After a Crash


This video should be watched by everyone, and refresh themselves on it once in a while... Its a lesson in valuing and guarding your constitutional rights, and I dont mean that in any political sense. It teaches you how even if you are as innocent as the Christ child those rights should be guarded...
 
Lots of discussion about FAA telling local LEO to make sure the pilot didn't leave.

My question is, what org chart shows local police as an enforcement arm of the FAA? Why would a LEO act as a bailiff on behalf of some federal bureaucrat if there's no suspicion that a crime was committed? What authority does the FAA have to detain someone, or order that they be detained, anyway? Maybe I'm naive, but that doesn't seem to make sense.

Why isn't this a valid scenario:

Pilot: Thank you for your help, officer. I'll be leaving now.
LEO: Sorry sir, you have to wait for the FAA inspector.
Pilot: Am I under arrest?
LEO: No, sir.
Pilot: Thanks again for your help. I'll be leaving now.
 
How soon are you thinking “immediately” is? The only one I know is that you are required to file a report within 10 days.

Is there something else?
Yes. 49 CFR 830.5. The are a number of occurrences that require immediate notification, which is different from the requirement to potentially later submit a report.
 
Lots of discussion about FAA telling local LEO to make sure the pilot didn't leave.

My question is, what org chart shows local police as an enforcement arm of the FAA? Why would a LEO act as a bailiff on behalf of some federal bureaucrat if there's no suspicion that a crime was committed? What authority does the FAA have to detain someone, or order that they be detained, anyway? Maybe I'm naive, but that doesn't seem to make sense.

Why isn't this a valid scenario:

Pilot: Thank you for your help, officer. I'll be leaving now.
LEO: Sorry sir, you have to wait for the FAA inspector.
Pilot: Am I under arrest?
LEO: No, sir.
Pilot: Thanks again for your help. I'll be leaving now.
In this case, and every case I've ever seen, it is not the local police. The Texas State Troopers work with the FAA to secure a scene. I believe the thought is, the FAA can't be there in a timely manner, so they've trained the Troopers how to handle a plane accident.

According to one of the State Troopers I spoke with, they can and will detain you if the FAA requests it and he said they usually do. It sounds good in theory to say "I'll be leaving now", but it's doesn't work that way in my experience. They may have answered that you're not under arrest, but they can detain you while the investigation is ongoing. I'm not questioning the Troopers' authority to detain someone, but when it's done at the request of the FAA, it seems wrong and unnecessary.
 
My .02...16 yrs in LE.

I’m gathering your info, the pilots info, and any witness info, and everyone is free to go or stay as they please. I’m not detaining someone unless there’s something criminal. If the alphabet soup agency doesn’t like it, too bad. I’m not unlawfully detaining someone.
I’m in a different state, so maybe their rules are different. But at the point I have no crime, and I have all the info I need for my report, my justification for detention ends as far as I’m concerned.
 
FAA doesn't have arrest powers, as far as I know, or the authority to direct LE to detain. "Officer, I was just in a plane crash - I'm going for medical treatment. There isn't going to be any further conversation, with you or the FAA today".

Police policy ain't law. Just internal policy. Not ragging on the officer in the field following his org's protocols, but call an ambulance and I doubt he'd refuse your departure.

Bingo. And watch them “forget” they ever asked for or directed that detention when said detention gets called into question. That DPS Trooper will be looking over his shoulder only to find no one there...
 
My .02...16 yrs in LE.

I’m gathering your info, the pilots info, and any witness info, and everyone is free to go or stay as they please. I’m not detaining someone unless there’s something criminal. If the alphabet soup agency doesn’t like it, too bad. I’m not unlawfully detaining someone.
I’m in a different state, so maybe their rules are different. But at the point I have no crime, and I have all the info I need for my report, my justification for detention ends as far as I’m concerned.
I would agree...but I also know (with my LE experience), like I would expect you also know, that sometimes in law enforcement you can be told by a superior "Do you best to not let that guy leave." So you might say, "You can't leave," just out of your own convenience... When you know you can't force him to stay if push comes to shove, and really you are saying, "Please don't leave, because if you do I'll get an ass chewing." Of course, there are also a few idiots out there in law enforcement that would hear "Do you best to not let that guy leave" and think it means "absolutely he can't leave", or even idiot supervisors that would say "He CAN'T leave" without thinking it through, and subordinate guys that would follow that order without question.
 
It may be because Texas, unlike some other states, like I believe New Mexico - does have a transportation code (
https://statutes.capitol.texas.gov/Docs/TN/htm/TN.24.htm ) which gives jurisdiction in some ways to both the DPS and the FAA at the same time... and the FAA guys in San Antonio are using that to their advantage.
Hmm. I didn't see anything in that linked info that would seem to justify LEO detention of a pilot on behalf of the FAA after a forced landing.

My .02...16 yrs in LE.

I’m gathering your info, the pilots info, and any witness info, and everyone is free to go or stay as they please. I’m not detaining someone unless there’s something criminal. If the alphabet soup agency doesn’t like it, too bad. I’m not unlawfully detaining someone.
I’m in a different state, so maybe their rules are different. But at the point I have no crime, and I have all the info I need for my report, my justification for detention ends as far as I’m concerned.
This is the behavior I was envisioning.
I would agree...but I also know (with my LE experience), like I would expect you also know, that sometimes in law enforcement you can be told by a superior "Do you best to not let that guy leave." So you might say, "You can't leave," just out of your own convenience... When you know you can't force him to stay if push comes to shove, and really you are saying, "Please don't leave, because if you do I'll get an ass chewing." Of course, there are also a few idiots out there in law enforcement that would hear "Do you best to not let that guy leave" and think it means "absolutely he can't leave", or even idiot supervisors that would say "He CAN'T leave" without thinking it through, and subordinate guys that would follow that order without question.
I don't know what really happened, but it seems to me like the situation could have been like you describe. Maybe the LEO was directed or thought he had direction to try his best to keep the pilot from leaving. It might be hard for a citizen to tell when a LEO is just discouraging someone from leaving, but really can't stop them if the citizen is insistent. In such cases, a citizen might be too "intimidated" (you know what I mean) to exert enough insistence to actually leave.

I would think that direct questions along the lines of, "Am I being detained?" or "Am I under arrest?" would be able to get through the layer of uncertainty the LEO may be intentionally fostering, so that you can determine where you really stand. However, I'm no expert and have never been in such a situation, so I admit I might be naive here.
 
In this case, and every case I've ever seen, it is not the local police. The Texas State Troopers work with the FAA to secure a scene. I believe the thought is, the FAA can't be there in a timely manner, so they've trained the Troopers how to handle a plane accident.
By "local police" I simply meant "the top guy with a badge who's controlling the scene", whatever uniform he wears.

I still don't understand where the FAA has the authority to direct a Texas lawman to detain a pilot. I think we're in agreement there. So I wonder if maybe the trooper just played his best bluff to stop you guys from leaving, even though he couldn't legally stop you if you defied him. That's a tough situation to be in if you aren't absolutely certain of your rights: Maybe I can just get in my car and drive off, or maybe I'll end up in cuffs and behind bars if I try it.
 
I would agree...but I also know (with my LE experience), like I would expect you also know, that sometimes in law enforcement you can be told by a superior "Do you best to not let that guy leave." So you might say, "You can't leave," just out of your own convenience... When you know you can't force him to stay if push comes to shove, and really you are saying, "Please don't leave, because if you do I'll get an ass chewing." Of course, there are also a few idiots out there in law enforcement that would hear "Do you best to not let that guy leave" and think it means "absolutely he can't leave", or even idiot supervisors that would say "He CAN'T leave" without thinking it through, and subordinate guys that would follow that order without question.


True, very valid point.
 
In this case, and every case I've ever seen, it is not the local police. The Texas State Troopers work with the FAA to secure a scene. I believe the thought is, the FAA can't be there in a timely manner, so they've trained the Troopers how to handle a plane accident.

I can tell you from the other side, that is far from the truth. The most the FAA or NTSB ever has done is create a handout, which if the department even bothered got tossed into the circular file. Most law enforcement, and even fire/ems, has little actual training for aircraft emergencies. Most won't have much experience either, because aircraft accidents are so rare and don't repeatedly happen in the same jurisdictions.
 
Yes. 49 CFR 830.5. The are a number of occurrences that require immediate notification, which is different from the requirement to potentially later submit a report.

Yes, for a few big items, you have to tell the NTSB as soon as you can. They is only for very special cases and not for every accident. It also does not mandate detaining the pilot at the scene.
 
In this case, and every case I've ever seen, it is not the local police. The Texas State Troopers work with the FAA to secure a scene.

We had an incident with a plane I own (someone else was flying, but I was first to the scene), and the Sheriff's Office showed up. They were the first responders, and secured the scene. They contacted the FAA & either they or the FAA contacted the NTSB. We waited a couple of hours before they showed up. The Highway Patrol never showed up, and as far as I know were not called to the scene. Just a data point...
 
ACCIDENT vs. INCIDENT
Something else to consider when there is an off-airport landing, or other such mishap: Was it an "accident" or an "incident"? It matters.

In the OP's situation, it was definitely an "ACCIDENT", but in many cases what may look like an ACCIDENT, is only an INCIDENT, and might not be reportable. The definitions are in CFR 830.02. Look them up and learn them. An accident must be reported to the NTSB, and you cannot move the aircraft immediately (with a few exceptions). An incident may or may not be reportable, and you can move the aircraft.

In our case, we had an incident. But the FAA and NTSB were called in by the local authorities, and an investigation was conducted. It was not a big deal. 911 was called prior to the aircraft hitting the ground because it looked like a possible bad outcome. As it turned out, there was not "substantial damage" as defined in 830.02, and there were no injuries, so we had ourselves a run-of-the-mill non-reportable INCIDENT.

We tried to quickly move the aircraft from public view to protect our property from potential vandalism. When the local law enforcement arrived, they ordered us to leave the plane where it was. Luckily, we had gotten it moved to a much better position. The FAA guy gave us grief for moving the airplane saying that we had committed a violation. We said we were protecting our property from further damage, and that it was an incident. He gave a condescending laugh, and said, "you think THIS is an incident? not hardly..." Well, IT WAS DETERMINED TO BE AN INCIDENT! That guy was an ass.
 
We tried to quickly move the aircraft from public view to protect our property from potential vandalism. When the local law enforcement arrived, they ordered us to leave the plane where it was. Luckily, we had gotten it moved to a much better position. The FAA guy gave us grief for moving the airplane saying that we had committed a violation. We said we were protecting our property from further damage, and that it was an incident. He gave a condescending laugh, and said, "you think THIS is an incident? not hardly..." Well, IT WAS DETERMINED TO BE AN INCIDENT! That guy was an ass.
We had a plane ground loop at a Fly-In/STOL competition in Llano. Someone called 911, not sure why, and the local police showed up. They called the State Troopers, who told them not to let anyone move the plane and he would be there in an hour. The airboss came over with a few guys and went to move it. The local officer told him not to do it. He asked her if she could call the State Trooper and tell him it was a dangerous situation and it's blocking the active runway. When she turned around to go back to her car to make the call, they quickly moved it. She was furious and asked us who those guys were as they were racing off on their golf cart... we told her we didn't know. Still makes me smile!
 
Well, IT WAS DETERMINED TO BE AN INCIDENT! That guy was an ass.
Mine was the opposite. The FAA guy tried to say mine was an incident. I don't think it matters much, but I was afraid the insurance company wouldn't want to pay the full amount for an incident.

Look like an incident to anyone? He finally agreed that it was an accident since the spar was bent!
7770259280_a8dfcf0a4c_b.jpg
 
Mine was the opposite. The FAA guy tried to say mine was an incident. I don't think it matters much, but I was afraid the insurance company wouldn't want to pay the full amount for an incident.
Haven't had to deal with a insurance claim on my plane, but as long as there was no reason to disallow the claim, I'd figure they'd assess the damage, determine the cost to repair, and then either pay for the repairs or total the plane. What's "incident" vs. "accident" got to do with it?
 
Mine was the opposite. The FAA guy tried to say mine was an incident. I don't think it matters much, but I was afraid the insurance company wouldn't want to pay the full amount for an incident.

Look like an incident to anyone? He finally agreed that it was an accident since the spar was bent!
7770259280_a8dfcf0a4c_b.jpg

Hmmm, a little red rubbing compound and I think that would have come right out.
 
Haven't had to deal with a insurance claim on my plane, but as long as there was no reason to disallow the claim, I'd figure they'd assess the damage, determine the cost to repair, and then either pay for the repairs or total the plane. What's "incident" vs. "accident" got to do with it?
I agree now, but tell me how clearly you're thinking if you ever go through a situation like this!
 
I agree now, but tell me how clearly you're thinking if you ever go through a situation like this!
Good point! Sorry if any of my comments sound like Monday morning quarterbacking--definitely not my intent.
 
Suspicionless detention is not inherently illegal or a violation of rights. Not specifically referring to this incident, since I wasn't there. Just a point that needed to be made in the face of the 4A scholars that are posting.



Sent from my Pixel 3 using Tapatalk
 
Yes, for a few big items, you have to tell the NTSB as soon as you can. They is only for very special cases and not for every accident. It also does not mandate detaining the pilot at the scene.
What am I missing? You commented that the only requirement was to submit a report 10 days after an accident. That is incorrect. The regulation requires notification "immediately, and by the most expeditious means available" when there is any aircraft accident or any of more than a dozen categories of incidents, some of which are likely to result in no damage at all. Immediately mean immediately. It means if you just had an accident, you notify the NTSB now. Here's the text:


830.5 Immediate notification.
The operator of any civil aircraft, or any public aircraft not operated by the Armed Forces or an intelligence agency of the United States, or any foreign aircraft shall immediately, and by the most expeditious means available, notify the nearest National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) office, when:

(a) An aircraft accident or any of the following listed serious incidents occur:

(1) Flight control system malfunction or failure;

(2) Inability of any required flight crewmember to perform normal flight duties as a result of injury or illness;

(3) Failure of any internal turbine engine component that results in the escape of debris other than out the exhaust path;

(4) In-flight fire;

(5) Aircraft collision in flight;

(6) Damage to property, other than the aircraft, estimated to exceed $25,000 for repair (including materials and labor) or fair market value in the event of total loss, whichever is less.

(7) For large multiengine aircraft (more than 12,500 pounds maximum certificated takeoff weight):

(i) In-flight failure of electrical systems which requires the sustained use of an emergency bus powered by a back-up source such as a battery, auxiliary power unit, or air-driven generator to retain flight control or essential instruments;

(ii) In-flight failure of hydraulic systems that results in sustained reliance on the sole remaining hydraulic or mechanical system for movement of flight control surfaces;

(iii) Sustained loss of the power or thrust produced by two or more engines; and

(iv) An evacuation of an aircraft in which an emergency egress system is utilized.

(8) Release of all or a portion of a propeller blade from an aircraft, excluding release caused solely by ground contact;

(9) A complete loss of information, excluding flickering, from more than 50 percent of an aircraft's cockpit displays known as:

(i) Electronic Flight Instrument System (EFIS) displays;

(ii) Engine Indication and Crew Alerting System (EICAS) displays;

(iii) Electronic Centralized Aircraft Monitor (ECAM) displays; or

(iv) Other displays of this type, which generally include a primary flight display (PFD), primary navigation display (PND), and other integrated displays;

(10) Airborne Collision and Avoidance System (ACAS) resolution advisories issued when an aircraft is being operated on an instrument flight rules flight plan and compliance with the advisory is necessary to avert a substantial risk of collision between two or more aircraft.

(11) Damage to helicopter tail or main rotor blades, including ground damage, that requires major repair or replacement of the blade(s);

(12) Any event in which an operator, when operating an airplane as an air carrier at a public-use airport on land:

(i) Lands or departs on a taxiway, incorrect runway, or other area not designed as a runway; or

(ii) Experiences a runway incursion that requires the operator or the crew of another aircraft or vehicle to take immediate corrective action to avoid a collision.

(b) An aircraft is overdue and is believed to have been involved in an accident.

This is separate from the requirement to submit a report within 10 days after an accident.
 
Last edited:
I’ll throw in my 2¢ that I’ve gathered since I’ve started. During an accident investigation we “work” for the NTSB. We are there to gather information for the investigation of the accident during the direction of NTSB. The FAA is interested in it’s Nine Areas of Responsibility beyond that it’s purely NTSB.
 
Back
Top