Piper J3 makes emergency landing near Sandia Labs, pilot taken away in cuffs.

If it's for a short duration (like 20 minutes), you are being detained. If it is for a long time or you're handcuffed and taken elsewhere, you have most definitely been arrested because the cop feels there is a reasonable suspicion that a crime has taken place. Again, that's my take on the two terms...
 
e4evatug.jpg
 
"The pilot was briefly detained by security at Sandia National Laboratories but was later released, a laboratory spokesman said Monday. The pilot was interviewed by the laboratory security and then turned over to Livermore police, but his story checked out and he was released, Janes said."

So while he was detained and questioned, he was not arrested according to what I have read. And considering the type of work, development, manufacturing, engineering, the technology in use there, testing and research that is done at Sandia, why is anyone surprised that he would have been held for a time and questioned, checked out and ID'd, or am I missing something?

Interestingly enough, the cub is registered to a retired Air Force Major (U-2 pilot/instructor no less) in Yuba. Don't know if it was him flying, but it is his plane.
 
Last edited:
Just texted my cop friend. The answer was 90% of the time a handcuff results in an arrest. The other 10% are usually involved in some sort of altercation where the cop will handcuff the individuals involved for their own safety as well as the cop's safety until they get the details on what happened etc. Its the officer's choice. They can choose not to handcuff but usually do if they are on patrol alone until another unit shows up. Anyone wanna guess what the top reason is for an arrest in Las Vegas? Its not DUIs.
 
Last edited:
mshunter said:
Help us out here @MikeD. You're LEO, what say you?
Click to expand...

Not every instance of handcuffs is a formal arrest. It can be or temporary detention purposes, but it has to be clearly articulated why that was required, as has been mentioned. However it can't be used arbitrarily and without any reason of safety or other reasonable measure that can be clearly articulated, or one potentially runs into a jam up of unreasonable seizure. So it is a fine line.
 
JeppUpdater said:
Rant mode: I'm so sick of seeing this 'national security' BS on sectional charts and the "temporary" flight restrictions that have been up for years. /rant
Click to expand...

Like the "temporary" flight restriction that's been over both Disney parks since 2009? Temporary my butt.

I feel you man.
 
JeppUpdater said:
Rant mode: I'm so sick of seeing this 'national security' BS on sectional charts and the "temporary" flight restrictions that have been up for years. /rant
Click to expand...

Notice on the sectional it says "pilots are requested to....." , not "pilots are required to..."
 
Last edited:
I actually asked one of the GFK ATCT controllers why the TFR over RDR doesn't become a restricted area, and actually the answer kind of made sense. Since the TFR is used to separate UAS from Manned flight, if the UAS isn't flying the TFR is open, the text basically says as much. By keeping it a TFR and not converting it into a full-out R area, they don't have to call down to MSP center and put out a separate NOTAM for each of the 10-15 UAS flights a day.

The down side of that, is that you really have to be up on the FDC NOTAM and be in comms with the RAPCON when you're in the area, you can't just go blundering through the airspace on assumptions.

What would be nice is if they could come up with a Charted TFR, so they can put it on a VFR/IFR sectional but don't have to call center and NOTAM it every time the UAS goes up.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top