Trent Palmer (YouTuber Bush Pilot Channel) Suspended By FAA

Dixiebluesky said:
So some people here are of the mind that the guy had no intention of landing and he was simply buzzing the house?
Click to expand...
Even more people believe it doesn't matter what he intended, at least as far as the legal case is concerned. He admitted to violating the regulation by flying within 500' of persons or structures on the ground, and he failed to prove his affirmative defense.

He failed to prove his affirmative defense that his low pass was necessary for landing because he failed to prove that the intended landing site was suitable. His claim that he couldn't have known that without violating the reg in the first place was contradicted by his own evidence.

Frankly, the case against him was pretty straightforward. There were some "interesting" procedural issues, but even those weren't that interesting.

What really captures the attention is the story telling and selective recitation of facts in his videos. His loose treatment regarding known facts leads some to question his credibility about anything else.....
 
WDD said:
Civil is citizen vs citizen. When it’s Gov against Citizen, and fines, jail time, etc are on the table the higher Beyond Reasonable Doubt is used. So yes, I assumed that was same for all Government vs Citizen courts.

Don’t have much court experience in my life to draw on here.

But I did stay in a Holliday Inn ……..
Click to expand...
Sorry, but that's incorrect. While the government is the one who prosecutes a criminal action (in the name of society), the reverse is not true. The government can bring civil cases. Nothing that goes through the ALJ procedure is a criminal action. Criminal actions (or even civil actions in excess of what the FAA is authorized by statute to bring administratively) goes to the US District Court (and the DoJ rather than any FAA guy leads the action).
 
Lindberg said:
Even more people believe it doesn't matter what he intended, at least as far as the legal case is concerned. He admitted to violating the regulation by flying within 500' of persons or structures on the ground, and he failed to prove his affirmative defense.

He failed to prove his affirmative defense that his low pass was necessary for landing because he failed to prove that the intended landing site was suitable. His claim that he couldn't have known that without violating the reg in the first place was contradicted by his own evidence.

Frankly, the case against him was pretty straightforward. There were some "interesting" procedural issues, but even those weren't that interesting.

What really captures the attention is the story telling and selective recitation of facts in his videos. His loose treatment regarding known facts leads some to question his credibility about anything else.....
Click to expand...


Had he landed no regulations would have been broken. I am not saying doing what he did was a good idea.

Say you have a person with a grudge against you, Bob. You depart an uncontrolled field and pickup your clearance in the air. Bob watches an airport security camera of your departure, takes out his phone and videos a grainy image. He then sends it to the FAA and says look at this guy he's breaking VFR cloud distances, I was listening to the radio and I know he was 1700' away from that cloud when he called. You know you were a good mile away but I guess if you squint just right and freeze it in just the right place it could look like you were closer. So they look at that and make sure to ground you for being a renegade based on saintly Bob and his grainy image.

You didn't actually do anything wrong so do you at least try to fight your case or just say well they must be right because only people who break regs end up in this position?
 
Dixiebluesky said:
Had he landed no regulations would have been broken.
Click to expand...
Possibly. But he didn't, so that's irrelevant. If a frog had wings, it wouldn't bump it's ass when it hopped.
Dixiebluesky said:
Say you have a person with a grudge against you, Bob. You depart an uncontrolled field and pickup your clearance in the air. Bob watches an airport security camera of your departure, takes out his phone and videos a grainy image. He then sends it to the FAA and says look at this guy he's breaking VFR cloud distances, I was listening to the radio and I know he was 1700' away from that cloud when he called. You know you were a good mile away but I guess if you squint just right and freeze it in just the right place it could look like you were closer. So they look at that and make sure to ground you for being a renegade based on saintly Bob and his grainy image.
Click to expand...
Your hypothetical has little, if any, similarity to this case, since the facts of the YouTuber's violation weren't genuinely in dispute. It's more like if I admitted that I violated VFR cloud contacts but claimed I was allowed to because it was an emergency. Except I couldn't prove it was an emergency.
Dixiebluesky said:
You didn't actually do anything wrong so do you at least try to fight your case or just say well they must be right because only people who break regs end up in this position?
Click to expand...
I've never said anything like that, not in this thread or elsewhere. What I have done is read the relevant opinions and stated that they don't support the YouTuber's claims of being railroaded, nor the arguments of his POA defenders.

The YouTuber had his day in court (many of them, in fact), he made his "best" legal arguments, and he lost.
 
Holy cow did you see the size of that squirrel? I’m not sure a European swallow could have picked it up, an African swallow maybe, but you must know these things if you want to be a king.

Edit: those whom have not viewed the “Monty python” movies are missing out.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top