The categorical imperative transcends 'right' or 'wrong' in concept. It makes the debate of 'right' or 'wrong' a useless or irrelevant one.
To demonstrate, you could say the chopper pilot is wrong and the RC pilot right, or you could say the reverse (chopper pilot is right and the RC'er wrong). It doesn't make any difference on the proper or right action for the RC pilot should take in this situation.

For instance I'm driving up to an intersection and someone runs a red light. By the rules of man, ie. the 'rules of the road': He's wrong. I'm right. But so what. I still have to try to slow down and avoid the accident (if possible). Anyone else in the same situation is going to do the same thing. The rules of man only go so far, ultimately the rule of protecting myself and protecting those around me pre-empts the rules of man. Even if you knew for certain you would survive the accident unscathed and the offending driver would die, and no others would be affected, even if you had some no-deductable insurance policy that would replace your vehicle free-of-charge to you, you'd still be right to avoid the accident altogether.

If there was an accident then sure you can debate cause, right, wrong, etc. after the fact. But if the accident never happened, then the debate is useless. Debating right and wrong as a matter of pride becomes a meaningless exercise.

My point about Freud was that he was a psychologist the same way Kant was a philosopher. In their time they contributed theories to their field and those theories are still used, to some extent, today. Doesn't make them the be-all or end-all or the field. They're just a contributor the same way Galileo or Newton was a contributor to modern physics / astronomy. Someone who follows the beliefs of Freud exclusively in the modern world would just be laughed at.