Taylorcraft down California

Salty said:
Question 1) doesn’t he need to report this to the Faa as an accident with “substantial damage “?

Question 2) since the plane didn’t crash until after he “disembarked” technically does it meet the definition of an accident?

Question 3) does the “unmanned” clause at the end bring it back to being an accident?
Click to expand...
What would require a report to the FAA?
 
Salty said:
I'm not sure I agree. I think the purpose of that is for someone other than the PIC to report if the aircraft "disappears". Not for the PIC to report an aircraft as "overdue" when he is no longer "due" to take it anywhere. No different than a diversion.
Click to expand...

So, you disagree that it’s careless and reckless for the sole pilot to disembark an aircraft in controlled flight with the intent for the aircraft to be destroyed?

Not counting intentionally causing property damage. Someone owns that land, be private or public ownership; there are costs associated with the damage to the property caused by the accident. If it’s federal land and remediation is required due to the classification of the land, the $25K property damage threshold will be crossed before the paperwork is dry.
 
TCABM said:
So, you disagree that it’s careless and reckless for the sole pilot to disembark an aircraft in controlled flight with the intent for the aircraft to be destroyed?
Click to expand...
not relevant to whether or not it’s reportable. I stated clearly earlier in the thread I think it was reckless endangerment.

Not counting intentionally causing property damage. Someone owns that land, be private or public ownership; there are costs associated with the damage to the property caused by the accident. If it’s federal land and remediation is required due to the classification of the land, the $25K property damage threshold will be crossed before the paperwork is dry.
Click to expand...
how do you do $25k of property damage to a rock? Remediation is not property damage.
 
Tarheelpilot said:
What would require a report to the FAA?
Click to expand...
The NTSB definition of accident per 830.2. All that is needed is for there to be an "intention to fly" and it includes unmanned aircraft as well.
 
TCABM said:
You’ve never dealt with federally owned land, have you?
Click to expand...
Plus I’m sure there was some fuel in there. Probably spilled when it crashed. That plane has to be removed from that area. That can cost a pretty penny.
 
There's always careless and reckless, the disorderly conduct charge of aviation.
 
Doug Reid said:
I used to like youtube...now, not so much.
Click to expand...

I’ve been turned off on YouTube for some time now. Also my appreciation for the drive-by members here that only use POA to tout their videos and don’t participate at all wore thin with me some time ago.

I’m a proponent of the idea to make a special dumping ground section for these people to drop their videos and run instead of cluttering up valid discussion threads.
 
Salty said:
Question 1) doesn’t he need to report this to the Faa as an accident with “substantial damage “?

Question 2) since the plane didn’t crash until after he “disembarked” technically does it meet the definition of an accident?

Question 3) does the “unmanned” clause at the end bring it back to being an accident?
Click to expand...

From your included snippet:

Aircraft accident means an occurrence associated with the operation of an aircraft which takes place between the time any person boards the aircraft with the intention of flight and all such persons have disembarked, and in which any person suffers death or serious injury, or in which the aircraft receives substantial damage. For purposes of this part, the definition of “aircraft accident” includes “unmanned aircraft accident,” as defined herein.
Click to expand...

You highlighted the boarding/disembarking clause. But look at the part I bolded. Did that Taylorcraft suffer substantial damage? The comma and the "or" grammatically separates that condition out from the clause preceding it. Commas and conjunctions in legal verbiage are important. It would seem to me that the language specifies an "accident" occurs when any person on board the aircraft suffers death or serious injury between the time such persons board and disembark said plane, or when the aircraft receives substantial damage. In this case, despite the sole occupant having already disembarked, invalidating the first option, the aircraft has definitely received substantial damage. Thus, an aircraft accident has occurred.

Although, having viewed the obviously edited YouTube video--despite serious reservations about giving the poster another click--I would say, in my opinion, it was not likely an "accident," but by design. So maybe his defense hinges on the legal definition of "accident." Also, IANAL, just SGOTI.
 
jrhillma said:
From your included snippet:



You highlighted the boarding/disembarking clause. But look at the part I bolded. Did that Taylorcraft suffer substantial damage? The comma and the "or" grammatically separates that condition out from the clause preceding it. Commas and conjunctions in legal verbiage are important. It would seem to me that the language specifies an "accident" occurs when any person on board the aircraft suffers death or serious injury between the time such persons board and disembark said plane, or when the aircraft receives substantial damage. In this case, despite the sole occupant having already disembarked, invalidating the first option, the aircraft has definitely received substantial damage. Thus, an aircraft accident has occurred.

Although, having viewed the obviously edited YouTube video--despite serious reservations about giving the poster another click--I would say, in my opinion, it was not likely an "accident," but by design. So maybe his defense hinges on the legal definition of "accident." Also, IANAL, just SGOTI.
Click to expand...
Interesting interpretation. I like it.

I don’t agree with your last paragraph though. The faa definition of accident doesn’t exclude intentional acts in any way IMO. Ironically it doesn’t say anything about it needing to be accidental.
 
There has been a lot of banter on whether or not this incident/accident was reportable under the FAA regulations. In my opinion, it is made pretty clear under FAA Order No. 8020.11D (effective 05/10/2018), "Aircraft Accident and Incident Notification, Investigation and Reporting", that this event fulfills the FAA definition of an accident: "(b. Aircraft Accident - An occurrence associated with the operation of an aircraft which takes place between the time any person boards the aircraft with the intention of flight and all such persons have disembarked, and in which any person suffers death or serious injury, or in which the aircraft receives substantial damage. (See 49 CFR §830.2)". I'm no lawyer, so I'm not competent to engage in discussion of the nuances of various laws, but in my experience and limited knowledge, any "accident" as defined under FAA Regulations must be reported to the FAA. Whether or not the part where it says: " ... all such persons have disembarked, ..." disqualifies this from meeting the definition of an "accident", I just don't know.

This all makes my hed hert.

I think that this occurrence bloody well satisfies the definition of an accident, regardless of the "disembarked" wording.
 
Me thinks that if the FAA wants this to be an "accident" for purposes of an investigation then they will use the regs to support that.

Sadly this is one of them things that will likely not get much attention as the FAA has got to finish making all their paperwork gender neutral & politically correct ... and that takes time & resources. o_O
 
Salty said:
not relevant to whether or not it’s reportable. I stated clearly earlier in the thread I think it was reckless endangerment.

how do you do $25k of property damage to a rock? Remediation is not property damage.
Click to expand...
So if an oil tanker truck overturns on your front lawn, the truck owner is not responsible for cleaning up the 500 gallons of spilled oil? He can say that's remediation, just go ahead and do it yourself?
 
Avweb reported Saturday that "The FAA is apparently aware of the video and has promised a response to our inquiry on Monday."
 
Just because people can't seem to read I'll say it again. I think the guy should pay for any damage or remediation, and I think he should be charged with willful negligence. That has nothing to do with whether or not it's reportable as per Faa regs.
 
jrhillma said:
the boarding/disembarking clause.
Click to expand...
jrhillma said:
when any person on board the aircraft suffers death or serious injury
Click to expand...
FYI: the board/disembark along with "intent to fly" is merely a time frame distinction for the rule to take effect. No intent to fly, no accident or in most cases no incident. And as to serious injury/death, that part applies to anyone either on the aircraft or on the ground and up to 30 days after the accident. So if a person jumps in a 172 to fly for a $100 hamburger in the next town and hits the hangar as he taxis to the runway or runs over the line-boy its technically an accident as there was intent. Same if you land at the other other aircraft and hit the hangar or lineboy on your way to parking. Accident. At a minimum the Youtuber is required to notify the NTSB which will get this recorded and noticed.
 
Salty said:
not relevant to whether or not it’s reportable. I stated clearly earlier in the thread I think it was reckless endangerment.

how do you do $25k of property damage to a rock? Remediation is not property damage.
Click to expand...
What equipment is used to remove the aircraft? Will that damage property? Environmental impact if left?
 
I mentioned before that from his shadow it appears he's carrying something large as he traipses through the underbrush trying to find civilization.

51779713795_487eb573d4_z.jpg


It's from around 9 minutes into the video. Since he doffs the chute rig after landing, seems very odd he'd strap it back on, much less carry the chute, if that's what it is.
 
Well... rigs run like 6 grand, I’d carry it out. And I’d gather my go pros. And I would probably take my time walking out as it’s like a free vacation.

And I might even destroy a plane like that just for kicks (providing it was a goner anyway).

Just don’t think I’d go around bragging about it! Geesh...

It’s like my deer hunting buds. Plant deer plots. Extravagant deer blinds. Perfect guns, ammo, equipment. Heated trigger finger guards... Cameras to figure out their routines. And brag about what sportsmen they are. Great way to get deer meat, just not an amazing feat. IMHO.

That plane did less damage than a band of teenagers on dirt bikes do in 15 minutes. Destroying a plane like that is no worse than neglecting one into obscurity.

He’s a simpleton looking for recognition. It offends our sensibilities.

Let’s face it, it’s the who, not the what.
 
I'll add something to ponder...

Since he bailed out of the plane, didn't the plane become abandoned property at that moment.??
 
Zeldman said:
I'll add something to ponder...

Since he bailed out of the plane, didn't the plane become abandoned property at that moment.??
Click to expand...
You in the market for a slightly used T-crate? No damage history...
 
Nah... seen multitudes of people “abandon” cars during snowstorms. They USUALLY come back for them!

in the navy we called it “giving it back to the taxpayers” if we abandoned one.

Also an argument for it then becoming the insurance company’s property.

Lastly, if considered “garbage” upon arriving at terra firma, then there’s a good argument for it being considered abandoned.

I’ve got an awesome set of tools, I don’t think it’s even totaled!
 
FastEddieB said:
Regardless, a title slide in the video states "I notified the FAA and the NTSB immediately".
Click to expand...
A slide on a YouTube video made an assertion? Well, then we know it must be true.
 
Tools said:
Lastly, if considered “garbage” upon arriving at terra firma, then there’s a good argument for it being considered abandoned.
Click to expand...

And if it is considered abandoned, then will the plane belong to whomever removes it.?? Not to mention making the insurance company (if there is one) happy for not having to pay for its removal...


Tools said:
in the navy we called it “giving it back to the taxpayers” if we abandoned one.
Click to expand...

:lol::lol::lol:
 
Dave Anderson said:
What equipment is used to remove the aircraft? Will that damage property? Environmental impact if left?
Click to expand...
Helicopter sling loads are a common method used in remote places and especially in environmental sensitive areas.
 
I see the term “reckless endangerment” being used, with a suggestion that the pilot could be criminally charged with such. The incident happened in California, where there isn’t, and never has been, a crime entitled “reckless endangerment”. Reckless driving is as close as it gets, and that pertains only to motor vehicles, of which an aircraft does not meet the definition by any stretch.
 
Zeldman said:
I'll add something to ponder...

Since he bailed out of the plane, didn't the plane become abandoned property at that moment.??
Click to expand...

No. Under California law, the finder of any property must make reasonable attempts to ascertain ownership and return it.
 
FastEddieB said:
I mentioned before that from his shadow it appears he's carrying something large as he traipses through the underbrush trying to find civilization.

51779713795_487eb573d4_z.jpg


It's from around 9 minutes into the video. Since he doffs the chute rig after landing, seems very odd he'd strap it back on, much less carry the chute, if that's what it is.
Click to expand...


Let's hope so, cuz if that's him taking a leak....
 
ateamer said:
No. Under California law, the finder of any property must make reasonable attempts to ascertain ownership and return it.
Click to expand...

Thanks.!!

I'll remember that if I ever have to bail out over California...:lol::lol:
 
ateamer said:
No. Under California law, the finder of any property must make reasonable attempts to ascertain ownership and return it.
Click to expand...
Most states have this; it's a version of the freshwater salvage laws, I believe.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top