Trent Palmer (YouTuber Bush Pilot Channel) Suspended By FAA

RyanShort1 said:
It’s not safe? If you pick a good spot (like a grass runway that you spotted) it’s as safe as anything else…
Click to expand...
A grass runway is a runway. That’s different than doing the 20 foot thing to an off airport emergency landing spot. It’s already been said that doing it to a runway ain’t no thang.
 
luvflyin said:
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.
Click to expand...


Curious as to which circuit you would appeal if the NTSB board doesn't reverse and what the standard of review will be if you appeal from the NTSB to the district court. There is an opinion from the Northern District of Illinois (Seventh Cir.) rejecting the pilot's argument for a de novo trial in the district court, which strikes me as in conflict with the meaning of the PBR. See, Dustman v. Huerta, 2013 WL 5747079.
 
Bell206 said:
In general, the certificate action appeal process starts at the informal level with FAA Legal at the FSDO. If an enforcement notice of action is issued (except emergency notice) then the appeal is taken to the NTSB ALJ. Next step would be appeal to the full NTSB board. Final appeal would be to the US Court of Appeals. But now you are talking some serious cash at this level.
Click to expand...

I believe the PBR gives an option to appeal to the district court:

(d) APPEAL FROM CERTIFICATE ACTIONS.--
(1) IN GENERAL.--Upon a decision by the National Transportation Safety Board upholding an order or a final decision by the Administrator denying an airman certificate under section 44703(d) of title 49, United States Code, or imposing a punitive civil action or an emergency order of revocation under subsections (d) and (e) of section 44709 of such title, an individual substantially affected by an order of the Board may, at the individual's election, file an appeal in the United States district court in which the individual resides or in which the action in question occurred, or in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. If the individual substantially affected by an order of the Board elects not to file an appeal in a United States district court, the individual may file an appeal in an appropriate United States court of appeals.​
 
Can’t help but wonder if some of Trent’s flying has drawn the ire of some of the people at his FSDO/FAA. Videos showing a lot of low altitude flying, those kind of things, but nothing that would have given them a worthwhile case to pursue. Then along comes this neighbor, complaining of reckless flying, and the FAA’s like: Finally, now we got him.
 
PPC1052 said:
I believe the PBR gives an option to appeal to the district court:

(d) APPEAL FROM CERTIFICATE ACTIONS.--
(1) IN GENERAL.--Upon a decision by the National Transportation Safety Board upholding an order or a final decision by the Administrator denying an airman certificate under section 44703(d) of title 49, United States Code, or imposing a punitive civil action or an emergency order of revocation under subsections (d) and (e) of section 44709 of such title, an individual substantially affected by an order of the Board may, at the individual's election, file an appeal in the United States district court in which the individual resides or in which the action in question occurred, or in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. If the individual substantially affected by an order of the Board elects not to file an appeal in a United States district court, the individual may file an appeal in an appropriate United States court of appeals.​
Click to expand...
What is PBR?
 
hindsight2020 said:
If it is indeed the intent to invite young eyes to the avocation, then that avenue is at the very least, incredibly tone deaf on the socioeconomics (reason I don't do young eagles anymore). Thing is, I don't think there's any legitimate advocacy being intended here.
Click to expand...
I disagree, I think he is doing aviation a service. Granted that few of his nearly half million subscribers will never even take an introductory flying lesson, even if one half of one percent do, that'd be 2500 new pilots. What he is doing (along with, admittedly, "tech bro bragging" and making money from sponsors) is showing young (and old!) people that there's a lot more to flying than being an airline pilot or driving a boring rented Cessna from one boring airport to another.
 
Dana said:
I disagree, I think he is doing aviation a service. Granted that few of his nearly half million subscribers will never even take an introductory flying lesson, even if one half of one percent do, that'd be 2500 new pilots. What he is doing (along with, admittedly, "tech bro bragging" and making money from sponsors) is showing young (and old!) people that there's a lot more to flying than being an airline pilot or driving a boring rented Cessna from one boring airport to another.
Click to expand...
I'm one of those. I can't afford a kitfox, nor a carbon cub, but I was able to afford flight school and hopefully soon will get me a C140 or 150/152. He's bringing attention back to a passion that seemed to be reserved for those over 40.
 
luvflyin said:
Ah. So you can Appeal an ALJ ruling directly to Circuit Court, bypassing District Court. Does that hold true in other fields, or is it just a PBR thing.
Click to expand...

Yes. This is an area where you have to be very careful. The PBR is specific to pilot certificate actions. It gives the option to appeal to the district court or to the court of appeals See, Pub.L. No. 112–153, 126 Stat. 1159 (2012). (I have never been able to find a U.S.C. citation for this bill, which is odd.)

I was involved in another matter involving the revocation of SAC cards (statement of aerobatic competency) in which the pilots tried to appeal the FAA's revocation to the NTSB, and the NTSB rejected the appeal because they did not have jurisdiction because an SAC card is not a "pilot certificate." They then tried to sue in state court for monetary damages, which I removed to federal district court, and then finally got the district court to dismiss because their claims required an appeal directly to the appropriate circuit court of appeals. See, Those Amazing Performers d/b/a Team Aerodynamix v. Internation Council of Airshows, 2019 WL 6050401 (N.D. Ill.)

You need to figure out what the standard of review is where you are going to be. Are you going to get a de novo trial or do you have to show the decision was arbitrary and capricious. The PBR provides:

(e) STANDARD OF REVIEW.--
(1) IN GENERAL.--In an appeal filed under subsection (d) in a United States district court, the district court shall give full independent review of a denial, suspension, or revocation ordered by the Administrator, including substantive independent and expedited review of any decision by the Administrator to make such order effective immediately.
​
However, the Dustman case i mentioned above holds the standard is arbitrary and capricious, and a few other districts have cited that opinion. I am not sure what the latest is on that issue.
 
Last edited:
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...
I think AOPA seems to be doing right so far, but it may be because of Trent's membership in their Legal Services plan, lol.

ac9f22f327a5f892528b983de72a1ae8.jpg
 
PPC1052 said:
I believe the PBR gives an option to appeal to the district court:
Click to expand...
It does but I believe the PBR only covers pilot certificates? I've only dealt with Order 2150.3 which does mention the PBR as below. However, I believe any court review still requires the individual to appeal to the full NTSB board first. But I'll defer to your experience as mine is a bit dated.
upload_2022-5-1_8-25-45.png
FAA Order 2150.3C with Change 7
 
Narwhal said:
If you think there has to be "more to the story" for the FAA to do this to Trent Palmer, well, you've had a very different experience than I with this agency over the last 20+ years. The only "more to the story" is probably that they were out to get him since they violated him on 91.13 for waterskiing a few years back.
Click to expand...
Well, to fill in the complete story, all that needs to happen is for him to post his Notice of Certificate Action and all other written decisions in his case. In my experience with these situations, those who don't share all this information tend to have some details they prefer to keep quiet as it will tarnish or change their narrative. Have there been unscrupulous enforcement actions? Sure. Except those individuals or entities that I've actually seen or heard of who been caught up in a similar situations have been forthcoming with all information to ensure the entire story is dealt with at all levels. But to each their own.;)
 
luvflyin said:
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.
Click to expand...

PPC1052 said:
Curious as to which circuit you would appeal if the NTSB board doesn't reverse and what the standard of review will be if you appeal from the NTSB to the district court. There is an opinion from the Northern District of Illinois (Seventh Cir.) rejecting the pilot's argument for a de novo trial in the district court, which strikes me as in conflict with the meaning of the PBR. See, Dustman v. Huerta, 2013 WL 5747079.
Click to expand...
If you want Trent's attorney to see your question, you will need to post it on the BeechTalk forum. (See link in post #67.) The message you replied to here was a quote by a third party.

BeechTalk accounts are free, but if you prefer, you could contact him directly on his firm's Web page: http://schultebooth.com/
 
Does the new video he just released seem to thumb his nose at the authorities by flying his plane a few inches/feet from a dirt road for miles & miles? I can’t help but connect the last two vids.
 
455 Bravo Uniform said:
Does the new video he just released seem to thumb his nose at the authorities by flying his plane a few inches/feet from a dirt road for miles & miles? I can’t help but connect the last two vids.
Click to expand...
I didn't get that feel. Nothing in that video that's out of the ordinary for him.
 
455 Bravo Uniform said:
Does the new video he just released seem to thumb his nose at the authorities by flying his plane a few inches/feet from a dirt road for miles & miles? I can’t help but connect the last two vids.
Click to expand...
500 feet from any person, place or thing. Sufficient altitude to not pose a risk to anyone or anything on the ground in the event of an engine failure. Problem?
 
This starting to look like as if nobody crosses any rule ever. Not on a weekly, daily or hourly basis.
 
Whatever the facts are in this case, and I sure don't know what they are, the FAA has not outlawed low passes, go arounds, or safety inspection passes. What's salient here is whether the pilot flew within 500' of any vessel, person, or structure, and, if so, whether doing so was necessary for landing.

It seems the FAA introduced testimony based on the video to prove the first element, but it's not clear to me whether the pilot even disputed it.

It seems to me that the crux of the decision was really whether the pilot ever intended to land there. If he didn't, then the pass couldn't have been necessary for landing. So let's hear his evidence that he was planning to land, and let's hear the FAA's evidence that he didn't.

Failing that, people are just picking teams.
 
SoonerAviator said:
I think AOPA seems to be doing right so far, but it may be because of Trent's membership in their Legal Services plan, lol.

ac9f22f327a5f892528b983de72a1ae8.jpg
Click to expand...
I note AOPA makes no comment here on the facts or the outcome, unlike some other recent high-profile cases it's inserted itself into.
 
I have a decision to takeoff. Taxi, line up and I don't like the sound of my engine. I taxi back.
I might've had decision to takeoff.
I might've had decision to stall the flight.
I might've had decision to tease the technician.
Nobody BUT me knows what's in my head.
 
Lindberg said:
I note AOPA makes no comment here on the facts or the outcome, unlike some other recent high-profile cases it's inserted itself into.
Click to expand...
Can't get on the wrong side of the FAA or the AOPA big whigs might have a hard time getting clearance to fly their aerobatic airplane to "support GA."
 
Lindberg said:
Whatever the facts are in this case, and I sure don't know what they are, the FAA has not outlawed low passes, go arounds, or safety inspection passes. What's salient here is whether the pilot flew within 500' of any vessel, person, or structure, and, if so, whether doing so was necessary for landing.

It seems the FAA introduced testimony based on the video to prove the first element, but it's not clear to me whether the pilot even disputed it.

It seems to me that the crux of the decision was really whether the pilot ever intended to land there. If he didn't, then the pass couldn't have been necessary for landing. So let's hear his evidence that he was planning to land, and let's hear the FAA's evidence that he didn't.

Failing that, people are just picking teams.
Click to expand...
Yup. That’s what it boils down to. His friend with RC Runway who he said he was going to visit could corroborate that. So far I haven’t seen anything that says he was asked. If his Lawyer hasn’t done that, then sumpins fishy here. In fact if the FAA hasn’t thought of asking the owner if Trent was coming over to land at his place sumpins fishy. Or maybe all involved just ain’t very smart.
 
mondtster said:
I recall him being in trouble a while back over waterskiing on a lake so this isn’t his first run in and may have been a factor in why he got a suspension.

As far as the topic at hand goes, I suspect there is more to the story than what is being presented. Perhaps we’ll eventually learn the rest of the story, but that may take months or years. While I can see the potential for this decision to affect future off airport operations, I suspect the consequences may be minimal and subjective.
Click to expand...
More like he is a You Tuber and the feds see his other landings, etc, and do not like them but really can not do anything, this was just the excuse they were looking for to nail him, "we will get you one way or another" ?
 
Jim K said:
I, for one, felt very safe. The poa commitment to safety is unassailable. In fact I saw one pilot, finding his view of the runway obstructed by the low mounted wings, skilfully maneuver so he could make an inspection. Clearly not liking what he saw, he proceeded home. That is the kind of airmanship (sorry....aviator-ship?) that is under assault in the palmer case.
Click to expand...

upload_2022-5-1_12-39-30.jpeg
 
455 Bravo Uniform said:
Does the new video he just released seem to thumb his nose at the authorities by flying his plane a few inches/feet from a dirt road for miles & miles? I can’t help but connect the last two vids.
Click to expand...

More power to him.
 
UngaWunga said:
Are you seriously putting Florida up as an example of santity? :lol:

Elected judges only supports bias vs the letter of the law, as the judges will have to play favorites in order to keep their jobs.
Click to expand...
Florida has much more "santity" than my home state of Maryland.
 
RyanShort1 said:
Do you know jury history? Obviously it might include other citizens in good standing as well, but the modern jury selection process often throws out people that actually should be on the jury.
Click to expand...
You stated that the jury in your world would be comprised of other taildragger pilots. That would not happen in a real trial in this country.
 
Trent Palmer has appealed the decision, he is still flying, it's still an open case. So as such he has no business airing this on Instagram and YouTube, drumming up a riot from his enormous fanbase against both the FAA and the complainant. There is a process to this and it's not about how many 'likes' you get on social media. It seems to parallel the Red Bull incident. Don't agree with the decision just ignore the FAA's authority and if you get more thumbs-up on YT you win. That ain't how the system works, nor should it be.
 
Silvaire said:
Trent Palmer has appealed the decision, he is still flying, it's still an open case. So as such he has no business airing this on Instagram and YouTube, drumming up a riot from his enormous fanbase against both the FAA and the complainant. There is a process to this and it's not about how many 'likes' you get on social media. It seems to parallel the Red Bull incident. Don't agree with the decision just ignore the FAA's authority and if you get more thumbs-up on YT you win. That ain't how the system works, nor should it be.
Click to expand...

The government is not the little guy in this case. Anyone with an ability to leverage pushback would be stupid not to.
 
Bonchie said:
The government is not the little guy in this case. Anyone with an ability to leverage pushback would be stupid not to.
Click to expand...

Well, if by "pushback" you mean telling the story from your side without due process to an enormous crowd of gushing fans for the inevitable slathering of idolatry I disagree. He has permanently compromised the integrity of both the case and himself. I admire the guy for his videography skills and his part in the revitalization of general aviation with an influx of younger participants but grow up and stop playing the victim card. I'm going to have a real hard time losing sleep at night if Trent Palmer has his certificate suspended for two months. Give me a friggin' break.
 
Do administrative law judge decisions set precedents? If so, are the decisions published?
 
Bonchie said:
The government is not the little guy in this case. Anyone with an ability to leverage pushback would be stupid not to.
Click to expand...

I believe that's called, "betting against the house."
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top