
All things that have happened in the past, and will happen in the future.
To just about any hobby you can think of.
Reply to
me
It's not that hard to understand what DR means. There is a big difference between just flying fast and flying fast like an a$$hole, it can be slow and flying like an a$$hole. Anybody who has spent any time at a flying field knows who is dangerous and what is negligent and can pick this behavuor out in a heart beat. I agree that the person should be warned once and if they continue they should be held responsible for their actions. If everyone is up flying crazy, which sometimes happens kind of like a free for all in the sky, then for sure noone is at fault, but if I'm test flying a plane or even just up flying one of my planes and some yo-yo takes off and flies like a fool and not just fast against the pattern he will pay for my plane as DR says, one way or another. It's not rocket science to figure out what is an accident and what is negligence, one costs, the other doesn't and if you can't figure that out then it's DR that should feel lucky you don't share the same air space.
Reply to
Bob B
We have safety rules about where you are not supposed to fly, and I think we can all recognize recklessness. My only issue is when someone loses a plane and decides that someone else should pay for it, "One way or another" Our position has always been if you are not violating safety rules, and using common sense, then you are taking your chances and if something happens, it is simply an accident and no one pays.
With the incidence of mid-airs being so small, if one were to occur, it is still charged as an accident, and accidents happen. This "You were flying against the pattern and we crashed, therefore you pay" is just the kind of liberal, "It's not my fault, I am the victim of circumstances" BS that seems to be invading everyone's life.
responsibility
Reply to
me
All recreational activities seem to have people that make veiled statements as to what they would do if they somehow are wronged. I have both seen and experienced high dollar midair losses in 33 years of rc flying. Nobody was happy to be involved but in the end each party picked up their own tab regardless of fault.
Reply to
Dersu u
That's the only way to go really, who is to judge what is a accident and what is reckless from one or the other part. ( I assume both pilots have their ideas about that ) One way to go is to have airtraffic controllers at the field, yelling out airspace to the different pilot´s, and judging whos fault it was, but then you need atleast a second judge, to get two opinions. But if you get two different opinions from the judges? Well better add the third judge right away....
I wouldnt want to pay the fee for belonging to that club...
Reply to
GuW
Not to mention the red arm bands with the funny bent crosses inside a white circle. ;>) Bill
Reply to
me
| | With the incidence of mid-airs being so small, if one were to occur, it is | still charged as an accident, and accidents happen. This "You were flying | against the pattern and we crashed, therefore you pay" is just the kind of | liberal, "It's not my fault, I am the victim of circumstances" BS that | seems to be invading everyone's life.
I'm not sure the political comparison really fits.
How is it different from the `I know I was flying against the pattern, so I'll go ahead and pay for my own plane and you can pay for yours?' position? And is that a `liberal' or a `conservative' position? (Personally, I'd vote for it being a `stupid' position, but maybe that's just me. I'm guessing you think `liberal' and `stupid' are about the same thing.)
Of course, if it's considered `ok' to fly against the pattern, and if an accident does happen, well, it's just an accident and so it's not your fault, what's the purpose of the pattern in the first place?
Reply to
Doug McLaren
I feel that comparison is valid. It's "Something happened to my plane, I need to figure out how to get someone else to pay for it." If you aren't going to pay, I'll get even, "One way or another" Don't need to be on the same property with that person.
Actually no, I feel that there needs to be a balance. I do, however disagree with a LOT of liberal ideas. (Having grown up in the '50's, I see what liberlaism has done to this country)
"Pattern." We have never had one. How do you determine what it is? Wind direction? What if there is no wind? Or if two guys are flying one direction, and someone takes off flying the opposite direction, is he flying against the pattern? Some guys like to fly left to right, some guys like to fly right to left. It's up to everyone and their spotters to look out for the other guy.
Reply to
me
And some guys wants to prophang/thumblearound with their Diablotin inbetween the two imaginary pylons that others use...
Every kind of plane has different patterns, and if I was limited to flying lef/right hand cirkles on the field, I wouldn't even bother go there...
There is always electrics, then I can prophang on the same field where they fly Zagi-combat and parflyers float around, at the same time others are walking their dogs across the field...
It is possible to coexist, it's just a matter of being humble and noble at the same time
Reply to
GuW
... | > | liberal, "It's not my fault, I am the victim of circumstances" BS that | > | seems to be invading everyone's life. | > | > I'm not sure the political comparison really fits. | | I feel that comparison is valid. It's "Something happened to my plane, I | need to figure out how to get someone else to pay for it."
I don't think you understood me -- I don't see where that is a liberal or a conservative view. It's an irresponsible view. There are cases where perhaps you should be trying to get somebody else to pay, but I imagine that they're rare.
| If you aren't going to pay, I'll get even, "One way or another"
And that's even worse.
| Don't need to be on the same property with that person.
I can agree with that ...
| > How is it different from the `I know I was flying against the pattern, | > so I'll go ahead and pay for my own plane and you can pay for yours?' | > position? And is that a `liberal' or a `conservative' position? | > (Personally, I'd vote for it being a `stupid' position, but maybe | > that's just me. I'm guessing you think `liberal' and `stupid' are | > about the same thing.) | | Actually no, I feel that there needs to be a balance. I do, however disagree | with a LOT of liberal ideas. (Having grown up in the '50's, I see what | liberlaism has done to this country)
This has nothing to do with being liberal or conservative. It has to do with responsibility, especially with taking responsiblity with your actions (and hopefully the other guy taking responsibility for his actions.)
| > Of course, if it's considered `ok' to fly against the pattern, and if | > an accident does happen, well, it's just an accident and so it's not | > your fault, what's the purpose of the pattern in the first place? | | "Pattern." We have never had one. How do you determine what it is? Wind | direction?
Our club has it going one way if the wind is one direction, and the other way if the wind is reversed. It's part of the club safety rules.
You don't *have* to stay in the pattern, even when others are flying, but if you don't, you're expected to stay well out of their way, and if you wander back into the pattern and hit a plane, people are probably going to expect you to pay.
Of course, if there is no well defined pattern, it's going to be hard to follow it, but if somebody is flying in very predictable circles, and you're tumbling all over the place doing 3D, it would seem to me that you should get out of his way should he come close ... you know what he's going to do, but he doesn't know what you're going to do.
| What if there is no wind?
Then the pattern is defined by whomever went up first, I'd imagine. Of course, if nobody is flying in `the pattern' then there is none.
Of course, even with a pattern and everybody following it, there can be mid-airs, but they're rarer and much less likely to result in a rain of balsa splinters.
| Or if two guys are flying one direction, and someone takes off | flying the opposite direction, is he flying against the pattern?
Yes.
| Some guys like to fly left to right, some guys like to fly right to | left. It's up to everyone and their spotters to look out for the | other guy.
Spotters? Just out of curiousity, what % of time would people estimate that they actually fly with a real spotter? For me, I'd say it's well under 5% -- and that's only been in sanctioned events or while I'm flying something unusual and somebody's watching. If you're flying next to a real airport or something, I'd say spotters are needed, but other than that I don't think spotters are that common.
Personally, I've seen a few mid-airs and they've almost always just been called an accident and I'll fix mine and you fix yours, but to claim that this should always be how it's resolved seems very wrong.
Reply to
Doug McLaren
"Pattern." We have never had one. How do you determine what it is? Wind direction? What if there is no wind? Or if two guys are flying one direction, and someone takes off flying the opposite direction, is he flying against the pattern? Some guys like to fly left to right, some guys like to fly right to left. It's up to everyone and their spotters to look out for the other guy."
WRONG ANSWER!
If two people are already flying a certain pattern and you take off counter to that, YOU are the one causing the problem. If you have a flying site and do not designate the pattern, even on windless days, you are not only foolish but risking your AMA coverage (or any other coverage you might have) by reckless flying.
People that "prefer" one pattern over another can certainly fly that pattern when appropriate. When more than one plane is in the designated pattern, someone flying counter to that pattern places everyone else at risk. It is harder to midair when both planes are flying the same direction because the closure rate is much lower and you have more time to react.
Reply to
Paul McIntosh
There is no mention about a pattern in the AMA safety regs. Like I said earlier, we all know right from wrong. Reckless flying is not tolerated at my field any more than it would be at yours. What I take issue with is people who lose a plane to an accident and try to get someone else to pay for it. I have seen a lot of planes crash. I have seen a number of shoot downs due to turning on a transmitter on the same frequency. I have been involved in two mid-airs, and seen about six total. I have NEVER seen a mid-air that could be remotely construed as anything other than an unfortunate accident.
Reply to
me
I have never been involved in a midair and have seen only one. In that one the "aggressor" thought he was being funny by chasing this fairly new guy's plane around the sky. The new guy didn't like it, said so rather loudly! Others present told the "aggressor" to cut it out. But he didn't and eventually he caught the other guy's plane.
Claimed it was all in fun! Claimed it was just an accident!
Next club meeting he was assessed the full value of the others guy's plane and equipment. He was also thrown out of the club. The other clubs in the area were advised and he was tossed from the other two he belonged to. One other reported refusing to let him join and the LHS told him his credit was no longer good.
No one I know has seen him fly in years. Good riddance too!
Chuck
Reply to
C.O.Jones

Site Timeline

PolyTech Forum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.