Trent Palmer (YouTuber Bush Pilot Channel) Suspended By FAA

midlifeflyer said:
You’re not sure why I bring up Trent Palmer in a 20 page thread on Trent Palmer? :D

I guess we are looking at things very differently.
Click to expand...
Aren’t you an attorney?

You specifically addressed Trent’s behavior in a reply to my post. Trent’s behavior is not relevant to my statements.

Trent’s douchbag behavior is obviously what has sparked this entire thread but does not necessarily have relevance to every statement made within the discussion.

It’s pretty obvious we are looking at it differently.
 
Tarheelpilot said:
Aren’t you an attorney?

You specifically addressed Trent’s behavior in a reply to my post. Trent’s behavior is not relevant to my statements.

Trent’s douchbag behavior is obviously what has sparked this entire thread but does not necessarily have relevance to every statement made within the discussion.

It’s pretty obvious we are looking at it differently.
Click to expand...
Obviously. I don’t even see the chamber of horrors you do. The only problematic issues I see from my 40+ year perspective as a lawyer are procedural ones.
 
midlifeflyer said:
Yes but remember he’s taking a side representing a client.

Back to law school… in the first year there’s this thing called “moot court.” Not trials but appellate arguments. Facts are given. What rules apply is the question. Teams learn both sides . It’s a first year requirement in most if not all law schools but there are also national competitions (I met my wife while preparing for one). Anyway, in any given round you may be called on to present one side or the other and need to be just as effective.
Click to expand...
I'm well aware that there is normally an attorney on both sides of every case. Flyingron's post that I was replying to seemed to be implying that for people who know the law, there's only one way this case could have turned out, in spite of the procedural due process issues that Palmer's lawyer raised in the interview.
 
Palmpilot said:
Same for the issues he raised about the FAA's tendency to make it impossible to determine in advance whether certain behavior will be deemed to be a violation.
Click to expand...

This is the major issue, as I see it. Look at the garbage that’s gone on with the FAA’s ever-expanding definition of “compensation.” Their tendency to make up things on the fly, after the fact, needs to be curtailed. Yes, an agency’s interpretation of their own reg should be given weight, but only when it’s a published interpretation that can be known (and perhaps challenged) before some pilot gets busted over a misinterpretation.
 
Half Fast said:
This is the major issue, as I see it. Look at the garbage that’s gone on with the FAA’s ever-expanding definition of “compensation.” Their tendency to make up things on the fly, after the fact, needs to be curtailed. Yes, an agency’s interpretation of their own reg should be given weight, but only when it’s a published interpretation that can be known (and perhaps challenged) before some pilot gets busted over a misinterpretation.
Click to expand...
What do you believe the FAA made up on the fly here?

The first sentence in this thread should have ended it: "If he’s telling this story accurately, this seems insane.". He wasn't telling the story accurately.
 
Ok, I pulled up the map. He was attempting to land at 300 desert sun ln and that lot is clearly big enough for his plane. So, based on everything that I've read here and being a non-lawyer that skimmed the 163 page ntsb report, I think that anything to do with distance restrictions should be off the table. We all are as close to structures at Trent in regular operations and this operation was clearly within the capability of his plane.

Which, if I'm trying to find a way to agree with the ruling, only leaves the "appropriateness" concept that someone pointed out earlier. If one of the lawyers could say what their reading is, I'd love it. He was trying to land in, basically, a very small subdivision. Is that the argument? Is it, "hey, guys, come on, this isn't off airport. this is a housing development"? And, if so, is there an implied minimum lot size for doing things more legitimately? Or, really, what would the criteria be?

To take two extreme examples:

If his buddy's lot was in the middle of a well developed section of Reno it seems like the optics would be such as to call it inappropriate.

If his buddy's lot were surrounded by a BLM land is seems like no one would say it was inappropriate.

In both of those scenarios, the physics are the same and he could have safely conducted the operation. So is there an implied line in the sand for how dense the area around an off airport landing can be before it is deemed inappropriate?

And, as I've said many times, if so why can't the finding against Trent state this, instead of distances to buildings?
 
Half Fast said:
What is the official published definition of "appropriate?"
Click to expand...
There is none except maybe the dictionary. I think you said something about wanting juries earlier. Whether the location was “appropriate” given all the surrounding facts and circumstances, is exactly the type of factual question a jury would be asked to answer. Like “reasonable.”

Of the 93 times the word appears in the Federal pattern jury instructions for criminal cases (a small number of which involve misappropriation of property), including a very common one telling juries they can decide that something not usually considered to be a dangerous weapon can be one “in appropriate circumstances,” none include a definition of the word.
 
Last edited:
Half Fast said:
What is the official published definition of "appropriate?"
Click to expand...
I'm curious as well. In a previous life I flew night ag and we often had to spray fields that were located in mixed zoning areas. Nothing like landing the helicopter on top of a load truck parked in an empty lot at an intersection with a couple restaurants, Walmart and other retail surrounded by subdivisions. I mean so close that the property line of the field I was spraying was shared by single family houses.

Those fields get sprayed on a regular basis during the entire growing season which is about 9 months of the year.

I guess I’m an inappropriate kind of guy.
 
Half Fast said:
What is the official published definition of "appropriate?"
Click to expand...
When it comes to interpretting regulations the Administrative Procedures Act and the existing case law defers to the agency that wrote it to interpret it. Yeah, it sort of flys in the face of the constitutional separation of powers to allow an agency to write, enforce, and adjudicate all at the same time, but its going to take a better argument than Palmer's lawyers are pushing to do it.
 
172andyou said:
Ok, I pulled up the map. He was attempting to land at 300 desert sun ln and that lot is clearly big enough for his plane. So, based on everything that I've read here and being a non-lawyer that skimmed the 163 page ntsb report, I think that anything to do with distance restrictions should be off the table. We all are as close to structures at Trent in regular operations and this operation was clearly within the capability of his plane.

Which, if I'm trying to find a way to agree with the ruling, only leaves the "appropriateness" concept that someone pointed out earlier. If one of the lawyers could say what their reading is, I'd love it. He was trying to land in, basically, a very small subdivision. Is that the argument? Is it, "hey, guys, come on, this isn't off airport. this is a housing development"? And, if so, is there an implied minimum lot size for doing things more legitimately? Or, really, what would the criteria be?

To take two extreme examples:

If his buddy's lot was in the middle of a well developed section of Reno it seems like the optics would be such as to call it inappropriate.

If his buddy's lot were surrounded by a BLM land is seems like no one would say it was inappropriate.

In both of those scenarios, the physics are the same and he could have safely conducted the operation. So is there an implied line in the sand for how dense the area around an off airport landing can be before it is deemed inappropriate?

And, as I've said many times, if so why can't the finding against Trent state this, instead of distances to buildings?
Click to expand...
I feel like this might have been posted upthread, but anyway here's the lot in question:
Screenshot_20240320_092533_Maps.jpgScreenshot_20240320_092547_Maps.jpg
The complainant lives in the house to the north. Calling this a subdivision seems silly. People live here to have some space and ride atv's in their back yard. Presumably wearing flat billed hats. I'm inclined to believe they had all kinds of shenanigans here, and Trent thought of his airplane as just another atv.

Or maybe they had too many shenanigans and the neighbor was a dick about it and Trent decided to buzz them. I don't really know, and I don't believe anyone here does either. I can't help but think if he wasn't a youtube celebrity, most here would be on his side. Of course if he wasn't a youtube celebrity we would've never heard about this case, so it's kind of a catch 22 for him.

If you take the personalities out of it and look at the proposed landing site and aircraft, it doesn't seem unreasonable to me. The lot is 600x800ft. The ultralight field at Oshkosh is 900' and these guys start at the middle and are 100' up by the end.

It also seems AOPA wouldn't have gotten involved if they didn't believe him, but it's possible they're in it for the publicity.
 
Rereading #769, I guess I'm not going to get what I want, a clear definition (ideally) or even a guideline as to what's appropriate. I'd still have preferred that the distances to structures not have been including in the finding, since that seems not to be universal. At all.
 
I'm surprised he hasn't gone back there on another day when the sun wasn't in his eyes (his original excuse for not landing), just to prove that it was a suitable place to land. In that case they might get him for 91.13 (careless or reckless), but not 91.119 (minimum altitudes).
 
And, perhaps most importantly, I guess we're going to be stuck with 60 days of battery ads once the suspension sticks?
 
172andyou said:
Rereading #769, I guess I'm not going to get what I want, a clear definition (ideally) or even a guideline as to what's appropriate. I'd still have preferred that the distances to structures not have been including in the finding, since that seems not to be universal. At all.
Click to expand...
The distances are mentioned because it’s what 91.119(c) talks about. You won’t see a good “appropriate” guideline because it’s too dependent on circumstances. It’s possible for the same location to be appropriate sometimes and inappropriate other times.

Someone countered the case about “inappropriate” landing on a taxiway with AirVenture. Great example.
 
Last edited:
midlifeflyer said:
The distances are mentioned because it’s what 91.119(c) talks about. You won’t see a good “appropriate” guideline because it’s too dependent on circumstances. It’s possible for the same location to be appropriate sometimes and inappropriate other times.

Someone countered the case about “inappropriate” landing on a taxiway with AirVenture. Great example.
Click to expand...
Yeah, I'm starting to get my head wrapped around it. Still bitter about the distances though. If they aren't what made it inappropriate (and they can't be, without declaring almost every airpot in existence to be illegal) then they just make the finding confusing and result in aviation forums spinning for 20+ pages trying to figure out what the hell is going on.
 
Jim K said:
Presumably wearing flat billed hats.
Click to expand...

I believe it's a written requirement in the deed covenants for said property. As is also included in the purchase contract of your million dollar cub crafter, or experiemental lego set equivalent. :rofl:

-brk brk-

The crime he's paying for is the same one as others before him when it comes to humans in enforcement/admin positions of power: *The insolence to get uppity/not to heel to the king that rules by "because I said so this way, today..". blah blah blah 26 pages of "aschually" lawyer tricks; the bolded is the alpha and the omega of this entire kerfuffle, when it comes to this kango court.

I sh$t on the FAA as a YT/reddit rando like it's my job, and lord knows me and my hangar bees ran circles around the king on the regular when I had a plane; nothing comes of it because nobody listens to me in that capacity, and I don't have a monetized channel. Flat billed Trenty boy just happened to have the online clout to make the king take note. Power always goes after knocking the heads in the crowd that aren't bowed. this is 1100AD stuff, nothing new.

I am heart-warmed by the amount of bootlicking for kango rule on here. now where I put my red coat? "iF yOu'rE iNnOcenT yOu doNt gOt tO woRRy aBoOt NuFfiN'"......
:fingerwag:
 
DJTorrente said:
Comments like this are why I'm tired of pretending that everyone WANTS to live in a free country.
Click to expand...
Let's see, there was a charge, a hearing, a decision, an appeal...so if he doesn't win there's no freedom? Does the fact that you have to have a license to operate an aircraft and that there is an authority that issues and governs the regulatory aspects of it impinge on your "freedom"? Explain how you think it's supposed to work.
 
hindsight2020 said:
I believe it's a written requirement in the deed covenants for said property. As is also included in the purchase contract of your million dollar cub crafter, or experiemental lego set equivalent. :rofl:

-brk brk-

The crime he's paying for is the same one as others before him when it comes to humans in enforcement/admin positions of power: *The insolence to get uppity/not to heel to the king that rules by "because I said so this way, today..". blah blah blah 26 pages of "aschually" lawyer tricks; the bolded is the alpha and the omega of this entire kerfuffle, when it comes to this kango court.

I sh$t on the FAA as a YT/reddit rando like it's my job, and lord knows me and my hangar bees ran circles around the king on the regular when I had a plane; nothing comes of it because nobody listens to me in that capacity, and I don't have a monetized channel. Flat billed Trenty boy just happened to have the online clout to make the king take note. Power always goes after knocking the heads in the crowd that aren't bowed. this is 1100AD stuff, nothing new.

I am heart-warmed by the amount of bootlicking for kango rule on here. now where I put my red coat? "iF yOu'rE iNnOcenT yOu doNt gOt tO woRRy aBoOt NuFfiN'"......
:fingerwag:
Click to expand...
I'm curious under what circumstances you think the FAA should enforce the minimum altitude rules. Obviously you don't think they should be enforced against a pilot hotdogging 10' above residential roof tops, so when should they be?
 
midlifeflyer said:
There is none except maybe the dictionary. I think you said something about wanting juries earlier. Whether the location was “appropriate” given all the surrounding facts and circumstances, is exactly the type of factual question a jury would be asked to answer. Like “reasonable.”
Click to expand...

I was a jury foreman a few years ago. One of the charges was "resisting arrest with violence". During deliberations, we asked the judge to define "violence". She told us to use our best judgement.
 
Lindberg said:
I'm curious under what circumstances you think the FAA should enforce the minimum altitude rules. Obviously you don't think they should be enforced against a pilot hotdogging 10' above residential roof tops, so when should they be?
Click to expand...

Where did you get 10' above roof tops?
 
Silvaire said:
Let's see, there was a charge, a hearing, a decision, an appeal...so if he doesn't win there's no freedom? Does the fact that you have to have a license to operate an aircraft and that there is an authority that issues and governs the regulatory aspects of it impinge on your "freedom"? Explain how you think it's supposed to work.
Click to expand...
That wasn't what you said. You said 'The FAA gave him his ticket; they can take it away. He can get a license elsewhere if he doesn't like it.'

If we're all just flying at the whim of the Administrator, then the volumes of written law and pesky little restraints on government like The US Constitution, Due Process, Blah, Blah, Blah... mean nothing.

If you're good with that, there's any number of countries I can recommend. Some even English speaking.
 
Jim K said:
I can't help but think if he wasn't a youtube celebrity, most here would be on his side.
Click to expand...

I dunno, I think the opposite. If the video was posted but the FAA was not involved, most here would be commenting on his reckless stupidity and making pilots look bad.

Wonder how many of those on his side will complain in other threads about residents trying to close GA airports.
 
DJTorrente said:
That wasn't what you said. You said 'The FAA gave him his ticket; they can take it away. He can get a license elsewhere if he doesn't like it.'
Click to expand...
Is that not true? Is there someone else who can take it away or issue it? And it's not "flying at the will of the administrator" there is a defined process which in this case has been followed. I take it that you don't agree with the results but that's not how it works.
 
DJTorrente said:
If we're all just flying at the whim of the Administrator, then the volumes of written law and pesky little restraints on government like The US Constitution, Due Process, Blah, Blah, Blah... mean nothing.
Click to expand...

charge + hearing + decision + appeal = Due Process
 
Ed Haywood said:
I was a jury foreman a few years ago. One of the charges was "resisting arrest with violence". During deliberations, we asked the judge to define "violence". She told us to use our best judgement.
Click to expand...
Not everything is legalese. Sometimes it’s just English.
 
Ed Haywood said:
I dunno, I think the opposite. If the video was posted but the FAA was not involved, most here would be commenting on his reckless stupidity and making pilots look bad.

Wonder how many of those on his side will complain in other threads about residents trying to close GA airports.
Click to expand...
99.99%
 
My big question is wtf are Micro Mini AussieDoodles?
 
Ed Haywood said:
charge
Click to expand...
by the FAA, an executive agency
Ed Haywood said:
+ hearing + decision
Click to expand...
before an employee of the NTSB, another executive agency
Ed Haywood said:
+ appeal
Click to expand...
to the full board of the NTSB, the same executive agency whose employee conducted the hearing and rendered the decision. Putting aside the fact that the NTSB board is made up of political appointees, who may have limited knowledge at best of aviation, much less general aviation, and who are therefore heavily reliant upon the internal bureaucratic career staff at the agency, and not truly an independent appeal board, the agency itself has an interest that its administrative judges are seen as authoritative and correct. One can't help but keep the phrase "rubber stamp" from springing to mind.
Ed Haywood said:
= Due Process
Click to expand...
Are you familiar with Kafka at all? At no point in your description of the "due process" that was lavished upon the airman was there a neutral fact-finder or an article III jurist involved.

I have immense respect for the NTSB and its employees in their role as an investigative body to improve safety. One of the ways their success in that role is guaranteed is that their findings are inadmissible in court -- therefore there is no direct motivation to game the outcome of an NTSB investigation or even fear offering information. Placing it in the role of traffic court for pilots is a poor fit.
 
DJTorrente said:
At no point in your description of the "due process" that was lavished upon the airman was there a neutral fact-finder or an article III jurist involved.
Click to expand...
It's not "my" definition of due process. Administrative Law is part of the US Constitution's definition of due process, as developed over many years of US laws and Supreme Court rulings.

An article III jurist is not involved because the process is not finished yet. If Palmer feels he did not receive justice, he can appeal to US District Court or US Court of Appeals. And to the US Supreme Court, if that fails.
 
Last edited:
DJTorrente said:
by the FAA, an executive agency

before an employee of the NTSB, another executive agency

to the full board of the NTSB, the same executive agency whose employee conducted the hearing and rendered the decision. Putting aside the fact that the NTSB board is made up of political appointees, who may have limited knowledge at best of aviation, much less general aviation, and who are therefore heavily reliant upon the internal bureaucratic career staff at the agency, and not truly an independent appeal board, the agency itself has an interest that its administrative judges are seen as authoritative and correct. One can't help but keep the phrase "rubber stamp" from springing to mind.

Are you familiar with Kafka at all? At no point in your description of the "due process" that was lavished upon the airman was there a neutral fact-finder or an article III jurist involved.

I have immense respect for the NTSB and its employees in their role as an investigative body to improve safety. One of the ways their success in that role is guaranteed is that their findings are inadmissible in court -- therefore there is no direct motivation to game the outcome of an NTSB investigation or even fear offering information. Placing it in the role of traffic court for pilots is a poor fit.
Click to expand...
I'm just curious, did you read the NTSB decision? Were there specific things that you took issue with?
 
midlifeflyer said:
For those interested in reading it, the DC Circuit's Trent Palmer decision was published today.

Spoiler alert: he lost.
Click to expand...
I think that the most important bit of jurisprudence here is the courts' vindicating something I am passionate about:

The FAA attempted to enter into evidence a video of Palmer’s low flight captured by the Penas’ outdoor security camera but the original video file was unavailable due to FAA error and the FAA proffered an iPhone recording of the original, that is, a video of the video made by Pena. The ALJ excluded the recorded video under the best evidence rule and excluded all testimony that relied on the video.
Click to expand...
It is not clear if the video of the video was taken in portrait mode of a screen displaying a portrait-mode video in a landscape screen. But, either way, this decision should empower not only ALJs but all people to disregard any video-of-a-video. Now we need to start putting nails in the coffin of the photo-of-a-legal-pad-with-an-aphorism memes.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top