Now that I can mostly agree with. Of course, if he just took the 60 days it would be far less, but I agree getting caught up in an administrative law net is punishment even if you are innocent.Even if he wins the appeal, he has effectively been fined $25,000 or more. In this day, the process IS the punishment. That has to stop.
To not go through the process he would have gotten 210 days.Now that I can mostly agree with. Of course, if he just took the 60 days it would be far less.
That's why I said "less"To not go through the process he would have gotten 210 days.
Even if he wins the appeal, he has effectively been fined $25,000 or more. In this day, the process IS the punishment. That has to stop.
Yes, it cost him the lawyer fees to get it to 60 days.
yeah, they gave him a coupon for a free hour.I saw in an Instagram post by AOPA that he was using their legal services. I wonder if that lowered his lawyer costs some.
How did you get that figure?Even if he wins the appeal, he has effectively been fined $25,000 or more. In this day, the process IS the punishment. That has to stop.
Probably. I really doubt if Trent is shaking 25K outta his piggy bank. His lawyer may be doing it pro bono out of a genuine concern ‘for the public good.’ Or for the publicity. I still wanna know if Squarespace is contributing to the cause.I'm guessing something like average lawyer hourly rate x number of hours his lawyer has probably worked on the case.
I would think the only reason why he did not have cameras was because he had no intention of making this a "thing," nor did he think it would become one.Am I the only one who is very surprised to hear a big youtuber didn't have any cameras running when planning to land at his buddies' RC runway for the first time?
I wonder how much YouTube income he's getting as a result of the spectacle of fighting this.
Now I'm starting to understand why people are willing to risk trouble with the FAA for YouTube views!Ballpark $4,000 - $5,000 ad revenue per million views in the aviation niche.
His last 6 months of videos rack up about 3.5 million views.
I would imagine Squarespace is paying a lot more than ad revenue.
Throw in merch and other streams and he isn't hurting.
I suspect youtube is easily paying his legal fees.
Am I the only one who is very surprised to hear a big youtuber didn't have any cameras running when planning to land at his buddies' RC runway for the first time?
this attitude of I'm gonna fly my plane wherever and whenever the hell I want is not going to pan out well in the end.
What is supposed to happen now? If he wins his appeal does he gloat? If he loses his appeal does he continue to fuel dissent and distrust for the authority?
True - If what he says is true and there are no other facts.Yes, of course. After prearranging with the landowner, you can do what you want. There are also some land use laws, but if you're out in the country, they aren't typically in place except in very repressive locations. In my part of the country, if I have 10 acres in the country, I'm free to build my own airport.
What does he do? I don't really care, I think he just shuts up about it and goes back to making the videos he likes to make. The point isn't really whether or not he wins. It's that he did what a safe, judicious pilot is taught to do and he was held to have violated rules because he exercised caution. If he had exercised disregard for safety, the lawyers would have been left without a case. For the rest of us, it's that we might be held to that same standard because a lawyer somewhere doesn't understand aviation. This isn't that different than the Warbirds case...a legal decision is setting a precedent which degrades safety.
The FAA was correct in its interpretation in the Warbirds case.This isn't that different than the Warbirds case...
And here's where I get to go back to being against the FAA. NOOOOOO they were NOT!!1111!!!!!The FAA was correct in its interpretation in the Warbirds case.
More: What if he was landing in a wrong place to begin with? What if he could have landed in his buddy's backyard, but would have to pass w/in 10' of the neighbor's house to do it? Would that be OK because he's got a bush plane capable of doing it? What if it should have been obvious from 500' that he couldn't safely land there?True - If what he says is true and there are no other facts.
What if he dragged it in over the neighbors house multiple times? What if he was 50 feet over the neighbors house and the house was nowhere close to the “runway”?
maybe neither of those are true, but if they were he wouldn’t be lying but would still be wrong.
That was the NTSB judge, not the FAA, IIRC.But incorrect in extending it to ALL experimental.
Verify schmerify. Who cares. This is juicy sh*t.Unverified rumor on social media.
It's been upgraded to emergency revocation.
Too lazy to research. So just here to add fodder to the rumor mill
I'm however going to just speculate that somebody on social media got him confused with Trevor Jacob.
The herd has spoken. It is not safe to stray from the herd. The drone birds will peck your eyes out.Facts, herd it on POA
Ballpark $4,000 - $5,000 ad revenue per million views in the aviation niche.
His last 6 months of videos rack up about 3.5 million views….
And a free hat.yeah, they gave him a coupon for a free hour.
More: What if he was landing in a wrong place to begin with? What if he could have landed in his buddy's backyard, but would have to pass w/in 10' of the neighbor's house to do it? Would that be OK because he's got a bush plane capable of doing it? What if it should have been obvious from 500' that he couldn't safely land there?
I think you’re putting words in the mouth of the FAA. Never did Trent say he intended to land at the time the complaint was made. He argued that he flew an “inspection pass”, presumably in preparation for a landing at a later time.these hypothetical questions still don’t address the core issue - the faa decision says that if a pilot intends to land, goes inside the 500’ limit and then aborts the landing, they have violated regulations. That is for any reason, including safety.
Presumably that's exactly what the FAA said. But it's not what Trent said.An inspection pass isn't for landing at some point in the distant future, it's for a landing about the time it takes to make a trip around the pattern.
I agree with this. Except to say that personally, I think doing an inspection pass to see if a location is suitable for a future landing shouldn't, in itself be an issue. Ruling out a landing site long before planning a landing there is a good thing from a safety perspective. Again, assuming there's not more to the story, like flying close to people / property. But, the letter of the law doesn't agree with me.If Trent was doing an inspection pass for landing the next day, or 2 weeks from that day or whenever, then I'm with the FAA on the 500' bust. Conditions change, and inspection passes are pretty much only good for rat meow. If he was going around the pattern and coming back to land, or decided nope this isn't save, the FAA is completely in the wrong.
Please point me to where the FAA said that.these hypothetical questions still don’t address the core issue - the faa decision says that if a pilot intends to land, goes inside the 500’ limit and then aborts the landing, they have violated regulations. That is for any reason, including safety.
And it also appears to be a necessary implication of the ruling.It was in the video or from what the lawyer said.
I know, objection: Hearsay. But if what was stated by Trent or is lawyer is true that *is* what the FAA effectively said.
Wouldn't that statement only apply in a sparsely-populated area? I don't think the satellite photos of the area fit that description....Just being below 500' AGL should not be a per se violation.
Really? So a pilot cannot inspect a strip, with no intention to land, for ten other bush planes bringing in hunters later that day?An inspection pass isn't for landing at some point in the distant future, it's for a landing about the time it takes to make a trip around the pattern.
And it also appears to be a necessary implication of the ruling.
Where was there evidence that he was within 500' of anyone or anything? Just being below 500' AGL should not be a per se violation.