Trent Palmer (YouTuber Bush Pilot Channel) Suspended By FAA

Bonchie

Bonchie

Pattern Altitude
Joined
Mar 23, 2014
Messages
1,505
Display Name
Display name:
Bonchie
If he’s telling this story accurately, this seems insane. So if you do an inspection pass on private property (with permission) and decide it’s not safe to land, you’ve now busted multiple regs because some Karen sent in grainy, double filmed video and guessed you were within 500 feet? How does an inspection pass not qualify as a necessary part of the landing phase? Now, you must make an unsafe landing or you’ve busted regs? What about air parks with houses? No go arounds?

If this becomes precedent, it could be problematic.

 
So much for the kinder gentler FAA that only cares about safety.

Maybe there's more to the story, but it sounds pretty simple.

* addition *

I never watched his stuff, after a couple minutes previewing some vids, I suspect his suspension is not just due to one event as he claims. I saw several things that looked potentionally questionable just in a few minutes of browsing.
 
Last edited:
Salty said:
So much for the kinder gentler FAA that only cares about safety.

Maybe there's more to the story, but it sounds pretty simple.
Click to expand...

I doubt he’d risk his entire career to lie about what regs the FAA says he broke. Seems like an overactive inspector and judge. Hopefully, they get smacked down on appeal.
 
What gets me is that they’d bust him for this on a first offense anyway. Even if he weren’t landing, you are going to give someone a 210 day suspension over flying low over private property without a warning first?

Seems overzealous and contrary to how the FAA has handled other first offenses.
 
Bonchie said:
What gets me is that they’d bust him for this on a first offense anyway. Even if he weren’t landing, you are going to give someone a 210 day suspension over flying low over private property without a warning first?

Seems overzealous and contrary to how the FAA has handled other first offenses.
Click to expand...
I agree. I think there's more to the story.
 
I too suspect there is more to the story but I also have no doubt that the FAA over reacted. I mean let's be honest, the bulk of his income probably comes from getting cool shots of his plane to share on youtube. He didn't provide any video in his story which seems a little suspect in my opinion. I am sure his lawyer advised him to put out this hit piece to generate the buzz we are doing now to put pressure back on the FAA. I also agree with him that without video evidence presented at the trial it leaves a lot to interpretation for future cases.
 
Salty said:
So much for the kinder gentler FAA that only cares about safety.
Click to expand...
Over the last 10 years of my flying I found the "kind gentle FAA that only cares about safety" to be very true. Over the last year or two I've rapidly seen that trend reversing and more and more negative interactions and unchecked power-plays. Without checks and balances there's nothing preventing them from going back to their old ways.
 
I suspect he does an "inspection pass" every time he flies near his friend's house. Why would anyone have a camera pointed at the sky? Trent should have answered that he was set up to land and saw a bunch of deer running around and aborted his landing.
 
Salty said:
I agree. I think there's more to the story.
Click to expand...
A five-day hearing when the parties agree on most of the relevant facts certainly makes it seem so. It would make sense if the FAA didn't believe that he ever intended to land and all and set out to prove it. The bit about not being able to make out the precise boundaries of the r/c runway, in an area that he says is all landable, stood out to me.
 
If this ruling stands, it means it is now illegal to practice an emergency decent to landing then go around.
Every periodic review I fly, the instructor I fly with will pull the power, and tell me pick a field and set up a landing, then make me fly it to within 25-50 feet of the ground. This is New York State. Hard to find a place where you don't fly over houses and roads to do this maneuver.
 
PaulS said:
I suspect he does an "inspection pass" every time he flies near his friend's house. Why would anyone have a camera pointed at the sky? Trent should have answered that he was set up to land and saw a bunch of deer running around and aborted his landing.
Click to expand...

Trent says, very clearly, he has never landed there. This was the first attempt.
His neighbor hates plane and pilots.
 
Shepherd said:
If this ruling stands, it means it is now illegal to practice an emergency decent to landing then go around.
Click to expand...
I'd like to see the ruling before I come to any conclusions about its effects. All I've got to go on right now is the side of the story from a guy who gets basic legal concepts wrong throughout the video.
 
Shepherd said:
If this ruling stands, it means it is now illegal to practice an emergency decent to landing then go around.
Every periodic review I fly, the instructor I fly with will pull the power, and tell me pick a field and set up a landing, then make me fly it to within 25-50 feet of the ground. This is New York State. Hard to find a place where you don't fly over houses and roads to do this maneuver.
Click to expand...
I highly doubt any examiner would ask or allow you to get that low on a simulated engine out to a random field especially if you get within 500' of any person, building, or vehicle. I would also guess the FAA would frown on your instructor advising you to do so.
 
He was setting up to land at his friends RC field. I can see - especially if the guy uses gas powered loud RC planes - the neighbor being upset at the constant noise. And the drones with cameras. Hence the security camera. So already loaded for bear, here comes the final straw - a full sized plane.

He was given suspension 2 years ago, but has been working the appeal all this time (while flying). Doesn't seem that urgent in the eyes of the FAA I would say. If not that urgent, why such a harsh suspension?
 
Standby for an unfounded overreaction:

It looks like the FAA is making a statement to the Youtube aviation crowd before things get too ugly. Matt is probably next for propping his feet up on the glare shield. How rude.
 
I agree there is probably much more to the story. But, I think this is an example of modern justice, guilty until proven innocent. And, who you are, making a living from flying videos, makes him a target of some armchair fighter pilot.

one thing that stood out for me was that he never specified how far from the house, camera or people he was. Was it 450’ or 100’?
 
Wagondriver said:
But, I think this is an example of modern justice administrative law, guilty until proven innocent.
Click to expand...

I wonder if our founders contemplated how out of control administrative law and executive orders would get?

Edited to add: I don't have an opinion on the merits of the case yet.
 
Last edited:
Bonchie said:
If he’s telling this story accurately, this seems insane. So if you do an inspection pass on private property (with permission) and decide it’s not safe to land, you’ve now busted multiple regs because some Karen sent in grainy, double filmed video and guessed you were within 500 feet? How does an inspection pass not qualify as a necessary part of the landing phase? Now, you must make an unsafe landing or you’ve busted regs? What about air parks with houses? No go arounds?

If this becomes precedent, it could be problematic.
Click to expand...
Yep, it's a problem. I did actually land - with permission - and by request - at a newly minted airfield one time for some friends at their olive grove. It wasn't "officially" an airport yet, but they had just cleared the area and we did a walk-through, a low approach, and finally a landing there. It's insane that you can't "go around" if you decide you don't like it without the FAA being an issue.
 
Grum.Man said:
Then I would say that was a pretty obvious violation of the regs. There is really no reason to get that low on a simulated engine out unless you are over the airport.
Click to expand...
14 CFR 91.119 begins with: "Except when necessary for takeoff or landing" - and if the man said he was considering landing and decided not to, the FAA is now declaring itself to be literally GOD if they claim that they can prove that he meant to do other than what he said he was trying to do. They can't read my mind, or his, and actually determine his motive. This is not justice, it's a state religion, which we aren't supposed to have.
 
PaulS said:
I suspect he does an "inspection pass" every time he flies near his friend's house. Why would anyone have a camera pointed at the sky? Trent should have answered that he was set up to land and saw a bunch of deer running around and aborted his landing.
Click to expand...

Wasn’t pointed at the sky. It was a security camera catching a wide angle and saw him dip down.
 
Maybe she thought it was Trevor Jacob or the Red Bull guys?

Did the Bush Pilot post his Notice of Proposed Certificate Action in the video or elsewhere so we can see exactly what the enforcement action was about?
 
Without reading the case and seeing the evidence presented, it's impossible to know whether the decision was fair or not. What he stated in the video certainly doesn't seem outlandish, but I wonder what exactly he said to the inspectors. I'm also wondering if he indicated that his intent was to do a low pass to inspect for a future landing, rather than a landing at that moment.

Either way, a 210 day proposed suspension of a private pilot's certificate would suggest a substantial certificate action. On the FAA enforcement order sanctions table, a 210 day suspension falls into the "maximum" certificate sanction range. Failure to maintain required minimum altitude over a congested area is considered severity level 3 offense. In order to meet the maximum sanction range, the violation had to be considered reckless or intentional. I suspect some addtitional factors may have been in play that have not been discussed.
 
Grum.Man said:
I too suspect there is more to the story but I also have no doubt that the FAA over reacted. I mean let's be honest, the bulk of his income probably comes from getting cool shots of his plane to share on youtube. He didn't provide any video in his story which seems a little suspect in my opinion. I am sure his lawyer advised him to put out this hit piece to generate the buzz we are doing now to put pressure back on the FAA. I also agree with him that without video evidence presented at the trial it leaves a lot to interpretation for future cases.
Click to expand...
The bulk of his income comes from his film production company that uses drones to shoot everything from commercials to music videos. That's why the video quality on his channel is so good. Off course, YouTube and his sponsors are giving him money too. But not that he needs it.
 
Shepherd said:
Trent says, very clearly, he has never landed there. This was the first attempt.
His neighbor hates plane and pilots.
Click to expand...

He keeps calling it an inspection pass, not a landing attempt, and that is what I think his problem is. He was set up to land, short final, which means low, he should just call it that.

Also, it's his first attempt to land, but absolutely not his first time over the property. I've looked for properties before, and I never find them on the first pass, never mind get lined up and fly an approach. There is more to this story. It's a court case so the other side should come out. I'll wait until I see that before I make my final judgment.

I'm amazed at the number of regular people who support our right to fly, they far outnumber those who don't. But those who don't are a loud minority. We need to keep that in mind as we fly around.
 
RyanShort1 said:
14 CFR 91.119 begins with: "Except when necessary for takeoff or landing" - and if the man said he was considering landing and decided not to, the FAA is now declaring itself to be literally GOD if they claim that they can prove that he meant to do other than what he said he was trying to do. They can't read my mind, or his, and actually determine his motive. This is not justice, it's a state religion, which we aren't supposed to have.
Click to expand...
By this reasoning, judges and juries declare themselves G-d every day. What do you think happens in courtrooms and trials? The fact finder hears evidence and decides issues of disputed facts. That very often includes disbelieving one or more witnesses. Do you think that he should be able to say, "I was preparing to land," and that's the end of it? No questioning whether that's true, even if there's contrary evidence?
 
Brad Z said:
Without reading the case and seeing the evidence presented, it's impossible to know whether the decision was fair or not. What he stated in the video certainly doesn't seem outlandish, but I wonder what exactly he said to the inspectors. I'm also wondering if he indicated that his intent was to do a low pass to inspect for a future landing, rather than a landing at that moment.

Either way, a 210 day proposed suspension of a private pilot's certificate would suggest a substantial certificate action. On the FAA enforcement order sanctions table, a 210 day suspension falls into the "maximum" certificate sanction range. Failure to maintain required minimum altitude over a congested area is considered severity level 3 offense. In order to meet the maximum sanction range, the violation had to be considered reckless or intentional. I suspect some addtitional factors may have been in play that have not been discussed.
Click to expand...
Not going to watch it again, but I thought he said the inspector threatened a 210-day suspension but that he wound up with 60.
 
RyanShort1 said:
14 CFR 91.119 begins with: "Except when necessary for takeoff or landing" - and if the man said he was considering landing and decided not to, the FAA is now declaring itself to be literally GOD if they claim that they can prove that he meant to do other than what he said he was trying to do. They can't read my mind, or his, and actually determine his motive. This is not justice, it's a state religion, which we aren't supposed to have.
Click to expand...
Wouldn't be the first time.
 
Lindberg said:
By this reasoning, judges and juries declare themselves G-d every day. What do you think happens in courtrooms and trials? The fact finder hears evidence and decides issues of disputed facts. That very often includes disbelieving one or more witnesses. Do you think that he should be able to say, "I was preparing to land," and that's the end of it? No questioning whether that's true, even if there's contrary evidence?
Click to expand...
A jury of one's peers is not the same as unelected officials operating in a clearly prejudiced environment. Your argument is even weaker than mine.
 
PaulS said:
I'm amazed at the number of regular people who support our right to fly, they far outnumber those who don't. But those who don't are a loud minority. We need to keep that in mind as we fly around.
Click to expand...
True, but a pretty high percentage of normal people have some hobby currently threatened by administrative law in one way or another, such as the 2A community. There is also probably more common ground than you think, and we need to realize it and work together against the tide.
 
Bonchie said:
What gets me is that they’d bust him for this on a first offense anyway. Even if he weren’t landing, you are going to give someone a 210 day suspension over flying low over private property without a warning first?

Seems overzealous and contrary to how the FAA has handled other first offenses.
Click to expand...

I recall him being in trouble a while back over waterskiing on a lake so this isn’t his first run in and may have been a factor in why he got a suspension.

As far as the topic at hand goes, I suspect there is more to the story than what is being presented. Perhaps we’ll eventually learn the rest of the story, but that may take months or years. While I can see the potential for this decision to affect future off airport operations, I suspect the consequences may be minimal and subjective.
 
Lindberg said:
Not going to watch it again, but I thought he said the inspector threatened a 210-day suspension but that he wound up with 60.
Click to expand...
Correct, but that’s after going to a hearing. He could have accepted the 210 days and skip the hearing.
 
Grum.Man said:
I mean let's be honest, the bulk of his income probably comes from getting cool shots of his plane to share on youtube.
Click to expand...

The bulk of his income is from flying drones to make movies, commercials, etc. I've watched a lot of his videos in the past and find his and his friends' flying above board. Its a shame that the word of a Karen is able to suspend someone's flying privileges.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top