Trent Palmer (YouTuber Bush Pilot Channel) Suspended By FAA

LesGawlik said:
Even if he wins the appeal, he has effectively been fined $25,000 or more. In this day, the process IS the punishment. That has to stop.
Click to expand...
Now that I can mostly agree with. Of course, if he just took the 60 days it would be far less, but I agree getting caught up in an administrative law net is punishment even if you are innocent.
 
LesGawlik said:
Even if he wins the appeal, he has effectively been fined $25,000 or more. In this day, the process IS the punishment. That has to stop.
Click to expand...
PaulS said:
Yes, it cost him the lawyer fees to get it to 60 days.
Click to expand...

I saw in an Instagram post by AOPA that he was using their legal services. I wonder if that lowered his lawyer costs some.
 
EdFred said:
I'm guessing something like average lawyer hourly rate x number of hours his lawyer has probably worked on the case.
Click to expand...
Probably. I really doubt if Trent is shaking 25K outta his piggy bank. His lawyer may be doing it pro bono out of a genuine concern ‘for the public good.’ Or for the publicity. I still wanna know if Squarespace is contributing to the cause.
 
I wonder how much YouTube income he's getting as a result of the spectacle of fighting this.
 
He may also be fighting the 60 day revocation because of his Comercial Remote Pilot License.

In the past the FAA has implied loss of a regular Pilot's License (certificate) means loss of comercial remote pilot too. I remeber discussions in how someone that holds both is at a higher risk as losing one means losing both.

Not sure if this pans out to be true (I've never found any clear guidance on this)... but if it is, accepting a 60 day suspension also means loss of his comercial remote license for 60 days. Not sure if everone is aware, his full time job/money comes from UAS cinematographery, back country flying and YouTube are a side gig for him. He could potentially be out of work for 60 days.

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk
 
Am I the only one who is very surprised to hear a big youtuber didn't have any cameras running when planning to land at his buddies' RC runway for the first time?
 
Lindberg said:
Am I the only one who is very surprised to hear a big youtuber didn't have any cameras running when planning to land at his buddies' RC runway for the first time?
Click to expand...
I would think the only reason why he did not have cameras was because he had no intention of making this a "thing," nor did he think it would become one.
 
Palmpilot said:
I wonder how much YouTube income he's getting as a result of the spectacle of fighting this.
Click to expand...

Ballpark $4,000 - $5,000 ad revenue per million views in the aviation niche.
His last 6 months of videos rack up about 3.5 million views.
I would imagine Squarespace is paying a lot more than ad revenue.
Throw in merch and other streams and he isn't hurting.
I suspect youtube is easily paying his legal fees.
 
SixPapaCharlie said:
Ballpark $4,000 - $5,000 ad revenue per million views in the aviation niche.
His last 6 months of videos rack up about 3.5 million views.
I would imagine Squarespace is paying a lot more than ad revenue.
Throw in merch and other streams and he isn't hurting.
I suspect youtube is easily paying his legal fees.
Click to expand...
Now I'm starting to understand why people are willing to risk trouble with the FAA for YouTube views!
 
Lindberg said:
Am I the only one who is very surprised to hear a big youtuber didn't have any cameras running when planning to land at his buddies' RC runway for the first time?
Click to expand...

That crosses my mind every time I see this thread pop up to the top again. I wonder if he “destroyed the evidence” because it would hurt his side of the story.
 
Silvaire said:
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.
Click to expand...

Yes, of course. After prearranging with the landowner, you can do what you want. There are also some land use laws, but if you're out in the country, they aren't typically in place except in very repressive locations. In my part of the country, if I have 10 acres in the country, I'm free to build my own airport.

Silvaire said:
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?
Click to expand...

What does he do? I don't really care, I think he just shuts up about it and goes back to making the videos he likes to make. The point isn't really whether or not he wins. It's that he did what a safe, judicious pilot is taught to do and he was held to have violated rules because he exercised caution. If he had exercised disregard for safety, the lawyers would have been left without a case. For the rest of us, it's that we might be held to that same standard because a lawyer somewhere doesn't understand aviation. This isn't that different than the Warbirds case...a legal decision is setting a precedent which degrades safety.
 
bflynn said:
Yes, of course. After prearranging with the landowner, you can do what you want. There are also some land use laws, but if you're out in the country, they aren't typically in place except in very repressive locations. In my part of the country, if I have 10 acres in the country, I'm free to build my own airport.



What does he do? I don't really care, I think he just shuts up about it and goes back to making the videos he likes to make. The point isn't really whether or not he wins. It's that he did what a safe, judicious pilot is taught to do and he was held to have violated rules because he exercised caution. If he had exercised disregard for safety, the lawyers would have been left without a case. For the rest of us, it's that we might be held to that same standard because a lawyer somewhere doesn't understand aviation. This isn't that different than the Warbirds case...a legal decision is setting a precedent which degrades safety.
Click to expand...
True - If what he says is true and there are no other facts.

What if he dragged it in over the neighbors house multiple times? What if he was 50 feet over the neighbors house and the house was nowhere close to the “runway”?

maybe neither of those are true, but if they were he wouldn’t be lying but would still be wrong.
 
Salty said:
True - If what he says is true and there are no other facts.

What if he dragged it in over the neighbors house multiple times? What if he was 50 feet over the neighbors house and the house was nowhere close to the “runway”?

maybe neither of those are true, but if they were he wouldn’t be lying but would still be wrong.
Click to expand...
More: What if he was landing in a wrong place to begin with? What if he could have landed in his buddy's backyard, but would have to pass w/in 10' of the neighbor's house to do it? Would that be OK because he's got a bush plane capable of doing it? What if it should have been obvious from 500' that he couldn't safely land there?
 
Unverified rumor on social media.
It's been upgraded to emergency revocation.

Too lazy to research. So just here to add fodder to the rumor mill

I'm however going to just speculate that somebody on social media got him confused with Trevor Jacob.
 
Last edited:
SixPapaCharlie said:
Unverified rumor on social media.
It's been upgraded to emergency revocation.

Too lazy to research. So just here to add fodder to the rumor mill

I'm however going to just speculate that somebody on social media got him confused with Trevor Jacob.
Click to expand...
Verify schmerify. Who cares. This is juicy sh*t.
 
SixPapaCharlie said:
Ballpark $4,000 - $5,000 ad revenue per million views in the aviation niche.
His last 6 months of videos rack up about 3.5 million views….
Click to expand...

If that [$15.5K (3.5*$5k)] is gross, color me unimpressed, even for a quasi-passive income stream. Unless that’s each video gets 3.5M views and he’s putting out one/week.
 
Lindberg said:
More: What if he was landing in a wrong place to begin with? What if he could have landed in his buddy's backyard, but would have to pass w/in 10' of the neighbor's house to do it? Would that be OK because he's got a bush plane capable of doing it? What if it should have been obvious from 500' that he couldn't safely land there?
Click to expand...

these hypothetical questions still don’t address the core issue - the faa decision says that if a pilot intends to land, goes inside the 500’ limit and then aborts the landing, they have violated regulations. That is for any reason, including safety.
 
bflynn said:
these hypothetical questions still don’t address the core issue - the faa decision says that if a pilot intends to land, goes inside the 500’ limit and then aborts the landing, they have violated regulations. That is for any reason, including safety.
Click to expand...
I think you’re putting words in the mouth of the FAA. Never did Trent say he intended to land at the time the complaint was made. He argued that he flew an “inspection pass”, presumably in preparation for a landing at a later time.
 
EdFred said:
An inspection pass isn't for landing at some point in the distant future, it's for a landing about the time it takes to make a trip around the pattern.
Click to expand...
Presumably that's exactly what the FAA said. But it's not what Trent said.
 
While I don’t implicitly trust the FAA, in fact I implicitly don’t trust them, I also know the rate of butt-holes among pilots is higher than the general population. The rate among YouTube pilots is epic. The rate among YouTube pilots having negative interactions with government officials… well now I can’t decide which bias to apply. Is it possible to go on the record that both the FAA and Trent Palmer are full of **** and should just F off?
 
EdFred said:
If Trent was doing an inspection pass for landing the next day, or 2 weeks from that day or whenever, then I'm with the FAA on the 500' bust. Conditions change, and inspection passes are pretty much only good for rat meow. If he was going around the pattern and coming back to land, or decided nope this isn't save, the FAA is completely in the wrong.
Click to expand...
I agree with this. Except to say that personally, I think doing an inspection pass to see if a location is suitable for a future landing shouldn't, in itself be an issue. Ruling out a landing site long before planning a landing there is a good thing from a safety perspective. Again, assuming there's not more to the story, like flying close to people / property. But, the letter of the law doesn't agree with me.

I do think that a 60 day suspension is still too much unless there is more to the story. For a one time pass to rule out a landing site, it seems to me that a slap on the wrist and stern talking to should be sufficient.
 
bflynn said:
these hypothetical questions still don’t address the core issue - the faa decision says that if a pilot intends to land, goes inside the 500’ limit and then aborts the landing, they have violated regulations. That is for any reason, including safety.
Click to expand...
Please point me to where the FAA said that.
 
EdFred said:
It was in the video or from what the lawyer said.

I know, objection: Hearsay. But if what was stated by Trent or is lawyer is true that *is* what the FAA effectively said.
Click to expand...
And it also appears to be a necessary implication of the ruling.

Where was there evidence that he was within 500' of anyone or anything? Just being below 500' AGL should not be a per se violation.
 
LesGawlik said:
...Just being below 500' AGL should not be a per se violation.
Click to expand...
Wouldn't that statement only apply in a sparsely-populated area? I don't think the satellite photos of the area fit that description.
 
EdFred said:
An inspection pass isn't for landing at some point in the distant future, it's for a landing about the time it takes to make a trip around the pattern.
Click to expand...
Really? So a pilot cannot inspect a strip, with no intention to land, for ten other bush planes bringing in hunters later that day?
 
If this is the way things are going to start going with Youtube Pilots and the FAA I'm not sure Just Plane Silly is going to survive. :D
 
LesGawlik said:
And it also appears to be a necessary implication of the ruling.

Where was there evidence that he was within 500' of anyone or anything? Just being below 500' AGL should not be a per se violation.
Click to expand...

From his video, it sounds like the FAA found witnesses who they were able to establish with 500’ of him during the pass.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top