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.
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?
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.