Trent Palmer (YouTuber Bush Pilot Channel) Suspended By FAA

Does anyone have any additional info past the Palmer vid? Pics, flight track, MS Paint, anything?
 
texasclouds said:
Does anyone have any additional info past the Palmer vid? Pics, flight track, MS Paint, anything?
Click to expand...

If you use Google Earth and simulate an approach from the north it appears there is only one homestead that you'd overfly. This is Nevada and a lot of the residents out there are out there for a reason, they don't particularly like to have neighbors.

approach.png
 
Dang, they really do pack the houses in tight out there. I’ve changed my opinion on the matter since he likely would have killed someone on the ground had his motor come from together during his inspection pass.
 
Does anyone else wonder how a hearing could take 5 days? What could you talk about for that long?
 
WDD said:
Does anyone else wonder how a hearing could take 5 days? What could you talk about for that long?
Click to expand...
If I remember right it was done via Zoom so there was probably 2.5 cumulative days spent talking over each other and “No, you go ahead and go, oh wait, I’ll go” and “Sorry, could you say again the feed cut out”.
 
Arm3 said:
If I remember right it was done via Zoom so there was probably 2.5 cumulative days spent talking over each other and “No, you go ahead and go, oh wait, I’ll go” and “Sorry, could you say again the feed cut out”.
Click to expand...
Funny!
 
Arm3 said:
Dang, they really do pack the houses in tight out there. I’ve changed my opinion on the matter since he likely would have killed someone on the ground had his motor come from together during his inspection pass.
Click to expand...
:yeahthat:
That right there is funny.
 
Arm3 said:
Dang, they really do pack the houses in tight out there. I’ve changed my opinion on the matter since he likely would have killed someone on the ground had his motor come from together during his inspection pass.
Click to expand...

Ha,ha yea well here's the thing though. We've got a lot of freedom in this country when it comes to private aviation, we're blessed to be honest because it's not like this anywhere else. But if you start irritating folks on the ground and they start becoming the squeaky wheel in the FAA's ear you can't simply blow them off. I've been up to the Sierra fly-in, met Trent Palmer and Kevin Quinn, Mike Patey and Cory Robin, all great guys and I'm grateful to see the youth and enthusiasm that has come into aviation over the past ten or so years. But in this case Trent is on the wrong path. The FAA is our partner in this endeavor and if there is something amiss within the ranks then there is a process for addressing it. That process is not to start a social media riot over a wrist slap. I've been pleading for Trent to just take the 60 days and move on but maybe it's too late now. d:-(
 
Silvaire said:
…the squeaky wheel in the FAA's ear …-(
Click to expand...
You know how to become the squeaky wheel?? Congressional involvement. Tell you Rep/Senator you’ve complained to the FAA and they haven’t done anything about it.

We should know this based in the glacial pace of getting SIs approved without Congressional involvement.
 
TCABM said:
...Tell you Rep/Senator you’ve complained to the FAA and they haven’t done anything about it...
Click to expand...

Okay, but how about wait until your appeal has concluded? That's my only point here.
 
Silvaire said:
Okay, but how about wait until your appeal has concluded? That's my only point here.
Click to expand...

I’m not talking about Palmer. I’m talking about how Palmer got into the position he’s in.
 
TCABM said:
I’m not talking about Palmer. I’m talking about how Palmer got into the position he’s in.
Click to expand...

Yes I understand. I was trying to introduce the idea of chain of command into the discussion. The one step at a time concept.
 
Hi everyone.

Interesting thread and lots of opinions. They are like holes, everyone has one.

I've read most of the posts and I, typically, try to not get involved unless it's something that may have a direct impact on Aviation in general and or affects a lot of people, including myself.

I do not care much for all the UTubers I think they are mainly there to get a celebrity status, be famous, and I guess some can also make money, and in some cases, very few, can be useful to others. That, (money) in my opinion, can also be an issue, but that is another topic for another thread.

I do not subscribe to that, I have hundreds of hours of recording, going back to mid 70s, but I use them for training and view it with my family and friends.

About this particular individual / case, I think both parties could have done things differently and resolve the issue without all these complications.

The reason I think that the FAA made a mistake, and could have done things differently, is because by using the Suspension approach it will not benefit the Pilot and or the FAA. What we need is to teach judgment and a 709 would have been more appropriate. By going to legal and trying to make an “example” of this guy does not help anyone.

We have people involved, Judge, Legal eagles.. that have NO understanding what Aviation is all about and they will render judgment based their life experience and knowledge, and could care less about Aviation. In a way they are a lot like the UTubers, make some money and in some cases become celebrities.

The UTuber should have also used better judgment, did better / different planning before he decided to take that flight.

Why is this case of concern to me? If it stands and sets up a precedent most of the areas where practice areas exist, and you do Ground reference maneuvers in a slow acft., could practically be illegal, it's next to impossible to find locations in many busy areas where you are further away than 500 ft. from some structure / person. I am curious who the FAA person is and how much practical experience and knowledge (s)he has?

My opinion, give the guy a chance to a 709, teach him some better judgment and be done, stop messing things up.

Otherwise we need to do everything possible to support him and make sure that he wins. Call your politicians and explain the ramifications.

I am just wondering if a case could be made that in other similar occasions, I am sure there were many, other approaches were used and in this case they are after him for other reasons?
 
I’d argue that there’s no good reason to do ground reference maneuvers below 500 agl. Even 8s on a pylons is 670 feet at 100 mph. If your plane can’t do 100 mph, find another plane or a secluded area to do the maneuver. There aren’t many planes out there being used for commercial training that can’t do 100 mph, so it’s a pretty small issue.
 
Ground reference maneuvers are to be done at 600-1000 agl. We also teach for them to be done away from people/homes that could become a nuisance. We also teach to have a safe emergency landing spot nearby.

That said, he does have some good ideas. I agree the court system has no aviation expertise. I wonder who pushed for it to go to court vs. handling internally.
 
Salty said:
I’d argue that there’s no good reason to do ground reference maneuvers below 500 agl. Even 8s on a pylons is 670 feet at 100 mph. If your plane can’t do 100 mph, find another plane or a secluded area to do the maneuver. There aren’t many planes out there being used for commercial training that can’t do 100 mph, so it’s a pretty small issue.
Click to expand...

@RussR brought up that exact scenario and it’s a big enough issue for him. Remember that maneuver is based on ground speed, not airspeed. Add some wind and a 100mph aircraft and you can be down around 85mph groundspeed real quick, driving the pivotal altitude below 500’.

https://www.pilotsofamerica.com/com...-pylons-in-slower-aircraft-even-legal.136890/
 
TCABM said:
@RussR brought up that exact scenario and it’s a big enough issue for him. Remember that maneuver is based on ground speed, not airspeed. Add some wind and a 100mph aircraft and you can be down around 85mph groundspeed real quick, driving the pivotal altitude below 500’.

https://www.pilotsofamerica.com/com...-pylons-in-slower-aircraft-even-legal.136890/
Click to expand...
I still think it's a pretty narrow "problem", and a bad idea to do maneuvers like that < 500 feet from people or property.
 
bluesideup said:
Hi everyone.

Interesting thread and lots of opinions. They are like holes, everyone has one.

I've read most of the posts and I, typically, try to not get involved unless it's something that may have a direct impact on Aviation in general and or affects a lot of people, including myself.

I do not care much for all the UTubers I think they are mainly there to get a celebrity status, be famous, and I guess some can also make money, and in some cases, very few, can be useful to others. That, (money) in my opinion, can also be an issue, but that is another topic for another thread.

I do not subscribe to that, I have hundreds of hours of recording, going back to mid 70s, but I use them for training and view it with my family and friends.

About this particular individual / case, I think both parties could have done things differently and resolve the issue without all these complications.

The reason I think that the FAA made a mistake, and could have done things differently, is because by using the Suspension approach it will not benefit the Pilot and or the FAA. What we need is to teach judgment and a 709 would have been more appropriate. By going to legal and trying to make an “example” of this guy does not help anyone.

We have people involved, Judge, Legal eagles.. that have NO understanding what Aviation is all about and they will render judgment based their life experience and knowledge, and could care less about Aviation. In a way they are a lot like the UTubers, make some money and in some cases become celebrities.

The UTuber should have also used better judgment, did better / different planning before he decided to take that flight.

Why is this case of concern to me? If it stands and sets up a precedent most of the areas where practice areas exist, and you do Ground reference maneuvers in a slow acft., could practically be illegal, it's next to impossible to find locations in many busy areas where you are further away than 500 ft. from some structure / person. I am curious who the FAA person is and how much practical experience and knowledge (s)he has?

My opinion, give the guy a chance to a 709, teach him some better judgment and be done, stop messing things up.

Otherwise we need to do everything possible to support him and make sure that he wins. Call your politicians and explain the ramifications.

I am just wondering if a case could be made that in other similar occasions, I am sure there were many, other approaches were used and in this case they are after him for other reasons?
Click to expand...
The ground reference maneuver issue you bring up has always been a violation of the regulations.

It also has nothing to do with this case.

@Salty it’s not only a bad idea it’s not in compliance with regulation.
 
texasclouds said:
Ground reference maneuvers are to be done at 600-1000 agl.
Click to expand...

Correction, MOST ground reference maneuvers are to be done at 600-1000 AGL, but this is spelled out individually for each maneuver. For 8's on pylons the altitude varies throughout the maneuver and depending on groundspeed can easily get below 500 feet.
 
bluesideup said:
is because by using the Suspension approach it will not benefit the Pilot and or the FAA.
Click to expand...
bluesideup said:
My opinion, give the guy a chance to a 709, teach him some better judgment and be done, stop messing things up.
Click to expand...
FYI: What we don't know is the FAA may have offered a 709 to begin with and he refused. What's missing in his narrative are the interactions that led up to the NTSB ALJ and suspension appeal. Except for emergency certificate actions, there can be 2, 3, or 4 informal FAA interactions after a violation is reported. There is even an informal process directly with an FAA attorney from the Chief Counsel's office prior to appealing to the NTSB. He speaks of none of these. Given a majority of GA certificate enforcement actions end in one of these informal discussions vs appeal to the NTSB, none if his narrative makes any sense based on how the enforcement process actually works.
 
He hasn't been punished yet.
 
Tarheelpilot said:
The ground reference maneuver issue you bring up has always been a violation of the regulations.

It also has nothing to do with this case.

@Salty it’s not only a bad idea it’s not in compliance with regulation.
Click to expand...
It only violates regulations if you do it in a manner that violates regulations. Like inspection passes, there are ways to do it legally and ways to do it not legally.
 
WDD said:
or maybe said “should” work
Click to expand...
Not at all. I've personally seen the process work a number of times both directly and indirectly. No drama, no issues, no youtube video. But if people are gullible enough to pass judgement based on limited knowledge so be it. I think that is exactly what TP is banking on.;)
 
Bell206 said:
Not at all. I've personally seen the process work a number of times both directly and indirectly. No drama, no issues, no youtube video. But if people are gullible enough to pass judgement based on limited knowledge so be it. I think that is exactly what TP is banking on.;)
Click to expand...

I disagree with you. Although I don’t know your background, didn’t read up on all the nuances, and frankly didn’t read your post in its entirety. Now - to re read my post here a few times and congratulate myself on how smart I am. Carry on….. :)
 
Lindberg said:
It only violates regulations if you do it in a manner that violates regulations. Like inspection passes, there are ways to do it legally and ways to do it not legally.
Click to expand...
How can you fly within 500’ of a person while doing ground reference without violating regulations?

I don’t think that’s possible. You have to remain no less than 500 feet away.
 
Last edited:
Tarheelpilot said:
How can you fly within 500’ of a person while doing ground reference without violating regulations?

I don’t think that’s possible. You have to remain no less than 500 feet away.
Click to expand...
Right. It's the being within 500' of a person that violates the regulation, not flying the maneuver. But there is nothing inherent in the maneuver that requires you to be within 500' of a person, so just stay 500' away from people.
 
Lindberg said:
From me beginning my post with "right," you expected disagreement. OK.
Click to expand...

You never once used the word “right” in your post. see below.

Lindberg said:
It only violates regulations if you do it in a manner that violates regulations. Like inspection passes, there are ways to do it legally and ways to do it not legally.
Click to expand...


In response to this I asked how you could ever fly within 500 ft of a person doing ground reference maneuvers because you drew a direct parallel between inspection passes and ground reference maneuvers.

When I asked for clarification you came back with the “right” post and agreed with me. I’m not expecting anything. I’m just reading what you post.
 
What if during the inspection pass a bear who previously was over 500 feet away ran 50 feet to the left and entered the zone of suspension?


What if the bear was levitating 50 feet off the ground, and you flew 525 feet off the ground?
 
WDD said:
What if during the inspection pass a bear who previously was over 500 feet away ran 50 feet to the left and entered the zone of suspension?


What if the bear was levitating 50 feet off the ground, and you flew 525 feet off the ground?
Click to expand...
A bear is not a person. F the bear
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top