I am not sure I follow you. First, why the focus on "sport pilots"? The OP incident involved a commercial helicopter and there are relatively few people with the "recreational pilot" license compared to the regular FAA license.

Second, pilots have essentially no involvement in the process of determining what goes on an FAA sectional. That is a purely FAA function and while non-FAA people, i.e. the public, can make requests or suggestions, it is solely the FAA who determines what ends up on a chart. Again, let me point out CNO and PVMAC. It took years of requests to the FAA to get it put on the chart. It finally happened after a near miss between a Mooney and a turbine jet model.

And there is no "box around" the PVMAC location. There is an information box for pilots noting that model aircraft may be present at or below 400 feet agl.

To start the process you would want to track down the FAA Airspace Manager for your area. But know that it is a long process and that person is just teh entry point, it goes up the chain within the FAA before any final decisions are made.

This statement indicates a fundamental lack of understanding of how the US Airspace System is set up and operated. Until you truly grasp what the FAA does with respect to airspace, then you will continue to have incorrect ideas about how that relates to model aircraft.

I may have used the incorrect term or designation for pilot, do apologize for being misleading

Generally a commercial pilot is not the issue, at least not in the area's that I've seen. By commercial I meaning the pilot charged with the task of ferrying passengers from one city to the next in airliners, kingairs etc. I understand that there are other areas that commercial may apply such as carrying someone for aerial photography, news, emergency, etc. Most of those type of pilots I don't see causing a problem, well except for the news birds. It Jo dirt who has less than a 2k hours flying that thinks he knows what he is doing. Maybe he does, but I'll only trust him if he has white hair due to SEE's (significant emotional events).

Guys:

Common sence is somethig that that should NOT be expected from that "News Chopper". When the heck has the news media and those associated with same, shown any such thing as common since or simple reason in recent years????? When at the controls, take the responsibility to avoid any possible hazzards to life and property. If something did happen resulting in a airplane passenger death, you would not stand a chance in our current justice system, at least here in California's left coast. ENJOY

To answer the original question, I don't think anyone is right or wrong. The laws of man are meaningless next to the will of heaven. Just be glad no one was hurt and do your best to ensure safe flying for all in the future. If that area seems to be a common route for low flying manned vehicles, find a different place to fly. You can debate right and wrong all day but in the end, what's important in the end is that, today and tommorow, no one gets hurt.

Access
I disagree, GlacierGirl knew the right thing to do and did it.
There is no way GG could be any righter in reacting to a hazard presented by the heli pilot.

Or is there?
If you cant say GG was right for getting out of the way of the heli,
what was the right thing for the model pilot to do that GG didnt do?


Can we say the same for the Heli Pilot that created the hazard?
We already have found plenty of things the heli pilot should have done righter

How are you disagreeing with me?

The OP did not question (at the time of the incedent) who was right or wrong, he acted to avoid a possible collision. Why question it after? No matter how much we question the 'right' or 'wrong', we should still act in the same way in this circumstance (like the OP did). And if this is a repeated problem in this area, the OP should find another area as to not endanger the airspace. Right? Wrong? Fair? Unfair? It doesn't matter. Stay safe.

"How are you disagreeing with me?"

I disagree that you wont say GG did the right thing.
Regardless of whenther the heli pilot was wrong or not for creating the hazard,
GG knew the right thing to do and did it

I cant see how GG could have done anything more righter,
yet you wont say say he did right.
What more should GG have done for you to say GG did right?

I forgot about the TCA's, they were about to get rid of them when I last flew full scale. However the FAA has no jurisdiction on non navagible airspace. At any rate no aircraft other than helicopters should be below the minimim altitude or distance from people or buildings.

I can't believe you all have drug this out for 9 pages already. The only thing I can figure here, is you all have read my sig line that come out of KE's noggin' to many times



Ron

I may have gotten an altitude wrong or it has changed. But basically except for helicopters and near airports aircraft cannot fly closer than 500 feet from people or buildings, if it is marked on a map then they cannot say they didn't know it was there.

Did I say GG did anything wrong?
We both know he acted properly, I'm not debating that.

and you still cant just use the word Right

That is it, its simple.
You and I just dont happen to agree:
I commend GG for knowing the right thing to do and doing the right thing though inconvenient,
and you first make no comment toward right or wrong, and now say his actions were just proper.

Difference of opinion, thats all.
I believe GG couldnt have acted any righter.
Something is preventing you from saying he was right in his deeds.

"In Kant's view, a moral act is one that would be right for any person in similar circumstances to those in which the agent finds themselves when they execute it."

Right or proper is the same, it is just semantics. The reason I did not use 'right' is b'cos it is too easily confused with the 'right' used in the way of 'right vs. wrong'.

"Consequently, Kant argued, hypothetical moral systems cannot persuade moral action or be regarded as bases for moral judgments against others, because the imperatives on which they are based rely too heavily on subjective considerations. He presented a deontological moral system, based on the demands of the categorical imperative, as an alternative."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Categorical_imperative

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_universalism

No doubt the categorical imperative applies here, regardless of 'right' and 'wrong' from the POV of the laws of man. We don't know what was going through the heli pilot's mind, or what his perceptions were, we can only assume. To even think of this situation from the perspective of 'I was right and (he) was wrong' is a mistake. No matter how or from what perspective we consider the incedent, the right or proper response is _always_ the same. Much of the debate in this thread has been based on the laws of man, for instance, claiming the helicopter was operating to low or in an illegal/unsafe fashion. And that is the problem. In actuality this is a textbook case of the categorical imperative, which everyone already agrees on!

far too mature of a response for this thread. We here only deal in finger pointing and assumptions.

Sorry my bad

Philosophy 101 major!! [X(].
Kant's main followers are the pseudo-intellectuals who don't hold real jobs, who produce nothing tangible and who have contributed nothing of real value to society.
In other words, IDGAF what Kant thinks about this.

Is this your scientific theory? Great contribution to the thread CP...

BTW what does IDGAF stand for???? I assume only the pseudo-intellectuals can decode that...

Toolman...I'll bet we hit 11 pages before midinght...

LLD
aka...CSBFHoF

You don't have to take things to an extreme, indeed someone who is obsessed with Kant and tries to apply his philosophy in every single situation is just fooling themselves. But this instance cited by the OP is a textbook example of when the categorical imperative actually applies and works. Kant to modern philosophy is no different than Freud is to modern psychology, keep things in perspective.

IDGAF = I don't give a ...

I didn't think your Kant post was really anything more than humor at a very long debate...while at the same time making a point...

I was being sarcastic in asking CP what it meant...I also don't think his post was appropriate, so it will be interesting...


CSBFHoF

Access is wrong about there being no right or wrong here. This is a typical example of how over-intellectualization can lead to wrong conclusions and distorted versions of reality. The chopper pilot was wrong, the RC pilot was right, [if the facts presented are true]. It's just that simple.

BTW....what ABOUT Freud? What did he ever contribute to mankind? Who did he ever cure?
All he ever came up with was conceptual rhetoric, just like all the other, "great thinkers".
I think Dogbert has Freud and Kant completely "covered", hands down.

Much better stated...

I see your point, however, I have another view.

If the facts presented are true, there is clearly a wrong or right. In this case I would agree the Heli pilot was in the wrong...

However, I also agree with Access's post...Since we haven't talked to the Heli Pilot we don't know his true intention. What we assume to be fact is a subset of possibilities. Another is, he needed to land, saw something before he landed, then doubled back and verified it would not be safe due to RC Flying activity and left the area. I have witnessed News Heli's landing in very populated spots to get a story, especially around our local HS Football Season...Come in fast and low, and land in very tight spots...

With that being said, GG was right in his action and Heli Pilot was right is his action. Thus there is no wrong...

My opinion is that the Heli Pilot is wrong, but I could be making an incorrect assumption which makes me wrong. Somewhat of a paradox...[8D]

It is human nature to observe and assume the worst. Because we beilieve we are right we must be right. In many situations I would say we have all been embarrased because the facts once proven showed a very different story.

The moral of this post is that while each opposing side believes they are correct, they could be wrong...another paradox or an oxymoron...

Now I got a headache...

Larry Diamond

You can play an endless game of "what if", but at some point if you can't take the simple facts presented at face value, there is nothing to discuss. What if the pilot had a mini-stroke and came-to at the last minute? What if he was having a flash back to his days in a Cobra gunship?
What if?
If we can't get beyond the improbable [but remotely possible] scenarios, topics like this one have no basis, no foundation for discussion. In other words, [unlike the disciples of Kantishism would have it]...you just gotta take a small leap of faith here if you wanna have something to talk about.

CP you are exactly correct. But the fact is we don't know what the Heli Pilot's intention was. This is what takes me back to the discussion of "report or not to report" or "Right Vs Wrong".

The Heli Pilot will have a solid CYA story to tell. If he can sell it to the FAA, then the RC flying community gets attention it don't want.

Again, my opinion is that the Heli Pilot is wrong. However, my level of belief isn't strong enough, without the facts, to draw attention the the hobby that could back fire...Therefore, I would be unwilling to take a leap of faith and report it.

OK, this is now a circular discussion right?

LLD

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.