That's for tampering with aircraft "used, operated, or employed in interstate, overseas, or foreign air commerce", which seems unlikely for a private GA plane, even if you stretch the definition of "interstate commerce" like courts like to do. Plus the section is really about other people's planes, not ones you own, otherwise anybody performing maintenance work "disabling" a plane just committed a felony.
> That's for tampering with aircraft "used, operated, or employed in interstate, overseas, or foreign air commerce"
Is that not an OR requirement of paragraph (1), meaning that "sets fire to, damages, destroys, disables, or wrecks any aircraft in the special aircraft jurisdiction of the United States" would be sufficient on its own? That was my initial reading of the paragraph, but I'm not hugely familiar with US law.
"Special aircraft jurisdiction of the United States" seems to be defined here:
> “special aircraft jurisdiction of the United States” includes any of the following aircraft in flight: (A) a civil aircraft of the United States. (B) an aircraft of the armed forces of the United States. (C) another aircraft in the United States.[...]
I think the US Attorneys' Manual agrees with your reading:
- "Jurisdiction over acts relating to the destruction of aircraft or aircraft facilities extends to "any aircraft in the special aircraft jurisdiction of the United States."
There's probably a less specific crime he could be charged with. Even the FAA reg he violated—"careless and reckless operation"—is a catch-all the FAA uses to say, "we don't have a specific rule against what you did, but you were definitely being a dumbass on purpose."
Here's a fancy-looking felony that seems on point:
- "18 U.S. Code § 32 - Destruction of aircraft or aircraft facilities"
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/32