Trent Palmer (YouTuber Bush Pilot Channel) Suspended By FAA

SixPapaCharlie said:
I come from the generation that buys a new cap and the first thing we do is squeeze it to create a distinct curve.
I also wear New Balance and cargo shorts though.

ugh... How did this happen? I was just a young dude and then BAM!
Click to expand...

Be your own trendsetter; flat bill it with new balances and cargo shorts.
 
FAR 91.13 is a broad "cover all" that's open to subjective interpretation - which is always concerning to those who could be accused. If we leave that distinction up to a "jury of our 'peers'" that's a slippery slope of moral relativism.

I will say, I appreciate good flying content on YouTube, but I was personally not a fan of Trent's content, several years ago he posted a video doing donuts in his tail dragger in the snow. Regardless of any "but no one was hurt" or "he's on his own land" or whatever someone may say, that to me was dancing on the edge of a 91.13, or at the minimum an inappropriate use of a plane. The FAR, AIM, ACS, and PTS standards are very clear around ground (and other) ops of planes

As pilots we should hold ourselves to a standard, that not only meets what the ACS / PTS require, but exceeds it

Be careful what you post in the public world, especially near the prying eyes of a regulatory body. There are successful aviation content YouTube channels that don't rely on hat brim antics
 
hindsight2020 said:
Nope, not at all. I find his social media shtick banal and predictable, and him corny. I'm accusing the counterparties of exercising moral inconsistency, and the judicial process corrupt and weaponized. My issue is with the process, and yes I'm also taking a potshot at the NIMBY. I don't GAF about Palmer.
Click to expand...
Did you read the NTSB decision?
 
I've filled a complaint with the FAA about a pilot doing a low pass 30' over me, and I'd do it again under the same circumstances. Does that make me a NIMBY?
 
Lindberg said:
I've filled a complaint with the FAA about a pilot doing a low pass 30' over me, and I'd do it again under the same circumstances. Does that make me a NIMBY?
Click to expand...
Where were you at the time? Front yard doesn’t count for NIMBY status.
 
I started watching Trent Palmer's channel probably about six years ago because it was about flying and he was already a very talented videographer but aviation-wise he was a real noob and I remembered wondering if he was gonna kill himself. It didn't help when he had that prop strike and pretty much just blew it off because well, this is the EXPERIMENTAL world. Then a while later he had that forced landing when the #2 rod snapped off. Still he was adamant that it had nothing to do with the prop strike. But he gradually gained experience and his youtube channel became very successful. Enough so that he soon had a new wing and $45,000 Rotax 915iS engine. I met him a couple of years ago at High Sierra Fly-in and he's a nice guy.

Then all of this came out, sigh... I wish he had just taken the wrist slap and moved on, this would all be far behind him now. Maybe he just got bad advice from an attorney, I don't know but as it stands now he just comes across as a whiney, entitled Karen looking for sympathy from his half million subscribers as if it's all just a popularity contest. The worst of it is when he posts videos claiming the FAA, NTSB and complainants are all inept and corrupt as if everyone is just out to get him because of his success. I guess he needs to grow up and mature a bit. Hey, we all make dumb mistakes once in awhile, they can be forgiven but he's digging a pit right now.

My advice: Watch "The Great Waldo Pepper" and learn how it all began and why there are rules that you have to abide by and that certain behaviors by a few well, they are just gonna end up creating more rules for everyone. :(
 
Last edited:
I am not sure if TP was being naughty or not, but to me, this is another missed opportunity by the FAA to review/clarify/modify its rules and published guidelines, and to take the opportunity to educate pilots further for increased safety, in a timely, positive way. Instead, the FAA drags it out forever and makes it acrimonious. Pretty disgraceful. Cheers.
 
Last edited:
I'm not a fan of the concept of ALJs in general. I'm often quick to point out that the FAA is, at times, ponderous and goofy. But Palmer isn't making either of those viewpoints easier. It's one thing to push limits, but this just seems being a bit of a jerk.
 
midlifeflyer said:
I'm curious: how many think it's ok to pass within 500' of someone's house in order to land in their neighbor's back yard?
Click to expand...
At face value, I would not do it*

Considerations at the minimum though are:
-is this an area where bush flying or low flying planes are common?

-do I know the neighbor?
 
midlifeflyer said:
I'm curious: how many think it's ok to pass within 500' of someone's house in order to land in their neighbor's back yard?
Click to expand...
If I had a youtube channel...all day long. Maybe even add some fire extinguishers strapped to my legs. :eek:

A poor mans Red Bull....
 
midlifeflyer said:
I'm curious: how many think it's ok to pass within 500' of someone's house in order to land in their neighbor's back yard?
Click to expand...

Not I, and I have actually landed in my yard as well as others. All one has to do is look at an aerial photo to determine that this guy's property was likely not a good place to land.

My personal suspicion continues to be that Trent got caught and a somewhat plausible story got fabricated in an effort to get himself out of hot water. I'm sure we'll never hear the real story but it would be interesting to hear if it ever came out.
 
midlifeflyer said:
I'm curious: how many think it's ok to pass within 500' of someone's house in order to land in their neighbor's back yard?
Click to expand...

91.119

Did it all the time with seaplane ops. Not at a designated seaplane base. All navigable waters in Michigan except 2 are legal to take off and land on. So we did, and we didn't have 500' when we approached or took off. And nothing illegal about landing on private property with permission in the state either. Guy a few miles over has a non registered landing area in his yard. Been there too.

I've done both and would/will do again.
 
EdFred said:
...I've done both and would/will do again.
Click to expand...

Not the same thing. It's all fine and dandy and legal but if a complaint is filed then it needs to be addressed with some sort of resolution or compromise. I know that in Florida when enough complaints are filed and not addressed you end up with a Municipal ordinance or something of that nature and suddenly the lake is off limits. Because at most lakes surrounded by residences the seaplane pilots are always going to be outnumbered.
 
Silvaire said:
Not the same thing. It's all fine and dandy and legal but if a complaint is filed then it needs to be addressed with some sort of resolution or compromise. I know that in Florida when enough complaints are filed and not addressed you end up with a Municipal ordinance or something of that nature and suddenly the lake is off limits. Because at most lakes surrounded by residences the seaplane pilots are always going to be outnumbered.
Click to expand...

This isn't Florida. I didn't do it in Florida. Maybe we should talk about flight rules in Zimbabwe while we are at it.
 
FrankPilot said:
...Instead, the FAA drags it out forever and makes it acrimonious. Pretty disgraceful. Cheers.
Click to expand...

Let's be fair, it was the height of the whole Covid thing (remember that?) and this is really a petty infraction case, not exactly national news. Nobody got hurt, nothing got damaged. It was actually the Palmer attorney that drug it out on technicalities such as the video evidence not being the native file and such or implying bias from the witnesses and outright claiming incompetence and sloppiness. It's all in the final report. Frankly, the manner in which thye worded the appeals was rather hostile and I'm sure it didn't help his case in the least. It's no wonder they revoked the 60 day suspension and reinstated the 120 day one.
 
EdFred said:
This isn't Florida. I didn't do it in Florida. Maybe we should talk about flight rules in Zimbabwe while we are at it.
Click to expand...

You're not getting the point, the rules in Florida are the same as Michigan.
 
I know I am new here, but does anyone really believe he was doing an inspection pass? Really? It’s like the teenager caught climbing down a ladder from their window at 2 AM who claims they are practicing a fire escape.

There is a person like this near me. Every pattern entry is flown like a wannabe carrier break. Overfly at top speed, snapped into steeply descending 270 degree left turn on a knife edge. When it goes wrong, if they survive it, you can bet the story will be that they were practicing a simulated power off 180 and the big, bad FAA is abusing their power.

‘Here’s a plausible excuse. Now prove I’m lying’

Look at the pattern of behavior. Doughnuts in snow, ‘waterskiing’ on the lake, prop strike, dangerous low pass/buzzing his friend. You want this guy in the pattern with you? How about in the pattern with your kid on their first solo? No, thanks.
 
Learnin’ to fly… said:
I know I am new here, but does anyone really believe he was doing an inspection pass? Really?
Click to expand...

That's not the question. The question is what the FAA violated him on. They didn't violate him for buzzing his buddies house or other reckless flying. They violated him for things that are 100% the bread and butter of off airport operations. And *that's* why we should be concerned. If they want to violate him for buzzing, go ahead. I might even be on their side. You want to violate him for being 100 ft from a house when inspecting a strip? Nope, he's right to fight that. And that fight benefits us all. We have all flown less than 500ft from people and structures while taking off and landing, and *that* is what they violated him for. It will be a horrible precedent if it stands.

Like I said, if the FAA had said, "yeah, no, that wasn't an inspection pass, you're fooling no one" then the case would be different. But they didn't and it's important that we support Trent because what the FAA alleges should matter to all of us.
 
172andyou said:
...You want to violate him for being 100 ft from a house when inspecting a strip? Nope, he's right to fight that. And that fight benefits us all. We have all flown less than 500ft from people and structures while taking off and landing, and *that* is what they violated him for. It will be a horrible precedent if it stands...
Click to expand...

You should probably reread the report, specifically page 41-43. I know that Trent's attorney has made some pretty nonsensical and hysterical hypothetical claims as to a perceived "bad precedent" let's just keep our heads here, there is no FAA boogeyman out to get you.
 
Last edited:
172andyou said:
Like I said, if the FAA had said, "yeah, no, that wasn't an inspection pass, you're fooling no one" then the case would be different. But they didn't and it's important that we support Trent because what the FAA alleges should matter to all of us.
Click to expand...

In my view, this is exactly what they are saying. They are not inventing some ‘other’ violation, they are specifically saying that they do not believe his intentions were what he claimed them to be. Therefore, if that be the case, his actions were not consistent with off airport ops and are rightly a violation.

Can they know for certain? Of course not. But when one looks at the pattern of behavior, would a reasonable person conclude based on all available evidence that his story was concocted after the fact as a plausible excuse? Hence my question. Does anyone really believe this was an inspection pass?

The FAA doesn’t always do itself any favors (especially with med topics), and I am as skeptical of any govt agency as the next guy, but the only precedent I see here is a willingness to call ******** on a narcissist and not give into social media hysterics.
 
midlifeflyer said:
I'm curious: how many think it's ok to pass within 500' of someone's house in order to land in their neighbor's back yard?
Click to expand...

I personally do not think it is OK, but to me it begs the questions:
Are the rules clear enough? (probably not)
Why does not the FAA be more useful/proactive and review their rules and guidelines, and then educate? (fat chance probably).
BTW, great discussion everyone. Cheers.
 
FrankPilot said:
...Are the rules clear enough? (probably not)
Why does not the FAA be more useful/proactive and review their rules and guidelines, and then educate? (fat chance probably).
BTW, great discussion everyone. Cheers.
Click to expand...

There isn't some omnipotent being who deems so shall it be, there is a process, a complex process. Every rule goes through it and via the NPRM everyone has a chance to input they're opinion. In the end you have a published statement (the rule) that, no matter what, is still subject to differing interpretations as to what it actually means. Doesn't matter how "clear" you try to make it somebody is gonna see it different.

That is the reason I am even in this discussion because I don't like hearing people demonizing the FAA. In regards to private aviation there is nothing even close to the freedoms we have here anywhere else in the world and the bottom line is that you can't replace that with anarchy, There has to be order and rules. Sure it can be better, it isn't perfect but the way to make it better is with constructive involvement and that includes consideration of the concerns of people who are not necessarily interested in aviation. We've all got to get along together.
 
The complexity of things is a classic excuse. Where there is a will there is way to make rules quite clear, and where it turns out that they may not be clear enough, then fix them quickly and cooperatively.
 
It's not an "excuse" Frank, it's just reality. There isn't an end where it's all perfect, it's a continuing process.
 
FrankPilot said:
I personally do not think it is OK, but to me it begs the questions:
Are the rules clear enough? (probably not)
Click to expand...
I guess it depends on what you mean by "clear enough." I think most of us don't realize how many of the rules we live under have been and are still being interpreted by courts and quasi-judicial bodies. Just think about how many rules are based on the fictitious "reasonable man", the meaning of which has changed over the centuries it has been used. It's definitely part of the Anglo-American concept of law, but given the multiple and often conflicting interpretations of religious texts containing rules written thousands of years ago, I suspect it's far more universal.

I don't have a big issue with this decision applying the 40+ year old principle that the choice of where to land is subject to a standard of location appropriateness. I don't expect every single nuance people can come up with to be written into regulation. I think this joins other lousy decisions because of the way the NTSB tends to forego good legal analysis and writing in an effort to justify the result they want to see. In this one, they go all over the place by discussing every conceivable rule that might apply, whether it needs to or not.
 
So I have a question or two ...

If Trent was found to not be making an inspection pass or that the alleged inspection pass he claims was not in fact that ... what is the reg being violated?

Could this be a case of the FAA using an existing reg that is "close enough" to what ever bad behavior they are trying to discourage and/or punish?

I strongly suspect there is a lot more to this story we aren't hearing. I also strongly suspect this is a case of ... oopsie I got caught being a d-bag better think of something plausible to excuse my bad behavior. I'm just curious to see if this is the right way to address this one, just because like others have said it potentially creates a conflict for off airport operations.
 
Silvaire said:
It's not an "excuse" Frank, it's just reality. There isn't an end where it's all perfect, it's a continuing process.
Click to expand...

I basically agree with you. After years working for CASA (our Aussie equivalent to your FAA) which included considerable consultation with the FAA (I am now retired) I saw far too many cases of obviously poor rules and regs, and then after that was realised/admitted, much too long a time to rectify, all the while clarity and safety were compromised. With the right people with the right attitude, getting it right first time is not too complex and this then obviates the need for continuous improvement. But as you say, its just reality. Good discussion here, don’t you think. Cheers.

PS. I should quit here because I’m not American!
 
R.L.Mauzy said:
If Trent was found to not be making an inspection pass or that the alleged inspection pass he claims was not in fact that ... what is the reg being violated?
Click to expand...
I not sure I understand your question. Why wouldn't this apply?

"the aircraft may not be operated closer than 500 feet to any person, vessel, vehicle, or structure."
 
I'm inclined to believe Trent, given that he and his friends regularly land their airplanes in lots of tiny little spots, that's what they're built for, after all. Whether this particular spot was appropriate is another question, and after a low pass he apparently decided it wasn't. From the aerial views, it didn't look like a particularly dangerous place to land an airplane as capable as his. Full disclosure, I've landed on R/C strips myself, and nobody complained.

Or maybe he really was just buzzing his friend's house and used an "inspection pass" as an excuse. Only he will ever know. Clearly it wouldn't have escalated to this level if the neighbor wasn't already annoyed by the R/C flying going on there.

R.L.Mauzy said:
If Trent was found to not be making an inspection pass or that the alleged inspection pass he claims was not in fact that ... what is the reg being violated?
Click to expand...

91.119(a) and (c). The real issue here is wether it was an inspection pass "for the purpose of landing). If yes, then 91.119 does not apply. But the FAA is clearly afraid of setting a precedent here; if an "inspection pass for the purpose of landing" doesn't require an actual landing, then anybody can buzz his buddy's house and claim it was an inspection pass.

Note that "congested area" (as used in 91.119(b) has never been clearly defined, either.

Unfortunately as recreational bush flying (and youtube videos of it) become more popular, we're going to see more of this.

I suspect that the "throw the book at him" contingent is composed of pilots why typically fly their modern nosewheel planes to class D airports with 4000' paved runways, and his supporters are the guys flying Cubs and experimentals with tailwheels from little grass strips where a low pass to say hi is commonplace.
 
FrankPilot said:
The complexity of things is a classic excuse. Where there is a will there is way to make rules quite clear, and where it turns out that they may not be clear enough, then fix them quickly and cooperatively.
Click to expand...

I think you oversimplified the problem.

I have lots of experience trying to define clear rules for how to develop safety critical software and good software in general. And while you can get guidelines and rule of thumb it is very very hard, I’d say impossible to be absolutely clear. I could be very specific but then either a new unforeseen thing pops up, or I had tied the knot too tight and now people can only do the one thing I had specified.

Very specific rules may sound good on paper but in reality they suck. It’s a better thing to have good enough rules and then ask people to exercise a reasonable adherence.
 
FrankPilot said:
I basically agree with you. After years working for CASA (our Aussie equivalent to your FAA) which included considerable consultation with the FAA (I am now retired) I saw far too many cases of obviously poor rules and regs, and then after that was realised/admitted, much too long a time to rectify, all the while clarity and safety were compromised. With the right people with the right attitude, getting it right first time is not too complex and this then obviates the need for continuous improvement. But as you say, its just reality. Good discussion here, don’t you think. Cheers.

PS. I should quit here because I’m not American!
Click to expand...
Wait- POA doesn't stand for "Pilots of Australia"? Either way, mate, we're an inclusive bunch!
 
Learnin’ to fly… said:
In my view, this is exactly what they are saying. They are not inventing some ‘other’ violation, they are specifically saying that they do not believe his intentions were what he claimed them to be. Therefore, if that be the case, his actions were not consistent with off airport ops and are rightly a violation.

Can they know for certain? Of course not. But when one looks at the pattern of behavior, would a reasonable person conclude based on all available evidence that his story was concocted after the fact as a plausible excuse? Hence my question. Does anyone really believe this was an inspection pass?

The FAA doesn’t always do itself any favors (especially with med topics), and I am as skeptical of any govt agency as the next guy, but the only precedent I see here is a willingness to call ******** on a narcissist and not give into social media hysterics.
Click to expand...

That's really all I'm asking for. I want the FAA to make it crystal clear that they are saying "nope, not an inspection pass Trent, nice try - those are not only legal but encouraged". And if they do believe that it was an inspection pass, then they shouldn't violate him.

 
Dana said:
Or maybe he really was just buzzing his friend's house and used an "inspection pass" as an excuse.
Click to expand...


This touches on something I wondered about and didn't see in the transcript. This was a friend's house. Had Trent visited his friend's home previously? If so, the things that made him unwilling to land could have been observed from the ground. If he had visited his friend, he should have known already that this wasn't a good landing site and no pass would have been necessary.

I'm surprised he wasn't asked that (or did I miss it?).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top