Trent Palmer (YouTuber Bush Pilot Channel) Suspended By FAA

moparrob66 said:
This sets a bad precedent and its a misuse of the enforcement efforts.
Click to expand...
In what way? By chance have you participated in any FAA enforcement actions especially up through the same levels as Palmer has?
 
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...
Take the time to read all of the available information regarding the case.

Most likely you won’t think those of us here that have concluded Trent is dishonest are being to judgmental.

If you looked over my post history you would see that I’m generally distrusting of the bureaucracy.

I was happy to see attorneys willing to pick up the fight and defend an airman. Unfortunately they chose to defend a liar.
 
Reading the case summaries and trying to find evidence...so far no joy.
 
NTSB published a summary with transcripts of testimony. I cant find where Palmer lies or contradicts himself. I do see that the neighbors were traumatized by imagining the plane crashing into their propane tank. That could totally happen...
 
so, you claim that Palmer's testimony under oath is completely consistent with his various yt videos?
 
No. I fail to see how this whole thing is anything more than he said - she said. He claims to have intended to land there, which would have justified his flight within 500' of persons or property. Nothing suggests let alone proves that this was reckless. My experience in court is limited to criminal cases with a few civil cases, so I find the lax standards of Administrative Law cases concerning. I have no desire to make youtube videos, but a dash camera - type device would be helpful in the event of an accusation like this.
 
moparrob66 said:
No. I fail to see how this whole thing is anything more than he said - she said. He claims to have intended to land there, which would have justified his flight within 500' of persons or property. Nothing suggests let alone proves that this was reckless. My experience in court is limited to criminal cases with a few civil cases, so I find the lax standards of Administrative Law cases concerning. I have no desire to make youtube videos, but a dash camera - type device would be helpful in the event of an accusation like this.
Click to expand...
You can read this thread and a couple of others, and there's plenty of discussion about this. No need to beat a dead horse. One obvious thing that I'm not sure if he mentioned in the original video is that he came back 2 weeks after the flight that was reported to the FAA, where he allegedly determined that the backyard wasn't a suitable landing site, and did it again.
 
moparrob66 said:
NTSB published a summary with transcripts of testimony. I cant find where Palmer lies or contradicts himself. I do see that the neighbors were traumatized by imagining the plane crashing into their propane tank. That could totally happen...
Click to expand...
It would have been more likely if he had not done an inspection pass.
 
Lindberg said:
One obvious thing that I'm not sure if he mentioned in the original video is that he came back 2 weeks after the flight that was reported to the FAA, where he allegedly determined that the backyard wasn't a suitable landing site, and did it again.
Click to expand...
That's actually the first I heard of that, and definitely not a good look.

Seems like the pilot is expected to prove his innocence rather than the ASI proving his guilt. In a he-said/he-said situation the pilot loses by default. I'm not sure I believe Trent's story, but it also seems like the emnity with the neighbor pre-existed the airplane situation. Stupid to insert himself in that situation, but not worth a suspension IMO. OTOH perhaps there was more evidence this was a buzz job. I sort of think AOPA wouldn't have picked this fight if they thought that was the case though.
 
Lindberg said:
Like the video?
Click to expand...
Maybe you saw a different video than I did. All I've seen is a grainy cell phone video of a security cam video being played on a monitor, that shows Trent's airplane climbing out of the neighbor's back yard. I didn't see anything that looked incongruent with his story.
 
Jim K said:
Maybe you saw a different video than I did. All I've seen is a grainy cell phone video of a security cam video being played on a monitor, that shows Trent's airplane climbing out of the neighbor's back yard. I didn't see anything that looked incongruent with his story.
Click to expand...
The fact that you came to a different conclusion upon reviewing some of the evidence doesn't change the fact that it's evidence. Witness testimony is also evidence. Witnesses in this case, including the YouTuber, testified under oath, and a fact finder determined what happened. That's how these things work. This went easy beyond he said, she said, and the YouTuber lost each time. It was nothing like the ASI making a baseless claim and the pilot having to prove his innocence.

What isn't evidence is whatever he said on YouTube.

:deadhorse:
 
Dude probably has made bank off the associated YouTube content. He ain’t hurting, look at that sweet cub he just bought.
 
moparrob66 said:
If I made my money flying, I'd appeal it. Especially if it impaired my future career opportunities.
Click to expand...
At the beginning of the first video, he says the suspension wouldn't affect him.

He did all this for clicks, and AOPA joined in because it's great marketing (to the naive) for their pilot legal assistance product. I'm disappointed they spend my dues on frivolous legal proceedings.
 
If you were wrongfully convicted of an offense that would affect your career, you'd want to appeal the conviction too.
 
moparrob66 said:
If I made my money flying, I'd appeal it. Especially if it impaired my future career opportunities.
Click to expand...
His primary career isn't flying his kitplanes, and I doubt he makes as much off YouTube as he does his cinematography drone business.
 
moparrob66 said:
If I made my money flying, I'd appeal it. Especially if it impaired my future career opportunities.
Click to expand...

Lindberg said:
At the beginning of the first video, he says the suspension wouldn't affect him.
Click to expand...

moparrob66 said:
If you were wrongfully convicted of an offense that would affect your career, you'd want to appeal the conviction too.
Click to expand...
:confused2:

He only has a private pilot certificate, so if he "makes his money flying" or has a "career" flying, he might have other issues.

And he wasn't convicted of anything.

:dunno:
 
I've got zero sympathy for the guy. I'm far from a Nervous Nellie when it comes to flying aggressively. I love to skim the treetops or the water. But acting without regard for the non-flying public hurts us all. Airfields get closed, 100LL gets banned, noise complaints increase, etc. We owe it to the thing we love to behave responsibly and professionally in the public eye. FAA did us a favor by smacking his hand. It aggravates me that he is still playing the victim, instead of manning up and accepting accountability.
 
Lindberg said:
He only has a private pilot certificate, so if he "makes his money flying" or has a "career" flying, he might have other issues.
Click to expand...
He makes his money flying on youtube. Word on the street is that he's mostly done with RC flying in hollywood at this point.
 
Lindberg said:
The suggestion that he lost because of which court heard his appeal is ironic considering that he didn't even get that fact right. It was actually the DC Circuit Court of Appeals.
Click to expand...
My error.

But I stand by my assessment of that clown world court.
 
The precedent I see is not people getting violated for inspection passes, but the open invitation to every airplane hating Karen that hears about the case. When I was going through the process to get a special use permit for an airstrip on my land, a neighbor who was against my application showed up with a stack of papers when it was her turn to speak. In that stack of papers was information on the Trent Palmer case, she was trying to use his case to show that I should not get an airstrip permit because the airstrip was about 400' from her property, parallel to and across the Salmon river.
My airstrip was approved by the county, and made official by the FAA. In the documents approving the runway the FAA recommended that I "avoid overflight of the nearby homes". Avoid is pretty vague, as is the "necessary" part of 91.119. Is my landing at my FAA recognized runway "necessary", I could always go land in town. Hell, none of my flights are actually necessary when you get down to it, no one is going to perish if I don't go flying.
 
Congratulations! Did she ask to speak with the manager?
 
Wagondriver said:
The precedent I see is not people getting violated for inspection passes, but the open invitation to every airplane hating Karen that hears about the case.
Click to expand...

Don't bother. You're largely jousting with the "if you'Re innOcent yOu got notHinG to feAr" brigade on here. They believe in merit, and that negative personal outcomes are, when they happen to everybody except them, ultimately a personal moral flaw.

To paraphrase Few Good Men: "Commander I believe in God and his son Jesus Christ, and because I do I can say this: Private Palmer is dead, and that is a tragedy. But he is dead because he had no Code, he is dead because he had no Honor....and God was watching".
 
Has anyone Google Mapped or Google earthed the model aircraft runway to find out how long it is? The painted outlines that a local group used were 200 feet long.

I suspect the FAA has, and found it impossibly short, and decided that the "Low pass to find if suitable for landing" was an obvious lie.

Intentional lies to the Federal Government are much worse than simply doing dumb things.

The real background is most likely his friend has been flying large models low over her property, and she does not have a shotgun to swat them down. Some of the radio controlled models that I have seen are quite large, and all but the electric ones loud.
 
Last edited:
Right? Why would anyone complain if you're following the law?

In the NTSB summary, the judge even acknowledges that the complainers likely exaggerated their emotional trauma and the egregiousness of Palmer's flight because of their ongoing distain for the neighbor's drones and rc airplanes.
 
FAA: You violated 91.119 by flying within 500' of a house.
Trent: I flew within 500' but it was an inspection pass necessary for landing, thus 91.119 doesn't apply.
FAA: But you didn't land.

Trent said that the field would have been suitable under other conditions, but the lighting / sun position that day made it impossible to judge where to touch down, so he didn't land. His position is that if 91.119 requires a landing after an inspection pass, it promotes unsafe operations.

The FAA disagrees.

I believe him when he says it was an inspection pass preparatory to landing, and that after the pass he decided landing would be unsafe... BUT... he used poor judgement because even if technically legal, it was a bad (or at least impolite) place to land.

And yeah, I doubt he would have appealed but for "clicks". I forget where I saw the numbers, but he makes a pretty sizeable income from Youtube, not to mention the sponsors... I doubt he paid full price for that pretty Cub or any of the other stuff he shows on his videos.
 
Some perspective. The Ninth isn’t overturned significantly more than the other circuits. It’s not surprising that a high percentage of any circuit’s cases heard by the Supreme Court would be overturned, because the attorneys wouldn’t take it that far if it wasn’t a likely candidate for reversal, and the USSC won’t hear cases that are clear-cut.IMG_1554.png
 

Attachments

  • IMG_1554.png
    IMG_1554.png
    251.1 KB · Views: 6
IK04 said:
His case was unfortunately assigned to the 9th Circuit court, which is in DC. Unless you are a huge Democrat donor or your last name is Soros, you will not get a fair outcome.
Click to expand...
The 9th Circuit covers the Western states. As far from DC as one can get.

Palmer’s case was heard by the DC Circuit, which hears many administrative law cases. At one time, Palmer’s attorney said he would not select DC because of its tendency to rubber stamp the FAA . The other option would have been the 9th. I don’t know how the final decision was made, but the existing precedent in the 9th Circuit was pretty much against them.

But I do appreciate the legal analysis of someone who doesn’t know where the courthouse is.

1743336094783.png
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top