... | > | 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.