Trent Palmer (YouTuber Bush Pilot Channel) Suspended By FAA

Lindberg said:
You should read the NTSB order. The facts are not as he claims. But if this concerns you, there's a simple solution: plan to do touch-and-goes on your practice approaches.
Click to expand...
Is this what you're talking about: "Further, the law judge determined that respondent has the burden of proving that his low altitude operation was necessary for takeoff or landing, and citing respondent’s testimony, the legislative history of the regulation, and Board precedent, found respondent failed to meet this burden given that the landing site was inappropriate under the circumstances."

Seems like the whole case rests on whether or not Trent could plausibly have landed there. The judge determined that he couldn't. Trent claims he could.
 
172andyou said:
Is this what you're talking about: "Further, the law judge determined that respondent has the burden of proving that his low altitude operation was necessary for takeoff or landing, and citing respondent’s testimony, the legislative history of the regulation, and Board precedent, found respondent failed to meet this burden given that the landing site was inappropriate under the circumstances."

Seems like the whole case rests on whether or not Trent could plausibly have landed there. The judge determined that he couldn't. Trent claims he could.
Click to expand...
What Trent needs to do, is go land there, prove the judge wrong, and thereby win the case.
 
172andyou said:
Is this what you're talking about: "Further, the law judge determined that respondent has the burden of proving that his low altitude operation was necessary for takeoff or landing, and citing respondent’s testimony, the legislative history of the regulation, and Board precedent, found respondent failed to meet this burden given that the landing site was inappropriate under the circumstances."

Seems like the whole case rests on whether or not Trent could plausibly have landed there. The judge determined that he couldn't. Trent claims he could.
Click to expand...
It’s an element but more than plausibility. Inspection passes to unimproved sites are in large part an effort to determine the plausibility of a landing there. For that matter, so is an attempt to test the winds when there’s a strong wind.

The legal precedent (Court of Appeals, not just NTSB) talks about the “appropriateness” of the landing site. In one Court of Appeals case, the pilot was violated at an airport because the approach (and landing) was to a taxiway rather than a runway, passing within 500’ of people.
 
midlifeflyer said:
cops on the beat overreaching their authority is a historical truth, although I suspect there is much more to the story. It doesn’t make any sense otherwise.
Click to expand...
I don’t think there’s much more. It was the same inspector that tried to violate an airshow team for doing an overhead break-to-land the day before an airshow in Georgetown.
 
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 potentionally questionable just in a few minutes of browsing.
Click to expand...
" I saw several things that looked potentionally questionable just in a few minutes of browsing." This is the FAA
 
midlifeflyer said:
The legal precedent (Court of Appeals, not just NTSB) talks about the “appropriateness” of the landing site. In one Court of Appeals case, the pilot was violated at an airport because the approach (and landing) was to a taxiway rather than a runway, passing within 500’ of people.
Click to expand...
That's a very interesting parsing, and one I haven't read before. So you are saying that the judge might have found that it was possible to land there, but still be inappropriate to land there? If so, it would be good if the appeal forced another level of explanation of that finding, as well as a basis that pilots can use to determine what the FAA will find appropriate or not.
 
RyanShort1 said:
That's actually not true. I know of a suspension that happened to someone I know down in the San Antonio FSDO because he didn't put his gear down on the approach and the inspector determined from that that he "had no intention" of landing, and thus violated the minimum altitudes even though he was on a published approach.
Click to expand...
I feel like there has to be something more to the story. How did the pilot even come to the FSDO's attention if he was just flying approaches normally? Did he make any effort to defend himself? There's an interpretation from the chief counsel that very clearly states that practice approaches are exempt from 91.119.

If the facts are like you're saying, with no aggravating factors, I think it's safe to say that if we were discussing his case instead of Palmer's there would be much more unanimous support here.
 
babcock said:
I feel like there has to be something more to the story. How did the pilot even come to the FSDO's attention if he was just flying approaches normally? Did he make any effort to defend himself? There's an interpretation from the chief counsel that very clearly states that practice approaches are exempt from 91.119.

If the facts are like you're saying, with no aggravating factors, I think it's safe to say that if we were discussing his case instead of Palmer's there would be much more unanimous support here.
Click to expand...
The problem is that professional pilots have more to lose than Palmer, more than likely. Imagine you're a non-airline person trying to feed a family and your aviation attorney tells you it'd be better to accept the 60 day suspension and move on with life as quickly as possible. I think that's what happens with too many of these kinds of incidents, and nothing ever gets fixed, or righted. Whether or not Palmer did something "wrong" I think it's good that the topic is being discussed. I'm pretty sure my client was telling me the truth.
 
172andyou said:
That's a very interesting parsing, and one I haven't read before. So you are saying that the judge might have found that it was possible to land there, but still be inappropriate to land there? If so, it would be good if the appeal forced another level of explanation of that finding, as well as a basis that pilots can use to determine what the FAA will find appropriate or not.
Click to expand...
”Appropriate” generally refers to location. In Palmer, it’s a residential backyard requiring flying through a neighbor’s backyard. In the earlier case, a taxiway when runways were available. Not an actual case, but think about what the result might be with an urban schoolyard during recess, approaching down a city street. This is where those who like the idea of juries can hang their hats. “Appropriate” would likely be a jury question.

This is a long thread, but I think I provided a link to the “taxiway” case fairly early in it.

Your point about the “extra level of explanation” is a good one and related to some of the procedural issues raised in the case.
 
RyanShort1 said:
The problem is that professional pilots have more to lose than Palmer, more than likely. Imagine you're a non-airline person trying to feed a family and your aviation attorney tells you it'd be better to accept the 60 day suspension and move on with life as quickly as possible
Click to expand...
Depending on when it happened, the biggest surprise to me is that it ever got as far as a suspension once on the desk of an FAA lawyer, let alone after the informal conference, unless there was more.
 
172andyou said:
That's a very interesting parsing, and one I haven't read before. So you are saying that the judge might have found that it was possible to land there, but still be inappropriate to land there? If so, it would be good if the appeal forced another level of explanation of that finding, as well as a basis that pilots can use to determine what the FAA will find appropriate or not.
Click to expand...

The decision in Palmer's case makes a distinction between capability to land in a spot and the suitability of that spot: "Additionally, we have no reason to overturn the law judge’s finding that the intended landing site was unsuitable. The law judge made the determination based on the credible testimony of the witnesses and the evidence before him, and respondent offers no support for his claim that the site was suitable. Rather, respondent merely asserts that he and his aircraft were capable of landing on the runway."

The elements of a good defense would have been ways that Palmer evaluated the spot for suitability before making a low pass. If the runway appeared suitable during an evaluation on the ground and during intermediate inspection passes (passes suggested/required by the same guide Palmer is basing his whole defense on) then he'd have a lot more of a leg to stand on in defending a low pass. Instead, all he has is basically "I did a low pass and couldn't find the centerline but I still could have landed there lol."

He also doesn't seem to explain why his low pass would have required him to get within 50 feet of a large propane tank. The word "necessary" is important here. He admitted that he could have used a different flight path, which would have avoided passing so close to structures. One might take this as a reminder that it is unwise to admit to the offense you are being charged with in your deposition! Along with the general "don't talk to cops as a suspect" advice.

It's obvious when you think about it that suitability is more than just capability. Any pilot worth their salt could land on a large interstate. That doesn't make it a suitable landing site under most circumstances.
RyanShort1 said:
The problem is that professional pilots have more to lose than Palmer, more than likely. Imagine you're a non-airline person trying to feed a family and your aviation attorney tells you it'd be better to accept the 60 day suspension and move on with life as quickly as possible. I think that's what happens with too many of these kinds of incidents, and nothing ever gets fixed, or righted. Whether or not Palmer did something "wrong" I think it's good that the topic is being discussed. I'm pretty sure my client was telling me the truth.
Click to expand...
Very unfortunate if so. If pilots are being violated when they're doing everything right then something should be done about that. And unfortunately nothing is going to be done about it if only people like Palmer are appealing their cases.
 
172andyou said:
That's a very interesting parsing, and one I haven't read before. So you are saying that the judge might have found that it was possible to land there, but still be inappropriate to land there? If so, it would be good if the appeal forced another level of explanation of that finding, as well as a basis that pilots can use to determine what the FAA will find appropriate or not.
Click to expand...
The first few pages of the NTSB order recite evidence that makes Palmer's explanation for his behavior "unlikely." Saying that he didn't prove his "intended" "runway" was a suitable landing location is perhaps a shorthand for saying no one involved believes he actually had any intention of landing there.
 
I read page one of the comments, then went directly to page 20. Same comments.
 
Tarheelpilot said:
Reading all of this I have made the following conclusion.

Trent playing on the “f around and find out” chart and the FAA overstepping boundaries while being statist ****s are not mutually exclusive.
Click to expand...

True, and the former provides an opportunity for the latter.
 
Tarheelpilot said:
Reading all of this I have made the following conclusion.

Trent playing on the “f around and find out” chart and the FAA overstepping boundaries while being statist ****s are not mutually exclusive.
Click to expand...
Yeah, seems about right. And it's probably good for bystanders to recognize that we have an interest in a finding that clearly articulated that they don't believe him, rather than one that left wiggle room for future enforcements based merely on the number of feet from something off airport. I'm pretty much in agreement that it seems like he was buzzing his buddies house. But I'd like for them to have to prove that (if necessary, I'm not at all clear what the standard of proof here is. is it more like criminal? or civil? or something even less burdensome?) if that's gonna be the enforcement.
 
Silvaire said:
Wow this is still going on?
Click to expand...

And what makes the pilot in question a bush pilot.??

Has he ever spent all day making several one hour legs flying in 1mile vis under a 1000agl ceiling delivering groceries to a bush village that hasn't seen a plane in 2 weeks due to weather.??
 
Zeldman said:
And what makes the pilot in question a bush pilot.??

Has he ever spent all day making several one hour legs flying in 1mile vis under a 1000agl ceiling delivering groceries to a bush village that hasn't seen a plane in 2 weeks due to weather.??
Click to expand...

I heard a man’a gotta eat some sorta fermented whale**** to call himself an Alaskan bush pilot.

That true?
 
172andyou said:
Yeah, seems about right. And it's probably good for bystanders to recognize that we have an interest in a finding that clearly articulated that they don't believe him, rather than one that left wiggle room for future enforcements based merely on the number of feet from something off airport. I'm pretty much in agreement that it seems like he was buzzing his buddies house. But I'd like for them to have to prove that (if necessary, I'm not at all clear what the standard of proof here is. is it more like criminal? or civil? or something even less burdensome?) if that's gonna be the enforcement.
Click to expand...
Yeah. The feds took the easy way out and just stuck it to him. Lazy way to go. I agree he was most likely just buzzing his buddy.

I really would like it if these attorneys would have picked a more appropriate hill to plant their flag.
 
Palmpilot said:
I'm not sure whether this is new or not, but this interview with Trent Palmer's attorney was posted on YouTube today.

Click to expand...
I wish I could have more from the attorney and less from the interviewer.
 
midlifeflyer said:
It’s an element but more than plausibility. Inspection passes to unimproved sites are in large part an effort to determine the plausibility of a landing there. For that matter, so is an attempt to test the winds when there’s a strong wind.

The legal precedent (Court of Appeals, not just NTSB) talks about the “appropriateness” of the landing site. In one Court of Appeals case, the pilot was violated at an airport because the approach (and landing) was to a taxiway rather than a runway, passing within 500’ of people.
Click to expand...
I'm glad the FAA never does anything as dangerous as telling pilots to land on a taxiway within 500' of people... *COUGH* *OSHKOSH* *COUGH*
 
I started watching Palmer's youtube channel way back when he first started, maybe 4 or 5 years ago now. He was a complete newbie pilot, quite naive and I thought this guy is gonna kill himself but he was good at videography and created an interesting show with imminent drama. At one point he taxied into and hit a traffic cone with his prop but hey, this is the experimental world so meh... then a few episodes later his motor internally came apart and he landed on a road. But his topic was getting incredibly popular at the time and I guess there's more money in youtube than most of us realized. I think he also got some sort of sponsorship from Kitfox because he ended up with new wings and a brand new Rotax 914 and his popularity skyrocketed. I met him at High Sierra Flyin a few years back and he's an okay guy, not a jerk or anything like that.

But fast forward to this incident, which I felt was only a matter of time, he didn't take the wrist slap. Instead he went right onto social media and used his youtube popularity to demonize and trash talk both the FAA and the complainants and play the victim. This whole "inspection pass" thing was obviously something he cooked up after the fact, I'm pretty certain he never read that AC prior to being on the hook. In my opinion this is between him, the FAA and the people with the complaint. It's not a reality show and the outcome isn't decided by likes or popularity from an uninvolved mob of adoring youtube fans. For that reason I've lost respect for the guy, he should have just let it go rather than inventing this nonsense that he's somehow standing up for the rights of all pilots. Give me a break...
 
Tarheelpilot said:
Reading all of this I have made the following conclusion.

Trent playing on the “f around and find out” chart and the FAA overstepping boundaries while being statist ****s are not mutually exclusive.
Click to expand...
Just curious. How do you think the FAA overstepped its boundaries in this case?
 
Lindberg said:
Just curious. How do you think the FAA overstepped its boundaries in this case?
Click to expand...
I admit up front I may be wrong but it seems to me they should have focused on proving he had no intention of landing and was just buzzing his buddies house.

If I’m wrong please call me out but my understanding is the Feds are taking a position that could make a low approach to evaluate an off airport landing as a potential liability.

But I have a bias against the FAA in general. I’ve had several first hand experiences where inspectors don’t like something and bend the rules to punish someone just because they had a hair crossed and there is no reasonable process to hold them accountable.

If I’m wrong it would not be the first time but my bias is to not trust the man.

Where’s my drink?
 
Palmpilot said:
In the video I posted, Palmer's lawyer listed a number of procedural issues with the hearing that seemed worthy of a kangaroo court to me.
Click to expand...
It "seems" that way unless you actually know the law. He doesn't have a leg to stand on based on the existing enacted and case law.
Again, I'm no fan of the FAA enforcement policies and what the "due process" that comes of it is, but what happened to TP is in accordance with the law and the appeal is largely just wishful thinking. That is, unless some court decides to overturn the APA and everything that stems from it.
 
TCABM said:
I heard a man’a gotta eat some sorta fermented whale**** to call himself an Alaskan bush pilot.

That true?
Click to expand...
They get walrus flippers and wrap them in dried grass, then bury them for a certain amount of time, dig them up and serve. They become sort of fermented while in the ground. That stuff kills white people...

Muktuk, whale skin and blubber, is chewed raw and the blubber becomes oily, with a nutty taste to me. If not diced, or at least serrated, the skin is quite rubbery and can be chewed almost like gum. I did not die from consuming muktuk but I had to add salt and pepper. (and add alcohol to be able to try it the first time)

Seal stew smells as if a person fell into a septic tank. I was not able to force myself on that one.

Dried fish and seal oil, take the dried fish and soak it into the seal oil, then eat. I could stand that, but man, passing gas later on WILL render any non-Eskimo folks in the room unconscious...

1710899990910.png

Sliced Muktuck ready to eat.
 
Probably the only way to contest this situation would be for one pilot to intentionally do some low inspection passes (documented) near someone’s home and for that home’s resident to actually intentionally rat on him to the FAA and then carry the process all the way up. It would probably take lots of money and time and be very frustrating but there are groups that know that the only way to get “standing” and have something looked at is to actually intentionally bust a reg. I’m not advocating that anyone do that and I certainly am not going to be the guinea pig, but there does seem to be margin for abuse with the FAA’s current rules. The other option is of course legislative.
A “go around” deer inspection pass used to be standard fare at 5C1 at dusk due to the deer that would frequently be on the runway, and theoretically an FAA inspector could make a good case that we didn’t intend to land, but keeping a little extra speed for noise and energy plus low enough to see and scare the deer was also a consideration.
 
RyanShort1 said:
Probably the only way to contest this situation would be for one pilot to intentionally do some low inspection passes (documented) near someone’s home and for that home’s resident to actually intentionally rat on him to the FAA and then carry the process all the way up. It would probably take lots of money and time and be very frustrating but there are groups that know that the only way to get “standing” and have something looked at is to actually intentionally bust a reg. I’m not advocating that anyone do that and I certainly am not going to be the guinea pig, but there does seem to be margin for abuse with the FAA’s current rules. The other option is of course legislative.
A “go around” deer inspection pass used to be standard fare at 5C1 at dusk due to the deer that would frequently be on the runway, and theoretically an FAA inspector could make a good case that we didn’t intend to land, but keeping a little extra speed for noise and energy plus low enough to see and scare the deer was also a consideration.
Click to expand...
There's no way to contest this. The district court can't rule on facts, just points of law. The APA pretty much stacks this against the appellant. The FAA has the authority to define what their regulations mean here.

Even if they could, TP's arguments are just subterfuge "coudla" things that might have happened without any basis in reality.
 
flyingron said:
It "seems" that way unless you actually know the law. He doesn't have a leg to stand on based on the existing enacted and case law.
Again, I'm no fan of the FAA enforcement policies and what the "due process" that comes of it is, but what happened to TP is in accordance with the law and the appeal is largely just wishful thinking. That is, unless some court decides to overturn the APA and everything that stems from it.
Click to expand...
I may not know the law, but his attorney does. I'm not taking sides on whether Palmer was telling the truth about his intentions, but in the interview, the attorney raised issues about the way the video evidence was handled that deserve scrutiny, IMO. Same for the issues he raised about the FAA's tendency to make it impossible to determine in advance whether certain behavior will be deemed to be a violation.
 
RyanShort1 said:
I don't care if it's not a "right" to fly, I want the FAA to have limits on determining motive, and to have to prove that a pilot is guilty, with a presumption of innocence. That's just how the government was supposed to operate in this country.
Click to expand...
Yea well, there's no prosecution here. All they want to do is suspend the license THAT THEY GAVE HIM for sixty days. If he wants to get another license, from somebody else well, good luck on that Trent.
 
Tarheelpilot said:
I admit up front I may be wrong but it seems to me they should have focused on proving he had no intention of landing and was just buzzing his buddies house
Click to expand...
It’s called taking the easy way out. How would you prove Palmer had no intention of landing and was just buzzing the buddy who gave him permission? So much better if the conduct that can easily be proven or is admitted to is objectionable. It’s done every day. Not just by the FAA.
 
midlifeflyer said:
It’s called taking the easy way out. How would you prove Palmer had no intention of landing and was just buzzing the buddy who gave him permission? So much better if the conduct that can easily be proven or is admitted to is objectionable. It’s done every day. Not just by the FAA.
Click to expand...
^^^This^^^

Trent does "X", but lies and says he's doing "Y". Much easier to violate him for something to do with "Y", since he's admitting it. Perhaps not the right way, but it is the easy way...

The part that remains to be seen is all the uproar about "now we can't do inspection passes"...I don't think that will happen, but I've been wrong before.
 
Palmpilot said:
I may not know the law, but his attorney does
Click to expand...
Yes but remember he’s taking a side representing a client.

Back to law school… in the first year there’s this thing called “moot court.” Not trials but appellate arguments. Facts are given. What rules apply is the question. Teams learn both sides . It’s a first year requirement in most if not all law schools but there are also national competitions (I met my wife while preparing for one). Anyway, in any given round you may be called on to present one side or the other and need to be just as effective.
 
Last edited:
midlifeflyer said:
It’s called taking the easy way out. How would you prove Palmer had no intention of landing and was just buzzing the buddy who gave him permission? So much better if the conduct that can easily be proven or is admitted to is objectionable. It’s done every day. Not just by the FAA.
Click to expand...
Yeah. I said that already. I said they were lazy in an earlier post. It’s good to see you argree with me.

Laziness that can potentially impact normal and safe operations is crossing a pretty big line for me.

Are you saying you’re ok it because it happens every day?
 
Last edited:
Tarheelpilot said:
Yeah. I said that already. I said they were lazy in an earlier post. It’s good to see you argree with me.

Laziness that can potentially impact normal and safe operations is crossing a pretty big line for me.

Are you saying you’re ok it because it happens every day?
Click to expand...
I accept the reality, and don’t have a particular problem with the concept of proving the violation you can prove, even if I sometimes don’t like the result.

But I don’t see the potential to impact normal and safe operations you apparently do. If you are still harping on the “no inspection passes or practice approaches” thing, sorry I disagree that’s what this case is about. I don’t see flying through someone’s back yard at low altitude to land in a patch of dirt as a “normal and safe operation.”
 
midlifeflyer said:
I accept reality of proving the violation you can prove, even if I sometimes don’t like the result.

But I don’t see the potential to impact normal and safe operations you apparently do. If you are still harping on the “no inspection passes or practice approaches” thing, sorry I disagree that’s what this case is about. I don’t see flying through someone’s back yard at low altitude to land in a patch of dirt as a “normal and safe operation.”
Click to expand...
I don’t think what he did was appropriate.
already said that as well.

I’ve also said that I’m more concerned about the consequences for other pilots. Not Trent. So what Trent was or was not doing is not relevant. Not sure why you are bring it up.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top