For those interested in reading it, the DC Circuit's Trent Palmer decision was published today.
Spoiler alert: he lost.
Spoiler alert: he lost.
Trent Palmer (YouTuber Bush Pilot Channel) Suspended By FAA
- Thread starter Bonchie
- Start date
- Joined
- Mar 15, 2016
- Messages
- 4,942
- Display Name
Display name:
Ari
I think that the most important bit of jurisprudence here is the courts' vindicating something I am passionate about:
It is not clear if the video of the video was taken in portrait mode of a screen displaying a portrait-mode video in a landscape screen. But, either way, this decision should empower not only ALJs but all people to disregard any video-of-a-video. Now we need to start putting nails in the coffin of the photo-of-a-legal-pad-with-an-aphorism memes.
That part is pretty well-established. What's a bit surprising is that they didn't even verbally slap the FAA particularly hard for the evidence destruction. That was probably because the content of the video-of-a-video was basically admitted, but they panel could have said more about it.
The court found Palmer could have assessed the suitability of the off-airport field for landing by other means. Maybe by walking there from the nearest airport to check it out on the ground.
Last edited:
idahoflier
Pattern Altitude
- Joined
- Jul 21, 2017
- Messages
- 1,742
- Display Name
Display name:
idahoflier
All this time I missed that he conceded violating 91.119. To me this is now in the category of "Play stupid games, win stupid prizes". I enjoy most of his content, but his video from a month ago where his buddy almost gave him a permanent haircut is making me question his judgement...
He didn’t. He only conceded that he came within the prohibited distance.
The substantive issue in the case was whether his low pass fit the “when necessary for takeoff or landing” exception. The FAA , NTSB, and DC Circuit Court of Appeals said it didn’t.
idahoflier
Pattern Altitude
- Joined
- Jul 21, 2017
- Messages
- 1,742
- Display Name
Display name:
idahoflier
Point taken, I should have said that I didn't know he conceded flying "within 500 feet of vessels, vehicles or structures". If I had done something similar I wouldn't be surprised to hear from the FAA and I'm not surprised he lost his appeal...
Clip4
Touchdown! Greaser!
You guys seriously didn’t think he would prevail did you?
The regulation is “Except when necessary for takeoff or landing” not when you are considering if a landing is feasible. The regs also require “Each pilot in command shall, before beginning a flight, become familiar with all available information concerning that flight”, not become familiar by doing low passes next to a house during the flight.
This was a case of poor ADM both pre and during the flight.
The regulation is “Except when necessary for takeoff or landing” not when you are considering if a landing is feasible. The regs also require “Each pilot in command shall, before beginning a flight, become familiar with all available information concerning that flight”, not become familiar by doing low passes next to a house during the flight.
This was a case of poor ADM both pre and during the flight.
Last edited:
His defense was embarrassingly bad. He managed to get the video evidence thrown out but basically admitted to everything it showed anyway so it didn't matter. He referenced an off airport landing guide by the FAA saying that low passes should be done... after multiple higher passes, which he didn't do. And then seems to have completely misunderstood what the decisions were saying and so mounted an appeal that doesn't actually make sense and in some way actually strengthens the FAA's case.
How exactly did he get the FAA to ****can its best direct evidence of where his aircraft was and when? Jedi mind tricks? Maybe the video wasn't quite so dramatic as the breathless neighbor Mrs. Lovejoy represented it to be...
The FAA somehow managed to lose the original video, apparently? Mind-boggling incompetence or Jedi mind trick, who can say? They had a video of the video, but the judge said that that couldn't be used under the doctrine of best evidence and so everything from the video was excluded.
Ed Haywood
En-Route
Incompetent defense seems to be a thing lately.
Been going downhill ever since Johnny Cochran died.
pfarber
Line Up and Wait
- Joined
- Jun 20, 2021
- Messages
- 656
- Display Name
Display name:
pfarber
this is the biggest joke of a regulation ever... basically the FAA sees you as guilty and you must provide proof of innocence. no pilot,ever,has complied with that FAR. Legally ambiguous and no way to prove you did comply.
It's shocking how many pilots here can't possibly fathom how easily that THEY might someday soon be the pilot on the pointy end of the FAA's skewer. Keep counting on good luck and a "Big Sky" theory to keep you out of harm's way.
ateamer
Pattern Altitude
It wasn’t that Cochran was that good. It was that the prosecutors were that bad.
Ed Haywood
En-Route
It was both. I've heard Cochran speak in person in a small forum. He is the single best public speaker I have ever heard.
OJ spent an insane amount on defense. His burn rate was about $100K a day during the trial. Some recent high-profile defendants should have learned from that.
The FAA also published a guide on how to consider if a landing is feasible. The ruling doesn't seem to be say fly-bys to consider feasibility are invalid, but that he didn't start high and continue lower to make his assessment. Starting high and going lower is the recommendation that the guide gives and the guide was central to his defense. That he didn't follow that guidance was a problem for his defense.
If Trent admitted the low pass then the loos of the video becomes irrelevant in terms of what it proves or doesn't prove. Having read the decision and some of the briefs, I think the argument about it wasn't about its exclusion (which the defense won), but about spoliation - the loss or destruction of relevant evidence. That would permit the judge (or jury in a court case) to at one extreme, dismiss the case for destruction of relevant evidence or, at the least permit an inference that, if the evidence was not lost, it would be harmful to the party that lost it. But even for that, if the content is conceded, it doesn't really matter and since the early cases talking about it, the concept has been somewhat watered down anyway (definitely since I did a presentation on it back in 2007).
It was some of both and IMO, especially Fuhrman. The cop is an a-hole works wonders as a defense strategy in a jury case.
I'd love to see how the Big Brother pilots here would spin the case to hang Trent had he actually landed. It seems landing is the only way to prove that flying lower than 500 ft. was "necessary for takeoff or landing", even if doing do would have been "reckless and dangerous".
Better yet, a touch and go! It still counts as a landing, right?
Better yet, a touch and go! It still counts as a landing, right?
Lindberg
Final Approach
It's shocking how many pilots here still base their opinion of this case on Palmer's recitation of what happened when there's abundant, some might say copious, evidence that he's full of ****. I'd go so far as to say that if you're really worried about this same thing happening to you, then you should either 1) reread the available information about this case, or 2) consider changing your behavior.
The finding on appeal mentioned multiple times that he had safer options to evaluate the field and that he didn't follow the guidance of the off airport guide.
To me, it seems to set a reasonable precedence that if you follow the "high", "intermediate", "low" guideline then you are operating legitimately. If you skip high and intermediate, you're gonna have a hard time convincing them that you were doing anything more than buzzing your buddies house.
EdFred
Taxi to Parking
Do they define high low intermediate and low?
One person's high might not be another. They give objective definitions for cloud clearances and object avoidance. They should for this as well if they are going to use that as part of their argument.
Lindberg
Final Approach
Witness testimony was that he made a pass at near roof-top height. If that's high, what's low? The point is that he probably could have made at least one pass at a legal height....
Back to Mrs. Lovejoy, the aggrieved neighbor.
No spin required. Just reference to prior case law. Not NTSB, real courts. There was one when someone got busted under this reg for landing - not a low pass, but a landing - on a taxiway when there was a runway right next to it.
Some would argue that necessity for landing is the spin here.
Last edited:
EdFred
Taxi to Parking
Witness testimony is usually the least reliable testimony. Especially when it comes to judging distances.
High Level: Circle the area from different directions to determine the best possible landing site in the vicinity. Check the wind direction and speed using pools of water, drift of the plane, branches, grass, dust, etc. Observe the landing approach and departure zone for obstructions such as trees or high terrain.
Intermediate Level: Make a pass in both directions along either side of the runway to check for obstructions and runway length. Check for rock size. Note the location of the touchdown area and roll-out area. Associate landmarks with your landing area, to have a good sight picture to be used on final approach. Early morning or late afternoon sun casts shadows that yield the best conditions for determining rock size and, landing conditions. Similar to ski flying with an overcast sky condition, landing areas are very difficult to evaluate without shadows.
Low Level: Make a pass to check for cuts in gravel, rocks, dips, bumps, etc., that can’t be seen from directly above. It is important to be at an angle to the runway, not above it. Certain light conditions can make a bad site seem good. Check and double check any area not used before, or locations that have had high water since the last landing. Make another pass and roll one tire for a few feet to get a feel for the landing surface.
EdFred
Taxi to Parking
I don't see any altitudes mentioned to define that. All of those could be done below 500'
Lindberg
Final Approach
Since you cannot reason a man out of what he never reasoned himself into, I've decided to stop trying.
Well, they already found Trent at fault twice, the initial result and the appeal with clarifications. But if you want to make the argument that flying straight in at 100ft is the same as circling at an altitude high enough to "determine the best possible landing site in the vicinity. Check the wind direction and speed using pools of water, drift of the plane, branches, grass, dust, etc. Observe the landing approach and departure zone for obstructions such as trees or high terrain" then I guess I'll wish you luck. Didn't work for Trent, but maybe it will work for you if you just whinge and say "oh, but the guide doesn't specify an altitude".
EdFred
Taxi to Parking
I'm asking for OBJECTIVE, not SUBJECTIVE stances.
EdFred
Taxi to Parking
Is 100' high?
You say no.
OK, jump off this 100 foot tower.
See the problem with subjective vs objective?
I have problems with subjective stances when it comes to regulations and laws.
Nah, you're just enjoying arguing about this.
No one should want objective measures on this one, because the entire domain is about evaluating an unknown landing zone. Sometimes high could mean 250. Sometimes it might mean 1000. In a river valley in the mountains it might mean 2000 or even more to really understand the surrounding area. It's not a traffic pattern where you objectively want everyone at a defined altitude. Or an approach plate where you need to be at an objective glide slope.
So the off airport guide says, here's the goal of a high level inspection and an intermediate inspection and a low level inspection.
There is no sane way to read that guide and come away with a finding of "yeah, straight in at 100ft will allow me to gather all that information and make good decisions".
He buzzed his buddies house. He got caught. Time to take his medicine. You can play linguistic games all you want to, but this isn't at all a situation where in the absence of a specified altitude to circle and gain an initial view, trent picked 350ft, the panel said 500ft would be better and violated him. This is a situation where he ****ed around and found out.
Last edited:
Since you describe it that way and consider your description dispositive, it seems to me that two different levels of review took a good hard look at the evidence presented -- and couldn't agree on what exactly happened. Instead, they groped around for whatever rationalization seemed good enough at the time to fit a desired outcome. And kick the can to the next level.
And that's good enough for you. May you never find yourself in the crosshairs.
EdFred
Taxi to Parking
Again, subjective not objective.
I fly over Lake Michigan all the time. A number of people on here would say that isn't sane. I (along with a number of other people) find it perfectly reasonable.
This is why I have issues with it. They wanted to bust him from the get go.
We're talking about an off-field landing location. Those usually don't have taxiways. Nor runways lights.
Well, I asked for it before and you dodged it before. So, I'll ask again. What's your explanation for how 100ft straight in satisfies the guidelines in the off airport guide that Trent used as the foundation for his defense?
Lindberg
Final Approach
So read the multiple opinions that recite the facts of the case.
EdFred
Taxi to Parking
Satellite/aerial photos and the like provide for the high and medium passes, all that's left is flying low for ruts and rocks.