AOPA Seeks Federal Intervention After Airplane Seized by Minnesota Tribe

Pilot made emergency landing on state highway, but tribe claims jurisdiction over airspace

Mar. 14, 2026 at 2:07am

Got story updates? Submit your updates here. ›

The Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association (AOPA) is urging federal agencies to intervene after a Minnesota tribe seized a private pilot's airplane following an emergency landing on a state highway. The tribe claims jurisdiction over the airspace, but AOPA argues that regulation of navigable airspace is a matter of exclusive federal authority.

Why it matters

This case raises concerns about the extent of tribal sovereignty and the ability of pilots to safely land their aircraft in emergencies without facing confiscation or penalties. The outcome could set a precedent that impacts general aviation pilots across the country.

The details

Pilot Darrin Smedsmo was flying his Stinson 108 over Lower Red Lake in Minnesota when his engine failed, forcing him to land safely on State Highway 89. The Red Lake Nation then seized the airplane, citing a 1978 tribal resolution that claims jurisdiction over airspace up to 20,000 feet and bans overflights of any airplanes. AOPA has written letters to federal agencies urging them to intervene, arguing that the tribe's actions violate federal aviation law and safety protections for pilots.

  • On October 15, 2025, Smedsmo made an emergency landing on State Highway 89 after his engine failed.
  • In December 2025, AOPA first wrote to federal agencies urging them to intervene.
  • In March 2026, AOPA reiterated its call for federal intervention in a new letter.

The players

Darrin Smedsmo

The pilot whose Stinson 108 airplane was seized by the Red Lake Nation after he made an emergency landing on a state highway.

Red Lake Nation

The Native American tribe in Minnesota that seized Smedsmo's airplane, claiming jurisdiction over the airspace.

AOPA

The Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association, which is advocating for federal intervention to resolve the dispute and return Smedsmo's airplane.

Got photos? Submit your photos here. ›

What they’re saying

“The continued impoundment of an aircraft following a legitimate emergency landing raises serious questions about how federal aviation law and safety protections are being applied in this situation.”

— Jim Coon, AOPA Senior Vice President of Government Affairs and Advocacy

“If an emergency landing made in the interest of safety can be treated as trespassing and result in confiscation of an aircraft and substantial penalties, it creates uncertainty for pilots who may be forced by circumstances beyond their control to land wherever safety requires.”

— Jim Coon, AOPA Senior Vice President of Government Affairs and Advocacy

“They obviously don't have anything against me and so they're just putting it off, putting it off, putting it off, hoping it'll go away and I'm not planning on going anywhere.”

— Darrin Smedsmo

What’s next

Without a resolution, AOPA may pursue a legislative remedy to clarify and reaffirm the protections afforded to pilots who are compelled to make emergency landings in the interest of safety.

The takeaway

This case highlights the complex jurisdictional issues surrounding tribal sovereignty and federal aviation law, raising concerns about the ability of pilots to safely land their aircraft in emergencies without facing confiscation or penalties.