Trent Palmer (YouTuber Bush Pilot Channel) Suspended By FAA

455 Bravo Uniform said:
It’s just a spectrum, scale, continuum, whatever you want to call it. Many of us in the US are well fed or overly so, healthy or managed/diagnosed/treated, air conditioned, cozy, and relatively wealthy. Most of us are all soft and safe (and whiney as you say) when compared to the rest of the earth’s population. I would say complacent. But almost everyone still wants “theirs” and that has not changed at all from the survival days. Humans will human.
Click to expand...

In the survival times humans will animal.
 
Omalley1537 said:
The people at the top of organizations need to sack up and start saying “no” to NIMBYs, Karens, and the like.
Click to expand...
So where's the line? Kids doing donuts at an intersection at two in the morning, are you going to complain? Does that make you a whiny, NIMBY, Karen?
 
Silvaire said:
So where's the line? Kids doing donuts at an intersection at two in the morning, are you going to complain? Does that make you a whiny, NIMBY, Karen?
Click to expand...
Cute. I would imagine that such conduct would result in most or all of the surrounding neighbors calling in to report the issue, and rightfully so, unless it’s in a remote area not affecting anyone, then no.

What I’m referring to are things like:

-people moving next door to something preexisting (airport, race track, RC flying field, sports facilities), then trying to shut it down.

-one household moving into a rural area where things like shooting (safely), ORV use on private property, etc have occurred for years and trying to use government intervention to shut these things down after moving in, destroying a way of life among the other neighbors.

-One person/household calling to report something they find bothersome when numerous other neighbors with similar exposure don’t mind or report the issue.

-virtually all attempts to “cancel” something a small but connected group find offensive, bothersome, or inconvenient.

-etc
 
Unacceptable. Its really disappointing but I guess the argument can be made that its not violating your rights as long as jail time is off the table? As much as I love GA, the government could ban it altogether and theres nothing that could be done about it. Just remember that all elections have consequences and consider whether a candidate values perceived safety over essential liberty before you check the box or even vocalize support for them.
 
  • Like
Reactions: cdb
He appealed up to the federal court level and lost (not surprising). That's in the first minute. The rest is just his rationalization.
 
Due process, rules of evidence, yadda yadda. Doesnt matter with administrative law. Karen whines to the FAA, FAA suspends your ticket, you gotta lump it. The attorneys come out okay though.
 
If he’d have humbled up and just said “yes, I did buzz my buddy’s place. It was a bad idea and it isn’t going to happen again. I’ve gotten a couple hours with a CFI going over the FARs and we did flight training that reinforced how little margin I have flying that low and close. I’m sorry, and I will do better.” he’d probably have been fine, given the FAA’s compliance policy.
 
ateamer said:
If he’d have humbled up and just said “yes, I did buzz my buddy’s place. It was a bad idea and it isn’t going to happen again. I’ve gotten a couple hours with a CFI going over the FARs and we did flight training that reinforced how little margin I have flying that low and close. I’m sorry, and I will do better.” he’d probably have been fine, given the FAA’s compliance policy.
Click to expand...
What facts surrounding the incident make you think that was the most likely outcome? Was the ASI reasonable and forthcoming? Was the same Karen who had enough influence to raise the FAA's interest in the first place likely to go away quietly after the airman was issued counseling and remedial training resolution?

I'm with Mopar Rob on this one.
 
Lindberg said:
Is that what happened here?
Click to expand...
FAA says "you flew too low.:
Trent says "I was checking out a landing spot."
FAA says "we don't believe you, and here's why."

NTSB says "We believe the FAA's analysis"
Federal Judge says "Based on the evidence provided (and they excluded some FAA stuff) I don't believe Trent either."
 
flyingron said:
FAA says "you flew too low.:
Trent says "I was checking out a landing spot."
FAA says "we don't believe you, and here's why."

NTSB says "We believe the FAA's analysis"
Federal Judge says "Based on the evidence provided (and they excluded some FAA stuff) I don't believe Trent either."
Click to expand...
The "here's why" is doing a lot of heavy lifting, including evidence of Trent flying at an angle to the "intended runway" within 50' of houses.....
 
I look forward to another 20 pages of posters who haven't read the transcripts or opinions taking everything* a YouTuber says at face value.

*The appropriate amount, IMHO, is "nothing."
 
Lindberg said:
I look forward to another 20 pages of posters who haven't read the transcripts or opinions taking everything* a YouTuber says at face value.

*The appropriate amount, IMHO, is "nothing."
Click to expand...
Before which you said...
Lindberg said:
Is he still lying about what actually happened?
Click to expand...
I guess this whole time I never knew you were an eyewitness. Were you ever called to testify?
 
DJTorrente said:
What facts surrounding the incident make you think that was the most likely outcome? Was the ASI reasonable and forthcoming? Was the same Karen who had enough influence to raise the FAA's interest in the first place likely to go away quietly after the airman was issued counseling and remedial training resolution?

I'm with Mopar Rob on this one.
Click to expand...
What else could "Karen" have done after the point of the FAA accepting remedial training as an outcome?
 
I doubt it. These arent traffic cops detaining you for driving 10mph over the limit. Those guys drive cars too, so the roadside mea culpa has much better odds of success. How many of the FAA folks handling complaints about pilots are themselves aviators? I'd wager that (for the bulk of them) their only interest in aviation involves enforcing vague regulations and not in your favor.
 
Sierra_Hotel said:
What else could "Karen" have done after the point of the FAA accepting remedial training as an outcome?
Click to expand...
The point is, it probably wouldn't have been escalated to a revocation in the first place but for Mrs. Lovejoy's ("But the CHILL-DREN!!!") noisiness. If she didn't like the punishment (or lack thereof), she makes just as much noise. ASI knows this, and responds accordingly -- Karen keeps quiet if Karen gets what she wants.
 
moparrob66 said:
I doubt it. These arent traffic cops detaining you for driving 10mph over the limit. Those guys drive cars too, so the roadside mea culpa has much better odds of success. How many of the FAA folks handling complaints about pilots are themselves aviators? I'd wager that (for the bulk of them) their only interest in aviation involves enforcing vague regulations and not in your favor.
Click to expand...
Small sample size, but the ASIs I’ve met are all pilots and owners, and one is also a builder.
 
Lindberg said:
Is he still lying about what actually happened?
Click to expand...
Lindberg said:
I'm an eyewitness to what evidence is in the record of the case, which he has lied about.
Click to expand...
So, no, you don't know "what actually happened", unless you were confining your comments to what happened in the courtroom(s), which really isn't in dispute, is it?
 
Some men you just cain't reach. If I accuse you of violating law X, you deny it and I dont have proof, does that mean you're a liar? No. It means I need proof beyond an accusation.
 
DJTorrente said:
So, no, you don't know "what actually happened", unless you were confining your comments to what happened in the courtroom(s), which really isn't in dispute, is it?
Click to expand...
No, what happened in the courtroom(s) isn't really in dispute. Except among people who've only gotten the YouTuber's version of events, which differs from the record.
 
DJTorrente said:
The point is, it probably wouldn't have been escalated to a revocation in the first place but for Mrs. Lovejoy's ("But the CHILL-DREN!!!") noisiness. If she didn't like the punishment (or lack thereof), she makes just as much noise. ASI knows this, and responds accordingly -- Karen keeps quiet if Karen gets what she wants.
Click to expand...
Are you aware that Palmer had the opportunity to accept a 60-day suspension?

And what about the videos? And Palmer's admission that he flew at <100' AGL?

There's plenty of information here debunking his story if you bother to read it.
 
Ok, I couldn't resist clicking on the video just to see what nonsense it contains. I made it all the way to 35 seconds in, when he says the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals is in Washington D.C. :fingerwag::loco::skeptical:
 
Last edited:
I'm so glad that no one else here would ever be accused by a land owner of aeronautical malfeasance, right? Who cares what happens to some peasant on YouRube, what with his dodgy homebuilt contraption! Who does he think he is anyway, landing without a runway? In some field!? That's preposterous! Proper aircraft belong on proper, paved runways, landing on proper, tiny, certified tires with certified valve stem caps! These bushpeople and their uncertified bushplanes should be banned! Banned I tell you! Nothing should take to MY skies or fly over MY house without a thorough inspection and certification by government certified inspectors!
 
moparrob66 said:
I'm so glad that no one else here would ever be accused by a land owner of aeronautical malfeasance, right? Who cares what happens to some peasant on YouRube, what with his dodgy homebuilt contraption! Who does he think he is anyway, landing without a runway? In some field!? That's preposterous! Proper aircraft belong on proper, paved runways, landing on proper, tiny, certified tires with certified valve stem caps! These bushpeople and their uncertified bushplanes should be banned! Banned I tell you! Nothing should take to MY skies or fly over MY house without a thorough inspection and certification by government certified inspectors!
Click to expand...
Was any of that actually part of the FAA’s argument?
 
As I recall, Palmer claimed it was an inspection pass for an off field landing at a friend's property, which wasnt an established airport but possibly suitable for his plane. He claims that upon inspection he deemed it unsuitable and chose not to land there. If he made multiple low passes over the same neighbor, maybe I wouldnt buy his story, but I dont think that was the case.
 
moparrob66 said:
As I recall, Palmer claimed it was an inspection pass for an off field landing at a friend's property, which wasnt an established airport but possibly suitable for his plane. He claims that upon inspection he deemed it unsuitable and chose not to land there.
Click to expand...
I recall that too. I don’t recall the FAA making any of the arguments in your previous post.
 
moparrob66 said:
As I recall, Palmer claimed it was an inspection pass for an off field landing at a friend's property, which wasnt an established airport but possibly suitable for his plane. He claims that upon inspection he deemed it unsuitable and chose not to land there. If he made multiple low passes over the same neighbor, maybe I wouldnt buy his story, but I dont think that was the case.
Click to expand...
I guess it would be less fun to inform yourself of the facts, but they're available in this, and several other, threads, should you choose that path.
 
I don't think anyone has said that, if everything the YouTuber says is true, he was possibly treated too harshly. I haven't. But there's a reason why that's irrelevant.... ;)
 
I was always kind of scratching my head over why he’d never inspected the potential landing spot from, you know, the ground at his friend’s house. If it was a close enough friend to land in his back yard, you’d think he’d have been there before. But I don’t know nuthin’.

I’ve never heard of a case of a pilot pulling a hotdog stunt and trying to talk his or her way out of it before, either.
 
DaleB said:
I was always kind of scratching my head over why he’d never inspected the potential landing spot from, you know, the ground at his friend’s house. If it was a close enough friend to land in his back yard, you’d think he’d have been there before. But I don’t know nuthin’.
Click to expand...
I think that was part of the FAA's case.

But I do sympathize with him a bit, having myself gotten in trouble with the FAA many years ago for low flying when I truly was innocent. I was low, but over open water and more than 500' away from people as required, but the complainant swore I was 10' over their heads, and naturally they believed him, not me. I later learned that the guy, a lifeguard on a public beach, hated airplanes and reported them every chance he could. I admit I was probably guilty of impolite flying, which can be bad judgement even if not actually illegal. Young men (I was twentysomething at the time, Trent is older) do stupid things.
 
MauleSkinner said:
I recall that too. I don’t recall the FAA making any of the arguments in your previous post.
Click to expand...
I dont think the FAA made those arguments. They dont have to since they hold all of the power and they answer to no one. I do think there was bias along those lines against Palmer, by the complainant, the FAA and some of the folks on this forum.

If he did something reckless, that should be addressed with appropriate consequences. Theres no proof that Palmer actually did anything reckless or unsafe. If its at all possible that his intent was to land there and its not implausible for a plane and pilot of comparable abilities to have done it in the space available, then drop the issue.

If I made an "inspection pass" over a tennis court in a 172, clearly thats a smokescreen for buzzing a friend.

This sets a bad precedent and its a misuse of the enforcement efforts.
 
moparrob66 said:
I dont think the FAA made those arguments. They dont have to since they hold all of the power and they answer to no one. I do think there was bias along those lines against Palmer, by the complainant, the FAA and some of the folks on this forum.

If he did something reckless, that should be addressed with appropriate consequences. Theres no proof that Palmer actually did anything reckless or unsafe. If its at all possible that his intent was to land there and its not implausible for a plane and pilot of comparable abilities to have done it in the space available, then drop the issue.

If I made an "inspection pass" over a tennis court in a 172, clearly thats a smokescreen for buzzing a friend.

This sets a bad precedent and its a misuse of the enforcement efforts.
Click to expand...
Got any proof beyond the accusations?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top