No I am not.

What I'm trying to get across is that some common courtesy, a little effort in open communications, people working together as friends and as people that share the same interests, could easily prevent this type of occurrance. All it takes is just a tiny, tiny bit of concern for others rather than just yourself! What I'm hearing though is an unspoken "I have the pin so too bad for anybody else". If you reduce it down that's essentially the message coming across.

What I have observed is that it appears more people are more concerned with meeting "technicalities" than they are with their personal ethics. Although the rule has been met by obtaining the pin, a little looking around with a question or two reduces or eliminates the potential for loss and danger to others.

Compare the situation with some traffic laws across the country; Town intersection and you are waiting at a red light for it to change. It turns green and you note that a car coming from your right had just entered the intersection against the yellow light but has not cleared the intersection yet. You proceed anyway and have a collision with the car that proceeded on the yellow light. Could you, having the green light, be found liable for the accident? Of course you could since you had the ability to prevent it simply by being aware that another car was present.

Here's another; You're flying at a location that's relatively near an airport, say within 6 miles or farther, but you have been assured by the people at the FAA, in writing, that your airspace has been cleared for the period you will be flying and no one will be using it but you. You're on a long final approach with a dead engine when a full scale helicopter enters your area and begins to hover in your flight path. Do you abort the approach and likely crash the plane, or do you continue the approach because you have been "guaranteed" the airspace? Yes, I know that common sense dictates that you abort the approach, but the premise of the arguement is the same. The "leve of importance" should not make a difference in the decision. Do what's right, not just follow the rule.

Hopefully people will stop and consider things a bit and understand that the same situation could happen to them with just a moments slip if they are the only one at the field when they arrive. If that was the case, would you want the next people arriving after you to be thinking safe? What if the location, like this one, was not a formal club field? How about a dry lake bed where everyone just gets together? What about that local farm field where the owner grants permission to fly for anyone that flys R/C?

Was the "rule" developed just to say "thou shalt not fly unless you have the frequency pin", a "rule" for the sake of rules, or was the "rule" instituted to assist in the prevention of shooting down another plane? Could this particular incident (and others similar to it) have been prevented by only one person, or two? Since the first fatal part of this incident had already taken place, could the second person, through just a little foresight, have prevented it? The bandstand I'm on says the fault was a shared one.

All I've been trying to get across is that each and every one of us bears a little responsibility to the others at any given flying site, and that everybody should expend a little effort to ensure safety and promote a better flying experience for all. It's not all that hard to do. That's all I have to say about it. Sorry about redirecting your thread Albert.

Pat Roy