Trent Palmer (YouTuber Bush Pilot Channel) Suspended By FAA

Palmpilot said:
I'm wondering if the decisions in such cases have any precedential value.
Click to expand...
While this is outside my skill set, I've been told that "administrative law" and "judicial law" are two separate entities with many differences. And from what I've seen, read, and heard of the admin side, "precedents" and other similar guidance doesn't seem to be held to the same level as in judicial setting. In some admin cases, the rules and "precedent" were changed mid-stream during the process by the regulating authority.
 
Fearless Tower said:
There IS more to the story simply in terms of details that Trent is glossing over which leads one to ponder what he is actually omitting.

And yes, I have apparently had a different experience with the FAA than you have. By and large the FAA people I have interacted with in my 20 years in the business are professionals. Yes, there are rogue FSDO people, but they are the exceptions to the norm. Note, I am speaking in terms of FSDO folks. Medical in OKC is a very unique breed of government civilians.

I don't believe the FAA violated him here for doing a go around. Reading between the lines of his statements in the video, I suspect the issue is whether he should have been attempting to land there in the first place, and that in the course of his attempt to land, he came within 500 feet of someone other than the guy who gave him permission to land there.

Consider this: 10 acres of land is NOT that big of a piece of property and that is the size of the property on which the RC strip was located. If the lots there are 10 acres, it is very conceivable that there were neighbors within 500' of his attempted landing. Trent is naturally trying to get sympathy by bringing up implications for others. I can't say that I blame him for that, and I don't think he's a Trevor Jacob. I do think it is a little disingenuous to claim that he was violated for performing a go-around.

I have zero opposition to back country flying, but to use your 2nd Amendment analogy, just because I'm a firm supporter of the right to bear arms, doesn't mean that I think it's ok to discharge my firearm anywhere I please.
Click to expand...
I have certainly come closer than 500 feet to persons whilst landing. Most people have.
 
Fearless Tower said:
I don't believe the FAA violated him here for doing a go around. Reading between the lines of his statements in the video, I suspect the issue is whether he should have been attempting to land there in the first place, and that in the course of his attempt to land, he came within 500 feet of someone other than the guy who gave him permission to land there.

Consider this: 10 acres of land is NOT that big of a piece of property and that is the size of the property on which the RC strip was located. If the lots there are 10 acres, it is very conceivable that there were neighbors within 500' of his attempted landing. Trent is naturally trying to get sympathy by bringing up implications for others. I can't say that I blame him for that, and I don't think he's a Trevor Jacob. I do think it is a little disingenuous to claim that he was violated for performing a go-around.
Click to expand...

If the screenshot I saw online of the place he was considering landing is accurate, Trent's friend seems to be in the middle of a development. While a 10 acre lot size may be large compared to what you would have in town, they are not that large and it did not seem like a good place to land an airplane. As someone who has landed off airport in various places, I'm somewhat curious why he even considered it. I usually try to avoid people and drawing attention to myself and landing in someone's yard in the middle of a development is probably not the thing I'd be doing.

The property looked more suitable for taking off and landing a helicopter safely to me. The violation may not have happened if he was in one as well.
 
Salty said:
60 days and out of jail or give the Faa another chance to screw you? Nah, I'll take the 60
Click to expand...

60 days ... yeah I'd take that standing on my head! Unless you are building a Yoob Toob following ...
 
Daleandee said:
60 days ... yeah I'd take that standing on my head! Unless you are building a Yoob Toob following ...
Click to expand...

He already has a pretty substantial following. And he can still make videos. And if he wants to do it in a plane he can ride with one of his many friends in theirs. ;)
 
BrianNC said:
He already has a pretty substantial following. And he can still make videos. And if he wants to do it in a plane he can ride with one of his many friends in theirs. ;)
Click to expand...

Can't imagine Trent being much different than most any other person making money. More is better. People go into business to make it grow ...
 
Mxfarm said:
What if Mr Trent goes flying w/a private pilot buddy who agrees to be PIC, can he fly the plane? o_O
Click to expand...
Better yet - just wear a shirt with a big bull’s eye in it, a few choice words describing the FAA, kidnap the FISDO’s cat, and make a video while being the sole occupant of a plane and jump out of it.
 
WDD said:
Better yet - just wear a shirt with a big bull’s eye in it, a few choice words describing the FAA, kidnap the FISDO’s cat, and make a video while being the sole occupant of a plane and jump out of it.
Click to expand...

But, how would he log the time? For instance, does he stop logging time when he lands or when the plane lands?
 
Fearless Tower said:
There IS more to the story simply in terms of details that Trent is glossing over which leads one to ponder what he is actually omitting.
Click to expand...

He then went on and made a second video in which he badmouths the "neighbor" who is the complainant in the case and of course it is now filled with hundreds of gushy supporting comments about 'Karens" and such. As I said earlier his case is on appeal, he still has his license, so what is his intent here? Is a judge supposed to feel pressure from the support of Trent's fanbase? Maybe the neighbor is a jerk, I don't know, but Trent Palmer should have just kept his mouth shut and let the system work the way it's supposed to. He seems to think he has a solid case so why has he taken this route of whiny little beech? I'm sorry to feel that way about it but he is creating a public adversity to the FAA that could end up affecting us all in negative ways. His "setting a bad precedent" argument is absolute nonsense. The actual bad precedent is overt disrespect for the authority that granted you the license to begin with.

Now it's time for me to shut up.
 
The neighbor may or may not have been primed for a complaint given his friend flying RC planes and drones. They can be annoying.

Nothing to be gained from going after the neighbor - even if she is a Karen. What outcome does he want and how will going after the neighbor help? Instead maybe meet with the neighbor and try and be nice and settle the issue would have been better.

People will press their case against you if they think you’re a pushover or if you’re annoying. Need to find a middle ground.

The person posting the band of brothers clip was spot on
 
Perhaps he believes he was treated unfairly. From what I read, I would agree. If you think you're being railroaded, are you suggesting that you should just sit back and take it? Because reasons.

The guy the FAA used as an SME had not piloted an airplane in 18 years. The FAA lawyer objected to a question because it contained the word "flap," and she didn't know what that was. I can never know as much as an opposing expert when I cross him, but I can come damned close. There is even an FAA publication on similar operations, but the ALJ apparently didn't even consider that.

This case brings to the fore the gulag justice of the FAA, and the incredible abuse of our rights by the administrative state. The executive becomes the legislative, judicial and executive. That's not how this country was designed.
 
LesGawlik said:
Perhaps he believes he was treated unfairly...
Click to expand...

Okay, he's got an appeal process, he's not done with it yet. He's now turning it into some sort of Facebook court and you are making judgements about the SME, the FAA lawyer and claiming "gulag justice" based on Trent Palmer's social media postings. There was a five day hearing that none of us were present at and all we have to go on is his presentation of the entire affair. I'm not taking sides based on that.
 
Silvaire said:
Okay, he's got an appeal process, he's not done with it yet. He's now turning it into some sort of Facebook court and you are making judgements about the SME, the FAA lawyer and claiming "gulag justice" based on Trent Palmer's social media postings. There was a five day hearing that none of us were present at and all we have to go on is his presentation of the entire affair. I'm not taking sides based on that.
Click to expand...
Not so. We have the write-up of his lawyer, who was present. I found it informative and persuasive.
 
EdFred said:
Do you think his lawyer would fabricate and publicly post the shortcomings of the FAA's defense team? Because if you do, it seems like you *are* taking sides.

Based on the FAA idiots I've dealt with in medical, like a doctor who doesn't know what the terms "prophylaxis" and "cure" mean, I take the lawyer's comments as being accurate.
Click to expand...
Yeah, sorry, but it may very well be true that the FAA expert was as described, but that doesn't mean it was even relevant to the proceedings, and it may be "sorta true", and it may be complete fabrication.

I'm very hard on the FAA, but no, I'm not going to form an opinion based solely on a YouTube video that shows only one side.

That doesn't mean I think the FAA is right. It just means I'm not forming an opinion based solely on a YouTube video.
 
LesGawlik said:
Not so. We have the write-up of his lawyer, who was present. I found it informative and persuasive.
Click to expand...
Ok, a YouTube video and a write-up from his lawyer, which will of course say everything he wants said, and nothing he doesn't want said. Same problem.
 
EdFred said:
I'm actually basing my stance on what the lawyer posted on Beechtalk. I would find it hard to believe a lawyer would publicly lie about what happened. And if that's how the FAA handles things, it's a complete sham.
Click to expand...
Who said anything about lying? He's giving his side of things. There may be the FAA has nothing, but we haven't seen that they have nothing.
 
EdFred said:
That's lying in my book.

Unless your "it" was referring to something besides what the lawyer described of the proceedings.
Click to expand...
I don't know he wasn't lying, but you ignored the other two options I presented. I didn't say just that option alone.

I'll restate them clearer

1. The person who was a bad expert may not have been relevant, or his expertise may not have been relevant
2. The expert may have been a bad one but he's guilty anyway
3. The "bad expert" claim may be completely untrue. Does one even have to be a pilot to be an expert in Faa regulations?
 
EdFred said:
Do you think his lawyer would fabricate and publicly post the shortcomings of the FAA's defense team? .
Click to expand...

I don’t trust any lawyer to say anything other than what I pay them to say. I also expect that every defense lawyer will zealously defend their client.

Nothing about either of those statements make me believe that truth and what comes out of a lawyers mouth can’t be mutually exclusive. Especially if the lawyer is bloviating in a medium where he perjuring one’s self isn’t even a concept.
 
Last edited:
EdFred said:
I'm looking at the proceedings themselves. There is NO EXCUSE as to why an FAA 'prosecutor' doesn't know what a flap is, why an 'expert' who knows nothing about the aircraft, and hasn't touched a plane in 18 years is allowed to say...anything, and a judge to accepts that as....acceptable. Just based on that alone, the whole case should be dropped.
Click to expand...
So for 5 hours, you know for a fact they talked about anything but those few things? Okay dokey.
 
EdFred said:
You can get sanctioned/disbarred for actions outside of a courtroom, which is why I don't think he would lie about the proceedings.
Click to expand...
Just about everything a lawyer says is crafted to say what they want, and it is often not "truth". And they don't get sanctioned for it, they make a ton of money for it.
 
EdFred said:
I'm looking at the proceedings themselves. There is NO EXCUSE as to why an FAA 'prosecutor' doesn't know what a flap is, why an 'expert' who knows nothing about the aircraft, and hasn't touched a plane in 18 years is allowed to say...anything, and a judge to accepts that as....acceptable. Just based on that alone, the whole case should be dropped.
Click to expand...
You're looking at an accounting of the proceedings by an advocate for the defendant. That's a pretty low bar for determining a case should be dropped.

Nauga,
with hurdles, not limbo
 
LesGawlik said:
Lots of "If I support the Man, no matter how indefensible his conduct, maybe he won't come after me" in this thread.
Click to expand...
LOL You obviously haven't seen many of my posts regarding the FAA. I'm about the last one to defend them. But, I'm still not going to say they are wrong before I have any actual facts showing such.

You want to rail about how unfair administrative law is in general? I'll go along with that all day long, but it's also wasting our breath.
 
LesGawlik said:
Lots of "If I support the Man, no matter how indefensible his conduct, maybe he won't come after me" in this thread.
Click to expand...
There's also a lot of "Don't bother me with facts, my mind is made up."

Nauga,
inconclusive
 
EdFred said:
You can get sanctioned/disbarred for actions outside of a courtroom, which is why I don't think he would lie about the proceedings.
Click to expand...

I’m sure the lawyer knows how to zealously defend his client while at the same time not subjecting himself to penalties. If not, Trent should get a new lawyer.

Truth and fact are two entirely different concepts. Truth may not be fact-based, instead it can be belief based whereas fact or factual information can be proven or disproven and may be conditional as well.
 
I think the importance of this topic has been somewhat lost. I happen to like Trent and think he does a wonderful job at positivity promoting ga. That being said , my opinion means absolutely nothing. Any opinion of Trent is irrelevant. He just happens to be the poster boy for a much more important subject on how the faa could, with its decision on this, decide that they are now, from a desk somewhere in an office 1500 miles away, going to assume responsibility for overriding my decision on weather or not to make a low pass on a potential back country landing option or my decision to “go around” or maybe even abort all together, landing in a situation that I determine unsafe.
If that’s the case why stop at landings. What about weather, ifr, and a ton of other decision making responsibilities that we are currently responsible for.
Hearing one side of this story is also irrelevant. If the faa has specific evidence that Trent is guilty of something than punish him for specifically that. Don’t change a regulation that could potentially make pilots feel like they are forced to land weather they are comfortable or not.
That’s asinine!!
 
Fearless Tower said:
I don't believe the FAA violated him here for doing a go around. Reading between the lines of his statements in the video, I suspect the issue is whether he should have been attempting to land there in the first place, and that in the course of his attempt to land, he came within 500 feet of someone other than the guy who gave him permission to land there.

Consider this: 10 acres of land is NOT that big of a piece of property and that is the size of the property on which the RC strip was located.
Click to expand...

first, 10 acres IS a pretty big parcel of land. A runway 2400x60 is less than 3.5 acres in size and you don’t need that much to land.

second, I agree about why the decision was made. They stated it wasn’t a “correct” place to land because it lacked a windsock and runway markings. But where is the regulation that tells me I cannot make an off airport landing? Not only is there not one, but there is also a FAA group whose job it is to teach pilots how to land off airport.

This is like some of the really bad chief counsel decisions we’ve seen. They were made by lawyers who show a distinct lack of understand of aviation.

and yes…if arrangements are made with the landowner, I will go land my airplane anyplace it is safe to do so.
 
bflynn said:
...and yes…if arrangements are made with the landowner, I will go land my airplane anyplace it is safe to do so.
Click to expand...

I've been flying for over 50 years now. I'm one of those kids who used to ride his bike out to the airport and wash planes, pump gas, even mow the grass to get time and my license. But the fact is, and has always been, that this attitude of I'm gonna fly my plane wherever and whenever the hell I want is not going to pan out well in the end. There is a lot of space up there in the sky to enjoy this passion of ours and plenty of backcountry spots to visit. If you want to put a private strip on your 10 acres of land there is a process for doing it and yes, you are going to have to live with and accommodate the concerns and interests of your neighbors whether you like them or not. That's just a fact of life. Trent Palmer is, I'm sorry to say it, the 'Karen' here. He's calling foul when the game hasn't even played out and he's using his social media popularity to try and influence the outcome.

What is supposed to happen now? If he wins his appeal does he gloat? If he loses his appeal does he continue to fuel dissent and distrust for the authority? He needs to friggin' grow up and learn that there's a whole big world outside of his YouTube channel.

I really hate to put it that harshly. I like the guy and think he has real talent in regards to videography. I just wish he'd take my advice, do the suspension and get back to what he's good at. If he were to turn in his ticket today he'd be able to fly to Oshkosh for Airventure 2022 in July.

Sigh....
 
I think part of the reason many believe this is FAA overreach is based on a recent decision by the FAA. I'm referring to the silliness of the ruling that instruction was carrying for hire, resulting in thousands of experimental plane owners to apply for a worthless piece of paper stating they have a waiver to receive instruction. It's not a giant leap to assume that the FAA is starting a pattern to make more of these types of decisions, not because they are right, but because they can.
 
Cluemeister said:
I think part of the reason many believe this is FAA overreach is based on a recent decision by the FAA. I'm referring to the silliness of the ruling that instruction was carrying for hire, resulting in thousands of experimental plane owners to apply for a worthless piece of paper stating they have a waiver to receive instruction. It's not a giant leap to assume that the FAA is starting a pattern to make more of these types of decisions, not because they are right, but because they can.
Click to expand...
Well, that situation did show the Faa was too stupid to get out of its own way, and that they are willing to burn down all the houses on the block to kill a single house fly. But a 60 day suspension doesn’t seem to fit that description.
 
EdFred said:
I would find it hard to believe a lawyer would publicly lie about what happened. That stuff gets you disbarred.
Click to expand...
Well if this were true then most of the plaintiff attorneys I've been around would have been disbarred years ago. "Untruths" are just part of the game. Besides IMO any attorney who jumps on a soapbox like this guy on BT has other agendas and is more an Avenatti wannabe. Maybe he's prepping to get his own YTube channel?:rolleyes:
EdFred said:
Is there a way for us peons to get a transcript to verify what is being said?
Click to expand...
Yes. Depending on the investigative status you can request a FOIA which is fairly easy to do. Or wait till the final decision is rendered as it is posted in a public or private database depending on what the final route was.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top