Trent Palmer (YouTuber Bush Pilot Channel) Suspended By FAA

He needed the pass to determine if he could land. That is different than needed to land. Lack of preflight action was the need for his low pass.

We are getting one side of the story. I suspect the FSDO has received a number of complaints about this pilot they were unable to substantiate those and they took action when they had some evidence. Now he is on youtube crying about it.
 
Last edited:
RyanShort1 said:
True, but a pretty high percentage of normal people have some hobby currently threatened by administrative law in one way or another, such as the 2A community. There is also probably more common ground than you think, and we need to realize it and work together against the tide.
Click to expand...
2A community ???
 
Shepherd said:
If this ruling stands, it means it is now illegal to practice an emergency decent to landing then go around.
Every periodic review I fly, the instructor I fly with will pull the power, and tell me pick a field and set up a landing, then make me fly it to within 25-50 feet of the ground. This is New York State. Hard to find a place where you don't fly over houses and roads to do this maneuver.
Click to expand...

Come on up to 0NY0 and you can have all the unpopulated wilderness you want. ;)
 
Shepherd said:
If this ruling stands, it means it is now illegal to practice an emergency decent to landing then go around.
Every periodic review I fly, the instructor I fly with will pull the power, and tell me pick a field and set up a landing, then make me fly it to within 25-50 feet of the ground. This is New York State. Hard to find a place where you don't fly over houses and roads to do this maneuver.
Click to expand...
I would say it's a violation to practice engine out's within 500 feet of people vehicles or structures. If you did that 50 feet above my house I'd be calling somebody, and I live on an airpark.
 
Grum.Man said:
I highly doubt any examiner would ask or allow you to get that low on a simulated engine out to a random field especially if you get within 500' of any person, building, or vehicle. I would also guess the FAA would frown on your instructor advising you to do so.
Click to expand...

I think we operate on standards from 50 years ago out here in West Texas, because most of my training was "engine outs" to within 20 feet of the ground. Was always worried one of the crap rentals might not "recover" from the simulation so I ALWAYS picked true landable areas just in case ...
 
Clip4 said:
He needed the pass to determine if he could land. That is different than needed to land. Lack of preflight action was the need for his low pass.

We are getting one side of the story. I suspect the FSDO has received a number of complaints about this pilot they were unable to substantiate those and they took action when they had some evidence. Now he is on youtube crying about it.
Click to expand...
A low pass to check out the landing area is normal; I've done it on paved strips that I've heard weren't the best. No way to check it out otherwise, not gonna drive a hundred miles to look at it.
Unless someone has audio of him saying that he'd do a low pass with no intention of landing, this is a farce.
 
Brad Z said:
Correct, but that’s after going to a hearing. He could have accepted the 210 days and skip the hearing.
Click to expand...
This reminds me of in Band of Brothers when Sobel tries to court-martial Dick Winters over petty nonsense. He gives him the option of a court-martial or loosing his 48 hour passes for 60 days and then says just take the punishment Dick you stay on the base on weekends anyway. The FAA is trying to make an example of Trent or there is significantly more to the story we are not hearing.
 
Clip4 said:
He needed the pass to determine if he could land. That is different than needed to land. Lack of preflight action was the need for his low pass.

We are getting one side of the story. I suspect the FSDO has received a number of complaints about this pilot they were unable to substantiate those and they took action when they had some evidence. Now he is on youtube crying about it.
Click to expand...
One of many possible explanations, but highly speculative and without any evidence. Might be conclusion bias - the scenario you presented is one you want to have occurred.
 
I can’t speak to this case or FAA for that matter, but I deal with 40 CFR and environmental agencies and I can generalize that a generational shift is occurring in personnel at agencies. The older more experienced and practical folks are being replaced by younger more conceptual/philosophical people with less actual hands on experience. It has made a difference in more seemingly petty administrative issues rather than ones focused on real environmental harm.

Sure, there are 2 sides to a story. But don’t discount your ability to call BS from the sidelines on this one. Jealousy, lack of practical experience, or someone not wanting to be wrong are at the root of this. When/if judges begin to transition generations, look out...or by then the greenhorns will have figured out how to prioritize and it won’t go to a judge until/unless it’s a bad violation. Politics and checks-balances notwithstanding.

Final thought: I trust the guy with filming experience regarding video perspectives more than anyone else at the agency or bench. He’s his own expert witness.
 
Kenny Phillips said:
A low pass to check out the landing area is normal; I've done it on paved strips that I've heard weren't the best. No way to check it out otherwise, not gonna drive a hundred miles to look at it.
Unless someone has audio of him saying that he'd do a low pass with no intention of landing, this is a farce.
Click to expand...
Down at 5C1 when I flew back there a lot as an instructor, in the evening it was fairly common to have deer on the runway and sometimes you indeed would check the runway before coming back around for landing. By this standard, every time you checked for deer you'd be in violation if you "didn't intend" to land and were 200' from a hangar. Not great.
 
WDD said:
One of many possible explanations, but highly speculative and without any evidence. Might be conclusion bias - the scenario you presented is one you want to have occurred.
Click to expand...
This is a capsule summary of the entire thread so far.

Nauga,
who has concluded it's confirmation bias ;)
 
danhagan said:
I think we operate on standards from 50 years ago out here in West Texas, because most of my training was "engine outs" to within 20 feet of the ground. Was always worried one of the crap rentals might not "recover" from the simulation so I ALWAYS picked true landable areas just in case ...
Click to expand...
Certainly makes sense to pick a truly landable spot if you're going to do that. But why do it and get that close that you may have to truly land with only a 20 foot notice that you are going to have to do so. You would be able recognize long before that if you had planned the Approach correctly. It seems kinda silly to me to push it beyond that point.
 
[
RyanShort1 said:
Down at 5C1 when I flew back there a lot as an instructor, in the evening it was fairly common to have deer on the runway and sometimes you indeed would check the runway before coming back around for landing. By this standard, every time you checked for deer you'd be in violation if you "didn't intend" to land and were 200' from a hangar. Not great.
Click to expand...

A low approach into an established airport (even a private sod strip) and someone’s back 40 isn’t equivalent in my view.
 
The FAA has been cracking down on people making low passes at established airports, too. Not legitimate go-arounds from landing configuration, but the low pass out of a dive to just under Vne when your buddies are on the ground watching.
 
WDD said:
One of many possible explanations, but highly speculative and without any evidence. Might be conclusion bias - the scenario you presented is one you want to have occurred.
Click to expand...

Actually it’s an FAR requirement.


§ 91.103 Preflight action.
Each pilot in command shall, before beginning a flight, become familiar with all available information concerning that flight.

I pretty sure that applies to landing in someone’s back yard.
 
There was no available information on the guys backyard airstrip. Using this logic all bush pilots in Alaska, all people who land other than at airports are in violation. Even if there was information prior there is no expectation that such information must be all that is necessary and that seeing the landing area before landing is never needed.
 
Last edited:
In Seaplane flying, it’s called area survey. Done every time to check for logs, alligators, dead bodies or anything else in the water that might rip off the floats or puncture the hull:rolleyes: . The water is never the same from one minute to the next.

Of course if you happen to spot somebody nude sunbathing on the deck of a boat, that’s purely coincidental to preparing for a safe water landing.

Cheers
 
Clip4 said:
Actually it’s an FAR requirement.


§ 91.103 Preflight action.
Each pilot in command shall, before beginning a flight, become familiar with all available information concerning that flight.

I pretty sure that applies to landing in someone’s back yard.
Click to expand...

Key phrase being "ALL AVAILABLE". Grass strips near us in the spring are always iffy. Rain in the last hour could make it a no go. So you could have called and got a report and the situation changed in the hour it took you to fly there.
 
Dana said:
The FAA has been cracking down on people making low passes at established airports, too. Not legitimate go-arounds from landing configuration, but the low pass out of a dive to just under Vne when your buddies are on the ground watching.
Click to expand...

In the video "Right Seat with Tony Spicer" he calls them a "sheep clearing pass" ... :dunno:
 
luvflyin said:
Oh. There's lotsa criminal statute covering that. Which Agency's Administrative Law Judges cover that issue?
Click to expand...
The ATF is redefining stuff left and right lately and trying to make criminals of people that bought stuff that doesn’t affect the lethality of the weapon (like a brace vs a stock) that was legal by interpretation letter when it was purchased.
 
Palmpilot said:
There's no cost.
Click to expand...
I've tried 3 times to get access and failed. Their process of trying to guess a username that doesn't exist yet via back and forth emails that take a week to respond each time is way too much trouble for me.
 
Salty said:
I've tried 3 times to get access and failed. Their process of trying to guess a username that doesn't exist yet via back and forth emails that take a week to respond each time is way too much trouble for me.
Click to expand...
I joined over ten years ago, so I don't have any insights to offer about their current account-creation process.
 
Salty said:
I've tried 3 times to get access and failed. Their process of trying to guess a username that doesn't exist yet via back and forth emails that take a week to respond each time is way too much trouble for me.
Click to expand...

You could always try your mother's maiden name plus your birthday. ;) It's highly unlikely someone has used that username unless you have a twin, though! :D
 
Salty said:
I would say it's a violation to practice engine out's within 500 feet of people vehicles or structures. If you did that 50 feet above my house I'd be calling somebody, and I live on an airpark.
Click to expand...

I/we must be operating on the rules from another century.
Six years ago my CFI buddy made me fly the "practice emergency descent" all the way to the ground. It's the only time we ever went that far.
Granted, the "ground" in this case was my son-in-laws family farm up in Middleburgh, NY, but we went all the way down to a full stop. It's not an airport, just a 1,500 ft long sod farm.
No wind sock. No lights, no lines, no tower.
We flew in for the families annual "Fieldapollooza" weekend camp out. My buddy had been hearing about it for years, so while the wife and kids drove, I did my biennial.
Then we hopped in the pickup truck and drove to the farm down the road and bought some of their "1857" vodka that they distill there.
Pretty good stuff.
 
Salty said:
So much for the kinder gentler FAA that only cares about safety.

Maybe there's more to the story, but it sounds pretty simple.

* addition *

I never watched his stuff, after a couple minutes previewing some vids, I suspect his suspension is not just due to one event as he claims. I saw several things that looked potentially questionable just in a few minutes of browsing.
Click to expand...
Consider the backcountry flying they do it's all somewhat dangerous. The idiot nancy that feels the need to send a video to the FAA really gets under my skin.

Seriously though, if his story is accurate and I have no reason to question it since I've never seen fire extinguishers strapped to his calves, then this sets up dangerous precedence for the FAA.

My other question is where is AOPA, this should be something they are all over because they don't want this to be case law. Maybe the executives are too busy playing with their new Extra 300 toy to care.
 
Timbeck2 said:
The bulk of his income is from flying drones to make movies, commercials, etc. I've watched a lot of his videos in the past and find his and his friends' flying above board. Its a shame that the word of a Karen is able to suspend someone's flying privileges.
Click to expand...
Seems like the FAA needs a Karen regulation? But how many FAA employees would have to retire?

I really like the point where it's a private case, you don't get a jury of your peers.

Could Elon buy the FAA?
 
Shepherd said:
I/we must be operating on the rules from another century.
Six years ago my CFI buddy made me fly the "practice emergency descent" all the way to the ground. It's the only time we ever went that far.
Granted, the "ground" in this case was my son-in-laws family farm up in Middleburgh, NY, but we went all the way down to a full stop. It's not an airport, just a 1,500 ft long sod farm.
No wind sock. No lights, no lines, no tower.
We flew in for the families annual "Fieldapollooza" weekend camp out. My buddy had been hearing about it for years, so while the wife and kids drove, I did my biennial.
Then we hopped in the pickup truck and drove to the farm down the road and bought some of their "1857" vodka that they distill there.
Pretty good stuff.
Click to expand...
That’s not engine out practice, that’s a landing. And if you did that 50 feet above my house, hell yeah I’d be calling people. I live in the downwind of my airport. I don’t expect people flying over my house at 50 feet.
 
Salty said:
That’s not engine out practice, that’s a landing. And if you did that 50 feet above my house, hell yeah I’d be calling people. I live in the downwind of my airport. I don’t expect people flying over my house at 50 feet.
Click to expand...

No, that's an "engine out descent to emergency landing".
A landing is flying the pattern with all the verbiage and activities that entails.
An "engine out" is a one shot, fly or die activity that hopefully ends up with you being able to apologize for landing in someone's back yard, no matter how many houses you have to fly over.

A low pass and missed approach, which is what this thread is ultimately about, should never be punished.
I am solidly in Trent Palmer's camp on this one until some unassailable evidence against him comes to light.
 
Shepherd said:
No, that's an "engine out descent to emergency landing".
A landing is flying the pattern with all the verbiage and activities that entails.
An "engine out" is a one shot, fly or die activity that hopefully ends up with you being able to apologize for landing in someone's back yard, no matter how many houses you have to fly over.

A low pass and missed approach, which is what this thread is ultimately about, should never be punished.
I am solidly in Trent Palmer's camp on this one until some unassailable evidence against him comes to light.
Click to expand...
We have no idea what actually happened, so I'm not in anyone's camp. No doubt if only the FAA prosecutor had posted we'd all want to string Trent up.
 
PaulS said:
I suspect he does an "inspection pass" every time he flies near his friend's house. Why would anyone have a camera pointed at the sky? Trent should have answered that he was set up to land and saw a bunch of deer running around and aborted his landing.
Click to expand...
Well, he could have, if that were the actual reason he didn't land. Otherwise he'd be lying, which is something that so far it would seem no one has any evidence that he has done.
 
Bonchie said:
Anything noteworthy that wasn’t covered in the video?
Click to expand...

I have paraphrased it below:

The video that caught a glimpse of Trent's airplane during his low inspection pass was deleted before trial, but every witness was permitted to testify about what the video allegedly showed even thought we could not see it.

- FAA Counsel during the course of the proceedings objected to a question that I ask their "expert" relative to the flap system Trent's aircraft used. Her objection? She did not understand the question. When the judge asked her source of confusion, she asked "what's a flap?" This attorney has been with the FAA for 22 years..

- Their "expert pilot" had not touched an aircraft in 18 years. He knew nothing about Trent's plane, could not tell you its performance characteristics, what type it was, its engine, etc. He conducted no investigation and read no materials which would have informed him in that regard. He too knew nothing of Trent's flying experience. He had never observed Trent flying and made no efforts or requests to do so.

He too agreed that a low inspection pass was "necessary" to conduct an off-airport landing.

Still, he offered all manner of testimony about what would have happened had its engined had failed (and BTW, its a KitFox V. I have seen helicopters take more distance to land) and the (in)appropriateness of Trent's chosen landing site

I have NEVER seen such institutional bias in my life. This is hardly an independent expert who brings his wealth of experience to bear upon a set of facts to reach an informed opinion.

Trent is a very nice and earnest young man who has a passion for aviation who is VERY good at what he does and is by any reasonable measure, an excellent pilot, especially when it comes to off-airport operations. He simply does not deserve this.

end of paraphrasing.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top