Trent Palmer (YouTuber Bush Pilot Channel) Suspended By FAA

[EdFred]

I look at that video and I see someone being an ahole, buzzing someone's house. Whoever videoed it knew he was coming which means he did it at least one other time. But I think about what it would take for me to video something like that and that level would be 2 or 3 previous passes.

Take your medicine Trent, you earned it.

That's a cell phone video from a ring (or similar) camera. They (ring cameras) are always recording. No prior knowledge needed. Just like my dashcam. I don't know captain dickbag is going to pull some stupid move in front of me, it's always recording.

 

[Daleandee]

Part of the article:

However, in its response to FLYING’s request for copies of the video the FAA noted, “We are withholding another video under Exemption 6 of the FOIA. Exemption 6 of the FOIA protects information that pertains to an individual “the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy,” (e.g., names, dates of birth, social security numbers, home addresses, and telephone numbers of parties mentioned). When applying Exemption 6, the FAA weighs the privacy interest of an individual against any public interest in the records. In this case, the identity of a woman and an infant.”

 

[EdFred]

Part of the article:

Because evidently the FAA can't figure out blurring technology in video that's been around for decades.

 

[Daleandee]

Because evidently the FAA can't figure out blurring technology in video that's been around for decades.

I wondered about that myself ...

 

[Jackk]

Hard to tell with the potato camera, maybe he was flying a little fast, but that was the line looks like the middle of no where, and even if we are going with the whole “in case of a engine failure” he had plenty of energy to trade for altitude and land at that strip, so ether way you slice it….great use of resources faa, hearts and minds

And much like the last windmill the FAA charged, they are now risking people being hesitant to make go arounds, a MAJOR safety concern, just to stick it to some guy who might have been buzzing around in the middle of nowhere.

 

[Salty]

“in case of a engine failure” he had plenty of energy to trade for altitude and land at that strip

Sorry, I don't remember the reg saying it's ok to go closer than 500 feet if you have "plenty of energy to trade for altitude". Want to point that one out?

 

[mondtster]

I have seen two different landing sites proposed, one looking much more feasible than the other. Unfortunately, the flying article implies that it was the first one I heard about with the mention of the BMX/motorcycle track and recent dirt work. If that truly is the location, I don't see there being many, if any good options to land there without annoying the neighbors and likely violating the 500' rule. It isn't a place I'd bother trying to land an airplane, even if it was legal, due to the concern over what the neighbors would have thought. Landing a helicopter there would be a different story.

I'm wondering if the appeal was simply a method to buy time before the actual suspension takes place. Oshkosh and other flying events are coming up and youtube is a source of income for him.

 

[EdFred]

Sorry, I don't remember the reg saying it's ok to go closer than 500 feet if you have "plenty of energy to trade for altitude". Want to point that one out?

...except when landing or taking off....

The problem is, any go around or balked landing or inspection pass (that the FAA recommends no less) is no longer a landing and therefore a violation. That's the problem here.

 

[Salty]

...except when landing or taking off....

The problem is, any go around or balked landing or inspection pass (that the FAA recommends no less) is no longer a landing and therefore a violation. That's the problem here.

His suggestion was that since he's going fast enough, it's not a problem.

Going fast doesn't build your case that you were landing.

 

[Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe]

I don't see there being many, if any good options to land there without annoying the neighbors and likely violating the 500' rule.

If you are landing there is no 500 foot rule. But that's not to say that one would not **** off said neighbors.

 

[EdFred]

His suggestion was that since he's going fast enough, it's not a problem.

Going fast doesn't build your case that you were landing.

True, but when following the FAA's recommendation for inspection passes, you may not want to fly those at approach speed. The FAA says do this, then punishes you for doing exactly what they say to do.

 

[Salty]

True, but when following the FAA's recommendation for inspection passes, you may not want to fly those at approach speed. The FAA says do this, then punishes you for doing exactly what they say to do.

Assuming you take Trent's word as gospel. If he's buzzing his buddy doing passes every Saturday night, and finally the neighbor catches it on their ring camera, that's a totally different story.

I agree - if Trent is 100% factual and there is no other circumstances we don't know about.

 

[Tarheelpilot]

...except when landing or taking off....

The problem is, any go around or balked landing or inspection pass (that the FAA recommends no less) is no longer a landing and therefore a violation. That's the problem here.

That’s not a problem. You are either maneuvering to land or not. All the things you listed are part of making a landing. Buzzing someone’s house is not.

like many regulations involved in our hobby intent is an important piece of the story. And yes one could easily lie and say it was an inspection pass. Much of what we do in aviation is based on the presumption that pilots are generally honest and professional.

 

[EdFred]

Assuming you take Trent's word as gospel. If he's buzzing his buddy doing passes every Saturday night, and finally the neighbor catches it on their ring camera, that's a totally different story.

I agree - if Trent is 100% factual and there is no other circumstances we don't know about.

That’s not a problem. You are either maneuvering to land or not. All the things you listed are part of making a landing. Buzzing someone’s house is not.

like many regulations involved in our hobby intent is an important piece of the story. And yes one could easily lie and say it was an inspection pass. Much of what we do in aviation is based on the presumption that pilots are generally honest and professional.

We are in agreement.

Funny thing is, at 6Y9 if there is wildlife on the runway, they don't always skeedaddle if you are flying the "inspection pass" to get them off the runway at approach speed in what appears to be a landing. They do vamoose when you come in while in the yellow arc. So the problem with this ruling is what's the FAA going to do when I'm trying to get deer off the runway?

 

[mondtster]

If you are landing there is no 500 foot rule. But that's not to say that one would not **** off said neighbors.

True. Regardless, I don't think it is a wise idea to try and land an airplane at someone's house in the middle of a development. Further, I think it would be naive to think you're not going to get a phone call questioning your actions in doing so, legal or not.

There is also the question of what kind of relationship the homeowner had with their neighbors before this even started. If this guy had an MX track in his backyard and was riding dirt bikes back there daily the neighbors might have been ready to complain about anything.

 

[Palmpilot]

I don't think it's possible to determine whether this decision sets a new precedent or not without having a transcript of what the judge said about the reasons for the decision. For example, if the judge simply didn't believe the pilot's assertion that he was planning to land if the inspection pass revealed it was safe, then it was a determination of fact, which as I understand it is not the kind of thing that sets a precedent.

 

[Jackk]

Sorry, I don't remember the reg saying it's ok to go closer than 500 feet if you have "plenty of energy to trade for altitude". Want to point that one out?

§91.119 Minimum safe altitudes: General.
(a) Anywhere. An altitude allowing, if a power unit fails, an emergency landing without undue hazard to persons or property on the surface.

(c) Over other than congested areas. An altitude of 500 feet above the surface, except over open water or sparsely populated areas. In those cases, the aircraft may not be operated closer than 500 feet to any person, vessel, vehicle, or structure.


I know going from the mass produced training of just going airport to airport in a 172, it can make most operations outside from that confront zone seem scary or “unsafe”.
Often it’s what we don’t understand that we fear, and what we fear we often try to destroy.

Many GA burger run types are scared of slips for Christ sake.

I can not tell from that poor video if he was closer than 500 from that outbuilding, but he was no doubt in a near photo worthy definition of sparse, the FAA is, YET AGAIN, going to cause a far less safe aviation environment chasing this windmill, but like a dog chasing a ball into traffic, it just can’t help itself.

 

[Salty]

§91.119 Minimum safe altitudes: General.
(a) Anywhere. An altitude allowing, if a power unit fails, an emergency landing without undue hazard to persons or property on the surface.

(c) Over other than congested areas. An altitude of 500 feet above the surface, except over open water or sparsely populated areas. In those cases, the aircraft may not be operated closer than 500 feet to any person, vessel, vehicle, or structure.


I know going from the mass produced training of just going airport to airport in a 172, it can make most operations outside from that confront zone seem scary or “unsafe”.
Often it’s what we don’t understand that we fear, and what we fear we often try to destroy.

Many GA burger run types are scared of slips for Christ sake.

I can not tell from that poor video if he was closer than 500 from that outbuilding, but he was no doubt in a near photo worthy definition of sparse, the FAA is, YET AGAIN, going to cause a far less safe aviation environment chasing this windmill, but like a dog chasing a ball into traffic, it just can’t help itself.

not a thing about having enough energy to trade for altitude.

 

[PPC1052]

I could not distinguish the SEC enforcement actions from FAA enforcement actions.

It has to do with the nature of the sanction imposed. With respect to an FAA enforcement action, they are just revoking or suspending your license. With the SEC charges, they were seeking to impose substantial fines. I suppose if the FAA were to seek a fine, then one could argue that the reasoning would apply.

 

[40YearDream]

If this place was already being used for r/c flying, the neighbors may have been spring-loaded to complain. The club I fly at has been dealing with that issue for a number of years, but the powered-parachute landing / takeoff there (once) didn't seem to make any difference, AFAIK.

 

[Silvaire]

Because evidently the FAA can't figure out blurring technology in video that's been around for decades.

I think the FAA has a job to do and it doesn't involve modification, editing or doctoring of case evidence to satisfy the curiosity of Facebook, Youtube or Instagram users. Once again I'll say it - this is not a popularity contest. Let the system work the way it's supposed to, it isn't going to be determined by a public vote or by how many friends you've got.

 

[Jackk]

not a thing about having enough energy to trade for altitude.

Actually yes.

Do you do energy management?

At a safe altitude for a engine failure.

Well if he was at that altitude at MCA he would NOT be able to make a safe landing if the engine quit, at that altitude at HIS AIRSPEED he could make a safe landing.

Thus he was at a altitude he could have made a safe landing.

And if you really want to get into it, it only has to be “safe” for others, so if he was at MCA and plowed it into dense trees, but always from people, that’s good for the FAA.

In his case he had plenty of reserve energy to ether make the strip, or just B line away from any person or object.

So the only question is, was he 500’ from that shed, in a real court of law with the burden of proof resting with the accuser, I doubt it, with the FAA and administrative law, why not, and if it means people are hesitating to do go around, got to crack a few eggs to make a FAA victory omelette

 

[Whitney]

Those are places on acreages, and the very definition of sparsely populated.
The guy did nothing wrong, but some government employees on a power trip, are trying to massage their own egos by being all tough, nothing more.

A plane I don't recognize flew over my place, and over me at less than 100' agl a couple of summers ago, I was glad to see it, smiled and waved. They then did a 180, and made another pass even lower. Heck I only wish he did a 3rd pass at 10' but he didn't.

 

[Salty]

Actually yes.

Do you do energy management?

At a safe altitude for a engine failure.

Well if he was at that altitude at MCA he would NOT be able to make a safe landing if the engine quit, at that altitude at HIS AIRSPEED he could make a safe landing.

Thus he was at a altitude he could have made a safe landing.

And if you really want to get into it, it only has to be “safe” for others, so if he was at MCA and plowed it into dense trees, but always from people, that’s good for the FAA.

In his case he had plenty of reserve energy to ether make the strip, or just B line away from any person or object.

So the only question is, was he 500’ from that shed, in a real court of law with the burden of proof resting with the accuser, I doubt it, with the FAA and administrative law, why not, and if it means people are hesitating to do go around, got to crack a few eggs to make a FAA victory omelette

The reg doesn't say squat about how much energy you have. It does talk about intent to land. If you are "carrying energy" you are clearly not intending to land. They are expressly trying to prevent high speed fly-bys.

 

[Salty]

Those are places on acreages, and the very definition of sparsely populated.
The guy did nothing wrong, but some government employees on a power trip, are trying to massage their own egos by being all tough, nothing more.

A plane I don't recognize flew over my place, and over me at less than 100' agl a couple of summers ago, I was glad to see it, smiled and waved. They then did a 180, and made another pass even lower. Heck I only wish he did a 3rd pass at 10' but he didn't.

It's not an ego trip to enforce the regs. What you described above is a violation, whether you or I, liked it or not.

 

[Jackk]

The reg doesn't say squat about how much energy you have. It does talk about intent to land. If you are "carrying energy" you are clearly not intending to land. They are expressly trying to prevent high speed fly-bys.

That’s not the reg I posted, and there is nothing against a “high speed fly by” as long as it’s IAW 91.119 & .117, unless it get a FSDO failure to launch types panties in a wad and they abuse 91.13 on you.

 

[Lindberg]

Hard to tell with the potato camera, maybe he was flying a little fast, but that was the line looks like the middle of no where, and even if we are going with the whole “in case of a engine failure” he had plenty of energy to trade for altitude and land at that strip, so ether way you slice it….great use of resources faa, hearts and minds

There's no strip.

I don't know what your definition off middle of nowhere is, but I don't think this would pass for "sparsely populated" in the FAA's view.

Regardless, he got within 500' of multiple structures, and possibly people. That much doesn't seem to be really disputable. So the relevant question is whether doing so was necessary for landing.

 

[LesGawlik]

There is no way to tell to a reasonable degree of probability that he was within 500' of any person, vehicle or structure. In fact, I think the evidence points the other way. The optics on doorbell cameras are prone to all sorts of distortions, or at least the one I had was.

 

[Witmo]

I suspect he does an "inspection pass" every time he flies near his friend's house. Why would anyone have a camera pointed at the sky? Trent should have answered that he was set up to land and saw a bunch of deer running around and aborted his landing.

I think his case is strong without lying about non-existent deer.

 

[Lindberg]

There is no way to tell to a reasonable degree of probability that he was within 500' of any person, vehicle or structure. In fact, I think the evidence points the other way. The optics on doorbell cameras are prone to all sorts of distortions, or at least the one I had was.

Wide angle cameras make close things look larger and distant things look smaller. And there's a second video.

 

[Jackk]

There's no strip.

I don't know what your definition off middle of nowhere is, but I don't think this would pass for "sparsely populated" in the FAA's view.

Regardless, he got within 500' of multiple structures, and possibly people. That much doesn't seem to be really disputable. So the relevant question is whether doing so was necessary for landing.

There no strip?

Also that’s pretty sparse, I mean a quasi barn and nothing else for as far as the eye can see, plus if you can judge 400 from 700’ from that junk video, that’s impressive, I sure can’t

Also for all the issues the FAA has, for the mess they made having to win with warbirds, we really want to encourage this behavior from the FAA?

Maybe first they should demonstrate the ability to answer a phone or correspond to grounded aircraft and airmen in a reasonable time frame before they go after what amounts to a cub buzzing a bunch of dirt in BFE

 

[Feh]

That was kind of fast for a low approach pass, based on the video. Also, doesn't help his case that if you freeze the video when he's right next to the houses, if the FAA gets argumentative over the 500' foot rule (which seems to be less than 500 ft), then he should just suck it up and take his suspension.

 

[Jackk]

That was kind of fast for a low approach pass, based on the video. Also, doesn't help his case that if you freeze the video when he's right next to the houses, if the FAA gets argumentative over the 500' foot rule (which seems to be less than 500 ft), then he should just suck it up and take his suspension.

Ideally everyone who is even remotely not guilty should drag it out as dirty as possible with the FAA, through the courts, social media, news, congressmen, etc. it’s the only way change will happen

 

[455 Bravo Uniform]

Ideally everyone who is even remotely not guilty should drag it out as dirty as possible with the FAA, through the courts, social media, news, congressmen, etc. it’s the only way change will happen

Negative. You assume the pig won’t like wrestling in the mud. Nothing to lose, zero, ziltch. It’s taxpayer money, and when have you known a bureaucrat to care about spending budget over law or what they consider “the good fight”? You did say “ideally”, but that not gonna work out well for the little guy’s wallet.

 

[Country Flier]

Ideally everyone who is even remotely not guilty should drag it out as dirty as possible with the FAA, through the courts, social media, news, congressmen, etc. it’s the only way change will happen

Fighting a case where you are "remotely not guilty" isn't going to change anything...heck, even here amongst fellow pilots, some say reckless, some don't. (Put me in the reckless camp...I've dragged fields before, and that doesn't look like he's dragging to me. Buzzing? Yes.)
Fighting a case where everyone, or at least nearly everyone, is aghast that they are being prosecuted, or persecuted, will cause change to happen.

 

[Feh]

I mean, he was banked pretty steeply from these screenshots of the ****ty video.

 

[Jackk]

Fighting a case where you are "remotely not guilty" isn't going to change anything...heck, even here amongst fellow pilots, some say reckless, some don't. (Put me in the reckless camp...I've dragged fields before, and that doesn't look like he's dragging to me. Buzzing? Yes.)
Fighting a case where everyone, or at least nearly everyone, is aghast that they are being prosecuted, or persecuted, will cause change to happen.

Cancel culture works for the bad guys, why not try to make it work here? Mid terms are coming up too, if the politicians feel it might win them some points they’d throw their own mother to the flames, let alone some strangers to them at the FAA

 

[X3 Skier]

Cancel culture works for the bad guys, why not try to make it work here? Mid terms are coming up too, if the politicians feel it might win them some points they’d throw their own mother to the flames, let alone some strangers to them at the FAA

Politicians like being re-elected. Career employees don’t care.

Cheers

 

[Jackk]

Politicians like being re-elected. Career employees don’t care.

Cheers

We have been able to hold police accountable and they have qualified immunity

 

[LesGawlik]

Assuming without agreeing that we have been able to hold the police accountable, there are internal review boards, prosecutors and civilian review boards to hold the police responsible for their conduct.

What happens to FAA employees who commit abuses of discretion?

There are a few good employees at every level, but in my experience with government at all levels, the vast majority don't give a flip about anything other than their paycheck.