Trent Palmer (YouTuber Bush Pilot Channel) Suspended By FAA

[Brad Z]

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 watched Trent’s video again. Honestly, if I got caught buzzing a friends house, I’d probably tell the FAA the exact same thing he told them.

What’s telling in Trent’s video is not what he said, but what he didn’t say:

1. He said his friend had invited him to land at his RC strip some time. He did not indicate that he planned to land that day. He even said in his video that he was out playing around in his plane and on the way home made an inspection pass. He didn’t say “on my way home I decided to land at my friends place, but before landing I did an inspection pass.” He did not even indicate that his friend was even home at the time or had planned for his arrival that day.

2. It’s one thing to do an inspection pass over an established strip, but it sounds like his RC strip had never been used for full scale aircraft. That would warrant walking the field, something easy to do if the the strip was “just north of where he lives.”

3. It’s clear he had not walked the strip previously. He said that he couldn’t identify the touchdown point or the direction that the runway ran. He should be able to determine that from 500 feet.

4. He kept saying “inspection pass.”. Nowhere in that video did he say he intended to land that flight. Perhaps we’re supposed to infer that, but that’s not what he said.

5. It’s interesting that a pilot YouTuber, who’s channel is all about chronicling his flights, did not have a single go pro camera rolling for this flight, particularly for the inaugural landing at his buddy’s strip.

 

[Fearless Tower]

The warbird/experimental training issue has been brought up a few times and the more I think about it, Trent may very well be the next Thom Richard.

For those not familiar, Thom Richard was the guy who single handedly created the debacle that became the new FAA precedent for experimental training.

Thom was in the wrong and the FAA (and others) repeatedly warned him. He thought he was smarter than the FAA and fought it to the detriment of anyone who owns an experimental.

Trent’s case may very well end up screwing everyone who does backcountry flying.

Kind of wish he’d have just shut up and take the suspension.

 

[Mxfarm]

Kind of wish he’d have just shut up and take the suspension.

that wouldn’t have generated any chatter on-line.

 

[LesGawlik]

Kind of wish he’d have just shut up and take the suspension.

If you truly believed you did nothing wrong, and were being prosecuted by an inept, overbearing agency, would you shut up and take the suspension?

 

[Josey Wales]

I watched Trent’s video again. Honestly, if I got caught buzzing a friends house, I’d probably tell the FAA the exact same thing he told them.

What’s telling in Trent’s video is not what he said, but what he didn’t say:

1. He said his friend had invited him to land at his RC strip some time. He did not indicate that he planned to land that day. He even said in his video that he was out playing around in his plane and on the way home made an inspection pass. He didn’t say “on my way home I decided to land at my friends place, but before landing I did an inspection pass.” He did not even indicate that his friend was even home at the time or had planned for his arrival that day.

2. It’s one thing to do an inspection pass over an established strip, but it sounds like his RC strip had never been used for full scale aircraft. That would warrant walking the field, something easy to do if the the strip was “just north of where he lives.”

3. It’s clear he had not walked the strip previously. He said that he couldn’t identify the touchdown point or the direction that the runway ran. He should be able to determine that from 500 feet.

4. He kept saying “inspection pass.”. Nowhere in that video did he say he intended to land that flight. Perhaps we’re supposed to infer that, but that’s not what he said.

5. It’s interesting that a pilot YouTuber, who’s channel is all about chronicling his flights, did not have a single go pro camera rolling for this flight, particularly for the inaugural landing at his buddy’s strip.

Good analysis...I think you are spot on.

 

[Fearless Tower]

If you truly believed you did nothing wrong, and were being prosecuted by an inept, overbearing agency, would you shut up and take the suspension?

Sometimes our egos get the upper hand.

I’m not saying Trent is necessarily a bad guy, but humility is an important trait that many YouTube stars lack.

 

[BrianNC]

Sometimes our egos get the upper hand.

I’m not saying Trent is necessarily a bad guy, but hubris is an important trait that many YouTube stars lack.

You mean humility is what they lack don't you? Many of them seem to be full of hubris. lol.

 

[Fearless Tower]

You mean humility is what they lack don't you? Many of them seem to be full of hubris. lol.

Good catch!

 

[LesGawlik]

Sometimes our egos get the upper hand.

I’m not saying Trent is necessarily a bad guy, but humility is an important trait that many YouTube stars lack.

So you would just lie back and take it, then. I didn't ask what Trent should have done, I asked what you would have done. I

 

[Lindberg]

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.

Not even. If I was the FAA, I would say that, "Except when necessary for [] landing" applies only to necessary actions that require you to be below the specified minimum altitudes during the phase of flight between cruise and landing at a legal landing site. That includes the pattern and an inspection pass, when doing so below the minimum altitudes is necessary. But only when on your way to land at a legal landing location.

It would not include "inspecting" a location merely to see if it were an acceptable landing site. It would not include "inspecting" a location that's clearly unacceptable. It would not include a final approach to an area that can't be approached safely. None of these are "necessary for landing," they "would be necessary if landing safely were possible." Otherwise, an exception that broad would swallow the rule. Would anyone here support me if I made an "inspection pass" over my half-acre backyard in the middle of a suburban neighborhood because I thought maybe I could stuff my STOL competition taildragger in there? No way.

Moreover, there's no affirmative rule that gives you permission to land anywhere you want just because you're a "backcountry pilot." This was not an airport, it was someone's backyard. That apparently couldn't even be overflown without getting within minimum distances of other peoples' property and structures. The mere ability to get your gear on the ground and the aircraft stopped in a certain location without breaking anything is not all that the law requires.

Bottom line, if I was the judge, and the FAA proved that it should have been apparent from 501' (or from the ground) that this was not a suitable landing site where landing could be accomplished without undue danger to persons and property on the surface, then I'd be completely indifferent to the pilot's explanation of an "inspection pass." Even if an inspection pass is a good idea in some or many circumstances, that in no way means it's a good idea or justified in every circumstance.

ETA: I still don't know what the FAA actually argued or proved in this case, but to my mind, the above is a possibility that doesn't require the FAA saying that "Inspection passes are illegal" or "You can't abort a landing below 500'."

 

[Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe]

https://www.faasafety.gov/files/gsl...35893/Alaska Off Airport Operations Guide.pdf

"Make at least 3 recon passes at different levels before attempting a landing"
[...]
"Low Level: Make a pass to check for cuts in gravel, rocks,
dips, bumps, etc., that can’t be seen from directly above. {...}
Make another pass and roll one tire for a few feet to get a
feel for the landing surface."

Hard to do from 500 feet.

 

[Lindberg]

Really? So a pilot cannot inspect a strip, with no intention to land, for ten other bush planes bringing in hunters later that day?

The question is really a non-sequitur.

First, this was not a strip.
Second, this is only an issue at all if you get within 500' of a person, vessel, vehicle, or structure (in a sparsely populated area). At most real back-country strips, that's not going to be an issue.

But the answer is that there's no King's X for low passes. Even at an airport, if not necessary for landing, an intentional low pass below 500' (if not sparsely populated) or that gets within 500' of a person, vessel, vehicle, or structure violates 91.119. So if your buddy decides to low-pass your runway on the way to his home field and gets within 500' of a hangar or a vehicle parked on the ramp, it's a violation. The solution is that if you want to inspect that runway for ten other planes, land. You're not really inspecting it if you don't anyway.

 

[Lindberg]

https://www.faasafety.gov/files/gslac/library/documents/2017/Sep/135893/Alaska Off Airport Operations Guide.pdf

"Make at least 3 recon passes at different levels before attempting a landing"
[...]
"Low Level: Make a pass to check for cuts in gravel, rocks,
dips, bumps, etc., that can’t be seen from directly above. {...}
Make another pass and roll one tire for a few feet to get a
feel for the landing surface."

Hard to do from 500 feet.

You elided the high-level and intermediate passes, which could be done from 501' or above, and which the FAA might have proved would be sufficient to determine the site was unsuitable. In fact, based even on the pilot's statement, I would say they should have been.

 

[Salty]

I'm wondering (read that as wildly speculating) if the suspension didn't come about because of a staunch "I didn't do anything wrong" rather than a "I see the error of my ways and shall go and sin no more" response.

 

[luvflyin]

The warbird/experimental training issue has been brought up a few times and the more I think about it, Trent may very well be the next Thom Richard.

For those not familiar, Thom Richard was the guy who single handedly created the debacle that became the new FAA precedent for experimental training.

Thom was in the wrong and the FAA (and others) repeatedly warned him. He thought he was smarter than the FAA and fought it to the detriment of anyone who owns an experimental.

Trent’s case may very well end up screwing everyone who does backcountry flying.

Kind of wish he’d have just shut up and take the suspension.

Hmm. Maybe he will mysteriously disappear at the next back country fly in event he goes to.

 

[bflynn]

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.

he did say that he called it off because he was having trouble picturing the right touch down zone and therefore decided not to land. No, he didn’t explicitly say he was trying to land, but I’m not doing a pass over an airport looking for where to touch down unless I’m landing.

 

[bflynn]

First, this was not a strip.

Second, this is only an issue at all if you get within 500' of a person, vessel, vehicle, or structure

The solution is that if you want to inspect that runway for ten other planes, land. You're not really inspecting it if you don't anyway.

First, that it was not a developed strip is irrelevant.

Second, you, like the FAA lawyer, left out the preface to this, which is unless part of a landing procedure.

third, if are planning to land, but determine from a lower altitude that you cannot safely land, what does a prudent pilot do?

 

[Lindberg]

Any location is a legal landing location so long as there aren't local ordinances prohibiting it.

Utterly false.

 

[Lindberg]

First, that it was not a developed strip is irrelevant.

Why is it irrelevant? Whether it was possible to make a safe landing there is certainly relevant to whether any action is necessary for landing. Flying low at a developed strip is presumably necessary for landing. Flying low over my backyard is definitely not. Flying low over this property was ????????

Second, you, like the FAA lawyer, left out the preface to this, which is unless part of a landing procedure.

I didn't leave out anything. On the contrary, I quoted the actual language of the reg in my other post, unlike you. The reg most certainly does not say "unless part of a landing procedure." And how do you know what the FAA lawyer said?

third, if are planning to land, but determine from a lower altitude that you cannot safely land, what does a prudent pilot do?

Not land. A prudent pilot also doesn't "plan to land" in clearly dumb places in the first place.

"I was planning to land in the McDonald's drive through for some fries--because there's no local ordinance against it, it's legal--and I had to get down to 200' AGL before I could tell it wasn't a good idea."

 

[Lindberg]

Nope. Might want to do some reading.

I should have phased to say unless prohibited by regulation. Forgot we have a bunch of pendants here.

Michigan is a good example, but that hurts your stance.

You might want to do some reading starting with 14 CFR 91.13.

 

[Lindberg]

Try again. That regulation says nothing about landing in someone's yard being prohibited.

Read it again.

 

[thito01]

Read it again.

No amount of reading with justify your position.

 

[Lindberg]

I have, many times. Try again.

Where's the prohibition in landing? I mean you want to be internet badass lawyer. Sack up, and show me the regulation where my statement is "utterly false." All I have to do is present one case where it isn't false.

Where's the prohibition in 91.13 on running out of fuel? On sending someone to remove chocks with the engine running? On taxiing into the side of a hangar? On hand propping a plane without tying down and letting it run into another plane? Landing on a closed runway? Do you think any of those might be careless and reckless, notwithstanding the fact that they aren't listed in the regulation? Landing or attempting to land where or when you shouldn't can also be careless and reckless operation, notwithstanding the fact that it isn't specifically listed in the regulation.

 

[Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe]

You elided the high-level and intermediate passes, which could be done from 501' or above, and which the FAA might have proved would be sufficient to determine the site was unsuitable. In fact, based even on the pilot's statement, I would say they should have been.

Possibly. Also possible that someone in the FAA decided to Hoover him. Or both.

 

[Lindberg]

Possibly. Also possible that someone in the FAA decided to Hoover him. Or both.

And we have no way of knowing which merely from watching the pilot's video.

 

[Lindberg]

Deflection. We are talking about landing off airport.

Show me the regulation about off airport landings being prohibited by the FAA.

I did not say the FAA prohibits off-airport landings. I said this statement is false: "Any location is a legal landing location so long as there aren't local ordinances prohibiting it." And I have already given you one reason why it is false. But I can only lead you to the water.

 

[thito01]

I would not be surprised that someone decided to Hoover him due to his videos. But, if the Judge really said (to the effect) that since he aborted the landing, he can not use the "for landing" clause, then the judge needs to be removed from the bench for stupidity.

 

[Tarheelpilot]

Guys have legally done exactly that. (actually landed for food that is)

Next failed attempt?

I landed for beer a couple times. Just called up the beer store and asked for permission to land in the parking lot.

 

[bflynn]

Utterly false.

Give an example please?

 

[Palmpilot]

Not even. If I was the FAA, I would say that, "Except when necessary for [] landing" applies only to necessary actions that require you to be below the specified minimum altitudes during the phase of flight between cruise and landing at a legal landing site. That includes the pattern and an inspection pass, when doing so below the minimum altitudes is necessary. But only when on your way to land at a legal landing location.

It would not include "inspecting" a location merely to see if it were an acceptable landing site. It would not include "inspecting" a location that's clearly unacceptable. It would not include a final approach to an area that can't be approached safely. None of these are "necessary for landing," they "would be necessary if landing safely were possible." Otherwise, an exception that broad would swallow the rule. Would anyone here support me if I made an "inspection pass" over my half-acre backyard in the middle of a suburban neighborhood because I thought maybe I could stuff my STOL competition taildragger in there? No way.

Moreover, there's no affirmative rule that gives you permission to land anywhere you want just because you're a "backcountry pilot." This was not an airport, it was someone's backyard. That apparently couldn't even be overflown without getting within minimum distances of other peoples' property and structures. The mere ability to get your gear on the ground and the aircraft stopped in a certain location without breaking anything is not all that the law requires.

Bottom line, if I was the judge, and the FAA proved that it should have been apparent from 501' (or from the ground) that this was not a suitable landing site where landing could be accomplished without undue danger to persons and property on the surface, then I'd be completely indifferent to the pilot's explanation of an "inspection pass." Even if an inspection pass is a good idea in some or many circumstances, that in no way means it's a good idea or justified in every circumstance.

ETA: I still don't know what the FAA actually argued or proved in this case, but to my mind, the above is a possibility that doesn't require the FAA saying that "Inspection passes are illegal" or "You can't abort a landing below 500'."

I foresee that the FAR-AIM is going to double in size!

 

[Palmpilot]

...Even at an airport, if not necessary for landing, an intentional low pass below 500' (if not sparsely populated) or that gets within 500' of a person, vessel, vehicle, or structure violates 91.119.

So when a tower controller clears you for the option, which the P/CG defines as including a low pass as one of the options, is that part of the clearance null and void?

 

[exncsurfer]

So when a tower controller clears you for the option, which the P/CG defines as including a low pass as one of the options, is that part of the clearance null and void?

Only if you don't come back and land eventually. (im' joking, i hope)

 

[exncsurfer]

Give an example please?

Maybe 'utterly' means sometimes in certain instances.

 

[Lindberg]

So when a tower controller clears you for the option, which the P/CG defines as including a low pass as one of the options, is that part of the clearance null and void?

Does a clearance relieve the pilot of abiding by the FARs? Can the pilot make a low approach without passing within 500' of any person, vessel, vehicle, or structure? The JO 7110.65 also mentions Altitude Restricted Low Approaches. https://tfmlearning.faa.gov/publications/atpubs/ATC/atc0310.html#oKH320JACK

What does this have to do with the issue at hand?

 

[Tarheelpilot]

Give an example please?

He already did. You know. Careless and reckless. The catch all for let’s make up something if we don’t like it.

 

[Tarheelpilot]

Does a clearance relieve the pilot of abiding by the FARs? Can the pilot make a low approach without passing within 500' of any person, vessel, vehicle, or structure? The JO 7110.65 also mentions Altitude Restricted Low Approaches. https://tfmlearning.faa.gov/publications/atpubs/ATC/atc0310.html#oKH320JACK

What does this have to do with the issue at hand?

You tell us what it is you’re trying to say or I’m gonna start calling you Tom.

you’re being patronizing. You’re better than that…

 

[Palmpilot]

Maybe 'utterly' means sometimes in certain instances.

Well, to be fair, Ed did say "any" landing location, as long as it was not prohibited by local ordinances. The use of that absolute qualifier means that "certain instances" should be sufficient to disprove the statement. It probably would not be all that hard to think of a landing location that was not prohibited by local ordinances, but which could nevertheless be reasonably construed as careless or reckless to use.

 

[Palmpilot]

Does a clearance relieve the pilot of abiding by the FARs? Can the pilot make a low approach without passing within 500' of any person, vessel, vehicle, or structure? The JO 7110.65 also mentions Altitude Restricted Low Approaches. https://tfmlearning.faa.gov/publications/atpubs/ATC/atc0310.html#oKH320JACK

What does this have to do with the issue at hand?

I'll answer your questions if you answer mine!

 

[exncsurfer]

Well, to be fair, Ed did say "any" landing location, as long as it was not prohibited by local ordinances. The use of that absolute qualifier means that "certain instances" should be sufficient to disprove the statement. It probably would not be all that hard to think of a landing location that was not prohibited by local ordinances, but which could nevertheless be reasonably construed as careless or reckless to use.

Yes, it is utterly wrong that any suitable landing location could be legal.

(another bad joke, sorry)

 

[Lindberg]

You tell us what it is you’re trying to say or I’m gonna start calling you Tom.

You can call me whatever you want. I've been saying the same thing this entire thread: It's entirely possible that 1) the FAA is 100% correct in this case and 2) properly conducted inspection passes and back-country landings are legal. We don't know the legal position the FAA took in this case and we've only heard one version of the facts. That's not enough.