Those are intentionally not statements actually made, but examples of fallacious appeals to authority, and we could dig up on these threads examples of all three forms quite easily.
My argument is quite the opposite of what you suppose: logical arguments are valid or not regardless of who makes them. That hasn't changed for a couple thousand years.
And sure, I agree that when it comes to "accident investigations", pilots are amateurs. They have (or should have) an interest in them, and they are extremely familiar with a segment of it. But I think you've got the temporality of cops and criminals mixed up. The analogy fails.