6 ms·

Is there a law that says you can't intentionally crash a plane? Honest question. There isn't a law that prevents you from intentionally crashing other vehicles.

Is there a law that says you can't intentionally crash a plane? Honest question. There isn't a law that prevents you from intentionally crashing other vehicles. Just around property damage and endangering other people.

COGlory 3y ago
Is there a scenario where intentionally crashing a vehicle on property that you do not have permission to crash a vehicle on isn't reckless endangerment/reckless driving? Except maybe steering away from the oncoming bus into the jersey barrier or something?
- tomatotomato37 3y ago
  I know there was at least one remote-controlled airliner intentionally crashed in the desert filled with crash dummies and stuff, though that was in an active partnership with the FAA
- Sebb767 3y ago
  > Is there a scenario where intentionally crashing a vehicle on property that you do not have permission to crash a vehicle on isn't reckless endangerment/reckless driving? Arguably whenever you could expect that not crashing the vehicle would lead to a worse outcome. In the plane example, this might be true if you expect to loose control of the plane at some point (due to mechanical failure or force) and a controlled crash is the best option to avoid (possibly) impacting a more populated area. But I agree that this is a rare scenario.
  - plorg 3y ago
    I think implied here is also that putting yourself in that dangerous situation on purpose negates whatever goodwill claim you have to self-preservation. Or, at least, introduces more reckless endangerment/driving for which you are culpable.
JumpCrisscross 3y ago
> law that says you can't intentionally crash a plane? No. We do crash tests from time to time [1]. But at a minimum, you must control--not even just own--the terrain you're crashing into. (It's also not solely a Part 91/FAA matter. The EPA, for example, would also want to have a say.) [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_Boeing_727_crash_experiment https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_Boeing_727_crash_experime...
- omginternets 3y ago
  What does "control" mean, technically? I have an intuitive sense of what you're pointing at with the Boeing 727 crash experiment, but how does the law phrase it?
  - JumpCrisscross 3y ago
    > What does "control" mean, technically? "The power to govern, manage, direct, or oversee something" [1]. So if I own/possess acres of unfenced grasslands, I'd need to put up fences or people to monitor the property or at the very least crash site's borders. [1] https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/control https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/control
    - mikeyouse 3y ago
      It's a more specific definition in aviation -- think air traffic control. You need to actively make sure that there won't be any other flights near where you're intending to crash your plane which is tricky if you just bail at altitude and let it sail into terrain for YouTube. If you want to crash a plane, you'd likely have to apply for/receive temporary flight restrictions over the area where you want to crash it so that ATC can ensure everyone else stays clear. https://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/atpubs/foa_html/chap20_section_2.html https://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/atpubs/foa_html...
      - JumpCrisscross 3y ago
        > you'd likely have to apply for/receive temporary flight restrictions over the area where you want to crash it so that ATC can ensure everyone else stays clear Correct. I was simply talking about control of the land underneath. Owning and controlling the land doesn't mean you have any rights to its airspace.
ryandrake 3y ago
It probably falls under Careless or reckless[1] at the very least 14 CFR 91.13. EDIT: Looks like user JumpCrisscross beat me to it. 1: https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-14/chapter-I/subchapter-F/part-91/subpart-A/section-91.13 https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-14/chapter-I/subchapter-F...
throw0101b 3y ago
> There isn't a law that prevents you from intentionally crashing other vehicles. Just around property damage and endangering other people. You can probably do whatever you want with your private vehicle on your private land. But on public roads you need a license to operate, and you must operate the vehicle in certain prescribed ways. Similarly you can probably do whatever you want with your private air vehicle while it sits on your private land, but when you are operating in public air space then you must operate in the ways prescribed by your pilot license.
- JumpCrisscross 3y ago
  > can probably do whatever you want with your private vehicle on your private land Sort of. Own plane, own land and a filed flight path should satisfy the FAA's requirements, though you may also need to take active measures to ensure your private land is clear of things that could be harmed. After that, there is the environmental component. Our influencer here not only inundated the crash site with leaded avgas, but likely also sprinkled it all the way to the hangar. Given the track record of decision making, I have no hope he disposed of the parts properly, either.
  - pavel_lishin 3y ago
    > Given the track record of decision making, I have no hope he disposed of the parts properly, either. Your instincts are correct: > Jacob drove the wreckage to Lompoc City Airport and unloaded it in a hangar. He then cut up and destroyed the airplane wreckage and, over the course of a few days, deposited the detached parts of the wrecked airplane into trash bins at the airport and elsewhere
  - throw0101b 3y ago
    > Own plane, own land and a filed flight path should satisfy the FAA's requirements, though you may also need to take active measures to ensure your private land is clear of things that could be harmed. If he had a private air field/airport and "landed" (crashed) the plane on his air field, then that could be argued, but there's still the fact that he bailed out of the airplane and left it in an uncontrolled state, in which case there's probably some kind of 'reckless' charge that could be thrown at him.
bmitc 3y ago
> There isn't a law that prevents you from intentionally crashing other vehicles. Just around property damage and endangering other people. Those two sentences don't make any sense next to each other. There's no way to intentionally crash your vehicle that doesn't include several other things for which their are specific laws for. One can't intentionally crash a car in the same way that you can intentionally swing a bat in your backyard without hitting anything. Edit: Also, for what it's worth, it wasn't even his plane.
- ImPostingOnHN 3y ago
  > One can't intentionally crash a car in the same way that you can intentionally swing a bat in your backyard without hitting anything What exactly do you mean here? I've witnessed plenty of vehicle damage done on private ranchland from various obstacles, and in some cases, other family/friends' vehicles. If you wanted to drive your vehicle into a big rock on your own land, what exactly stops you?
  - bmitc 3y ago
    Such a scenario isn't really relevant here, is it? And you can't fly an airplane on your land because you don't own the air. He crashed a plane that wasn't his on land that wasn't his.
    - ImPostingOnHN 3y ago
      I'm not the one who contrived the scenario, I'm just asking what you meant when you contrived it, because your assertion, on its face, seems to be contrary to reality. In general, you can indeed crash your car into your stuff on your land all you want. Did you mean to say that one can't intentionally smash a bat or a car into /other/ people's stuff without breaking a law? Because that seems pretty obvious.
gosub100 3y ago
So far, all of us are just guessing, so here's my guess: What Trevor did would be considered an "aerobatic flight" [1] "aerobatic flight means an intentional maneuver involving an abrupt change in an aircraft's attitude, an abnormal attitude, or abnormal acceleration, not necessary for normal flight." He may have been technically legal on the FAA side, but reckless dumping of hazardous materials in the desert is probably an actual charge they could have nailed him on. Perhaps "operating a vehicle off an approved trail" type of charge, or some kind of wildlife violation / fire hazard are also what I would guess. Perhaps running afoul of some kind of parachuting laws as well, maybe having to file for that so other aviators know about it. Someone below mentioned filing a flight plan, which has nothing to do with anything. Flight plans are to aid in search-and-rescue if you dont show up. [1] https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-14/chapter-I/subchapter-F/part-91/subpart-D/section-91.303 https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-14/chapter-I/subchapter-F...

COGlory 3y ago

Is there a scenario where intentionally crashing a vehicle on property that you do not have permission to crash a vehicle on isn't reckless endangerment/reckless driving? Except maybe steering away from the oncoming bus into the jersey barrier or something?

tomatotomato37 3y ago
I know there was at least one remote-controlled airliner intentionally crashed in the desert filled with crash dummies and stuff, though that was in an active partnership with the FAA
Sebb767 3y ago
> Is there a scenario where intentionally crashing a vehicle on property that you do not have permission to crash a vehicle on isn't reckless endangerment/reckless driving? Arguably whenever you could expect that not crashing the vehicle would lead to a worse outcome. In the plane example, this might be true if you expect to loose control of the plane at some point (due to mechanical failure or force) and a controlled crash is the best option to avoid (possibly) impacting a more populated area. But I agree that this is a rare scenario.
- plorg 3y ago
  I think implied here is also that putting yourself in that dangerous situation on purpose negates whatever goodwill claim you have to self-preservation. Or, at least, introduces more reckless endangerment/driving for which you are culpable.

JumpCrisscross 3y ago

> law that says you can't intentionally crash a plane? No. We do crash tests from time to time [1]. But at a minimum, you must control--not even just own--the terrain you're crashing into. (It's also not solely a Part 91/FAA matter. The EPA, for example, would also want to have a say.) [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_Boeing_727_crash_experiment https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_Boeing_727_crash_experime...

omginternets 3y ago
What does "control" mean, technically? I have an intuitive sense of what you're pointing at with the Boeing 727 crash experiment, but how does the law phrase it?
- JumpCrisscross 3y ago
  > What does "control" mean, technically? "The power to govern, manage, direct, or oversee something" [1]. So if I own/possess acres of unfenced grasslands, I'd need to put up fences or people to monitor the property or at the very least crash site's borders. [1] https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/control https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/control
  - mikeyouse 3y ago
    It's a more specific definition in aviation -- think air traffic control. You need to actively make sure that there won't be any other flights near where you're intending to crash your plane which is tricky if you just bail at altitude and let it sail into terrain for YouTube. If you want to crash a plane, you'd likely have to apply for/receive temporary flight restrictions over the area where you want to crash it so that ATC can ensure everyone else stays clear. https://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/atpubs/foa_html/chap20_section_2.html https://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/atpubs/foa_html...
    - JumpCrisscross 3y ago
      > you'd likely have to apply for/receive temporary flight restrictions over the area where you want to crash it so that ATC can ensure everyone else stays clear Correct. I was simply talking about control of the land underneath. Owning and controlling the land doesn't mean you have any rights to its airspace.

ryandrake 3y ago

It probably falls under Careless or reckless[1] at the very least 14 CFR 91.13. EDIT: Looks like user JumpCrisscross beat me to it. 1: https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-14/chapter-I/subchapter-F/part-91/subpart-A/section-91.13 https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-14/chapter-I/subchapter-F...

throw0101b 3y ago

> There isn't a law that prevents you from intentionally crashing other vehicles. Just around property damage and endangering other people. You can probably do whatever you want with your private vehicle on your private land. But on public roads you need a license to operate, and you must operate the vehicle in certain prescribed ways. Similarly you can probably do whatever you want with your private air vehicle while it sits on your private land, but when you are operating in public air space then you must operate in the ways prescribed by your pilot license.

JumpCrisscross 3y ago
> can probably do whatever you want with your private vehicle on your private land Sort of. Own plane, own land and a filed flight path should satisfy the FAA's requirements, though you may also need to take active measures to ensure your private land is clear of things that could be harmed. After that, there is the environmental component. Our influencer here not only inundated the crash site with leaded avgas, but likely also sprinkled it all the way to the hangar. Given the track record of decision making, I have no hope he disposed of the parts properly, either.
- pavel_lishin 3y ago
  > Given the track record of decision making, I have no hope he disposed of the parts properly, either. Your instincts are correct: > Jacob drove the wreckage to Lompoc City Airport and unloaded it in a hangar. He then cut up and destroyed the airplane wreckage and, over the course of a few days, deposited the detached parts of the wrecked airplane into trash bins at the airport and elsewhere
- throw0101b 3y ago
  > Own plane, own land and a filed flight path should satisfy the FAA's requirements, though you may also need to take active measures to ensure your private land is clear of things that could be harmed. If he had a private air field/airport and "landed" (crashed) the plane on his air field, then that could be argued, but there's still the fact that he bailed out of the airplane and left it in an uncontrolled state, in which case there's probably some kind of 'reckless' charge that could be thrown at him.

bmitc 3y ago

> There isn't a law that prevents you from intentionally crashing other vehicles. Just around property damage and endangering other people. Those two sentences don't make any sense next to each other. There's no way to intentionally crash your vehicle that doesn't include several other things for which their are specific laws for. One can't intentionally crash a car in the same way that you can intentionally swing a bat in your backyard without hitting anything. Edit: Also, for what it's worth, it wasn't even his plane.

ImPostingOnHN 3y ago
> One can't intentionally crash a car in the same way that you can intentionally swing a bat in your backyard without hitting anything What exactly do you mean here? I've witnessed plenty of vehicle damage done on private ranchland from various obstacles, and in some cases, other family/friends' vehicles. If you wanted to drive your vehicle into a big rock on your own land, what exactly stops you?
- bmitc 3y ago
  Such a scenario isn't really relevant here, is it? And you can't fly an airplane on your land because you don't own the air. He crashed a plane that wasn't his on land that wasn't his.
  - ImPostingOnHN 3y ago
    I'm not the one who contrived the scenario, I'm just asking what you meant when you contrived it, because your assertion, on its face, seems to be contrary to reality. In general, you can indeed crash your car into your stuff on your land all you want. Did you mean to say that one can't intentionally smash a bat or a car into /other/ people's stuff without breaking a law? Because that seems pretty obvious.

gosub100 3y ago

So far, all of us are just guessing, so here's my guess: What Trevor did would be considered an "aerobatic flight" [1] "aerobatic flight means an intentional maneuver involving an abrupt change in an aircraft's attitude, an abnormal attitude, or abnormal acceleration, not necessary for normal flight." He may have been technically legal on the FAA side, but reckless dumping of hazardous materials in the desert is probably an actual charge they could have nailed him on. Perhaps "operating a vehicle off an approved trail" type of charge, or some kind of wildlife violation / fire hazard are also what I would guess. Perhaps running afoul of some kind of parachuting laws as well, maybe having to file for that so other aviators know about it. Someone below mentioned filing a flight plan, which has nothing to do with anything. Flight plans are to aid in search-and-rescue if you dont show up. [1] https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-14/chapter-I/subchapter-F/part-91/subpart-D/section-91.303 https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-14/chapter-I/subchapter-F...