Trent Palmer (YouTuber Bush Pilot Channel) Suspended By FAA

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:
bflynn said:
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?
Click to expand...
Either way, the fact that he was less than 500 feet of a person, vessel, vehicle, or structure is not in dispute. He admitted that he was, but it was for the purpose of landing.

As to the other video, I didn’t watch it so I have no opinion.
 
Brad Z said:
Either way, the fact that he was less than 500 feet of a person, vessel, vehicle, or structure is not in dispute. He admitted that he was, but it was for the purpose of landing.
Click to expand...

14 CFR 91.119 begins with: "Except when necessary for takeoff or landing…”

when landing off airport at someplace new, is an inspection pass necessary for takeoff or landing? ?
 
bflynn said:
14 CFR 91.119 begins with: "Except when necessary for takeoff or landing…”

when landing off airport at someplace new, is an inspection pass necessary for takeoff or landing? ?
Click to expand...
And that's the mistake the ALJ made. That section was read, "Except when making a necessary landing, no person..."

Since this landing was not necessary, in the eyes of the FAA, he was guilty.
 
I can't help from thinking... Have you ever been to traffic court and this one guy shows up in a suit with a briefcase pretending he's a lawyer and acting like he knows the law better than the judge and maybe he mouths off a little and eventually the bailiff takes him into the back room. This thing should have been settled quietly a long time ago but alas, that ain't gonna happen now. The youtube social media monster has been unleashed and actual due process is well...TLDR.
 
bflynn said:
14 CFR 91.119 begins with: "Except when necessary for takeoff or landing…”

when landing off airport at someplace new, is an inspection pass necessary for takeoff or landing? ?
Click to expand...
The relevant question is, in this case, was flying within 500' of a person, vessel, or structure necessary for landing?
 
Lindberg said:
The relevant question is, in this case, was flying within 500' of a person, vessel, or structure necessary for landing?
Click to expand...

a question neither of us know the answer to. However, in all that’s been said, this is the first time I’ve heard that question asked. Was it something you read elsewhere or did you think of it?
 
bflynn said:
14 CFR 91.119 begins with: "Except when necessary for takeoff or landing…”

when landing off airport at someplace new, is an inspection pass necessary for takeoff or landing? ?
Click to expand...
I suspect the real question was whether Trent's "inspection pass" was really an "inspection pass." See my previous post regarding all the things in the video Trent didn't mention.
 
Brad Z said:
I suspect the real question was whether Trent's "inspection pass" was really an "inspection pass." See my previous post regarding all the things in the video Trent didn't mention.
Click to expand...

Other than just flat out calling him a liar, I don't see how it can be determined one way or another. He says it was, so what can be shown to say it wasn't? I'm sure he wasn't just flying low somewhere for the heck of it.
 
bflynn said:
Other than just flat out calling him a liar, I don't see how it can be determined one way or another. He says it was, so what can be shown to say it wasn't? I'm sure he wasn't just flying low somewhere for the heck of it.
Click to expand...
Number of passes made. Proximity of pass to the other house closer than necessary, etc.
 
bflynn said:
Other than just flat out calling him a liar, I don't see how it can be determined one way or another. He says it was, so what can be shown to say it wasn't? I'm sure he wasn't just flying low somewhere for the heck of it.
Click to expand...
My understanding is that it's the job of the ALJ to assess the credibility of a witness's testimony. Whether ALJs explain why they didn't find a witness's testimony credible, I don't know.
 
Last edited:
bflynn said:
I'm sure he wasn't just flying low somewhere for the heck of it.
Click to expand...

Huh? What makes you so convinced that he wasn't just buzzing his buddy's house, then made up this story when he got called out? This is just as likely as his story that he couldn't land his kitfox on a well defined 600' dirt strip because he couldn't determine a touchdown point or whatever.
 
Direct C51 said:
Huh? What makes you so convinced that he wasn't just buzzing his buddy's house, then made up this story when he got called out? This is just as likely as his story that he couldn't land his kitfox on a well defined 600' dirt strip because he couldn't determine a touchdown point or whatever.
Click to expand...

Not landing at that strip does seem odd for sure. But I don't understand why he would buzz some random lady's house? That makes no sense to me. If I were in the business of illegally buzzing houses, I'd buzz my own, my friend's, etc. Not some random person's house.
 
Another factor could be speed. If his "inspection" pass was at high speed, that would be pretty suspect.
 
Daleandee said:
At 1:03 in the video Bryan talks about Emerson Lake and I was waiting for the "Emerson Lake & Palmer" punchline that never came ... o_O
Click to expand...
I thought he made it at 1:04.
 
Arm3 said:
I thought he made it at 1:04.
Click to expand...

Yeah ... guess I was looking for something a bit more obvious. Perhaps the subtility of it was the genius of it.
 
Daleandee said:
Yeah ... guess I was looking for something a bit more obvious. Perhaps the subtility of it was the genius of it.
Click to expand...
It’s nuanced, like a Borat “not” joke.

 
bflynn said:
Other than just flat out calling him a liar, I don't see how it can be determined one way or another. He says it was, so what can be shown to say it wasn't? I'm sure he wasn't just flying low somewhere for the heck of it.
Click to expand...
Go back and watch the video. He never clearly states that he intended to land on that flight. He insinuates and leads us to believe that he was planning to land on that flight, but never states that as fact. Maybe he was doing an inspection flight for a landing sometime in the future. We don't know. We haven't heard the FAA's side so I don't think it's beyond reasonable doubt to believe the ALJ questioned Palmer's account of the events.
 
Yea it seems to me that if, after the complaint, he had just gone to the FAA with hat in hand and earnestly listened to what they had to say then humbly admitted that he had gotten closer than 500 ft and it won't happen again this probably would have all quietly been settled long ago. But to instead show up with an elaborate defense case drawn up citing the FAA Advisory book on off airport operations and pursue a , let's just call it a bit absurd, assertion that they are setting a dangerous precedent that will make it illegal to do a missed approach or go around and cause the unnecessary endangerment of pilots most likely soured the entire relationship going forward. And now, to have posted a couple of youtube videos where he actually makes personal attacks against both the FAA judge and attorney as well as the complainant (while appealing the decision and still enjoying his privileges) just seems like a very untactful course of action on his part. Not good decision making if you ask me.
 
Silvaire said:
Yea it seems to me that if, after the complaint, he had just gone to the FAA with hat in hand and earnestly listened to what they had to say then humbly admitted that he had gotten closer than 500 ft and it won't happen again this probably would have all quietly been settled long ago. But to instead show up with an elaborate defense case drawn up citing the FAA Advisory book on off airport operations and pursue a , let's just call it a bit absurd, assertion that they are setting a dangerous precedent that will make it illegal to do a missed approach or go around and cause the unnecessary endangerment of pilots most likely soured the entire relationship going forward. And now, to have posted a couple of youtube videos where he actually makes personal attacks against both the FAA judge and attorney as well as the complainant (while appealing the decision and still enjoying his privileges) just seems like a very untactful course of action on his part. Not good decision making if you ask me.
Click to expand...
I think it depends on whether you want to live on your knees or your feet.
 
LesGawlik said:
I think it depends on whether you want to live on your knees or your feet.
Click to expand...
It also depends on whether or not you buy into argumentum ad absurdum. And it's *die* on you feet, AKA 'pick your battles, bro.'

Nauga,
whose jury is still out
 
Hearing this story, if any of you receive a call from the local FSDO saying they want to talk to you, how many of you will:

A. Set up the appointment, go in without an attorney.

B. Contact an attorney, and make sure that attorney is with you at all proceedings.
 
I'm with C. above....
 
EdFred said:
C. Let call go to voice mail, and not return the call.
Wait for letter, respond with letter. Then there's no he said she said.
Click to expand...

Yulp! Make them write it down.

FWIW: I had a manager that liked to come down the hall and have our hot topic, private conversations outside the building. He would then make certain promises (that I suspected wouldn't be kept) or recommendations for me to follow that could/would be deemed questionable.

To protect myself I would follow up with an email back to him referencing our recent conversation and the points made and what was requested and agreed upon. If it helps to understand what was happening ... he still works there but his management position was taken from him for the always obvious reason (needs to spend more time with his family). :rolleyes:
 
LesGawlik said:
I think it depends on whether you want to live on your knees or your feet.
Click to expand...

Been a pilot for over fifty years, A&P/IA 45 years so plenty of interfaces with the FAA. They are the ones that gave you your certificates to begin with so I don't get this enemy Gestapo view of them. Even if Palmer's case is an example of extreme cronyism he should have let the appeal process conclude before going on a social media rant. Does he think it is now going to be decided on Instagram?
 
Cluemeister said:
Hearing this story, if any of you receive a call from the local FSDO saying they want to talk to you, how many of you will:

A. Set up the appointment, go in without an attorney.

B. Contact an attorney, and make sure that attorney is with you at all proceedings.
Click to expand...
I went with "D", and submitted my statement to the ATC supervisor on duty to be included with the report going from the Tracon to the FSDO, so the inspector already had my side of the story and called to let me know no further action would take place on his part.
 
Silvaire said:
Even if Palmer's case is an example of extreme cronyism he should have let the appeal process conclude before going on a social media rant. Does he think it is now going to be decided on Instagram?
Click to expand...

Agreed!

I have no idea if he's guilty or not but I do know people and those in power do not like to be loudly challenged in the public square. I know the government will try and show a strict adherence to their rules and regs but they have a lot at stake if they allow social media to influence the outcome. I don't see them allowing that and in fact doing all they can to show that they are impartial by pushing back against the social media defense.

He's already poisoned the well so to speak ...
 
Daleandee said:
Agreed!

I have no idea if he's guilty or not but I do know people and those in power do not like to be loudly challenged in the public square. I know the government will try and show a strict adherence to their rules and regs but they have a lot at stake if they allow social media to influence the outcome. I don't see them allowing that and in fact doing all they can to show that they are impartial by pushing back against the social media defense.

He's already poisoned the well so to speak ...
Click to expand...
I sort of attribute it to YouTubers gonna YouTube...

But I'm most surprised his attorney went online talking about the case on public web forums.
 
Another aspect of this is the base story: This dude has a landing strip on his property so he figures his buddy can land his airplane there. Problem is, in order to do that you need to fly low over a neighbors house and turns out the neighbor don't like that. So now you get this Hatfield McCoy thing going on and the FAA gets stuck in the middle of it.

There needs to be diplomacy in these situations.
 
Silvaire said:
Yea it seems to me that if, after the complaint, he had just gone to the FAA with hat in hand and earnestly listened to what they had to say then humbly admitted that he had gotten closer than 500 ft and it won't happen again this probably would have all quietly been settled long ago....
Click to expand...
Grovelling apologies have been working for me for thirty years!
 
Regarding the trolling accusation, is it that hard to believe that someone might cheat on a test, get caught, come up with a rationalization for it, and have unrealistic expectations about what the FAA's response will be as a result of not reading or understanding the relevant regulation?

I think people's troll detectors are turning up too many false positives.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top