FAA suspends Trent Palmer's License - Career Pilot Reacts
Vložit
- čas přidán 30. 06. 2024
- Let's take a close look at what we know and don't know in Administrator v. Palmer. Thanks for the (mostly) respectful discussion in the comments. Trent has earned this.
Links:
@TrentonPalmer video: • The FAA Suspended My P...
Watch my interview with @FlyWirescottperdue at • How to Ditch Like You ... about ditching my Bonanza in the Columbia River
My primer on how the FAA applies compliance and enforcement actions, watch • Is the FAA out to VIOL...
Consider following Cleared Direct on IG at / cleared_direct_resources - Auta a dopravní prostředky
I appreciate the support and very nice breakdown. I too wish the neighbor had come to me, I reached out through my friend asking if I could go over to apologize for upsetting them (after the neighbor had already reported me to the FAA and called local law enforcement on me, which they obviously didn't even follow up on), the neighbor replied with "we don't want to talk to him, we want to bury him for this." This particular neighbor has made a habit of calling on others, he even tried to get our FedEx driver for the neighborhood fired for pulling off his driveway by a few feet... Regardless they are arguing that it was a blatant buzz job, they have no evidence to prove it and are unwilling to hear anything otherwise. The comment below with the notes from my lawyer are from him, it was quite a circus act of a case. Also, due to covid the FAA isn't doing hearings in person, this was all done though a zoom meeting.
Again, I appreciate the support, I will do my best to keep everyone up to date and keep myself out of trouble moving forward...
Thanks for the extra context, Trent. I’m glad you tried to solve it locally. Sometimes you can’t just reason with people and you’re left to deal with the fallout. Happy to see a new vid out today. Blue skies brother
Wishing for the best for you Trent! You have my support!
Back in 1995, Ron Howard released his monumental movie Apollo 13; and as apart of the promotion of this movie Jim Lovell the astronaut was granting interviews. I remember reading that Jim Lovell was actually taking journalists up in the air in his personal aircraft; and because his airport didn’t have a ground staff, it was SOP at this airport to deliberately “buzz” the landing strip at low altitude in order to chase off any wildlife before the actual landing.
Wouldn’t this practice be both safe, and in direct violation of federal regulations?
That guy calling is bumb and for the FAA they just want you to lawyer up and spend money if this was for safety we would have more safety issues taken care of, they chose you Trent because you have CZcams channel. If you are able to prove you incents they should have to pay you back double for wasting time. IF the FFA was worried about safety we would change the way we build aircrafts not purposely make them so people die in a crash so they cant make it to court to sue the airplane company's.
You should whisper anonymously in the police's ear that the neighbour is smuggling drugs or involved in other felonies. That should give him a nervous day or two while the police investigate.
I've personally met Trent at Oshkosh one year and he's every bit the stand-up individual in person as he is on camera. IMHO this is a pretty big witch hunt on the FAA's part.
I don't know how I got here but if you're here, I must be in the right place.
@@JustPlaneSilly 🤣🤣🤣
How can you know all this from one meet n greet???
@@TakeDeadAim it wasn’t a meet and greet.
@@stevegiboney4493 Steve!!!!! All the cool people are here.
Here's a comment from Trent's attorney online. The case details are insane. There's no "other side to this story." It's a pure and simple railroad attempt of a high profile pilot. Read below:
I am Trent's attorney.
What happened in his case was so appalling, I do not know where to begin.
But to call his trial a circus demeans the circus.
Nicolae and Elena Ceaușescu got a fairer trial than Trent did.
Here are but a few examples:
- The center piece of the FAA case was a video that caught a glimpse of Trent's airplane during his low inspection pass. The FAA destroyed/deleted that video before trial, but every FAA witness was permitted to testify (over my continuous objection) about what the video allegedly showed even thought we could not see it.
- FAA Counsel during the course of the proceedings objected to a question that I ask their "expert" relative to the flap system Trent's aircraft used. Her objection? She did not understand the question. When the judge asked her source of confusion, she asked "what's a flap?" This attorney has been with the FAA for 22 years.
Remember that the justification for all administrative agencies is that they are repositories of subject matter "expertise."
Spare me.
- Their "expert pilot" had an unremarkable flying career who never made any more than 50K as a pilot and doubled his salary when he jumped to the FAA 18 years ago. He was the individual who the FAA put up to second guess Trent about his off-airport operations. He had not touched an aircraft in 18 years. He knew nothing about Trent's plane, could not tell you its performance characteristics, what type it was, its engine, etc. He conducted no investigation and read no materials which would have informed him in that regard. He too knew nothing of Trent's flying experience. He had never observed Trent flying and made no efforts or requests to do so.
I asked him whether or not it was a fair statement that the "appropriateness" of a landing site is a function of both the aircraft performance and pilot experience? He agreed that was a fair statement.
He too agreed that a low inspection pass was "necessary" to conduct an off-airport landing.
Still, he offered all manner of testimony about what would have happened had its engined had failed (and BTW, its a KitFox V. I have seen helicopters take more distance to land) and the (in)appropriateness of Trent's chosen landing site (over my objection, of course).
Oh, and according to this "pilot expert," when you are doing a low inspection pass for an off airport landing, you still must stay at least 500 feet away from "vehicles, vessels, structures and persons" on the ground. Riddle me this batman, how the F do you inspect a runway surface from 500 feet away?"
The FAA "pilot expert" too boasted in his resume (which I secured in discovery) that when he does a good job for the FAA, he gets - and I quote verbatim - "accolades, time-of, and cash awards." Part of his job is to hang pilots in enforcement actions.
I asked him on cross, "if this case goes the FAA's way, will you get "accolades, time-off or a cash award." Objection. Sustained.
If I had brought this "expert" to court, I would have been laughed out of the door.
At the FAA, this is business as usual.
I have NEVER seen such institutional bias in my life. This is hardly an independent expert who bring his wealth of experience to bear upon a set of facts to reach an informed opinion. He is whore, and an indentured one at that.
The FAA keeps food in his belly and a roof over his head. What do you think he is going to say in these proceedings?
From a few cubicles away .... "hey Bob, what are you doing today?" "Nothing why?" "We got this enforcement case and need you to testify against a pilot." "Sure. Be right there."
Apparently, if you hold a pilots certificate and work for the FAA, you are an "expert" about all things piloting. Your actual experience matters not.
Oh, I did ask him on cross in all the times he has testified for the FAA, how many times did he testify that the pilot did nothing wrong. Wait for it .... 0.
I will post his resume later so you can see it with your own eyes.
And folks, I am just scratching the surface here.
If I sound like I am disgusted, it is because I am.
Oh, and let me too add that this is not the only matter I have going now where the a pilot has been violated for doing EXACTLY what the FAA advised him to do.
It's getting old folks.
Trent is a very nice and earnest young man who has a passion for aviation who is VERY good at what he does and is by any reasonable measure, an excellent pilot, especially when it comes to off-airport operations. He simply does not deserve this.
Apparently, Trent has found the right guy to represent him. It is, also, apparent that y'all are beating your heads against a wall of bureaucracy. Wish you the best.
Let's see the neighbor's evidence along with a detailed map showing the flight path.
Does the ALJ's finding mean that a low pass inspection must be followed by a landing regardless of
conditions found on the low pass?
@@hollijxn3782 Kinda looks like that is the logic used by the ALJ, doesn't it?
Holy shit. Thank you for that context
You're so spot on with this! I met Trent in 2019 at Oshkosh. There was a panel of CZcamsrs speaking about how posted videos of what they do could be used by the FAA for enforcement, up to and including monetary gains for pilots who do not possess a commercial rating, even if no flight violations occurred. But the bigger point I'd like to make, which applies here, is virtually EVERYTHING we do as aviators is probably on video...posted or not. And all we have to do is anger somebody, who knows nothing about flying or how the rules apply, to get caught in an expensive web defending ourselves.
This is very true, think about all the plane spotters out there. Videos are everywhere nowadays. Watch yourselves and do what you can to follow the rules. I know this is the case here but just a general statement. It sucks, just reality these days...
Moral to this story…. When a government official wants to “talk,” don’t! Remain silent and demand strict proof of the allegations asserted.
Could work, could also make it suspicious to do more research on the subject. There are no "one solution fits all". And yes, as in all large organizations, there are a high probability that there are some people that probably need some upgraded training about the purpose of the agency, and/or moved to another place of work in the organization. Yes, in all organizations.
Assuming Trent's story is accurate, this sets terrible and dangerous case precedent. This is almost as bad as last year when the FAA told pilots that they're not allowed to legally get training in their experimental airplanes. Are we seeing a trend that the FAA is causing safety issues for the aviation community?
I don't believe his story is accurate. Neither does the FAA. They wouldn't waste this much time if there was even a shred of evidence that he was not just making low fly-by's.
@@TakeDeadAim That's very possible. As long as whatever story they're ruling on is properly documented, so it doesn't create bad case precedent.
is it primer or primmer? go Steve
"Are we seeing a trend that the FAA is causing safety issues for the aviation community?" I have one word to answer your question: Boeing. The FAA lost its way years ago which was a large contributor to the 737 Max debacle. I'm still very skeptical of today's FAA.
For anyone who hasn't seen it... I'm referring to this.
czcams.com/video/DW_LeEw4Aug/video.html
The FAA misstepped big time with that one. I'm interested to see if Trent's situation is a similar misstep.
I think all bush pilots should drop a portable windsock at their next landing sight before landing. That way there is a windsock present, thus making it an official landing sight. (Sarcasm being employed)
Don’t say that too loud they’ll implement it 🤣
there is no legal requirement to have a windsock
Sarcasm being employed and wind sock deployed 👨✈️
Gotta carry a paratrooper pathfinder to set up the windsock and a flare path
“Emphasissing the wrong sylable” - brilliantly captures this farcical tragedy in a nutshell! Kudos Steve, for throwing your esteemed reputation and experience behind Trent in his hour of need.
A quote from the Mike Myers film “View from the Top!”
What U don't understand is how to case was allowed to proceed with the initial video being found inadmissible?
Lawyer here. For perspective, judges in general aren't the brightest bulbs in the box. And Administrative Law Judges aren't the brightest of judges.
Quick question, Rob. To be a lawyer, you have to pass the bar. Correct? Is it true that a judge can just be anyone off the street that can get elected? I personally know a judge in Colorado that was a bank president for years. He then retired and the small community where he resided, convinced him to become the local judge. They voted him in, and it was done. He had no experience before this.
My assumption is that the FAA is arguing that Trent never considered landing, but was just buzzing his friends house. Their argument would be that when confronted due to the Karen neighbor (who I'd guess hates the RC airstrip and the activity associated with it) Trent claimed that he was properly scouting a potential landing spot, just as an excuse. The danger here is that the ALJ is making an assumption (I assume there is no evidence) as to the intent of the pilot, and that's a VERY slippery slope. To second guess the motivation of a pilot, unless there is evidence, is contrary to the foundational concept of ADM.
I agree. “Intent” in administrative issues is very hard to prove.
I think you are spot on in many ways here.
His friend's weren't even home at the time so what would be the point of "buzzing" an empty house if he was trying to show off?
@@rileysmith8980 Just what we need, more "thought police" nonsense !
@@jimwright1094 I will edit my response and remove “Just a thought”. Still doesn’t change the fact. Just because something is legal doesn’t make it moral, right or neighborly. I own 10 acres in a subdivision, I could open a 24 hour a day shooting range. Not against the law where I live, but that doesn’t make it right, moral or neighborly. Everyone watching and commenting on these videos has heard a CZcams pilot say” making a low pass to clear the runway of wildlife”. Always two sides to a story. By the way I hope Trent wins. No one should be forced to land for legal purposes.
My suspicion is that the neighbor has an axe to grind with his neighbor (Trent’s friend), has connections and is driving the complaint hard.
I had my licenses revoked (ATP,CFI, CFII, Type Ratings) due to a clerical error when I was renewing my CFI license. I renewed it based on my student pass rate, but it was discovered that one student did not. The MKE FSDO POI, Rexford Darrow White, pointed this out to me, and I returned my temporary CFI certificate. I subsequently reinstated my CFI (it had expired by then) by passing a CFI checkride with a DPE. The FAA, led by Inspector White, issued an Emergency Order of Revocation basically turning me from an airline captain to a student pilot.
The FAA is not a just culture. Despite soliciting help from my Senators and Representatives, I was never able to get any records of my violation. The FAA covers for their employee mistakes up to the highest level. I dealt with the Assistant Administrator in Washington DC through my Senator, and all I could recover was 60 pages of redacted (blacked out) text. They hide behind their own "blue wall of silence".
The FAA does not judge people equally. A coworker landed his 737 at the wrong airport with a load of revenue passengers and did not lose his tickets (nor would I want him to!). And yet, I stood to lose my livelihood. The FAA gave me the "opportunity" to earn my licenses again if I did not appeal. It only cost me $87,000 to earn them all back, after having paid for them the first time. The $87K was the cost of all the licenses and type ratings. This includes the lost income from not working during this period.
There are some real professionals in the FAA, especially the ATC and Safety Team, which are the best in the world. Just none of them are in the MKE FSDO or the Great Lakes District.
Good work, Captain! It's good to see airline guys giving back to GA. Thank you for your service, too!
Wow. I’m really sorry this happened to you! Thank you for taking the time to share your story. CFIs have all my respect. Keep flying!
I'm curious why you did not know this student did not pass? Isn't a CFI required to keep a record of that? What happened was you falsified an FAA document and like a bullet out of a gun, you can't get it back. The standard penalty is revocation of all FAA certificates (not just airman certs).
@@buckmurdock2500 Just to be very clear on English language, to falsify is to alter evidence so as to mislead. A clerical error is not falsification. Falsification requires intent to forge or alter the evidence to indicate other than reality. So, sure, it's one thing to not take the necessary care when submitting documentation, but it's another thing entirely to claim falsification of documentation. If you suggest that the penalty for both instances should be the same, I propose that is an exceptionally slippery slope upon which to embark.
@@TraneFrancks I bet IRS hears "clerical error" often, lol.
The 'clerical error' was not an issue until the blank was signed that certifies the application is true and correct. I saw the same thing happen with a pilot's logbook. The pilot made a clerical error when adding up numbers which was used for issuance of a certificate. Then he signed the app. The FAA calls that 'falsifying a required FAA document' and the penalty is extremely harsh. Maybe they have a different dictionary. I think it's terrible for DL, especially since he had no malicious intent. Unfortunately, the FAA doesn't ask my opinion on things.
As an airline pilot myself, this is terrifying. I let my CFI ticket expire and I don’t regret it. Too much liability IMO.
Year ago I took a course in aviation law taught by a very knowledgeable lawyer. The most important thing I learned is that a certificate holder has the same rights to defend against FAA civil action as does a person accused of a crime. I later learned from personal experience that even some instructors at the FAA Academy are unable to understand or express the clear meaning of the FARs as written. Since the regulations are generally written clearly in unmistakable language, I found this situation to be a clear warning to aviators: never talk to the FAA without the counsel of an aviation lawyer. You must display your license upon request, but you are not required to answer any questions. If it comes down to a court case, a good lawyer should be able to prove that the FAA personnel involved made mistakes in the enforcement action, because it is more than likely that they did.
He is accused of buzzing. There is clear video of him buzzing. He admitted it was him flying the plane.
He is screwed. You NEVER talk to the police or any official investigating any violation, be it traffic, flying or any other pursuit.
There has been bad blood for some time between neighbors here, and this land owner has been schooled in how to file a complaint. The bad blood, unfortunately, spilled out into the flying community. This is why the guy was so quick on the draw with his complaint to both the sheriff's office and the FAA.
This is kind of the key here: "a good lawyer should..."
@@gmsecure3350 The video of him supposedly buzzing is inadmissible so it's not relevant.
@@Ergzay Plus, it has nothing to do with this ruling being bad.
The problem isn't so much that the FAA found him guilty of buzzing, it's their basis for doing so:
- The landing field was unmarked
- The landing attempt wasn't "necessary"
- The landing attempt wasn't completed
Even if he were 100% stone cold guilty of buzzing his neighbours house with his wheels knocking roof tiles off, the ruling is wrong and creates an impossible precedent for other pilots.
It would be interesting to see a satellite image of the area with an overlay of Trent’s flight path and altitude.
On an aviation forum someone got some FOIA docs or somthing and Trent's buddy lives 1.5 miles from Trents house as the bird flies, I think it is safe to say he didn't need an "inspection pass" cause he had been there flying radio control. The aerial photo shows this house to be in a subdivision. The footage from the CCTV shows the back yard to be what was an ATV or motocross track that sure doesn't look to inviting to land on. Looks like a good place to avoid IMO.
That was great that you gave some background to your career and your experience navigating bureaucracy in the military. Totally relevant and much appreciated. Great review
This is why you should never talk to any government disciplinary or regulatory agency without a lawyer. Had Trent done so his lawyers would have been able to determine whether or not he should have admitted to even being the pilot as it would have been difficult, if not impossible, to identify him as the pilot considering that the video evidence and all testimony based on the video was inadmissible. Without being able to prove he was the pilot in question the rest of the government's case is irrelevant and the whole case against him fails.
He’s probably the only person pilot insured to the plane so they can assume it was him
They would call his friend to the stand;; swear him to tell the truth; and ask him if he knew who was flying the plane; did he have discussions with Trent about the flight, did he see Trent in the plane. Likely they would be able to put him in the pilot seat. The advice stands, though: don't talk with any government agency without a lawyer.
likely would have still been able to prove hes the pilot but a lawyer can show up and drop a 2 foot tall pile of paper work and be like "lemme know when you get done with that do i can get you the next batch" and just make it not worth chasing you.
Good take on this. I appreciate the dispassion and transparency. Those are often missed when considering these types of situations. Having been trained as a AF SB Pres, those rank right up there with the facts.
Although i'm not a "bush pilot," I have done many off-airport landings, especially in Washington state and Oregon. If we have the "entire" truth of this story from Trent, then the FAA is definitely overstepping its bounds. And in light of the evidentiary video not being allowed into the proceedings, then this is a no-brainer. The FAA is responsible for fostering an aviation culture steeped in safety, and this action is contradictory to that end for all aviators.
I’m not sure how much FAA court proceedings differ from a regular civil/criminal court, but if it’s true that the FAA’s primary testimony was speculation of distance based on witness testimony of a video that was not eligible as evidence..? Sounds like a clown court to me.
@@Nigel-McMagmus Sounds like the same kind of BS administrative hearings that the IRS holds, where you CAN be incarcerated, but don't have all of the same rights you do in criminal court.
Excellent
Thank you for this, thank you for your service as well.
Calmer and sensible minds will prevail.
Good points. I’m interested to see where this goes
It shouldn't have to go to an appeal if the judge was doing his job correctly and honestly. Frankly, the judge and FAA lawyer seem to me in this case, need some type of "compliance re-training"!! It almost seems to me this IS a "out to get ya" situation, that has a little Trevor Jacob carryover. I don't see where he busted any FAR's at any time!!! If he did actually bust a single FAR here, then most flying in Alaska would have to be shut down today!!! The judge and lawyer in Trents case would have to bust just about every single pilot in Alaska, and we all know that is total BS. I'm very serious here, and getting a little angry the more I think about it. Just more government overreach as far as I'm concerned!!
They don't need compliance retraining. They need to attend a re-education camp such as what the V.C. invided a few million Vietnamese to attend. That'll square 'em away. Subtle yawn fests like "compliance re-training" will NOT get their attention.
Of course there shouldn't have to be an appeal. But judges are not perfect, which is why we HAVE an appeal process. Just like, no person who did not commit a crime should ever be arrested. But they are, all the time.
@@BrightBlueJim and guess who hears the appeal? The Administrator.
Obviously they shouldn’t have to appeal. That’s kind of the point of an appeal lol
Speaking from professional experience, having “friends” at the FAA will get them to quickly overlook and approve a shoddy writeup, while having no “friends” at the FAA will get even a pristine, well presented, documented, and created waiver request denied.
Wow, human beings tend to favor their friends. Who would've thought? Thanks. Next you'll tell me judges give a wink and nod to pals or traffic cops might not write as many tickets to the rich folks. Something must be done.
Thank you this, Excellent job! I’m wanting to see this overturned as well and I have a great respect for Trent and what he has done to Realize the importance of this decision and how it could be used against us as we go forward.
If I were Trents friend with the airstrip I would host a fly in every weekend just to show the neighbor some love.
as the alleged landing strip is ~250 ft long, it will have to be a helicopter fly-in.
@@buckmurdock2500
STOL meetup!
@@jerseyshoredroneservices225 Best kind! Put in a couple windsocks get lots of ice, hot dogs and a grill and have a grand old time!
@@fromjesse
🥩🌭🍔🥓🦐❤️❤️❤️🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸
It would have to be RC planes, though.
If Trent's position is accurate I wonder if the rules should be amended to be more similar to Australia's part 91, in our "91.267 Minimum height rules-other areas", an exemption listed is "a missed approach" and "go-around" along with takeoff/landing. At least an advisory circular should be published to provide greater clarity for pilots.
there is such a rule from the FAA with regarding this specific exemption
@@2Phast4Rocket well Trent Palmer claim is he got his license suspension due to doing a go around when attempting to land.
There has to be more to it than that. I have a very difficult time believing that the FAA would ever interpret a regulation in a way that creates an obligation to land at a particular time and place or risk a violation. The risk is clear and obvious. An interpretation like that would kill people.
@@mattj65816 In this conversation it's important to differentiate between "the FAA" and an individual, relatively low-level, administrative law judge. It's not about how "the FAA" would or wouldn't interpret a regulation. It's how this particular judge did. You'll see lots of comments about "government overreach." But it's not "the government" that's doing the overreaching. It's a specific person with their own dyspeptic way of dealing with life.
A common example is the construction industry: there are building regulations, and then there are individual building inspectors. Any experienced contractor will tell you about the little Hitlers ( who are, not infrequently, failed contractors) inventing "violations" that cause serious delay and expense, just because they can. They get away with it because they are "the authority having jurisdiction" and it's almost impossible to challenge them. Even if you do, the delays and expense make it a losing proposition.
Independent truckers have told me many stories of police shakedowns, where they are forced to pay a spot fine for some invented violation or wait (which they can't afford) 24 hours for a court hearing. IRS field offices have a reputation for arbitrary rulings and bullying, yet some of the nicest people I've ever dealt with were IRS "customer service" people helping me correct IRS errors or organize tax payments.
It's not the agency, per se, but agencies are staffed by people, and people come in all flavors. Most public servants are decent, well-meaning people who care about doing the right thing. You never hear about them. The Kafka-esque minority are a blight on society, and you do hear about them.
How refreshing to hear the opinion, and admission of partial knowledge, of a person with experience in the area. Kudos on your video. Also rooting for Trent.
Awesome break down of Trents video and the issue. Safe travels @Cleared Direct. I eventually would like to get my private pilots license but hearing about this kind of stuff makes me a little leery to do it. Again thanks for the amazing break down of information.
If I were Trent my first knee jerk reaction would be to get a buddy like you, find an F-15, and fly that approach again. Sorry, I have no use for airport Karens. My father had to deal with a few. I admire your and Trent's calm reasoning. Not sure I could do it.
Yeah but c'mon. This is so NOT an airport. This is a neighbor pissed off about rc planes and a motox track.
I did my homework by watching your vid (again) then watching Trent's. I am a private pilot (granted with less than 200 hours). I did my training in a small city in northern Alberta, Canada. I got quite a bit of instruction regarding off airport landings...and even performed a few. Rule number one is: ALWAYS do at least one inspection pass and do more if you feel the need.
I was taught that with ANY landing (on or off airport) if it doesn't feel right...go around. I mean...how many people have been turned into corpses by NOT going around? The FAA's own rules say that and if he would have hit some hidden something and busted up his plane...for sure...100%...Trent would have been hauled in for not doing a proper inspection pass.
I agree that there are details we don't know...but from everything I have seen and heard so far...it sure feels like another Bob Hoover type FAA pissing battle where a middle manager bureaucrat is out to show the world that he's the law in these here parts and he ain't gonna be trifled with.
Trent has earned a lot of good will from a lot of folks and the FAA has dropped a lot of balls over the years. I'm on team Trent all the way...but with consequences going only one way most of the time in battles between citizens and government...no matter who wins...we all lose.
You are being properly diplomatic, Steve. I appreciate that...and your aviation and investigatory expertise. I tend to be less diplomatic...and I think this whole thing stinks. It looks to me like some power mad monkey wanted to look like a tough guy by taking down a youtube bigshot, screwed the pooch...and the bureaucracy backed their guy because letting a citizen win...makes them look bad. Them dropping the punishment down to a relatively meaningless 60 day suspension, is nothing more than a ploy to get Trent to admit guilt and give them a win to save their brused egos. What it also would do is set a terrible precident that could harmfully affect aviation for years.
Any good will the FAA earned over the past few years of being relatively reasonable...has been flushed. In my opinion (at least in this case) the FAA really does want to violate a pilot out of spite. One ruling like this is orders of magnitude worse than any number of dumb asses jumping out of their planes for clicks.
I with ya, Joe. Before, now, and always.
This is just what they have been doing in drones on finally leaking over to GA. Drone rules and enforcement been just nuts and not really anything but trying to destroy anything but the Drone delivery system with all the complexity of drone rules THAT do not make sense.
Now that they been sued twice over this drone situation(and lost once and might loose again) it seem they want to do it with GA. Sadly I see not recording your flying and always have a lawyer for any FAA contact is the only way to stay maybe safe. I do wonder if the FAA been learning from the ATF on how to make the law what ever they want.
@@CLEAREDDIRECT Help me out, here: did Trent make an inspection pass above 500' AGL? Someone above claims that this landing strip is only about 250' long, so it should have been a no-brainer to rule out the landing before breaking the 500' threshold. What am I missing?
@@BrightBlueJim Trent flies a refined STOL aircraft, well capable of landing and takng off again in less than 250 feet- if the terrain is good enough.
@@ianlambert8034 True enough. However. Trent said himself that he decided that it wasn't safe to land there, and landed somewhere else instead. My point (and probably the FAA's) is that he should have been able to make that determination before dropping below 500'. And this is what (Trent says) the judge said: it wasn't "necessary to takeoff or landing", because he chose not to do the landing. Basically, that exception is there so that you're not in violation when you are making an actual landing. He had not yet decided to land there, so he was in violation. What the judge said was not at all unreasonable. He was saying that being below 500' before you've made the decision to land is not necessary. Keep in mind that a typical traffic pattern is flown at 1000' AGL, so 500' is not unreasonably high for evaluating the landing site, either.
When I was training out of Embry-Riddle in FL, the school, local law enforcement, and ATC would get calls from people all the time complaining about reckless or low flying airplanes. Thank God radar coverage is good and refutes nearly all of these claims. But it just goes to show how many people are out there just trying to cause drama.
Most folk, including law enforcement, cannot sufficiently estimate heights and distances to effectively make any determinations that should be legally accepted in a court of law. Outside of a trained marksman, I don't think it's reasonable to take someone's estimations into account in any case.
To the average Joe, Intercepting the ILS glideslope is "too low" to them. They seem to think aircraft are helicopters (not even helicopters can fly like this) that can magically climb over 5,000 feet right off the end of the runway or decend 5,000 feet to the touchdown point instantaneously. I blame cinema poorly portraying flight in general - further stoking FUD about the aviation industry.
I live near an airport and have had discussions with neighbors about planes on approach. They can't reasonably determine the height of the planes. They always say they're flying in too low. Even commercial aircraft established on the localizer. The average person sucks at determining how high or far something is.
All of the time! And yet, we had the guy flying in the North Practice area who refused to get a transponder and put all of us in danger, and the FISDO didn't bat an eye. This actually specifically reminded me of flying into Aurther Dun and how we would check at low levels to make sure the grass strip was suitable. It's not a slippery slope, it's downright dangerous to feel that you can't trust training material for non common flying.
@@EyebrowsMahoney that comes with people doesn't really know how totally huge commercial flights are. So looking at them fly by, they will make totally errors in estimates.
You should ask how fast they fly, I would guess they underestimate the speed of those air plane by a lot. Not strange, as they are far away, but looks much closer. So it looks like the are flying so slow you could catch up with a bicycle. :-D
This is also with speed of cars and trucks. People can't estimate speed, which is natural. They usually not standing on the side, but in the direction of the car/truck.
@@AndersJackson absolutely! People are naturally bad at estimating speed and distance. It's why folks hit parked cars, or cut out in front of semis.
The average Joe is bad at speed and distance judgement. Canada's worst driver shows that people can't even correctly estimate their speed without constantly checking their speedometer.
Yep, particularly the parrot farm.
SUBSCRIBED! i love knowledgeable content by knowledgeable people. Can't get any more knowledgeable than an airforce top gun😉.
Also. Thank you for your service
Please keep us all posted on this. Thanks 😊
Where in the regs do the FAA see it saying a windsock was required (when listening to Trent's comments)? We sure as heck do not need to second guess the safety protocol of flying over an area to see if it is a safe place to make an off-airport landing (NOT only in an emergency). Don't we all have the intention to land and sometimes have to go-around because the approach is not stabilized, an animal is on the runway, etc.? Trent had permission to land at this property. If he did not, then he could only land there in an emergency. I think Trent's only misstep in this situation was NOT getting lawyer when the FSDO contacted him and asked him to come into their office as they wanted to ask him some questions... you are NOT admitting ANY guilt to have legal representation. If he had a lawyer at that meeting, the lawyer would have challenged the video on the spot, Trent would have been advised not to say a damn word. Trent is such a great advocate for aviation. I hope common sense prevails here. But, like Steve says, we do not have all of the evidence.
Just because you CAN throw the book at someone, doesn't mean you HAVE to. I think the intent is critical. I think they would need to prove recklessness first. Hope everyone involved can have more grace. We will all learn from this.
On another note, is "waterskiing" an airplane reckless - regardless of if it is within 500 feet of people or not? If so, there would be a lot of pilots with revoked licenses if that were the case. Where does the line get drawn here? Slippery slope.
100% Thanks for taking the time to comment and I’m glad we’re on the same page. More grace is absolutely needed. Let’s solve things citizen to citizen and reasonable people. Crazy that this seems impossible these days. Why is that?
@@CLEAREDDIRECT Certainly over the last couple of years - and I don’t want to turn this political - the sheer intolerance of people to be kind to others who have a different point of view has not helped. When did burning down cities become a thing?
@@HiTechRob But understand this, that in the last days there will come times of difficulty. For people will be lovers of self, lovers of money, proud, arrogant, abusive, disobedient to their parents, ungrateful, unholy, heartless, unappeasable, slanderous, without self-control, brutal, not loving good, treacherous, reckless, swollen with conceit, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God, having the appearance of godliness, but denying its power. Avoid such people.
2 Timothy 3:1-5 ESV
I believe it was a higher-level NTSB decision in 1988 that discussed factors a judge can consider when determining if a field is "suitable" for a landing. I don't think a windsock is a requirement, but lack of a windsock could be considered by the judge as one of several factors when deciding if the field is suitable for a landing. If the field is judged to be unsuitable, then the landing exception in 91.119 doesn't apply and you get busted if you get too close to persons, structures, vehicles, populated area, etc.
Good video, I’m with you hoping calmer heads win out and this is overturned.
Thanks for clearing up the "necessary" clause. I've noticed a lot of people getting this wrong.
Oh! I’ve watched your breakdown with Scott Perdue. Very helpful to a student pilot. Thank you.
Oh right! I forgot about that. I'll add a link to the video description. Thanks!
Thank you Steve for posting this video.. I appreciate your perspective from a professional and civilian standpoint and I believe Trent is a good guy with good intentions that is getting the wrong end of the stick here.. I would stand behind Trent 100% on this issue..
Very well spoken and thought out. I’m pulling for Trent as well. This could have implications on future bush flying and future Trent Palmer videos which I love so much. Not mentioned that I’ve seen, Trent’s a commercial drone operator which requires a PPL. Hopefully that doesn’t affect his livelihood.
We live in country that has encouraged and facilitated terminating people’s employment based on personal health decisions. I’d be surprised if the intent was NOT impact his livelihood.
A Commercial UAS license does NOT require a PPL. It has its own certificate. As such, he did not have that suspended or revoked so, thankfully, his livelihood is intact.
@@HiTechRob interesting as I recall him saying the only reason he got into flying was he needed a PPL for drones back in the day. Maybe that changed maybe that was bad information?
@@Captndarty I would have to research that one myself. I have had a commercial drone license since February 2017.
@@Captndarty You do need the "ground school" portion of PPL training, i.e., getting as far as the written test, which is the same test required before you can fly solo, so maybe he just thought, "hey, I've done all this homework already, might as well see if I'd like flying".
Great professional comments!! Thanks
Great video, thank you.
I think the neighbor was disgruntled before this incident. Trent says his friends fly radio control planes there. Some RC planes can be annoying to some homeowners and they were already heated over the RC planes and then Trent did the inspection flyover and was caught on video.
I haven't seen Trent do anything remotely reckless.
I enjoy Trent's content. This is my first time watching your channel and I like your message here. This should serve as a big reminder to everyone, not just pilots that "You just don't talk to the cops"! It's too late for Trent in this situation, I hope he beats the rap and wins his appeal. Often times we want to be a good guy and be forthcoming with information but it can bite you very quickly as in this very case. There is a reason attorney's offer the guidance "do not speak to law enforcement", just offer them you attorney's contact info, stay quiet and respectful...
The ONLY thing I don't like about Trent's content is the goofy Phillip Phillips style keep on keepin' on music. But I'd glady put my life in his hands with him at the controls of his plane any day, any time.. And I'm a years long subscriber.
Just came across your channel. Really excellent video and also wow at your flight experience. You flew the Eagle even. This to me sounds like a case of a Mr. Grumpy who has for YEARS been looking for a way to stick it to Trents friend. He jumped on this (very necessary and legal) low pass to check the strip as a way to do this. I wish Trent all the best and also have my like and sub to your channel Cleared Direct!
Excellent summary.
I was glad to see on a post elsewhere that AOPA is looking into this. Making a low pass over an off field landing spot seems prudent. I also understand that the NTSB judges tend to rule on the government’s side.
Judges tend to rule in favor of the government the vast majority of times across the board. Don't forget they're all playing for the same team and you and I aren't on it.
The lack of standards starts at most FSDO’s. In my experience, the FAA is the most “non-standardized” entity in the aviation industry. I worked with some extremely qualified inspectors in the 121 world, but many GA inspectors have little to no GA experience. Most think that any off field landing is reckless.
Captain Moose!
I totally agree with you. Many "weak" pilots who failed out of Regional Airline ground school or did not have the intestinal fortitude to stick it out during the 1990s-2000s when hiring was hard took the easy road and joined the FAA. Now they see their classmates from flight school flying the heavy iron and making a good salary, and they resent it.
FSDOs are like separate Taliban Warlords, each with their own fiefdoms and heavy-handed enforcement mentality. I used to be a counterterrorist in the Army, so I'm not afraid of terrorists. However, I had all my ATP/CFI certificates revoked on what was basically a paperwork error. So when an envelope arrives with the FAA "Triskele" Swastika symbol on it, my hand shakes. So who is the real Terrorist?
The problem is that most government agencies have become really adept at avoiding scrutiny and oversight, especially after regime changes. If you want the cause of most problems, it’s that good old “dead wood” and the incompetent aren’t getting shuffled out the door on a necessary and regular basis.
and we thank you for your experience, and content as well.
My pleasure, Jeff. Thanks for the nice comment!
New subscriber here. Thanks for the video. I like Trent also and it will be interesting how this plays out. I must say I am not confident in what I have heard seems to be a ruling based on assumption. I have been a licensed pilot since 1975 only with GA.
Anyway, great video based on facts we know. Have a great week! All the best.
Interesting video. Myself as a FAA DPE (38 yrs/x-military as well) and Expertwintess (30 yrs), in which I have helped pilots actually have the FAA case dismissed; what happen to Remedial Training. I am a Remedial Training DPE. I never heard that mention at all in Palmer’s case? That was very unique that did not come up? So, I think the whole story is not being discussed. Good luck, fly safe and always remember, everyone has a camera! CD keep up the good work!
What's to remediate? What are you suggesting backcountry pilots do differently? From what's been presented so far, Trent followed the FAA's own published guidance. He flew a low approach inspection pass with a plausible intent to land, then elected to go around and not land there. Would you suggest that pilots should not fly inspection passes on unimproved fields and risk hitting rocks, holes, or other obstacles? Or that once below 500 feet the pilot must land no matter what?
Right - the FAA Compliance Policy was not discussed or even mentioned. There are inspectors that unfortunately do not respect it. Congress released an unsettling report about it among other thing in December 2020 about this issue. Senator Roger Wicker Addressed the matter.
What would training fix in this scenario? I would argue if the FAA knew he was following the rules that additional training would not be necessary.
Steve @Cleared Direct , first and foremost, a huge Thank You to you for your service sir. I know this case is getting a lot of attention and honestly it should. The freedom of flight that we have in this country is absolutely being threatened every single year. I wasn’t aware that the FAA had their own governance that they can control like the military…. Forget the fact that what Trent did is basically outlined in the FAA’s off airport guide but the fact that they had no admissible evidence on this case and had so called experts that basically is making up “facts”. If this is true and that their expert hasn’t flown in 18 years…. Oh boy, we are all in trouble. Might as well stop following rules and guidelines now because it seems like it doesn’t matter if someone decided to go after you.
I’m not going to say “ I know Trent because I met him once at OSH” because that doesn’t matter, the only thing that matters is that the FAA has no admissible evidence, that’s it, case over. . . Should have been dismissed.
Well done video, thank you.
My uncle is "SOUP" Campbell.. flew 15s and 16s at Aviano and was base commander at Tyndall. He inspired my love for aviation!
Nice! I think we’ve crossed paths a time or two. I’m glad he got you into this mostly awesome world of aviation!
There are also many judges who get reprimanded on their decisions. For Trent, the initial handing down was 210 days of suspension; now it's 60 days. Two possibilities of speculation here: was Trent issued the penalty because of something he did which was illegal, or was it an FAA face-saving opportunity that the judge issued? I wish I could see the actual court documents stating the precise point of illegality, because that is something we could go by.
That's exactly what I was thinking. I"m not really learning anything here except that some neigbors can be complete asshats, and good people can get screwed. I'd really like to see the specific response and regulations quoted so we can make good decisions in lieu of them. I completely understand, however, why that might not happen or why that can't happen. Just saying, it's tough to make decisions based on this story.
Hell, the FAA has begun to highly regulate MODEL aircraft. They are one of the most over-reaching government agencies, along with the ATF, that we have ever had. Of course we need rules, but things like this are ridiculous
Have you seen the size and load carrying of these now? It's beyond me why we aren't hearing about them being used as weapons. Has anyone seen the Google ad for a flame throwing drone??? Untraceable weapon.
@@billdurham8477 if they are over 55lbs they are legally no longer recreational model aircraft and have a different set of rules applied to them.
Awesome video!
Great synopsis! Given your admittedly biased opinions and analysis you very clearly stated the regulations and known facts. Truly appreciated! You have earned my ' subscription '. Hopefully clearer heads will prevail! Thanks again and Blue skies for Trent!
Thanks for the nice note, John! Welcome aboard :)
For the record I am not a pilot. So please take what I am about to say with all the value it merits.
What I have noticed over the last several years across the FED are varying levels of egregious overreach by government authorities. The major issue being judges that are wholly unqualified to make an educated, sound, and reasoned decision based upon actual facts, observed evidence, and established agency policy/guidance.
You guys are not alone and I am pulling for you all.
Until then… clear skies and safe landing.
meanwhile tour helicopters fly between and next to buildings in Florida....crazy world...all my best for Trent
Right?
Thanks for sharing.
I’m hoping and praying Trent comes out on top.
Great analysis. Thank-you for your military service.
Trent has already been on the FAA's radar over the years. Back when he first started posting videos (before his channel grew tremendously), he filmed and posted a video of him landing on the Reno Radio Control Airplane Club's runway...... he got in hot water with that one because he didn't have permission to land on their RC airplane runway. The club turned him in after seeing the video. Trent tried justifying it because "I was a former member and still knew people in the club, so i thought it was ok." If I remember right, the local FSDO was involved with that one too...... that could be playing into what's going on here as "multiple occurrences" and the FAA may be after him as a result to send a message......
Which doesn't make this case from FAA against him any more legitimate. He had permit to land. But it could be a reason.
The burden of proof in an administrative law case is the preponderance of the evidence. The FAA booklet will have to be withdrawn, if the ALJ’s decision is affirmed. It seems very arbitrary and capricious for the ALJ to ignore the FAA booklet. ALJ’s often decide cases for the “home team.” This case would set an unfortunate precedent.
Maybe, maybe not. Have you seen where Trent was going to land?
The actions by the FAA were clearly not arbitrary or capricious and neither was the Administrative Judges actions.
This will definitely stand up to an appeal and will likely be case law after appeal.
The neighbor was pissed off… long before Trent flew by. Would you want a RC field next door with those little noise makers flying around all the time?
By the way, I’m an RC pilot, a commercial drone pilot (how I know Trent), a commercial helicopter pilot, fixed wing single engine, multi engine land and sea plane pilot… and I worked for the FAA.
I know the noise those little planes make well. I have a neighbor that runs his planes up before taking them to the field. They are loud and annoying in a residential area. 10 acres is nothing. Especially with a house and a RC field on it.
My bet is the neighbor has been in touch with the FAA in an attempt to shut down the RC crap.
Be an idiot… get stupid prize.
Trent will not be permitted to work for 2 months. He is a professional commercial drone pilot. He is super lucky it is just 2 months. Most people get at least 6 months.
The booklet probably assumes you are landing at a "suitable" off-airport site. The judge in Trent's case didn't think the RC airfield was "suitable" because it was too small and in someone's backyard and next to another house. So I don't see any need to withdraw the booklet.
@@thatguy8005 From the outset, I support Trent's case and not the FAA. But I find your comments very interesting and can see some of your point of view. Yes the rules should be enforced. I think the shame of it all is that Trent did nothing unsafe and an engine failure during the low pass would have been unspectacular (the flight characteristics of the Kitfox are well known to everyone but perhaps not those who are accusing Trent) and easily dealt with without harm to life or property. It appears the FAA are trying everything to uphold a public complaint. The basis of their case, as I understand it, is that there is a rule saying that you must land if you are within 500 ft of persons or dwellings. It seems to me that this rule is likely deliberately ignored by the FAA hundreds (maybe thousands) of times a year but suddenly brought out into the open and imposed when a cranky neighbour complains. We all know there are many many private airfields where there is a house or hangar next to or near the strip. We also know that it has proven to not be a safety issue. (I'm sure you would agree that stall spin well beyond the ENDS of runways is more of a fatality issue than directional control problems at runway level near a dwelling or hangar). Another issue is that of an emergency services aircraft deciding not to land after a low pass on a remote strip that is within 500 ft of persons or buildings . Should they be penalized too? I think it's time to overhaul or modify that rule and throw out Trent's case. I think the system is flawed when the FAA cannot be questioned or be accountable - Especially when the decision affects someone's livelihood.
@@thatguy8005 the RC point has no bearing on the case presented and should not influence the outcome of the current case. Not sure why you'd think that that has anything to do with the FAA ignoring their own guidelines for off airport landings and using inadmissible evidence in a sham trial.
@@jgreenberg I guess you don’t understand administrative process… you have no right to fly. I don’t know where you got that idea, but you don’t. Administrative action isn’t criminal. They really don’t need to prove anything at a criminal level. However, a criminal action could still come out of this if it is proven his actions were deliberate and the buzzed party wants criminal charges, and the US Attorney decides to lock him up as an example.
Again Administrative… you had better know this if you fly… or quit flying. He can still be sued in civil court by the property owner, and loose everything he owns.
Lov Trent's vids. Thank you Sir.
I like your analysis you’re very articulate and succinct however yes here comes the bad part it’s always been my pet peeve when anybody keeps talking of pilots licenses, There is no such thing there is pilot ratings but there are no pilot licenses. On an additional note I enjoy your channel this is actually the first time I’m watching I’ll be a new subscriber thank you for your service to our country and God bless you and your family
Your right, if what Trent has said is true, the judge emphasized the necessity of landing in 91.119 I think that is a major error. Also, found 14 CFR 13.223, Standard of proof which is preponderance of evidence. That means they only have to prove it is 50.1% to win. Not like criminal court where beyond a reasonable doubt is the burden of proof.
Thanks for the follow up, Brother! Good to know…
We sometimes choose not to land/touchdown at public airports when the conditions are unsafe and we make the call on final.... especially along the Columbia River when those winds pick up. Judge is ignorant, FAA is reckless.
Ha! Too soon ;)
Welcome to Boston btw! Hope you got to enjoy the city on your layover.
I spent 18years of my career working for a government agency. it was ALWAYS stressed that conflicts should be worked out at the lowest level... if that is NOT possible then go up the ladder . " Cleared Direct" totally understands this was NOT done. Big thanks for clarifying.
How do crop dusters bypass this 500 ft rule, they must get close to roads, power lines and possibly houses near the fields?
They fall under Part 137 for Agriculture Aircraft Operations specifically 137.49
To further your comment about the neighbors having issues, Trent said that he was scoping out a landing site that his friends fly their REMOTE CONTROL PLANES and he was looking to use that runway if possible. Remote control planes produce quite a bit of noise, they can easily be flown above the neighbors property etc. So the neighbors could simply be upset and use ANY excuse to cause an issue! !! !!!
Strong possibility! Trent commented here (it’s pinned) and also mentioned another incident the neighbor had with a FedEx driver. It seems his desert Nevada property isn’t quite desolate enough!
Being an R/C pilot since the mid 80's you all have over-looked a very important possible reason for the neighbors actions. R/C air strip! Lots of people hate grown-up boys playing with toy airplanes. I would bet there have been words between neighbors about the "noise" the R/C plane makes upsetting the tranquil setting and Trent was/is the pay-back. Trust me, there are those that hate boys with toys but will run their leaf blowers all day because they are to lazy to rack.
I live in Alaska where small airplanes are the local pickup trucks. I have a neighbor who had the same issue with the FAA where they tried to use the same rules against him for a low pass over his own airfield. He aborted his landing due to a 1,000 pound brown bear running onto the runway. He has owned the airfield for over 50 years and inherited the field from his father who constructed it in the 1950s. It took him almost 4 years and 2 appeals and his attorney got the first judge disqualified because the judge knew nothing about flying and had never been an aircraft smaller than a Boeing 737. This case is a very large over reach by an overzealous FAA employee trying to look good.
I am also guessing that there was bad blood with the neighbors previous to this event possibly because of the RC airplanes that he mentioned that his friend had been flying. That's why there was a landing strip on the friends property.
Thinking the same
IANAL, but it strikes me that this bogus complaint has done material harm to Trent Palmer. Was the complaint defamatory? Is ignorance of the need for inspection passes a defense?
Yup. Why else would a camera be facing the sky? Neighbor is an asshole, basically.
Thanks for supporting Trent. Based upon his own video, the original video capture is in admissible to court ( it was a copy of a video). Without the video as evidence, the neighbor is now relegated to personal recollection. With that outlook, impeaching the neighbors ability to recall and ability to judge distances will settle the claim. Sad such petty neighborhood individuals exist. Also, sad that the FAA devoted resources and effort to bring this to court. Think the loser should pay all court and legal fees upon verdict.
I think you nailed it. The whole case seems to be based on the interpretation of what action the word "necessary" describes. A landing, or an inspection pass.
Kind of like that historic legal argument made by Slick Willy Clinton,
"It depends on what your definition of 'is', is..."
I just discovered your channel, and liked what you had to say. I'll definitely back!
I agree this is hard for us to comment on the intricacies of this case. The fact that the off airport guide, which is an FAA document, and used by many many off airport operators, was referenced and used as evidence for Trent's actions, but ultimately was dismissed is disturbing to me. We all use FAA publications to help us navigate the rules. The off airport guide is not an FAR but it is an FAA document and should be used both by pilots and the FAA when looking at such a case. I'm pulling for Trent and hope to see him overturn this ruling at his appeal.
It was dismissed purely arbitrarily. Is it just, no, and you can't make me? That is simply infantile.
It would be like cops citing you, and judges agreeing, that following your state's DMV handbook for driving makes you a reckless driver.
"The more laws, the less justice" - Cicero
I’m glad you listed your credentials ! Wow !
The incident happened in 2019, well before the Trevor Jacob stunt.
The first thing that comes to mind is, has the FAA declared war on privately-owned airstrips? It seems obvious to me that if you're planning to land on the dirt road on your friend's farm and you've never been there before, the first thing you're going to do is descend to 100 feet and inspect the surface for potholes, huge rocks, weird dropoffs, cattle who like to sleep on it, and anything else that could possibly destroy your aircraft. The "you didn't land so your inspection pass was not a necessary landing maneuver" excuse rings hollow when "I'm doing this so I don't have to buy another airplane tomorrow" seems very "necessary" to me.
Question for Trent: how many times has your friend's neighbor-from-hell called the cops on him for his routine landings? I suspect it's quite a few.
Trent was invited to land on private property. Check! Trent approached said landing site to evaluate it's viability, as recommended by all aviation safety standards. Check! Trent elected to abort the landing due to a safety concern. Check! Somehow the FAA has determined that this is illegal because he didn't land?! WTF!
btw - nice commentary on the situation.
Good point about handling matters like this about involving government officials, and respecting people who do bring these matters to you.
Great little video. I can't believe anyone on this or Trent's channel would NOT show him respect. There simply does not appear to be any evidence of what is being claimed. Best of luck to Trent and thanks for your support, Steve. God bless. 🙂
Thanks! You’d be surprised at the trolls. I’ve only had to delete 2 hateful comments so far which is great. One wasn’t at Trent
@@CLEAREDDIRECT You're welcome. Yep, unbelievable what some people will do - for a few seconds of "fame"! I don't know Trent but always hope for a flight with him - wrong side of the pond unfortunately! But great that you're supporting.
I wonder what would have happened if Palmer had remained silent (as lawyers always advise, and is a right men have died for) in his initial meeting.
It’s looking like you probably gonna have to treat any interaction they bringing you in for with a lawyer at this point.
I think we’re deviating from the intent of Trent’s video on this. My take away was that it’s a slippery slope for current and future aviators to set this precedent. Clearly he feels there’s a misinterpretation or misunderstanding on the part of the FAA. But he never spoke ill of them and said he would respect their final decision. Again, he’s concerned about the future implications if this is set as a precedent. It would then carry the weight of law.
But, nothing he did is new so he's not setting case law or a precedent for future rulings. This is being a little overdramatic on his part.
Respectfully, I disagree with both of you. Cabo, the intent of Trent’s video differs from mine. He doesn’t dictate the discussion on my channel. And you’re right, Trent nor I spoke ill of the FAA. The good thing about democracy is that you can disagree with your government and criticize them while still respecting them. We’ve lost sight of this ability in politics, so I don’t blame you for missing this nuance. And Rex, that’s your judgment call. It’s a big deal to Trent and me and I appreciate that’s it’s not a big deal to you. Thanks for your comments!
@@RexKramerDangerSeeker I'm not a lawyer but it does seem this would set a precedent for future cases. Either way, if Trents side is factual this ruling is completely asinine.
It will make it illegal to abort or reject any off airport landing.
The slippery slope issue is valid but much more is in play here.. he's still potentially a defendant so it's in his best interest to be exceedingly careful with his verbiage, which is exactly what he has done. Plue he's just a nice guy (I don't count myself in the same company as he, I admit) and he's just not gonna do that.
Slippery slopes work both ways. If a pilot can justify flying below 500' over persons, structures, or vehicles, just by saying "I was preparing for a landing", then the regulation he was found to have violated is meaningless. Having heard only Trent's side, what we are NOT hearing is the FAA saying he didn't need to make that pass below 500' AGL to determine that it was not a suitable landing strip. I suspect that this is what they meant by "not necessary for landing".
I think the lesson to learn here is to not land near someone's house. Some neighbors are not aviation lovers and some are just a- holes. There are plenty of wide open spaces to make off airport landings without fear of the FAA bothering you.
Agree. The reason property values are less near an airport, is because people don't want to live near one. Not surprised with the complaint. Most people live out in those remote areas for the peace and quiet.
Well said sir, I have subscribed to hear more from you about aviation. My son is a pro flight graduate and we're trying to get him hours now. For aspiring pilots, unless you own an airplane to get hours college is not the best route!!! We'd have been much better off buying an airplane which is what I am looking to do now.
I am bothered by the appearance of the FAA in persecuting Trent for Persecution's sake.
Trent's low pass to evaluate a potential landing site is made to sound like it happened in Central Park. Granted, regulations exist for a reason, but I am taken aback by Trent being punished because "a landing" did not occur. Rather, he created an "unsafe condition" by avoiding what he felt was an unsafe landing?
So, what kind of message does that send to pilots if this ruling is upheld? And what of new pilots? Is the FAA going to scrap the Off-Field Landing Guide and update the new pilot curriculum that it's better to lawn dart your airplane, because if you bail, you're guilty?
That sounds like hyperbole, as if hyperbole has not been Trent's life the past two years. And, at the risk of sounding even more hyperbolic, learning of this has seriously soured my dream of flying. I don't know whether this is some kind of witch hunt against Trent or simple unadulterated brain dead barbarism on the part of an FAA official, who may well have never handled the controls of an aircraft and carried that responsibility himself, but I don't think I want my name anywhere in proximity to the FAA as an agency, in the face of this injustice. And that's exactly what it is. I've been following Trent for years and he has a long record of being safety conscious in his videos. This is an anomaly being driven by something.
And--serious question--if an aircraft is not to be operated within 500 feet of any person or structure unless committed to a landing (that HAS to occur, now), how does crop dusting / spraying work? Is there an entire cadre of air tractor pilots that should be following this?
In cases like these, it is always important to find out what the complainant's connections are to people with power to influence governmental officials.
I am a relatively new pilot, my concern is what does this do to emergency landing training. If the emergency landing training is a simulated landing targeting an opportunistic spot is every land owner with a field near a training airfield going to be calling and getting pilots suspending for going low enough that the successful outcome could be reasonably demonstrated. I think the agency has really stepped in it here. They have a lot of clarifying to do. Is it now against regulations to be below 500 and within 500ft of objects on the ground during emergency procedure training? DPEs, how do you folks feel about this?
Love your content. Just an un-related observation..you should consider altering your thumbnails for your videos. The way it is currently with the thin red border, it gives the appearance that someone has already viewed the video when going through their feed. This may get you more views as well! Working in the aviation career myself (also prior Air Force), I really enjoy your videos & look forward to seeing more! Cheers.
Thanks for the tip! I didn’t realize it appeared that way. Thanks for your service 👍🏼
So let me understand this. Trent did a fly by to access the landing strip for his aircraft by FAA Rules and Regulations clearly states that he can do that . He followed FAA Regulations and now they have found he was not in compliance with FAA regulations and suspended his license for 60 days. It sounds like a power trip to me and we can do what ever we want because we are the Government and nobody is going to challenge us! Sounds like somebody is trying to make a name for himself because Trent is a well know CZcamsr so lets nail his ass to the wall and make an example out of him. FAA agents with egos and power tripping . Plain and simple, I would fight this tooth and nail .
This is definitely an FAA knee-jerk reaction to the Trevor ‘bonehead’ Jacobs’ fiasco.
The argument is whether a missed approach is part of a landing attempt. The answer is obvious, and IMHO Trent made the right decision in discontinuing the landing when he felt it was unsafe to do so.
Great discussion, I’m pulling for Trent as well.👍
The initial decision occurred two years ago.
@@skyhawk_4526 I don’t understand, please elaborate.
No knee jerk here… he knew exactly how big the field was…and the judge wasn’t fooled either.
Trent is a profession drone pilot. He flies drones with cameras that cost more than most peoples homes.
Of course he flew at his buddies back yard RC field… more important… he had to have known his buddies neighbor didn’t appreciate RC planes making noise all day… the neighbor likely doesn’t know the difference between RC planes and drones, and complained about drones over his property to the FAA many times before…
So, Trent flys his Kit Fox over this neighbors house as if he could land on an admitted RC field… on a 10 acre lot, with a house in the middle… making it now a 5 acre landing area…that ain’t big, even for a STOL plane. He would have to come in very low over other peoples land / buildings.
@@CLdriver1960 So, my understanding is the incident flight involving Trent took place around two years ago. The initial meeting with the FSDO occurred shortly after the flight and the neighbor's complaint to the FAA. I don't know exactly what date the administrative law judge handed down the 60 day suspension, but that was apparently reduced from a longer suspension recommended by the inspector at the FSDO. So this thing has been brewing and winding its way through the FAA administrative process long before the Trevor Jacobs fiasco. I agree that it's a bad decision, but I think it was a decision made entirely separately from (and mostly prior to) the Trevor Jacobs case.
@@skyhawk_4526 Thanks for the explanation, I wasn’t aware it was two years ago.
Never talk to the FAA without an attorney, just like the police. Do not answer questions or make statements. Fifth amendment rights apply.
Trent got nailed for buzzing. Here's a way to end the violation: upload a full copy of the original video his friend's neighbor provided to the FAA. It happens. Like I posted on Trent's channel, A+ for a creative attempt at getting out of violation. Had the video not depicted a violation he wouldn't have been violated The neighbor doesn't have a duty to talk to anyone first, including Trent.
Check your facts. You’re way off base. Thanks for the comment.
Was Trent's friend also a pilot? Had Trent ever visited his friends property? If so they would already have known if the intended area is land-able, if not they could have discussed obstacles, grass condition, etc. The neighbor might have a point.. "I'm just going to pretend i had intentions to land", "don't buzz my house the neighbor is an atomic asshole" may have been said also....
Another case of non pilots trying to interpret pilot making decisions and yes I mean the FAA and NTSB. On the other hand the uptick in FAA investigations started back when Trent and other “Flying Cowboys” started posting CZcams content. Hopefully this works itself out for the better of all pilots.
What evidence do you have that there’s been an uptick in FAA investigations since more flying cowboys YT content? Is this anecdotal? If not, I’d be curious to look into it.
@@CLEAREDDIRECT Let me rephrase, with more exposure comes more microscopes. Trent Palmer RC plane investigation, Trent Palmer Inspection pass, Cory Robin river nose over, Mike Patey crosswind crash, Trevor engine out, just to name a few. Love all these guys (minus Trevor) but maybe the extreme stuff shouldn’t always be published when there is a chance in changing FAA regulations.
@@AeroworksProductions Trevor does not belong in that company. I'm not a pilot, but I have watched enough of Trent's videos to strongly believe he's the exact opposite Trevor.
@@christopheroliver148 100% agree but the FAA does not differentiate.
There are two sides to every story. Flying magazine was able to obtain the official FAA "Order of Suspension" for Trent Palmer. The FAA document states that Mr. Palmer flew less than 100 feet from the ground and only 100 to 150 feet away from the neighbor's house and a child that was outside at the time. Before we condemn the FAA we need to look at both sides and obviously Trent's video only presents his point of view regarding the incident.
Hey aren’t we hangar neighbors in Bend? I have the Comanche! My ears perked up when you said you ditched a Bonanza in the Columbia River.