Trent Palmer (YouTuber Bush Pilot Channel) Suspended By FAA

Learnin’ to fly… said:
In my view, this is exactly what they are saying. They are not inventing some ‘other’ violation, they are specifically saying that they do not believe his intentions were what he claimed them to be. Therefore, if that be the case, his actions were not consistent with off airport ops and are rightly a violation.

Can they know for certain? Of course not. But when one looks at the pattern of behavior, would a reasonable person conclude based on all available evidence that his story was concocted after the fact as a plausible excuse? Hence my question. Does anyone really believe this was an inspection pass?

The FAA doesn’t always do itself any favors (especially with med topics), and I am as skeptical of any govt agency as the next guy, but the only precedent I see here is a willingness to call ******** on a narcissist and not give into social media hysterics.
Click to expand...

That's really all I'm asking for. I want the FAA to make it crystal clear that they are saying "nope, not an inspection pass Trent, nice try - those are not only legal but encouraged". And if they do believe that it was an inspection pass, then they shouldn't violate him.

 
Dana said:
Or maybe he really was just buzzing his friend's house and used an "inspection pass" as an excuse.
Click to expand...


This touches on something I wondered about and didn't see in the transcript. This was a friend's house. Had Trent visited his friend's home previously? If so, the things that made him unwilling to land could have been observed from the ground. If he had visited his friend, he should have known already that this wasn't a good landing site and no pass would have been necessary.

I'm surprised he wasn't asked that (or did I miss it?).
 
Half Fast said:
This touches on something I wondered about and didn't see in the transcript. This was a friend's house. Had Trent visited his friend's home previously? If so, the things that made him unwilling to land could have been observed from the ground. If he had visited his friend, he should have known already that this wasn't a good landing site and no pass would have been necessary.

I'm surprised he wasn't asked that (or did I miss it?).
Click to expand...

I've had the option to land at a private field that I hadn't been to before. Only way was to do an inspection pass. (I wasn't going to drive 12 hours in the car to inspect it first.)
 
EdFred said:
I've had the option to land at a private field that I hadn't been to before. Only way was to do an inspection pass. (I wasn't going to drive 12 hours in the car to inspect it first.)
Click to expand...


Yeah, but was that the case here? Beats me.
 
Half Fast said:
This touches on something I wondered about and didn't see in the transcript. This was a friend's house. Had Trent visited his friend's home previously? If so, the things that made him unwilling to land could have been observed from the ground. If he had visited his friend, he should have known already that this wasn't a good landing site and no pass would have been necessary.

I'm surprised he wasn't asked that (or did I miss it?).
Click to expand...

Didn't see it mentioned specifically, but there was this: " Mr. Likes moved about eight miles down the street from his 300 Desert Sun Lane residence and respondent lives about eight miles “down the road"". So most likely not a 12 hr. drive.
 
How many "bros" do you think were in the conversation about trying to land on the RC strip?
 
Spinka said:
Didn't see it mentioned specifically, but there was this: " Mr. Likes moved about eight miles down the street from his 300 Desert Sun Lane residence and respondent lives about eight miles “down the road"". So most likely not a 12 hr. drive.
Click to expand...

So it's hard to imagine he hadn't visited the site previously, and certainly he could have visited prior to the flight. I'm surprised the FAA didn't bring up 14 CFR § 91.103:

Each pilot in command shall, before beginning a flight, become familiar with all available information concerning that flight.​
 
I believe he said when arriving he couldn't see the marker for the threshold. So, he could have inspected from the ground, but from the air he wasn't comfortable. I have a real hard time condemning someone for *not* landing. I don't care how lame their excuse. On the other hand, I don't have a hard time condemning someone for doing a 60 degree bank over someone's property < 500 feet.
 
Salty said:
I believe he said when arriving he couldn't see the marker for the threshold. So, he could have inspected from the ground, but from the air he wasn't comfortable. I have a real hard time condemning someone for *not* landing. I don't care how lame their excuse. On the other hand, I don't have a hard time condemning someone for doing a 60 degree bank over someone's property < 500 feet.
Click to expand...


I agree, but it's possible that he couldn't see the marker because he was busy flying a steep bank low to the ground and perpendicular to the runway. ;)
 
Half Fast said:
This touches on something I wondered about and didn't see in the transcript. This was a friend's house. Had Trent visited his friend's home previously? If so, the things that made him unwilling to land could have been observed from the ground. If he had visited his friend, he should have known already that this wasn't a good landing site and no pass would have been necessary.

I'm surprised he wasn't asked that (or did I miss it?).
Click to expand...
Since we don't have a transcript of the 3-day trial, we don't know every question that was asked.
 
midlifeflyer said:
...I think this joins other lousy decisions because of the way the NTSB tends to forego good legal analysis and writing in an effort to justify the result they want to see. In this one, they go all over the place by discussing every conceivable rule that might apply, whether it needs to or not.
Click to expand...

I remember there were great expectations for improving fairness when AOPA supported the proposal to make NTSB an appellate body in FAA enforcement cases. Oops.
 
FrankPilot said:
I basically agree with you. After years working for CASA (our Aussie equivalent to your FAA) which included considerable consultation with the FAA (I am now retired) I saw far too many cases of obviously poor rules and regs, and then after that was realised/admitted, much too long a time to rectify, all the while clarity and safety were compromised. With the right people with the right attitude, getting it right first time is not too complex and this then obviates the need for continuous improvement. But as you say, its just reality. Good discussion here, don’t you think. Cheers.

PS. I should quit here because I’m not American!
Click to expand...
I'm sure I'm not alone in saying that I really like hearing from aviation-minded folks in other countries.
 
Palmpilot said:
I remember there were great expectations for improving fairness when AOPA supported the proposal to make NTSB an appellate body in FAA enforcement cases. Oops.
Click to expand...
I didn't realize you went that far back! When did that first happen?

Edit: Hmmm... looks like about 1972.
 
midlifeflyer said:
I didn't realize you went that far back! When did that first happen?

Edit: Hmmm... looks like about 1972.
Click to expand...
I remember seeing it discussed as a proposal in the 1990s, but maybe I'm misremembering what it was exactly that was being discussed.
 
Palmpilot said:
I remember seeing it discussed as a proposal in the 1990s, but maybe I'm misremembering what it was exactly that was being discussed.
Click to expand...
The Palmer decision quotes NTSB certificate cases from 1972, 1973, and 1977. The 1972 one was Volume 1 of the NTSB reports, so it's at least that early. The only big deal I recall was with the Pilots Bill of Rights in 2012. Part of that changed the the NTSB from a required rubber stamp (required to follow FAA regulatory interpretations) into a voluntary rubber stamp.
 
SebIp said:
Very specific rules may sound good on paper but in reality they suck. It’s a better thing to have good enough rules and then ask people to exercise a reasonable adherence.
Click to expand...

Depends on the subject matter and whether you are writing information, advice, guidelines or rules. A good rule is one that the vast majority agree with and interpret in the same way. Cheers.
 
Half Fast said:
So it's hard to imagine he hadn't visited the site previously, and certainly he could have visited prior to the flight. I'm surprised the FAA didn't bring up 14 CFR § 91.103:

Each pilot in command shall, before beginning a flight, become familiar with all available information concerning that flight.​
Click to expand...

How does one ascertain, before beginning a flight, if there are animals on the runway at which you're considering landing? Answer: you can't. You have to do an inspection pass or a low approach to scare the animals off the runway. After that, you decide whether or not to land.
 
birdus said:
How does one ascertain, before beginning a flight, if there are animals on the runway at which you're considering landing? Answer: you can't. You have to do an inspection pass or a low approach to scare the animals off the runway. After that, you decide whether or not to land.
Click to expand...


Yes, but he didn't claim that as the reason he didn't land. His stated reason could probably have been ascertained beforehand.
 
birdus said:
How does one ascertain, before beginning a flight, if there are animals on the runway at which you're considering landing? Answer: you can't. You have to do an inspection pass or a low approach to scare the animals off the runway. After that, you decide whether or not to land.
Click to expand...
There's nothing wrong with that, and it has nothing to do with the Trent Palmer situation. More like

How does one ascertain, before beginning a flight, if there are animals on the street in the residential neighborhood which you're considering landing? Answer: you look at a map and figure out you don't land on a street in a residential neighborhood. .
 
midlifeflyer said:
There's nothing wrong with that, and it has nothing to do with the Trent Palmer situation. More like

How does one ascertain, before beginning a flight, if there are animals on the street in the residential neighborhood which you're considering landing? Answer: you look at a map and figure out you don't land on a street in a residential neighborhood. .
Click to expand...
Earlier in the thread, it was mentioned that he was supposedly considering landing on his friend's RC strip. There do appear to be holes in his account, however.

https://www.pilotsofamerica.com/com...l-suspended-by-faa.137808/page-9#post-3248934
 
Palmpilot said:
Earlier in the thread, it was mentioned that he was supposedly considering landing on his friend's RC strip. There do appear to be holes in his account, however.

https://www.pilotsofamerica.com/com...l-suspended-by-faa.137808/page-9#post-3248934
Click to expand...
I can accept his account. But even then, it's an RC strip (ie, model airplanes) and landing there would (and the "inspection pass" did) pass within 500' of his next door neighbor's house. So, I'm sticking with my residential analogy as opposed to inspecting a runway.

It will be interesting to see what the Court of Appeals does If or when there is an appeal.
 
Daleandee said:
I'll just leave this here:

Click to expand...
I saw something similar somewhere (cough..Gaston’s) when a Comanche went past at a pretty good clip. I think everyone had a realistic appraisal of its regulatory compliance, and I didn’t hear a single complaint. Weather or not you catch flak for things like that is all about the time, place, and audience.
 
To me, this is more of a neighbor dispute than a regulatory issue. His status as a YouTuber only adds complication to the issue.
 
I still think this feels like a violation of one the all important rules: don't do stupid ****. A perpendicular pass at low altitude with a 60 degree bank kinda feels like stupid **** to me. Especially if these two neighbors have had run ins before about aviation related matters.
 
DaleB said:
I saw something similar somewhere (cough..Gaston’s) when a Comanche went past at a pretty good clip. I think everyone had a realistic appraisal of its regulatory compliance, and I didn’t hear a single complaint. Weather or not you catch flak for things like that is all about the time, place, and audience.
Click to expand...

Happens a most fly-ins and although it might be stretching the regs a bit to call it a "low approach" it isn't over a complaining neighbor's property ...
 
Low passes are not unusual at airparks…or so I’ve heard. Only time I’m aware of that it resulted in any consternation locally is when a resident didn’t recognize the plane. Once they knew ot was a resident, they were cool with it.

(Disclaimer, I quit doing low passes, at least above short final speed, after doing the math. At 180 knots, a quarter second or less from pavement, and half a second from trees alongside. Averag human reaction time is 1.5 - 2 seconds, and I’m average at best.)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top