Hacker News Reader

Comment by jmkni | Hacker News Reader

Stupid question, but could this guy end up in some sort of legal trouble?

He's obviously a hero and saved the lives of everyone on board, but it's still illegal to fly a plane while unqualified, right?

View on HN

While I think even the colossally tone-deaf FAA wouldn't try to prosecute this guy under these circumstances, there's an odd gray area here, where a certificated pilot can deviate from any regulation to meet the need of an emergency [1] -- so I think a twist of logic would allow a non-pilot to be allowed to deviate from the "must have a pilot certificate" rules to meet his emergency the same way while acting as pilot-in-command of this plane.

Not a lawyer, am a flight instructor, I think 91.3 is how this non-pilot gets to use pilot regs to get out of pilot jail :)

[1] https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/14/91.3

One might argue that if he's specifically following the direct instructions of the ATC, who is a licensed pilot in this case, that the ATC is "the pilot," and his allowing of a non-pilot to push the buttons on his behalf was a necessary deviation to handle the emergency and land the plane.

That's an interesting twist -- I really hope nobody at the FAA gets such a wild hair to try to pin a certificate action on the ATC controller (here or ever, in any situation), but --

There is a SODA precedent for what you describe. As I understand it, a deaf pilot can get an instrument rating if they have a translator onboard to run comms for them and translate to ASL in-cockpit. So this is sort of the same situation you're contemplating, with a different chair position -- "translator" in the ATC room instead of the right seat.

I do feel the regulations allow all sorts of circuitous logic, that any "outcome" could be achieved with enough incentive. ATC is the last place on earth where I feel cooperation is the inviolate rule of the day, so I'd hate for some maverick prosecutor to throw ice water on the pilot-controller relationship in a witch-hunt for blame.

If that's the case, shouldn't the controller be a Certificated Remote Pilot under Part 107 rules?

Heh - I think this wouldn’t fall under 107 because the aircraft weighs more than fifty pounds.

… unless they applied for and were granted a waiver beforehand, which would raise other questions :)

That should probably be done as a precaution for all aircraft. It's a win for everyone.

I’m far more familiar with operation under Part 107 (sUAS, i.e., drones <50#), but this seems consistent with how the FAA has it structured.

I let kids fly my quadcopters regularly. Legally, I’m the “RPIC” - “remote pilot in command”. The fact that someone else is physical operating the controls is irrelevant. I’m responsible for the safe operation of the aircraft. Because it’s remote, there is a requirement that I be able to take immediate control of the aircraft if necessary; standing next to the person with the controller is sufficient to meet that requirement.

there's absolutely no way the controller qualifies as PIC for this event - to be PIC of a non-unmanned aircraft you would have to be onboard the aircraft.

This is why prosecutorial discretion exists. Yes, he could, but mitigating circunstancies can and often are considered, and local prosecutors or responsible regulators (the FAA in this case) simply decide not to file charges. Police often do the same in smaller cases. Example; if someone breaks a car or house window to save an occupant that's trapped from a fire. That's vandalism, but rarely prosecuted if it happens as far as I know.

Car/house insurance might have a different opinion. :)

Luckily, the FAA has a regulation for that. 14 CFR § 91.3 (b):

(b) In an in-flight emergency requiring immediate action, the pilot in command may deviate from any rule of this part to the extent required to meet that emergency.

Only in America... :D

But seriously most likely there are laws that allow you do things in emergency and not be prosecuted. In the UK it is called the doctrine of necessity. The example given was that only a doctor is allowed to give an order to use “prescription only” medicine. But in emergency situations where there is no doctor and you need to save a life, then it would be ok to do by anybody else as long as he has at least some idea what he is doing.

> He's obviously a hero and saved the lives of everyone on board, but it's still illegal to fly a plane while unqualified, right?

What, uh, is the alternative?

In some situations illegal things become legal. Like how it's illegal to stand on the street and stop the traffic. Except it becomes legal if you are preventing drivers from driving their cars of a collapsed bridge.

It's likely that there's an exception for emergency situations.

In this case 'everyone on board' was 2 people, him and the incapacitated pilot.

it's not a criminal offense, and the FAA has no authority except to revoke a pilot certificate, which the "pilot" does not have.

Basically, the FAA really can't do much, and nobody else has authority to punish the person who landed since they didn't cause any personal or property damage.

IANAL but: - Wouldn't be surprised if general legal doctrine allows neglect of law in emergency - Clearly no intent to violate the law/regulations - Good luck getting a jury to convict - What's the penalty, loss of pilot's license the guy doesn't have?

Definitely not illegal in an emergency situation like this.

Source: just trust me bro.

It better be legal, or the FAA better not prosecute.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com