My loss on a Good Friday

[DUCKY]

Another few suggestions:

1) All flyer station at one holding area
2) Putting up the freq tag on the tx.

This is just my suggestion.

[simonwoo]

My scenario on the expressway pileup was this. If Jonathan's plane really caused a massive crash and people started suing, who do you think is likely to end up having to pay for all the damages? It would be the owner of the plane that is on the middle of the expressway, not some dude who had the same freq as him sitting on the curb insisting he didn't do anything. As unfair as we all know it, that it going to be the likely outcome. And that's where the difference between the circumstantial and irrefutable evidence comes in. Unless someone really saw that dude with his TX on at that precise time, we have nothing to 'insist' on him paying all the damages.

But I think the next time the same thing happens, we all in PFW must insist the one responsible replaces all the items damaged.

I think you don't realise how your words came out. This is the only thing that prompted me to respond. Precisely I said we do not have the right to insist and police. The way you put it, it was indeed like putting a knife to him to demand him to pay. Like I said, reasoning with him, exerting social pressure and even calling his bluff, that's very different from what you wrote. I might have read you wrongly, and if that's not what you meant, then there's no issue here.

Let's not go into any justice system cos we all know, sometimes one approach works, sometimes it doesn't. But you seem to think that a judge will definitely agree with your views and make that dude liable for all the damages. Yes it might be common sense and we all 'know' it, but I can tell you now, that will not happen.

And yes, I am familiar with motor claims. I've been claimed against and I've also claimed against both cars and motorcycles. You are still missing the point. If you wanna press this point, I can tell you that Jonathan will be the one paying the damages for the pileup, not the dude.

[DL8698]

I think whether a radio set is licenced or not is not the issue. Supposing everyone comes to the field with fully licensed radios, does it mean we can forget about all the necessary precautions? We will still see the same thing happening as long as we do not practise all necessary precautions, and, yes, even if necessary, some sort of self imposed rules.

To put it another way, does anyone really think the authorities have no idea that there are many, many unlicensed RC sets out there? Sure they do. So why they are not rounding up everyone without licenses and fine them?

Perhaps they recognise that it is time our gov loosen a bit of their stranglehold on almost everything in a Singaporean's life, and, so maybe they are thinking, "Ok, lets give these RC people a bit of freedom to pursue their hobby without too much restraints."

So, its up to us in the RC community to prove to our authorities that, yes, you can trust us, we will regulate ourselves and take every precaution and, even inconveniences, necessary to ensure safety, which has to be the Paramount Concern for all RC'ers! Financial losses, although painful, is a secondary consideration.

Just MHO.

[joe yap]

I think whether a radio set is licenced or not is not the issue. Supposing everyone comes to the field with fully licensed radios, does it mean we can forget about all the necessary precautions? We will still see the same thing happening as long as we do not practise all necessary precautions, and, yes, even if necessary, some sort of self imposed rules.

To put it another way, does anyone really think the authorities have no idea that there are many, many unlicensed RC sets out there? Sure they do. So why they are not rounding up everyone without licenses and fine them?

Perhaps they recognise that it is time our gov loosen a bit of their stranglehold on almost everything in a Singaporean's life, and, so maybe they are thinking, "Ok, lets give these RC people a bit of freedom to pursue their hobby without too much restraints."

So, its up to us in the RC community to prove to our authorities that, yes, you can trust us, we will regulate ourselves and take every precaution and, even inconveniences, necessary to ensure safety, which has to be the Paramount Concern for all RC'ers! Financial losses, although painful, is a secondary consideration.

Just MHO.

David,

This is different issue. I'm not refering to frequency clash problem. I'm talking about getting a new radio.

As for your reply, it is not up to us to say. This should be left to the authority. As long as the law has not changed, we should at least acknowledge it that it is still in force. As I have said before, it is the ultimate decision of the consumer which type he wants to buy. But he should at least know that this regulation still exist.

Do not assume. Action has been taken before and I know a few modeller got caught before. And if we elaborate further, we may unnecessarily put others into not-so-nice situation. For that reason, I'll not go any further.

[protyne]

Hi Simon, no worries on being sympathetic on my issue as that is not the reason for me posting the thread. I only like to share my experience and may this be a lesson/reminder to all.

You mentioned that I have chosen to let the matter rest is not exactly true. The matter in this case is to find out the cause of my crash and me accepting the gentleman's stand do not solve the mystery. I am not even suggesting he was the cause in my initial post.

However, as I have mentioned in my initial post, there are others who were at the rest area at the time of my crash, saw the gentleman at the flight line taking off and later sending his plane into the ground. This fact of what they saw still stand.

The above was refuted by the gentleman and have offered witnesses, friends around him at that time, to prove his stand. The fact of what the gentleman's friends saw also stand.

Therefore, I felt that there was no need to have a open discussion with the gentleman, bringing in all the witnesses, as this would simple make the whole issue very ugly and disrupt the harmony among our fun & peace loving fliers at PFW and may even turn out to be a case of "majority bullying minority" like you have already suggested.

I made a big mistake of NOT checking who else was at the flight line with their transmitter turned on after my crash immediately. This would have made this mystery of mine much easier to solve.

Let this be a lesson for all.

[edmond22]

My scenario on the expressway pileup was this. If Jonathan's plane really caused a massive crash and people started suing, who do you think is likely to end up having to pay for all the damages? It would be the owner of the plane that is on the middle of the expressway, not some dude who had the same freq as him sitting on the curb insisting he didn't do anything. As unfair as we all know it, that it going to be the likely outcome. And that's where the difference between the circumstantial and irrefutable evidence comes in. Unless someone really saw that dude with his TX on at that precise time, we have nothing to 'insist' on him paying all the damages.



I think you don't realise how your words came out. This is the only thing that prompted me to respond. Precisely I said we do not have the right to insist and police. The way you put it, it was indeed like putting a knife to him to demand him to pay. Like I said, reasoning with him, exerting social pressure and even calling his bluff, that's very different from what you wrote. I might have read you wrongly, and if that's not what you meant, then there's no issue here.

Let's not go into any justice system cos we all know, sometimes one approach works, sometimes it doesn't. But you seem to think that a judge will definitely agree with your views and make that dude liable for all the damages. Yes it might be common sense and we all 'know' it, but I can tell you now, that will not happen.

And yes, I am familiar with motor claims. I've been claimed against and I've also claimed against both cars and motorcycles. You are still missing the point. If you wanna press this point, I can tell you that Jonathan will be the one paying the damages for the pileup, not the dude.

Simon,

When you fly at Church field, do you know you are flying in bliss because people like myself stood up in this forum to inform "visitors" to refrain from designating their own fields that right opp the church field? Things do not just fall in place on their own. It was witnessed a few times one or few clowns flying nitro heli to the occasional gliders. We actually drove around to check and inform people to come join us to fly together instead. I guess you have yet to see planes circling round the church, hit the church, gone to the road happening in your immediate environment, once these things happens, hit a car, hit someone, go hospital and maybe then you will realise you are not doing enough to enforce safety.

Unless someone really saw that dude with his TX on at that precise time, we have nothing to 'insist' on him paying all the damages.

You still miss the point. You will always have people who saw you doing something and you will always have friends who saw you doing nothing. Is that the kind of evidence you are talking about? If so, please read the part about LKY again and understand how impractical "irrefutable evidence" will sound. How the heck do you define it then?

My scenario on the expressway pileup was this. If Jonathan's plane really caused a massive crash and people started suing, who do you think is likely to end up having to pay for all the damages? It would be the owner of the plane that is on the middle of the expressway, not some dude who had the same freq as him sitting on the curb insisting he didn't do anything. As unfair as we all know it, that it going to be the likely outcome. And that's where the difference between the circumstantial and irrefutable evidence comes in..

Disagree with you. How would you know that is the likely outcome? It is a fact that 2 planes crashed in the same moment clashing freq, that other user besides Jonathon will be implicated already. Say if he did not crash or fly at all, then his denial may work and I will agree with you that Jonathon will have it tough to even prove anything. BUT the fact remains, 2 plane crashed, same moment, both tx needs to be on to fly, a lawyer can easily put across the point that there is a very high possiblilty the 2 tx's on mode lasped each other at some point. If one were to try and prove there is no clashes, explain the 2 crashes. For your info, the other flyer besides Jonathon claimed he crash because Johnathon's tx was still on after the crash.

I think you don't realise how your words came out. This is the only thing that prompted me to respond. Precisely I said we do not have the right to insist and police. The way you put it, it was indeed like putting a knife to him to demand him to pay. Like I said, reasoning with him, exerting social pressure and even calling his bluff, that's very different from what you wrote. I might have read you wrongly, and if that's not what you meant, then there's no issue here..

I made my point very clear earlier already. I had a damage done to my Yak (irrefutable) and did not even mention payment. I had mid air twice, one damaging my AJ and one Yak completely destroyed, ask these people in PFW, did I ever mention payment? I am not even going to talk about my freq clash at all, it is the same deal. More often than not, when someone owns up their actions, things turn out more positively and amicably. Done that many times already. Have you experienced it? (you never answered). Btw, which part of "But I think the next time the same thing happens, we all in PFW must insist the one responsible replaces all the items damaged. " do you not understand? You mean to say the one responsible shouldn't pay for the damages? How is that putting a knife to someone who is RESPONSIBLE or are you trying to dispute who is responsible? It is 2 different thing mate.

Let's not go into any justice system cos we all know, sometimes one approach works, sometimes it doesn't. But you seem to think that a judge will definitely agree with your views and make that dude liable for all the damages. Yes it might be common sense and we all 'know' it, but I can tell you now, that will not happen.

I never say a Judge will agree with my views, I merely pointed out how implicated the second flyer is already. I gave you examples to let you understand the kind of mess a jury approach can produce. It can happen in PFW too. Maybe you do not know the history well enough but till the day you are asked by fellow flyers to shout yellow card and be the bad guy, then you may understand a thing or 2. Or else, what is stopping people from flying opp your field. We had that happening before in PFW where 1 guy (going to be a real pilot somemore) insist it is ok for him to fly on the other side of TPE, he claims he knows all the freq in head and it will be alright. With your approach, Do you think you are proactive enough to prevent it with some "warnings" first or wait till it happens, ah damn no evidence, forget it? I have done something, what have you done? See a incident, rub in your 2 cents worth and be a strictly flyer approach only? Drive around and see for yourself, you might just get luck and see another flyer on the same freq within the same vicinity or are you on 2.4 already.

[DL8698]

David,

This is different issue. I'm not refering to frequency clash problem. I'm talking about getting a new radio.

As for your reply, it is not up to us to say. This should be left to the authority. As long as the law has not changed, we should at least acknowledge it that it is still in force. As I have said before, it is the ultimate decision of the consumer which type he wants to buy. But he should at least know that this regulation still exist.

Do not assume. Action has been taken before and I know a few modeller got caught before. And if we elaborate further, we may unnecessarily put others into not-so-nice situation. For that reason, I'll not go any further.

Sorry if I was ambiguous in my previous post. I definitely was NOT advocating that we should just go ahead and defy the law just because enforcement is not that strict.

Similarly, when I drive on, I keep strictly to the speed limits, be it 60, 70, 80 or 90, at times irritating my wife who keeps telling me "go faster lah! Everybody going so fast", but I always remind her that the "speed limit is the speed limit, I will keep to it till the authorities decide to raise it, no matter how many people are zooming past me at 100+." I totally agree, "the law is the law".

The point I was trying to make (and probably I misinterpreted your previous post) was that licensed or unlicensed, if we don't observe all safety "rules" we will still get accidents, sooner or later.

So, to all my bros and sis's in RC community, use your own judgment whether you want to license your radio or not, but please do exercise good judgment on the flying field.

[simonwoo]

Therefore, I felt that there was no need to have a open discussion with the gentleman, bringing in all the witnesses, as this would simple make the whole issue very ugly and disrupt the harmony among our fun & peace loving fliers at PFW and may even turn out to be a case of "majority bullying minority" like you have already suggested.

Hi guys, Jonathan hit the spot right there. This is precisely what made me cringe when I read your suggestion, Edmond. I understand when you say the person responsible has to pay for the damages, what you missed out is HOW you came to the conclusion that that particular person is responsible, beyond a shadow of doubt. DL raised a very interesting question about the possibility of a third person around who caused both crashes, who he himself might not even be aware of what he did. Probable? No. Possible? Yes.

There are still other possibilities in this case, where the end result could be Jonathan having to pay for that dude's plane instead. Yes it sounds all wrong, but that's what the law system could result in, be it under a judge or a jury system.

I agree with everything else you have said, don't get me wrong. I'm not saying let's ignore all rules or be lax about safety and courtesty etc. Asking me if I have experienced this or that personally is not relevant. And I don't want to get personal either. I only have one gripe with this topic, and that is how you think we can conclude that in the following cases to come, who is the responsible one. That's all.

[simonwoo]

[QUOTE=protyne]I made a big mistake of NOT checking who else was at the flight line with their transmitter turned on after my crash immediately. This would have made this mystery of mine much easier to solve.QUOTE]

Yep, I'm glad you understand that I'm definitely not siding with him. We all know in our hearts what happened I guess. And you are right, if we want to insist, certain things had to be done and checked and verified immediately on the spot before we can do that. If that was so, then I certainly agree that we should make the person who's responsible for the accident liable for the damages. What I was not comfortable with was the jump from no evidence to verdict and self imposed authority to mete out the punishment in what is not an open and shut case.

Like you mentioned, your mistake was not to check certain things on the spot. If I am a jury member, I would tell you that yes I think the dude is guilty, but sorry I cannot put in my vote as that because there is not enough evidence to pin him down beyond a shadow of doubt. If I am a judge I will also pronounce him not guilty because of too many other possibilities that we cannot disprove, plus the lack of eyewitness and evidence. If I am a vigilante then I will say burn him on the stake! (Just kidding )

I hope where I'm coming from is clear. As with any system anywhere, there are cases every day of falsely acquitting the guilty and falsely sentencing the innocent. I just hope our future approaches would not simply be brought down to the level of a vigilante.

[protyne]

Hi Simon, I may have mis-represented myself in my writing. I do not want to turn this into a ugly situation simply hoping that the gentleman involve will on his on accord do something about the situation.

Fact is 2 individual sources saw him on the flight line and crashed his plane very soon after I crashed mine and that time I was walking to the crash site. They do not agree that he was sitting on the kerbside all the time watching me pick up my plane than decide to fly.

Are these the eyewitness you are talking about?

[edmond22]

Simon, I am not trying to be funny here but I do think you are adding undue complications to the story.

DL raised a very interesting question about the possibility of a third person around who caused both crashes, who he himself might not even be aware of what he did. Probable? No. Possible? Yes.

Who not just say it is probable that the Sun is having unusual activities and the sunspots happen to affect 29mhz systems that day? Probable? Yes. There are thousands of possiblities, but what is more significant to you? 2 person on the same freq (fact) or Sunspots (theory probable) or Unknown third party (theory probable)?

There are still other possibilities in this case, where the end result could be Jonathan having to pay for that dude's plane instead. Yes it sounds all wrong, but that's what the law system could result in, be it under a judge or a jury system.

- Some one got murdered, a suspect was found to be in the vicinity and a laywer is trying damn hard say he is not the one, murderer could be a third party not seen. That is true, but you have a prime suspect at the very least. Afterall, there is (I am saying this for the last damn time) a SECOND flyer on the SAME freq who has his transmitter ON with the first flyer (otherwise, he would not have crashed). NOW, just bear with me and remember this fact, and at the same time, he is also claiming that he only switched on his TX only after Johnathon crashed his plane. But the fact remains that when Johnathon is walking to the wreackage, his TX was on, and the "prime suspect" has insisted he crashed due to clash too. It just sounded too bloody convenient NOT TO CHECK FREQ, POSSIBLY CAUSED a crash BUT still CLAIMED INNOCENCE that he switched on only after Jonathon crashed. He bloody doesn't even know Johnathon's freq then, how on earth does turning on his TX whether before or after the crash matters to him so much that he is so GOD DAMN sure. See my point? His behaviour, PLUS the offer to compensate to resolve the matter all GAVE IT AWAY.

IF you want to talk about proof, how much further can you get than this man I ASK? Would you compensate if you were him? If you say yes, people will call you a liar, agree?

I am losing my patience here to be honest. When you talked about possibilities and the one glaring thing you mentioned about Jonathon having to pay for the guy's plane instead, you are talking cock already mate. How on earth is that a possiblity, please explain. I think everybody will want to see how that works. Who flew first? Who crashed first? When you crash and recover your wreakage, you dun turn off your transmitter. And when you happen to shoot somebody's plane down when you are walking to recover your plane, it is that fool who forgot to check freq. As far as I am concerned, Johnathon is considered "still flying".

You were the one who want to talk about irrefutable evidence, I brought in legal examples along that line and you were the same person to say let's not go there. Do you WANT TO or NOT?

Asking me if I have experienced this or that personally is not relevant. And I don't want to get personal either. I only have one gripe with this topic, and that is how you think we can conclude that in the following cases to come, who is the responsible one. That's all.

And when I am talking about experience, I am telling you more about the person you are dealing with here. This is to help you get a understanding of the background. You want to quickly put in the conclusion that I am unreasonable and will use the same method to conclude future cases DESPITE the fact I have told you that I have personally encountered 3-4 cases of such things involving damages where I never sought payment, that I told you if people own up to their actions, more often than not things are generally more positive involving no money.

Nothing personal mate, but on the honest end, I have quite enough of your BS, you can continue saying asking you about your experience is irrelevant. How about none for a starter? To me, there is a big difference between somebody who writes a thread about safety and someone who does not, someone who participates in cleaning the field and someone who does not, someone who has actually got hit by silly accidents and someone who has not, someone who drives around to check and someone who does not. Onlooker (or rather thread reader) vs someone who actually flies at the same field regularly.

Is it me only or is anyone else reading this thread know for a fact that the person who never check freq actually read the thread and called Johnathon. Does it occur to anybody that he himself or any of the his witnesses did not attempt to come in here to even put up the slightest bit of defence but have instead offered compensation to resolve the matter? You can consider hiring Simon here as a advocate.


Jon, butting out for now. Your thread mate, need my help pls give me a buzz.

[trickster]

Dudes,

Use the frequency cards that Alex took the trouble to print for the flyers. Take the trouble to go to the frequency pole to check and approach the flyer with the same frequency, identify yourself.

I too was a victim of frequency clash. A honest slip up. Sometimes a simple honest "It's my fault, I'm sorry" it's all people need. No need to deny and hide. This is what this hobby is all about, sunshine, honesty, bonding and fun. Everybody make mistakes or need help some time or other......... of course compensation would be a nice gesture as well.

Fly safe brothers...

[simonwoo]

Yes I know that I am complicating things here, but because there is a point which I feel really needs to be made, for future references.

Scenario 1 :
Suppose there was really a third person flying somewhere nearby with the same freq. Both guys now are actually victims.

Scenario 2 :
Suppose the 'victim' was actually forgetful and selected the wrong memory setting for his plane and right/left ailerons were wrong (I have seen this before). And the 'culprit' actually crashed because yes he didn't check freq but his crash was still due to the victim's TX still on while he was walking to retrieve his plane? [Again, I am not even insinuating that this happened in this case. I am talking about future possibilities, probably with less experienced flyers).

Edmond, just because I don't want to answer all of your personal questions here doesn't mean I don't have the experience to. I will gladly answer you offline. But I will not be led to type everything out here especially when I find it's irrelevant to the point I am trying to make.

If I am still not making myself clear, I want to state for the last damn time too that I am not referring to this case that already happened, but I really hope that in future case, we don't just jump the gun and start insisting the next person pays full damages. That is what I see will likely happen if I don't try to make everyone see the other side of the coin now.

Let me tell you one of the many reasons why the jury system was scrapped. It's precisely because too many times, a jury consisted of everyone with your way of thinking, that many innocent people have been found guilty wrongfully.

Fact is 2 individual sources saw him on the flight line and crashed his plane very soon after I crashed mine and that time I was walking to the crash site. They do not agree that he was sitting on the kerbside all the time watching me pick up my plane than decide to fly.

Yes Jon! We do need to have this kind of facts and basis before we ask for accountability, in future cases. I really don't care about this dude as I personally agree he is accountable too, my main intention is really for future cases, we have to be more careful in how we take the next step. Edmond's "it's too bloody convenient" is not enough to insist on full liability, that's really all I am trying to say. We need more than that if we want to police and exercise the kind of power and authority he is suggesting.

That's all I have to say on this. I am sorry the discussion got complicated - it wasn't my intention. It was just a necessary evil to push my point. I only hope some of you are objective and far-sighted enough to weed through all the long paragraphs and see the point by now.

Signing out.

[edmond22]

Yes I know that I am complicating things here, but because there is a point which I feel really needs to be made, for future references.

Scenario 1 :
Suppose there was really a third person flying somewhere nearby with the same freq. Both guys now are actually victims.

Scenario 2 :
Suppose the 'victim' was actually forgetful and selected the wrong memory setting for his plane and right/left ailerons were wrong (I have seen this before). And the 'culprit' actually crashed because yes he didn't check freq but his crash was still due to the victim's TX still on while he was walking to retrieve his plane? [Again, I am not even insinuating that this happened in this case. I am talking about future possibilities, probably with less experienced flyers).

Edmond, just because I don't want to answer all of your personal questions here doesn't mean I don't have the experience to. I will gladly answer you offline. But I will not be led to type everything out here especially when I find it's irrelevant to the point I am trying to make.

If I am still not making myself clear, I want to state for the last damn time too that I am not referring to this case that already happened, but I really hope that in future case, we don't just jump the gun and start insisting the next person pays full damages. That is what I see will likely happen if I don't try to make everyone see the other side of the coin now.

Let me tell you one of the many reasons why the jury system was scrapped. It's precisely because too many times, a jury consisted of everyone with your way of thinking, that many innocent people have been found guilty wrongfully.



Yes Jon! We do need to have this kind of facts and basis before we ask for accountability, in future cases. I really don't care about this dude as I personally agree he is accountable too, my main intention is really for future cases, we have to be more careful in how we take the next step. Edmond's "it's too bloody convenient" is not enough to insist on full liability, that's really all I am trying to say. We need more than that if we want to police and exercise the kind of power and authority he is suggesting.

That's all I have to say on this. I am sorry the discussion got complicated - it wasn't my intention. It was just a necessary evil to push my point. I only hope some of you are objective and far-sighted enough to weed through all the long paragraphs and see the point by now.

Signing out.

Simon, for your info, Jon, myself and a few others in PFW have been checking with witnesses. That is how involved we are, I think you ought to reread the thread to see what you missed. The facts you pointed out from Jon is the same bloody thing I am talking about.... We both got those info together...

AND READ this:

It is a case of his witnesses vs Jon's witnesses. Both are saying different things... DO you understand???? God...

and like I say again, Do you have the slightest shred of proof to support scenario 1? Why not just say it is possible too that a unusual sunspot activity caused it? Probable, yes... Any idea how many possibilities are there? That doesn't make the one flyer who ACTUALLY did clash freq that day any less significant.

Simon, you will want to go down the line of irrelevancy of personal experience because you have nothing along that line to relate to. Prove me otherwise.

Time and time again, you are simply ignoring the fact that people offered to pay. I am not passing the sentence that he is guilty, I am trying to get you to open your eyes and see for a fact that a guilty one will offer to pay. I asked you already, if you were him, would you offer to pay? YOu are not answering...

You are still moving from disputing who is responsible to whether the one responsible should pay. Just stick to one point at a time, you are all over the shop. Why can't I insist the one responsible for freq clash to pay? Likewise, if you want to debate about concluding who is responsible, Answer the question whether you would offer to pay if you were him.

Simon, I think you are just confused with what is happening. You can use words like "power" and "authority" to try and paint things negatively, but it is a system we can employ to promote awareness, deter accidents and prevent injury. Like I say previously, you need to see a major incident involving yourself, then you will understand. When you do fly, Keep your eyes peeled for unknown "flyers" in your vicinity, answer me this, if you find your freq unusable, are you gonna sit there and think "there is nothing I can do" or "it will be a abuse of power and authority if I asked them not to fly there".


AND YOU still HAVEN't answered how there is a possibility Jonathon will end up paying for the dude's plane yet. You never switch off your TX when you crash, you need it to be on to make sure you have control to kill engine or keep motor idle if necessary, common sense mate. You only switch off when you are sure the wreackage is no longer "live".

[simonwoo]

Thanks for your call Jon. I'm glad at least you see where I'm coming from. Edmond, we can discuss offline if you are open to it, but you have to try and keep the personal comments in check.

I will say for the last time - my points are not for this case. We all agree as a collective on this case, no doubts about that. I just hope when such a similar incident happens again in future, some of you guys can remember some of the things I've shared on this.