Trent Palmer (YouTuber Bush Pilot Channel) Suspended By FAA

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:
texasclouds said:
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.
Click to expand...
Thanks for that. Assuming this is true, it looks like the FAA messed up initially, but they refuse to accept it and now are pushing it until the end.
 
So, if it's the FAA's position that an inspection pass requires an actual landing or face a 91.119 minimum altitude bust, Trent should be able to invoke 91.3(b) (emergency authority) and abort that landing.
 
Jim K said:
I really want AOPA to get involved in this, so I can finally figure out whether POA hates AOPA, FAA, or Youtoobers the most.
Click to expand...
What about EAA?
 
Dana said:
So, if it's the FAA's position that an inspection pass requires an actual landing or face a 91.119 minimum altitude bust, Trent should be able to invoke 91.3(b) (emergency authority) and abort that landing.
Click to expand...
Which I suspect had he contended initially probably would have been okay. But insisting it was an inspection pass wasn't a compelling argument that there was an intent to land. Does anyone know how many inspection passes he did?
 
texasclouds said:
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.
Click to expand...

Considering his client states he intends to appeal, it's kinda bad form for the attorney to be commenting on the case, let alone blasting the FAA on the internet.
 
Dave Anderson said:
backcountry flying
Click to expand...

What FAR pertians to this new and upcoming arena? Or do they need to adhere to the same rules as all the other piluts?

Just because you are an aviator hipster wannabe youtoober doesn't mean the regs cease to exist because 'backcountry'
 
How many of you would have believed Trevor Jacob's version of events if there hadn't been video? OMG, I can't believe the FAA would punish a pilot for being prepared to deal with a totally unforeseen emergency.

Maybe the pilot here is telling the absolute unvarnished truth. If so, he probably doesn't deserve punishment. But the FAA surely presented some evidence during that five-day hearing.
 
pfarber said:
What FAR pertians to this new and upcoming arena? Or do they need to adhere to the same rules as all the other piluts?

Just because you are an aviator hipster wannabe youtoober doesn't mean the regs cease to exist because 'backcountry'
Click to expand...
I didn’t realize backcountry was new… I thought that’s where it all started.
 
Since the P/CG defines "the option" as including a low approach, when ATC says "cleared for the option," are they essentially setting up a trap for the pilot to violate the regulations? And how about when they say "cleared for low approach"?
 
Sounds like the prosecution says that landing there was impossible and he was just buzzing the property. I wish Trent had posted an ADSB track or a rough diagram of the property and the length of model airfield. That way we could speculate more.
 
To me it reads like a combination of FAA thinking anyone youtube is evil, just because of DG and the guy with the fire bottles; and a neighbor that's probably been whining about perfectly legal flyovers in the past who finally things they "got him". And because of a bad judge, he did. Just my assumptions. I don't watch many yt videos, but I have watched a couple of Palmer's, and they all seemed fine to me. Actually one called something like "a day in the life of an ag pilot" was pretty good. Apparently he used to do some spraying, and had great video of it.

Maybe I'm cynical about the bureaucracy, but I think everyone should be, a bit. They all need more transparency, better peer review, and citizen oversight.
 
Brad Z said:
Considering his client states he intends to appeal, it's kinda bad form for the attorney to be commenting on the case, let alone blasting the FAA on the internet.
Click to expand...

I wonder if Trent and his attorney's public statements are an attempt to gain sympathy from the pilot community in the hopes that the community outrage will help influence the outcome of the appeal.

If this is the case, it seems to be working.
 
mondtster said:
I wonder if Trent and his attorney's public statements are an attempt to gain sympathy from the pilot community in the hopes that the community outrage will help influence the outcome of the appeal.

If this is the case, it seems to be working.
Click to expand...
I doubt that many federal judges read BeechTalk.
 
mondtster said:
That's not what I'm suggesting. If they got a bunch of pilots upset about this to the point that the pilots took some sort of action in protest, it may influence the decision.
Click to expand...
Since federal judges are appointed for life, I wouldn't assume that they would be influenced by anything other the arguments and evidence presented in court. (I'm not saying it's impossible, but I wouldn't count on it.)

I would think that more likely avenues of influence might include funding an appeal, or getting the alphabet organizations to lobby the FAA for clarification or policy changes.
 
Palmpilot said:
Since federal judges are appointed for life, I wouldn't assume that they would be influenced by anything other the arguments and evidence presented in court. (I'm not saying it's impossible, but I wouldn't count on it.)
Click to expand...

The judge is an administrative law judge, not a federal district court judge. Not sure what their tenure is but I don't think it's lifetime.
 
Walboy said:
The judge is an administrative law judge, not a federal district court judge. Not sure what their tenure is but I don't think it's lifetime.
Click to expand...

His attorney talked about a "trial" having taken place, so I think the administrative law judge has already decided it. I guess it hasn't been appealed to the NTSB yet. Any appeals after that would go before a federal judge, as I understand it.
 
Palmpilot said:
Since federal judges are appointed for life, I wouldn't assume that they would be influenced by anything other the arguments and evidence presented in court. (I'm not saying it's impossible, but I wouldn't count on it.
Click to expand...
I’d think that an unelected judge just might be preferentially biased towards the organization that pays said judge. The Founders of this country would have something to say along the lines of:

“He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.

He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harrass our people, and eat out their substance.”

And they would be working to end this situation.
 
mondtster said:
I wonder if Trent and his attorney's public statements are an attempt to gain sympathy from the pilot community in the hopes that the community outrage will help influence the outcome of the appeal.

If this is the case, it seems to be working.
Click to expand...
As well it ought.
 
RyanShort1 said:
I’d think that an unelected judge just might be preferentially biased towards the organization that pays said judge. The Founders of this country would have something to say along the lines of:

“He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.

He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harrass our people, and eat out their substance.”

And they would be working to end this situation.
Click to expand...
The founders set up a system where all the judges are unelected and paid by the federal government.
 
Which begs the question: How would you fix it? A tip jar?

With our present political system and its, um, vociferous divisions, you wouldn't (or I wouldn't) want to have all the judges reappointed every time there's an election. Talk about whiplash. That's how they arrived at appointments for life. I suppose we have sponser ships? Judges robes with patches all over... :)

Anyway, perhaps elected for some particular term would work (many judges in my home state of Florida are done that way) and they are non-partisan elections. No party affiliation is listed and all registered voters can vote.

I ramble...
 
RyanShort1 said:
As well it ought.
Click to expand...

Perhaps.

I think there’s only part of the story being told, and it’s being told in a manner that achieves a desired outcome. Regardless if they’ve told the whole story in a factual manner or not, they’ve found a sympathetic audience.
 
RyanShort1 said:
I’d think that an unelected judge just might be preferentially biased towards the organization that pays said judge. The Founders of this country would have something to say along the lines of:

“He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.

He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harrass our people, and eat out their substance.”

And they would be working to end this situation.
Click to expand...
The founders worked to end that situation by setting up our Constitutional system of checks and balances, and by ensuring the independence of the judiciary. Briefly...

"The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services, a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office." - Article III, Section 1

The President "by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments." - Article II, Section 2

"The House of Representatives shall chuse their Speaker and other Officers; and shall have the sole Power of Impeachment." - Article I, Section 2

"The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments." - Article I, Section 3​

https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/constitution-transcript

In any case, my point was that the most effective way to influence sitting federal judges is by paying lawyers to present evidence and arguments in court. Otherwise, you can petition the FAA to change the regulations, or lobby Congress to change the law.
 
What's interesting is bush pilot has only given out the highlights of the cliff notes of his story. Given he hasn't provided his notice or the outcome of the "informal" side of the enforcement process, leads to there is definitely more to the story. Only a small percentage of enforcement actions make it to the ALJ level on the GA side so there has been a lot of previous FAA interactions that he has not made public. If his plan is to appeal the ALJ decision to the NTSB full board which is his next step, there must be something he is keeping under wraps than low flying. And if his attorney is spouting off in a public forum about the short-comings of the admin process tells me their case is a bit short or weak on a number of levels. But hey, it gets him clicks.....:rolleyes:
 
Last edited:
Bell206 said:
What's interesting is that bush pilot has only given out highlights of the cliff notes off his story.
Click to expand...
What I find interesting is the idea that the judge's opinion is biased but the defense lawyer's summary is not.

Nauga,
who considers the source
 
I’d argue that if it was a jury of his peers, he’d win, which is why he’s going to the court of public opinion. There’s a reason we have that option for other stuff.
SMH.

Who did he actually harm, and how is it *really* different than me clearing the runway for deer at 5C1 with hangars inside of 500’?
 
Timbeck2 said:
Don’t have a membership to see it
Click to expand...
I am Trent's attorney.

What happened in his case was so appalling, I do not know where to begin.

But to call his trial a circus demeans the circus.

Nicolae and Elena Ceaușescu got a fairer trial than Trent did.

Here are but a few examples:

- The center piece of the FAA case was a video that caught a glimpse of Trent's airplane during his low inspection pass. The FAA destroyed/deleted that video before trial, but every FAA witness was permitted to testify (over my continuous objection) 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.

Remember that the justification for all administrative agencies is that they are repositories of subject matter "expertise."

Spare me.

- Their "expert pilot" had an unremarkable flying career who never made any more than 50K as a pilot and doubled his salary when he jumped to the FAA 18 years ago. He was the individual who the FAA put up to second guess Trent about his off-airport operations. He 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.

I asked him whether or not it was a fair statement that the "appropriateness" of a landing site is a function of both the aircraft performance and pilot experience? He agreed that was a fair statement.

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 (over my objection, of course).

Oh, and according to this "pilot expert," when you are doing a low inspection pass for an off airport landing, you still must stay at least 500 feet away from "vehicles, vessels, structures and persons" on the ground. Riddle me this batman, how the F do you inspect a landing surface from 500 feet away?"

The FAA "pilot expert" too boasted in his resume (which I secured in discovery) that when he does a good job for the FAA, he gets - and I quote verbatim - "accolades, time-of, and cash awards." Part of his job is to hang pilots in enforcement actions.

I asked him on cross, "if this case goes the FAA's way, will you get "accolades, time-off or a cash award." Objection. Sustained.

If I had brought this "expert" to court, I would have been laughed out of the door.

At the FAA, this is business as usual.

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. He is whore, and an indentured one at that.

The FAA keeps food in his belly and a roof over his head. What do you think he is going to say in these proceedings?

From a few cubicles away .... "hey Bob, what are you doing today?" "Nothing why?" "We got this enforcement case and need you to testify against a pilot." "Sure. Be right there."

Apparently, if you hold a pilots certificate and work for the FAA, you are an "expert" about all things piloting. Your actual experience matters not.

Oh, I did ask him on cross in all the times he has testified for the FAA, how many times did he testify that the pilot did nothing wrong. Wait for it .... 0.

I will post his resume later so you can see it with your own eyes.

And folks, I am just scratching the surface here.

If I sound like I am disgusted, it is because I am.

Oh, and let me too add that this is not the only matter I have going now where the a pilot has been violated for doing EXACTLY what the FAA advised him to do.

It's getting old folks.

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.

_________________
- As God as my witness, I thought turkeys could fly.

Robert D. Schulte
http://www.schultebooth.com

Last edited on 29 Apr 2022, 03:49, edited 6 times in total.
 
nauga said:
What I find interesting is the idea that the judge's opinion is biased but the defense lawyer's summary is not.

Nauga,
who considers the source
Click to expand...
Yeah. I'd say that the verdict will affect a Lawyers summary of the trial. This guy lost his case.
 
My bias is to believe palmer, as at least in his videos he appears to be a smart capable pilot who generally follows the rules. It's on the internet, so it has to be true.

BUT

I also feel like there might be more to this story. I can't help but wonder if he buzzed his buddy's house on more than one occasion, and the neighbor finally caught him. The landing story may be true or may be a concocted excuse. Impossible to know without hearing both sides.... and maybe not even then.
 
luvflyin said:
Yeah. I'd say that the verdict will affect a Lawyers summary of the trial. This guy lost his case.
Click to expand...
Again, if this was a jury trial, that would bear more weight, and we all know even those can be blatantly in error. I’m all for hanging the guilty - but guilty of actual crimes, not this kind of thing.
 
Jim K said:
My bias is to believe palmer, as at least in his videos he appears to be a smart capable pilot who generally follows the rules. It's on the internet, so it has to be true.

BUT

I also feel like there might be more to this story. I can't help but wonder if he buzzed his buddy's house on more than one occasion, and the neighbor finally caught him. The landing story may be true or may be a concocted excuse. Impossible to know without hearing both sides.... and maybe not even then.
Click to expand...
You can extract data from the G3X. That can be used in his favor or against him. Wondering if that was provided
 
RyanShort1 said:
I’d argue that if it was a jury of his peers, he’d win, which is why he’s going to the court of public opinion.
Click to expand...
How could you possibly reach this conclusion without reading the entire transcript and seeing the evidence? Juries don't render verdicts after hearing only the defendant's opening statement.
 
Lindberg said:
How could you possibly reach this conclusion without reading the entire transcript and seeing the evidence? Juries don't render verdicts after hearing only the defendant's opening statement.
Click to expand...
Because if they were really his fellow peers - actual taildragger pilots and farmers, I’m pretty sure they’d be more reasonable.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top