Trent Palmer (YouTuber Bush Pilot Channel) Suspended By FAA

Tarheelpilot said:
If there are no local laws or ordinances prohibiting aircraft operations what is required for a particular spot to be deemed legal for aircraft operations with regards to FAA regulations?
Click to expand...
For FAA purposes? You must be able to conduct those operations in compliance with all the FARs. But the FAA doesn't deem spots legal for aircraft operations, other than airports.
 
I'm seen some impressive digging in of the heels before but this is a whole different level over the last few pages.
 
Yeah, this could be an epic thread for a decent necro post many years from now.

I’m posting for this for my own historical relevance. And for my own and others’ entertainment, of course.
 
Lindberg said:
In that guide, what spots does the FAA deem legal for aircraft operations?
Click to expand...
Oops you forgot to answer. I’ll ask a different way. In your opinion, why does the FAA publish a guide for activities that you claim the FAA considers illegal?

I’m honestly just curious how you rationalize that in your arguments, I’m not wading into the rest.
 
HighCountry said:
Oops you forgot to answer. I’ll ask a different way. In your opinion, why does the FAA publish a guide for activities that you claim the FAA considers illegal?
Click to expand...
Nowhere did I claim off-airport landings are necessarily illegal because that's not true. What I did do is respond to a comment that says they're always legal, barring any local ordinances to the contrary. That's also not true. An off-airport landing may or may not be legal, depending on the circumstances.
 
Now I think I understand what you meant by that statement, which for me would have been clearer as “explicitly deem spots legal”. As written I believe I misunderstood your statement as “FAA deems only airports as being legal.”

One could argue that the mere existence of that guide implies that FAA considers off-airport landings are also legal, unless they aren’t (local ordinance, unsafe, within a SUA, trespassing, etc). Would you agree?

Is the hill you’re defending simply that there may be reasons other than “local ordinance” that would make a landing spot illegal? If so you could have just said that, but it’s your hill.
 
Last edited:
Lindberg said:
Nowhere did I claim off-airport landings are necessarily illegal because that's not true. What I did do is respond to a comment that says they're always legal, barring any local ordinances to the contrary. That's also not true. An off-airport landing may or may not be legal, depending on the circumstances.
Click to expand...

I think you implied it was always illegal when you said
Lindberg said:
You might want to do some reading starting with 14 CFR 91.13.
Click to expand...

Or at least several members got that message from it. Any particular spot might not be suitable for landing. But a well groomed field used for RC could be. Merely not being on a chart is does not mean it is unsafe, so that argument goes out the window. If Triple Tree was not on the chart, it would still a 7000 ft RC field.

I will reiterate - consistent with prearranged permission and local ordnances, I will land where I want. But if it’s unsafe, I will abort because that is what a safe pilot does. The FAA lawyers here are not making rulings consistent with actual operations.
 
Lindberg said:
Nowhere did I claim off-airport landings are necessarily illegal because that's not true. What I did do is respond to a comment that says they're always legal, barring any local ordinances to the contrary. That's also not true. An off-airport landing may or may not be legal, depending on the circumstances.
Click to expand...
Ok. That’s cool. Can you please substantiate this statement and or give examples?
 
To get back on topic here is a Cliff's Notes synopsis of how this probably all went down.

Trent Palmer, infamous YouTube "bush pilot" is talking to a buddy who lives nearby and the bud says hey, I've got an RC strip in my backyard, maybe you could land your little Kitfox there.
So one day Trent is out landing on hilltops and buzzing down canyons and along two tracks out in the sticks and on the way back he does a low pass over his pals property to have a look-see and in the process he violates the 500 ft rule over a neighbors house.
The neighbor calls it in.
The FAA calls Trent.
Trent shows up armed with the FAA advisory book on off airport operations and a long winded yarn about inspection passes and how they are setting a horrible precedent that will cost lives.
The Judge rolls his eyes, they discuss the situation in a hearing for five days.
The judge gives him a 60 day suspension.
Trent makes a 20 minute video on how evil the complaining neighbor is and how unjust and inept the FAA are.
Trent's fan club take up torches and arms and prepare for all out rebellion
The aviation community does a collective face palm, sighs and shakes their heads.

Trent: please take the wrist slap and go back to making videos of landing on grassy hilltops out in the sticks and don't buzz over anybody's house who didn't invite you to.
 
Tarheelpilot said:
Ok. That’s cool. Can you please substantiate this statement and or give examples?
Click to expand...

Source AOPA - A case in point happened to a pilot in New York on October 27, 2012. According to news reports, police were called to the Coliseum after receiving several 911 calls complaining of many intoxicated youths at a rave concert there. While they were at the scene, police said a pilot attempted to land a Bell 407 on a grassy area on the side of the Coliseum. The first landing had to be aborted due to pedestrians walking in the area. The pilot returned and landed on the grassy area where at least 20 pedestrians were walking. The pilot was arrested, his helicopter was seized and he was charged with first-degree reckless endangerment.

About all states have an inducing panic statute. Land in a field and people think you may have crashed is all it takes.
 
Many of us who fly paragliders have been greeted by law enforcement on landing because somebody dialed 911 to report "an airplane crashed and the pilot bailed out!"
 
Silvaire said:
Trent: please take the wrist slap and go back to making videos of landing on grassy hilltops out in the sticks and don't buzz over anybody's house who didn't invite you to.
Click to expand...

The issue is not whether Trent is fully accurately stating his case. (Although given his history of admitting mistakes in the past very openly on his videos and people who know him chiming in very much on his side, it seems weird he should go the other way on this one.) But regardless, it doesn't matter if he's telling the truth about what happened or not. The issue is the absurd precedent the ruling sets. Fly8MA instructor does a great job of laying it out here:


Trent absolutely needs to fight this one like crazy to get that ruling thrown out for all of us.

Again, the truth of Trent's side is irrelevant. It seems pretty clear the judge didn't believe him, but didn't have enough evidence, so just came up with what he could to be able to level a penalty against Trent. The issue is, because of this, the ruling and the precedents it sets. The judge, in turn, screwed up on this one. And that needs to be fixed, whether Trent himself screwed up or not.
 
Daven said:
The issue is not whether Trent is fully accurately stating his case. (Although given his history of admitting mistakes in the past very openly on his videos and people who know him chiming in very much on his side, it seems weird he should go the other way on this one.) But regardless, it doesn't matter if he's telling the truth about what happened or not. The issue is the absurd precedent the ruling sets. Fly8MA instructor does a great job of laying it out here:


Trent absolutely needs to fight this one like crazy to get that ruling thrown out for all of us.

Again, the truth of Trent's side is irrelevant. It seems pretty clear the judge didn't believe him, but didn't have enough evidence, so just came up with what he could to be able to level a penalty against Trent. The issue is, because of this, the ruling and the precedents it sets. The judge, in turn, screwed up on this one. And that needs to be fixed, whether Trent himself screwed up or not.
Click to expand...
Yeah, so what if he flew over a neighbors house at 50 feet 10 times? Who cares if he intentionally flew over the neighbors house when he didn't need to?

Knowing the facts doesn't matter. The FAA is wrong.

/sarcasm
 
Ok, so I watched another long video for this guy to get his point across. The reason he was violated was poor decision making and lack of preflight planning which resulted in the FAR violation. He knew the house was there and decided to go for a low pass near the house without giving it a second thought. He claims he couldn't establish an aim point ect. You don't need to fly below 500 agl to do that. He also claims he had to do a low pass to determine if he could land there, like you cant use google maps and drive there in a car and make that determination.

I understand there are pilots that like patch hoping, but you do it at your own risk and when you get caught doing stupid stuff go ahead and make a video about it.
 
According to FLY8MA this is the strip 39.733811, -119.870070 so fashion your own opinion as to how it went down.

My beef is that there is a process for this, it's not a popularity contest. There are a lot of things being said that are unsubstantiated and unqualified and since it is still technically an open case on appeal it's just inappropriate. It's one thing if you're talking to your friends but when it's a million youtube subscribers well....
 
Clip4 said:
Ok, so I watched another long video for this guy to get his point across. The reason he was violated was poor decision making and lack of preflight planning which resulted in the FAR violation. He knew the house was there and decided to go for a low pass near the house without giving it a second thought. He claims he couldn't establish an aim point ect. You don't need to fly below 500 agl to do that. He also claims he had to do a low pass to determine if he could land there, like you cant use google maps and drive there in a car and make that determination.

I understand there are pilots that like patch hoping, but you do it at your own risk and when you get caught doing stupid stuff go ahead and make a video about it.
Click to expand...

Access to Google Maps is now a requirement of 91.103? The FAA itself published a guide for off-airport ops which includes a low altitude inspection pass. Was that guidance abused? Who knows. The evidence has apparently been deleted.
 
Ricky Bob said:
Access to Google Maps is now a requirement of 91.103? The FAA itself published a guide for off-airport ops which includes a low altitude inspection pass. Was that guidance abused? Who knows. The evidence has apparently been deleted.
Click to expand...

I am not judging anything yet, and still taking in facts. Since everyone keeps bringing up the FAA off-airport ops guide here is the first sentence of the second paragraph:

"Off-airport operations can be extremely rewarding; transporting people and gear to locations that would be difficult or impossible to reach in any other way."

The second part there seems relevant.
 
Last edited:
Clip4 said:
…use google maps and drive there in a car and make that determination.

I understand there are pilots that like patch hoping, but you do it at your own risk and when you get caught doing stupid stuff go ahead and make a video about it.
Click to expand...

Right. Google maps is going to show the ground hog holes or errant rake / rut left in the field hours earlier? Same with the car…yes it would be useful but anything can change the moment you leave. A low pass is the only way to visually establish if it is safe to land at that moment in time…not last week.
 
Silvaire said:
According to FLY8MA this is the strip 39.733811, -119.870070 so fashion your own opinion as to how it went down.
Click to expand...
If those coordinates are correct it looks like a more than adequate place to put a Kitfox down, that strip is 500' long and clearly more than 500' from the nearest house (which doesn't mean he didn't get closer than 500' to a house on approach or climbout).

upload_2022-5-7_7-50-18.png

But a backcountry strip that's adequate one day may not be usable the next day due to field conditions, length of the grass, angle of the sun affecting visibility, etc., that's why you do a low pass to check things out first.
 
(14 CFR) part 91, § 91.103 "Each pilot in command shall, before beginning a flight, become familiar with all available information concerning that flight."
So, before you fly cross country, you need to drive the route - stopping and examining any available farm fields, parks, golf courses, etc. to determine which would be suitable for a landing in the event of an engine failure or other emergency.
 
Dana said:
If those coordinates are correct it looks like a more than adequate place to put a Kitfox down, that strip is 500' long and clearly more than 500' from the nearest house (which doesn't mean he didn't get closer than 500' to a house on approach or climbout).

View attachment 106641

But a backcountry strip that's adequate one day may not be usable the next day due to field conditions, length of the grass, angle of the sun affecting visibility, etc., that's why you do a low pass to check things out first.
Click to expand...
He admitted that he was within 500 feet of a person vessel, vehicle or structure. He argued the video should not have been admissible because it was not the best version of the evidence.

Did Trent mention how many inspection passes he completed?
Did he provide a ground track of that flight? Certainly he had something on board recording his ground track that would show his flight path.
From the aerial images, I’m wondering why he couldn’t determine touch down points or direction of the landing surface.
 
Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe said:
(14 CFR) part 91, § 91.103 "Each pilot in command shall, before beginning a flight, become familiar with all available information concerning that flight."
So, before you fly cross country, you need to drive the route - stopping and examining any available farm fields, parks, golf courses, etc. to determine which would be suitable for a landing in the event of an engine failure or other emergency.
Click to expand...
Do you know what's missing from that FAR quote? The word "reasonable" or "reasonably." If strict adherence to 91.103 is the standard, all flights would be impossible. Should we, and do we, familiarize ourselves with all aspects of the flight? Yes, but reasonably.
 
Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe said:
(14 CFR) part 91, § 91.103 "Each pilot in command shall, before beginning a flight, become familiar with all available information concerning that flight."
So, before you fly cross country, you need to drive the route - stopping and examining any available farm fields, parks, golf courses, etc. to determine which would be suitable for a landing in the event of an engine failure or other emergency.
Click to expand...

Ever hear of 91.3 and emergency authority?
 
Dana said:
If those coordinates are correct it looks like a more than adequate place to put a Kitfox down, that strip is 500' long and clearly more than 500' from the nearest house (which doesn't mean he didn't get closer than 500' to a house on approach or climbout).

View attachment 106641

But a backcountry strip that's adequate one day may not be usable the next day due to field conditions, length of the grass, angle of the sun affecting visibility, etc., that's why you do a low pass to check things out first.
Click to expand...

The photo supports the FAA’s position. There was no reason to fly near a house.
 
To those who say that this sets a bad precedent if he is found guilty, how about the opposite? If the FAA/NTSB finds what he did to be legal, then 91.119 is effectively useless. Anyone could fly as low as they want any time and say they are just doing an "inspection pass" to see if it would ever be feasible to land nearby at some undetermined time in the future.

It's clear as day what happened here. He buzzed his buddies house and when he got called out for it, he tried to say it was an "inspection pass" to get out of it. I'm not buying that he can land to all of the places that he does, but after one pass he determined he couldn't land at a well marked 600' RC airplane runway so he flew away. Sometimes you get so caught up in your lie that you double down and start believing it yourself.
 
FOIA filed with the NTSB for the ALJ decision. I find it very unusual that he isn't releasing it on his own. I'll post it if it's a successful FOIA.
 
Dana said:
If those coordinates are correct it looks like a more than adequate place to put a Kitfox down, that strip is 500' long and clearly more than 500' from the nearest house (which doesn't mean he didn't get closer than 500' to a house on approach or climbout).

View attachment 106641

But a backcountry strip that's adequate one day may not be usable the next day due to field conditions, length of the grass, angle of the sun affecting visibility, etc., that's why you do a low pass to check things out first.
Click to expand...

Does anybody know which house was the house in question? 500' AGL is about 1.7nm from the threshold at a 3 degree slope. Assuming he didn't do a long straight in, I can see how it is plausible that he flew over a house less than 500' while on a stabilized approach. There is no requirement to maintain 500' from anything if for takeoff or landing, so if he was less than 500', it's irrelevant. But that dead horse has been beaten to death. Guess my point is that, from that picture, it seems plausible that he flew over/near a house (<500') while on a stable, normal approach and not "buzzing" anything. I'm too lazy, but I'd be curious to distance measure each runway threshold from that strip to each house in the area. Any house within 1.7nm could theoretically be flown over under 500' while making a stabilized approach to that strip.
 
Brad Z said:
He argued the video should not have been admissible because it was not the best version of the evidence
Click to expand...

no, the FAA did not enter the video because they were not allowed to. Any video must be an original and this was not. But witnesses were allowed to testify about the video.

Plus, he just did it again. In his video 7 days ago, the day before the FAA video, he lands on a dirt road, but there was a structure (cattle trough) right near his “threshold”. Before landing, he made a low approach to inspect the road. After the low approach, he circled around and landed. So he is guilty of it again, right?
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top