Trent Palmer (YouTuber Bush Pilot Channel) Suspended By FAA

Well in this particular case the FAA certainly considered the landing to be unsafe. Of course, they never said he should have landed so it's kind of a moot point.
 
I'm not sure whether this is new or not, but this interview with Trent Palmer's attorney was posted on YouTube today.

 
Loving the vibes of that attorney roasting admin law. He makes a really sweet argument of all the ways FAA/NTSB kango court is effed up like a football bat. I think/hope he'll have more traction now that it's going to big boy, real appellate court.

I have no love lost for flat billed STOLbros like Trentie boy, but enemy of my enemy is my friend. I'm rooting for this guy (the lawyer). Ridiculous amount of billable hours on this joke of a case, but glad someone has the wallet to push back on these dirty redcoats. Here's a preview of opening arguments....
o_O:rofl:
 
hindsight2020 said:
think/hope he'll have more traction now that it's going to big boy, real appellate court
Click to expand...
It went to,”big boy appellate court.” Oral argument was about two weeks ago.

I listened live. Based on what I heard, the panel didn’t seem interested. Not even about what I thought was the best - the procedural one Schulte opened with. I was aware of it from discussions with one of the AOPA counsel (AOPA filed an amicus brief). It’s a good one, should have been addressed, and I was expecting some pointed questions (the sign of interest) on the topic to counsel for both sides. But nothing.

The only question from the judges was on a subject that had nothing to do with the case. I wondered why they even bothered to grant oral argument. It will be interesting to see the decision.
 
I'm not any fan of the adminstrative procedures used by the FAA, but I think the AOPA amici is full of manure on the interpretation point. Burkhart isn't applicable. The APA requires the administrative and even district courts to defer to the agency for the interpretation of their own ill-crafted regulations. The case they cite (Burkhart v. WMATA) isn't applicable since that involves "real law" not regulations. In their argument about the sanctions, they again invent concepts that aren't present in the law. Just because that argue congress intended the NTSB to be a more lenient review, doesn't make it so in light of the actual enacted laws.

The strategy of trotting out Pham is bizarre. Essentially, that precedent goes against them and Yodice tosses it in and says they should change the decision on that one as well.
I don't think Palmer's got a chance in hell on appeal.

For those who want to hear the oral arguments:
Starts just before minute 29 on the video.
 
Maybe if SCOTUS tosses the Chevron doctrine they can get a re-opener. This might hinge on fish.....
 
Half Fast said:
...with juries.
Click to expand...
Might or might not help. “Jury nullification” aside, juries make factual determinations and apply them to instructions from a judge on the applicable law. Most of the questions in this case are legal, not factual. The basic facts - Palmer, in making an inspection pass, passed within x feet of a house, structures, and people on an adjoining property - are not really in dispute.
 
flyingron said:
For those who want to hear the oral arguments:
Starts just before minute 29 on the video.
Click to expand...
It’s the second case. If someone wants to see what I meant by “not interested,” listen to the first one for comparison.

In teaching first year law school students to prepare for their first oral arguments, they are often told, “when the judges start interrupting you with questions, rejoice.”
 
midlifeflyer said:
Might or might not help. “Jury nullification” aside, juries make factual determinations and apply them to instructions from a judge on the applicable law. Most of the questions in this case are legal, not factual. The basic facts - Palmer, in making an inspection pass, passed within x feet of a house, structures, and people on an adjoining property - are not really in dispute.
Click to expand...
Every time I shoot an approach and go missed I pass within 500 feet of a structure. And I'm not landing. I don't even put down the gear sometimes when I know I'm going missed. Sometimes nullification is the only option.
 
midlifeflyer said:
“Jury nullification” aside, juries make factual determinations and apply them to instructions from a judge on the applicable law.
Click to expand...

Yeah, that's the theory. But a jury member can and will make a decision based on whatever he likes, including whether he considers the law to be correct or just doesn't like the judge's hair style, and no power on earth can prevent that nor force the juror to disclose his reasoning if he chooses not to.

Juries are the ultimate check on a court's power. Do juries get it wrong? Of course. But that's often the result of lawyers and judges not doing their jobs well enough.
 
EdFred said:
Every time I shoot an approach and go missed I pass within 500 feet of a structure. And I'm not landing. I don't even put down the gear sometimes when I know I'm going missed. Sometimes nullification is the only option.
Click to expand...
Everyone, including the FAA, agrees that this is legal. All practice approaches are exceptions to 91.119 as long as they are practice approaches to a landing spot that is reasonable under the circumstances and the approach and departure procedures themselves are reasonable.

There is zero chance that anyone is getting violated for flying a published approach.  Maybe if they're flying it into a clearly unsuitable airport- like doing a practice approach into an airport with a 2000 foot runway is fine in a C152 but probably not in an A380.

Half Fast said:
Yeah, that's the theory. But a jury member can and will make a decision based on whatever he likes, including whether he considers the law to be correct or just doesn't like the judge's hair style, and no power on earth can prevent that nor force the juror to disclose his reasoning if he chooses not to.

Juries are the ultimate check on a court's power. Do juries get it wrong? Of course. But that's often the result of lawyers and judges not doing their jobs well enough.
Click to expand...

In a civil case, the judge can make a judgment as a matter of law- essentially finding that no reasonable jury would decide otherwise. This can happen even after the jury has made a verdict.

Juries are only an ultimate check in criminal cases, since an acquittal by jury can not be set aside, except probably in the case of a bribed jury or something.
 
EdFred said:
Every time I shoot an approach and go missed I pass within 500 feet of a structure. And I'm not landing. I don't even put down the gear sometimes when I know I'm going missed. Sometimes nullification is the only option.
Click to expand...
Can we please not start with the strawmen again? The YouTuber was not making any kind of practice approach nor inspection pass. He was hot dogging. He lied about the hearing and the evidence against him in his YouTube video for sympathy and clicks.
 
Salty said:
So much for the kinder gentler FAA that only cares about safety.

Maybe there's more to the story, but it sounds pretty simple.

* addition *

I never watched his stuff, after a couple minutes previewing some vids, I suspect his suspension is not just due to one event as he claims. I saw several things that looked potentionally questionable just in a few minutes of browsing.
Click to expand...
Many years ago I attended an event where an FAA official spoke about the Bob Hoover affair and how the FAA had learned its lesson and was now a kinder and gentler safety partner with General Aviation. After her prepared dissertation, she then opened the floor to questions and quickly reverted to the stereotypical sky cop whose job was to prosecute every infraction actual or perceived. It was truly amazing how fast she disabused us of the notion that the FAA had changed its attitude toward pilots as a result of the Bob Hoover affair. In the intervening years I've come across a wide range of FAA officials, some pretty good guys and some not so. I treat all interactions with them cautiously as you never know which kind you're dealinng with.
 
Lindberg said:
Can we please not start with the strawmen again? The YouTuber was not making any kind of practice approach nor inspection pass. He was hot dogging. He lied about the hearing and the evidence against him in his YouTube video for sympathy and clicks.
Click to expand...
I suspect you are right, but is there any actual evidence of that?
 
EdFred said:
Every time I shoot an approach and go missed I pass within 500 feet of a structure. And I'm not landing. I don't even put down the gear sometimes when I know I'm going missed. Sometimes nullification is the only option.
Click to expand...
There is nothing in the case or precedent that says that, only a chamber of horrors argument.
 
Half Fast said:
Yeah, that's the theory. But a jury member can and will make a decision based on whatever he likes, including whether he considers the law to be correct or just doesn't like the judge's hair style, and no power on earth can prevent that nor force the juror to disclose his reasoning if he chooses not to.

Juries are the ultimate check on a court's power. Do juries get it wrong? Of course. But that's often the result of lawyers and judges not doing their jobs well enough.
Click to expand...
So you think a jury would be fine with one of those dangerous little airplanes flying through a residential backyard. We’ll have to agree to disagree. Jury nullification definitely exists, but it’s exceedingly rare and I doubt they’d do in on a case like this.
 
Last edited:
Wow this is still going on? If he had just taken the six month suspension it would all be a distant memory now but apparently he's been lying awake nights gnawing his teeth for the past two and a half years over what everyone else sees as a silly "oops, probably shouldn't have done that - lesson learned" stunt. His lawyer is making a career out of it.
 
Silvaire said:
Wow this is still going on? If he had just taken the six month suspension it would all be a distant memory now but apparently he's been lying awake nights gnawing his teeth for the past two and a half years over what everyone else sees as a silly "oops, probably shouldn't have done that - lesson learned" stunt. His lawyer is making a career out of it.
Click to expand...
The cynic in me says it makes good YouTube content and clicks=cash.
 
Silvaire said:
Wow this is still going on? If he had just taken the six month suspension it would all be a distant memory now but apparently he's been lying awake nights gnawing his teeth for the past two and a half years over what everyone else sees as a silly "oops, probably shouldn't have done that - lesson learned" stunt. His lawyer is making a career out of it.
Click to expand...
i won’t speculate on either Palmer or his lawyer’s (who is well-respected in the aviation legal community) motivations. As much of the discussion shows, although I’m cynical about it, some really do see the case as about protecting inspection passes, practice approaches, etc. And there are broader -and repetitive - administrative law and NTSB process issues which the procedural history of the case raises.
 
Last edited:
Silvaire said:
Wow this is still going on? If he had just taken the six month suspension it would all be a distant memory now but apparently he's been lying awake nights gnawing his teeth for the past two and a half years over what everyone else sees as a silly "oops, probably shouldn't have done that - lesson learned" stunt. His lawyer is making a career out of it.
Click to expand...
It wasn't even six months. The FAA wanted 120 days, which the ALJ reduced to 60. If YouTuber had taken the L, rather than appealing, it wouldn't have been increased back to 120 days.
 
babcock said:
There is zero chance that anyone is getting violated for flying a published approach.  Maybe if they're flying it into a clearly unsuitable airport- like doing a practice approach into an airport with a 2000 foot runway is fine in a C152 but probably not in an A380.
Click to expand...
That's actually not true. I know of a suspension that happened to someone I know down in the San Antonio FSDO because he didn't put his gear down on the approach and the inspector determined from that that he "had no intention" of landing, and thus violated the minimum altitudes even though he was on a published approach.
 
RyanShort1 said:
That's actually not true. I know of a suspension that happened to someone I know down in the San Antonio FSDO because he didn't put his gear down on the approach and the inspector determined from that that he "had no intention" of landing, and thus violated the minimum altitudes even though he was on a published approach.
Click to expand...
Unbelievable! Except it's the FAA so it's totally believable.
 
midlifeflyer said:
i won’t speculate on either Palmer or his lawyer’s (who is well-respected in the aviation legal community) motivations. As much of the discussion shows, although I’m cynical about it, some really do see the case as about protecting inspection passes, practice approaches, etc. And there are broader -and repetitive - administrative law and NTSB process issues which the procedural history of the case raises.
Click to expand...
Speaking as a layman, Palmer's lawyer sounds respectable and sincere to me.
 
RyanShort1 said:
That's actually not true. I know of a suspension that happened to someone I know down in the San Antonio FSDO because he didn't put his gear down on the approach and the inspector determined from that that he "had no intention" of landing, and thus violated the minimum altitudes even though he was on a published approach.
Click to expand...
As Trent Palmer's lawyer said, it's the "because I said so" standard.
 
RyanShort1 said:
That's actually not true. I know of a suspension that happened to someone I know down in the San Antonio FSDO because he didn't put his gear down on the approach and the inspector determined from that that he "had no intention" of landing, and thus violated the minimum altitudes even though he was on a published approach.
Click to expand...
cops on the beat overreaching their authority is a historical truth, although I suspect there is much more to the story. It doesn’t make any sense otherwise.
 
Last edited:
babcock said:
Everyone, including the FAA, agrees that this is legal. All practice approaches are exceptions to 91.119 as long as they are practice approaches to a landing spot that is reasonable under the circumstances and the approach and departure procedures themselves are reasonable.

There is zero chance that anyone is getting violated for flying a published approach.  Maybe if they're flying it into a clearly unsuitable airport- like doing a practice approach into an airport with a 2000 foot runway is fine in a C152 but probably not in an A380.



In a civil case, the judge can make a judgment as a matter of law- essentially finding that no reasonable jury would decide otherwise. This can happen even after the jury has made a verdict.

Juries are only an ultimate check in criminal cases, since an acquittal by jury can not be set aside, except probably in the case of a bribed jury or something.
Click to expand...
Lindberg said:
Can we please not start with the strawmen again? The YouTuber was not making any kind of practice approach nor inspection pass. He was hot dogging. He lied about the hearing and the evidence against him in his YouTube video for sympathy and clicks.
Click to expand...
midlifeflyer said:
There is nothing in the case or precedent that says that, only a chamber of horrors argument.
Click to expand...

We are talking facts and what is in the CFRs.

The FACTS are, every time I fly an approach and do not land, I do the exact same thing that Palmer did in regards to minimum safe distances. And I don't see anything in 91.119 that excepts practice approaches. Please point it out to me in the regulations.

Ah, and I see Ryan posted up an incident. So what were you all saying again?
 
EdFred said:
We are talking facts and what is in the CFRs.

The FACTS are, every time I fly an approach and do not land, I do the exact same thing that Palmer did in regards to minimum safe distances. And I don't see anything in 91.119 that excepts practice approaches. Please point it out to me in the regulations.
Click to expand...
You should read the NTSB order. The facts are not as he claims. But if this concerns you, there's a simple solution: plan to do touch-and-goes on your practice approaches.
 
EdFred said:
We are talking facts and what is in the CFRs.

The FACTS are, every time I fly an approach and do not land, I do the exact same thing that Palmer did in regards to minimum safe distances. And I don't see anything in 91.119 that excepts practice approaches. Please point it out to me in the regulations.
Click to expand...
I didn’t realize you flew instrument approaches at low altitude through people’s backyards into a place that’s not an airport.
 
Lindberg said:
You should read the NTSB order. The facts are not as he claims. But if this concerns you, there's a simple solution: plan to do touch-and-goes on your practice approaches.
Click to expand...
Nor the body of legal precedent, interpretation, and official guidance on the issue. Never confuse a political position with reality. It only confuses people.
 
midlifeflyer said:
I didn’t realize you flew instrument approaches at low altitude through people’s backyards into a place that’s not an airport.
Click to expand...
I don't recall seeing backyards listed in in 91.119. I have, however flown over "any congested area of a city, town, or settlement, or over any open air assembly of persons, an altitude of 1,000 feet above the highest obstacle within a horizontal radius of 2,000 feet of the aircraft" and "closer than 500 feet to any person, vessel, vehicle, or structure" while not landing and flying approaches.
 
EdFred said:
I don't recall seeing backyards listed in in 91.119. I have, however flown over "any congested area of a city, town, or settlement, or over any open air assembly of persons, an altitude of 1,000 feet above the highest obstacle within a horizontal radius of 2,000 feet of the aircraft" and "closer than 500 feet to any person, vessel, vehicle, or structure" while not landing and flying approaches.
Click to expand...
Funny that a guy who put together a logging chart based largely on interpretation rejects legal and interpretive precedent regarding “necessary for takeoff and landing” as not directly stated in the regulations. I guess we’ll have to disagree on this one.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top