Trent Palmer (YouTuber Bush Pilot Channel) Suspended By FAA

PaulS said:
I look at that video and I see someone being an ahole, buzzing someone's house. Whoever videoed it knew he was coming which means he did it at least one other time. But I think about what it would take for me to video something like that and that level would be 2 or 3 previous passes.

Take your medicine Trent, you earned it.
Click to expand...
So, he was gonna possibly land at a little strip near that house, so he cannot do what he did to check it out? I would have done pretty much exactly that. I've flown very close to buildings on takeoff and landing, as one does. I see nothing amazing or scary about his low pass.
 
LesGawlik said:
Assuming without agreeing that we have been able to hold the police accountable, there are internal review boards, prosecutors and civilian review boards to hold the police responsible for their conduct.

What happens to FAA employees who commit abuses of discretion?

There are a few good employees at every level, but in my experience with government at all levels, the vast majority don't give a flip about anything other than their paycheck.
Click to expand...

Sadly I agree, and as society has shown the minority gets the shaft, and the amount of airmen vs the population is a minority for sure.

Sure would be nice if a few folks were terminated and prosecuted at the FAA, got a record and lost the pension, I would bet if it just happened to one person in each branch, medical, ops, etc it would make a major improvement
 
Jackk said:
Cancel culture works for the bad guys, why not try to make it work here? Mid terms are coming up too, if the politicians feel it might win them some points they’d throw their own mother to the flames, let alone some strangers to them at the FAA
Click to expand...
To the extent that cancel culture works, it works for both the "good guys" and the "bad guys." And both practice it.
 
yup. exactly the same.

:rolleyes:
 
Kenny Phillips said:
So, he was gonna possibly land at a little strip near that house, so he cannot do what he did to check it out? I would have done pretty much exactly that. I've flown very close to buildings on takeoff and landing, as one does. I see nothing amazing or scary about his low pass.
Click to expand...


Ok so here is my question. lets say you do that, and you have violated the 500 foot rule. but no metal was bent, so you file a NASA ARS report.
can the FAA still enforce?
 
Chicago Bearhawk said:
Ok so here is my question. lets say you do that, and you have violated the 500 foot rule. but no metal was bent, so you file a NASA ARS report.
can the FAA still enforce?
Click to expand...
The FAA does not use ASRS reports as a source for initiating investigations. The reports themselves are anonymized.

That said, if someone reported you, the ASRS report does not prevent an investigation. If the act was intentional, it doesn't preclude certificate action either.

The ASRS is an aviation safety system, not a "get out of jail free" card. Limiting certificate action is offered as an incentive, but that's not the purpose of the the reports.
 
The NASA report does not immunize you if they want to get you. There has been at least one instance of an incident which I believe was not shown to be intentional, and the FAA initiated a certificate action. Airman defended, and showed that a NASA form was filed. FAA said we don't care. ALJ agreed. From best recollection.
 
LesGawlik said:
The NASA report does not immunize you if they want to get you. There has been at least one instance of an incident which I believe was not shown to be intentional, and the FAA initiated a certificate action. Airman defended, and showed that a NASA form was filed. FAA said we don't care. ALJ agreed. From best recollection.
Click to expand...

I’m shocked to learn this …

OK, not really … :dunno:
 
LesGawlik said:
The NASA report does not immunize you if they want to get you. There has been at least one instance of an incident which I believe was not shown to be intentional, and the FAA initiated a certificate action. Airman defended, and showed that a NASA form was filed. FAA said we don't care. ALJ agreed. From best recollection.
Click to expand...
Can you share details? Did this take place after the introduction of the FAA Compliance Program?
 
I don't remember the details. I just remember reading the synopsis and thinking that the NASA form should keep him from being punished. They really didn't like the guy, so the form was meaningless.
 
Lindberg said:
You're shocked to learn that someone on the internet has a vague recollection of something maybe or maybe not happening but can't provide enough facts for anyone to nail down what actually happened?
Click to expand...

Oh I get shocked a lot ... that's why I have Don King hair! :D

proxy-image
 
I'm sure folks have followed the case, the NTSB admin judge denied the appeal, and doubled down by increasing the suspension back to 120 days, from the 60 days that had been stipulated prior to the appeal. (see first 1.5 minutes of the embedded YT)


Lawyer's reaction and discussion points, which I found insightful and opens multiple cans going forward for everybody.

As to admin law, nothing new. Not surprised by any of it. I'm not even a follower of the YT flat-brim STOL bros, but the legal machinations of admin law really don't give me a warm fuzzy. This stuff got kangaroo real quick. At any rate, everybody check six out there.
 
hindsight2020 said:
…As to admin law, nothing new. Not surprised by any of it. I'm not even a follower of the YT flat-brim STOL bros, but the legal machinations of admin law really don't give me a warm fuzzy. This stuff got kangaroo real quick. At any rate, everybody check six out there.
Click to expand...

Jarkesy v. Securities and Exchange Commission, a 5th Circuit case dealing with ALJ powers is winding it’s way to SCOTUS and may have some impact on administrative law if it actually makes the docket.

https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/securities-and-exchange-commission-v-jarkesy/
 
The upheld position is the other side. Actually, the NTSB went further than the FAA had already wanted. Responding to the FAA's own appeal by increasing the suspension back up to 120 days, from the 60 days the previous decision had stipulated. See here for the back and forth.

I'm sympathetic to the position brought about by the lawyer in the previous video, in that the first kangaroo judge may have in fact gone from arbiter to advocate in bringing up the question of appropriateness of the landing site, even when the FAA had dropped that consideration from their complaint against Palmer. They (FAA) recognized it shined a light on their admin law chinese buffet style of "it is whatever we feel like that day" regulatory interpretations, so they were smart in keeping that away and just focus on a plain jane offering of 91.119 absent the appropriateness-of-landing-site question, which Palmer had them dead to rights on the publishing of their own guide. And up to that point it was all good and yet.... kangaroo judge pursued it anyways. According to the lawyer, effectively cross-examined and shattered the veneer of due process. Ruh Roh. If I was the US court of Appeals (big boy court), I'd be all over that claim. yummy yummy in my tummy.


To the sycophants of the authoritarian bend proffered by this kangaroo process, I highlight the slippery slope in considering oneself immune from the axe just because one seeks to befriend the executioner. The world needs Roy Horns I guess. Contrary to popular belief, the Palmer's of the world are not the only ones who "eff around and find out". We got enough HIMS false positive stories to fill several thread. I digress. Don't turn your back to the tiger, just because you fancy yourself on his team. Getting mauled for "talking back" and being mauled for being naive, is a distinction without difference to me. People who plead die too.
 
Kritchlow said:
Compelling, but I’d love to hear the FAA’s side.

I should say “the other side”.
Click to expand...
Not too likely. Trying to rally the aviation public to its side, especially by forecasting a chamber of horrors, is a pilot thing. The FAA stays pretty mum.
 
Brad Z said:
Can you share details? Did this take place after the introduction of the FAA Compliance Program?
Click to expand...
There are a number of exceptions to the defensive use of the NASA form, which only protects against the penalty, not the violation. The common exceptions are:

The violation was "not inadvertent and not deliberate" and not a criminal offense.
The violation involved an accident.
The pilot had a violation (that's violation, not deviation) within the previous 5 years.

I'm not aware of any case where the FAA and NTSB has said the protection did not apply unless one of the exceptions applied. Doesn't mean there isn't one, but I'd be surprised to see it.

The Compliance Program is separate. A case handled under the Compliance Program never really reaches the NASA report issue.
 
midlifeflyer said:
There are a number of exceptions to the defensive use of the NASA form, which only protects against the penalty, not the violation. The common exceptions are:

The violation was "not inadvertent and not deliberate" and not a criminal offense.
The violation involved an accident.
The pilot had a violation (that's violation, not deviation) within the previous 5 years.

I'm not aware of any case where the FAA and NTSB has said the protection did not apply unless one of the exceptions applied. Doesn't mean there isn't one, but I'd be surprised to see it.

The Compliance Program is separate. A case handled under the Compliance Program never really reaches the NASA report issue.
Click to expand...
Thank you for replying to my eight month old comment (I had to go back and look it up…I can’t remember what I posted last week). I am aware that the compliance program precedes any potential enforcement action (where filing a ASRS report makes a difference in whether a certificate action takes place). My point was that the introduction to the compliance program marked an organizational change in philosophy regarding how the FAA approached regulatory compliance in general. Regardless, the alleged story in the post I was replying to seemed rather anecdotal and lacking any useful detail to be representative of how the FAA handles evidence of filed ASRS reports in active investigations.
 
Geez, after reading the the NTSB opinion on this, I got to say...anyone that believes this knife edge pass (also flown 90 degrees to the runway direction, btw, which no one has yet pointed out) was an inspection pass...well...I got a bridge to sell you that Martha Lunken can fly under with her ADS-B conveniently/temporarily broken as she does it.


Doesn't sound like the judge in this case would be interested in buying my bridge.
 
Country Flier said:
Geez, after reading the the NTSB opinion on this, I got to say...anyone that believes this knife edge pass (also flown 90 degrees to the runway direction, btw, which no one has yet pointed out) was an inspection pass...well...I got a bridge to sell you that Martha Lunken can fly under with her ADS-B conveniently/temporarily broken as she does it.


Doesn't sound like the judge in this case would be interested in buying my bridge.
Click to expand...
This is exactly why I need to hear the other side of this.
I did not see that info.
 
Lots of talk in the doc about being traumatized. Multiple notes like this:

On redirect, Mr. Pena explained that his family was 20 traumatized by the aircraft flying so low and close to them.
They 21 were visibly shaken and afraid that the airplane was going to 22 crash into their house or the neighbors.
He stated his daughter, 23 who was 3 or 4 years old at the time, still asks about an airplane 24 crashing when she hears one nearby.


This sounds like laying a foundation for a financial reward. I don't know how anything law works. Can they go after him financially for emotional damage?
 
SixPapaCharlie said:
Lots of talk in the doc about being traumatized. Multiple notes like this:

On redirect, Mr. Pena explained that his family was 20 traumatized by the aircraft flying so low and close to them.
They 21 were visibly shaken and afraid that the airplane was going to 22 crash into their house or the neighbors.
He stated his daughter, 23 who was 3 or 4 years old at the time, still asks about an airplane 24 crashing when she hears one nearby.


This sounds like laying a foundation for a financial reward. I don't know how anything law works. Can they go after him financially for emotional damage?
Click to expand...

The one year old being able to associate an airplane noise with fear of one crashing into the house several years after the event is difficult for me to believe.
 
TCABM said:
The one year old being able to associate an airplane noise with fear of one crashing into the house several years after the event is difficult for me to believe.
Click to expand...
The one year old that was 3 or 4 at the time, or a different one? :p
 
I guess you don't have two kids.
 
Salty said:
I guess you don't have two kids.
Click to expand...

You guess wrong. I have two adult children; one a junior Army officer, the other a school teacher. They’re 15-months apart.

About the earliest memory our youngest has is of an earthquake she experienced she just turned three. It was a 6.3 in Adana, Turkey, 1998. You know what she remembers about it? Her brother asking my wife if the ground was because of dinosaurs while running to the back door to see if there were, in fact, dinosaurs. My son, at four, associated the noise and ground shaking with Jurassic Park, which was one of his favorite movies at the time; my daughter only remembers the earthquake because she was told stories her about her brother’s memory of the earthquake.
 
TCABM said:
You guess wrong. I have two adult children; one a junior Army officer, the other a school teacher. They’re 15-months apart.

About the earliest memory our youngest has is of an earthquake she experienced she just turned three. It was a 6.3 in Adana, Turkey, 1998. You know what she remembers about it? Her brother asking my wife if the ground was because of dinosaurs while running to the back door to see if there were, in fact, dinosaurs. My son, at four, associated the noise and ground shaking with Jurassic Park, which was one of his favorite movies at the time; my daughter only remembers the earthquake because she was told stories her about her brother’s memory of the earthquake.
Click to expand...
And they never once had an opinion that shadowed the other? One of them never wanted the same thing as the other just because the other one had it?

If you've been told the same story over and over since you were one, you'd "remember" the story. You'd probably even think it was your memory.
 
Salty said:
And they never once had an opinion that shadowed the other? One of them never wanted the same thing as the other just because the other one had it?
Click to expand...

You fail to understand the point. Neither one associated earthquake with danger until they were later told by an adult an earthquake could be dangerous. This, despite the house shaking.

I have serious doubts that a normal child who, at 3.5 years of age, can recall an event from 2.5 years previous and classify that event as traumatizing. In fact, it’s the eyewitness who states it’s his opinion of the impact on the children.
 
That claim of trauma is histrionics, and we all know the NIMBY crowd is renowned for such hyperbole. But sure, let's applaud and foster that personal corruption because the flat billed bro has the proverbial "punchable face" social media bend, as do most influencer narcissists. I'm slipping and sliding all over this Chinese buffet of morality. Lol
 
hindsight2020 said:
That claim of trauma is histrionics, and we all know the NIMBY crowd is renowned for such hyperbole. But sure, let's applaud and foster that personal corruption because the flat billed bro has the proverbial "punchable face" social media bend, as do most influencer narcissists. I'm slipping and sliding all over this Chinese buffet of morality. Lol
Click to expand...
Just to be clear, you're defending the guy who made the the misleading (I'm not going to say lying) video in the OP because you think the accusations against him are based on the shape of his hat brim?
 
Lindberg said:
Just to be clear, you're defending the guy who made the the misleading (I'm not going to say lying) video in the OP because you think the accusations against him are based on the shape of his hat brim?
Click to expand...
You sure he isn’t referring to SixPapaCharlie? He did say, ““punchable face" social media bend, as do most influencer narcissists.”
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top