Trent Palmer (YouTuber Bush Pilot Channel) Suspended By FAA

jsstevens said:
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...
Click to expand...

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.
 
Salty said:
I think SAFE has a good take on it.
https://safeblog.org/2022/04/29/landing-or-buzzing-know-cfr-91-119/
Click to expand...
That needs to peel off a few layers and get down to the nitty gritty. All the way down to FAR 1.

Airport means an area of land or water that is used or intended to be used for the landing and takeoff of aircraft, and includes its buildings and facilities, if any.

He intended to land there and I'm pretty sure not leave the plane there and drive home. He intended to take off again if he had been able to land. It is therefore, an Airport.
 
luvflyin said:
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.
Click to expand...

I don't know if that lawyer really wants to compare his client to Nicolae Ceaușescu. That guy was just plain evil, and deserved to be shot.
 
luvflyin said:
That needs to peel off a few layers and get down to the nitty gritty. All the way down to FAR 1.

Airport means an area of land or water that is used or intended to be used for the landing and takeoff of aircraft, and includes its buildings and facilities, if any.

He intended to land there and I'm pretty sure not leave the plane there and drive home. He intended to take off again if he had been able to land. It is therefore, an Airport.
Click to expand...
You can't know if a lot of what you just said is actually true.
 
Salty said:
You can't know if a lot of what you just said is actually true.
Click to expand...
Yeah. But I believe him when he said he intended to land there. Pure speculation on my part that he intended to take off after that. Objection sustained on the hearsay and speculation.:D

Yo, @Bonchie , you weren't gonna leave the plane there were you?
 
luvflyin said:
The first step in Appeal will be to an NTSB Administrative Law Judge. I always thought that if you Appeal it goes right on up to the, for lack of a better word, 'the show.'
Click to expand...
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.
 
luvflyin said:
Yeah. But I believe him when he said he intended to land there.
Click to expand...
Like when you believe posters here when they say they'll do a low pass and then just say they were setting up for a precautionary landing because they heard a sputter, but at the last minute all was right with the world again.
 
RyanShort1 said:
Because if they were really his fellow peers - actual taildragger pilots and farmers, I’m pretty sure they’d be more reasonable.
Click to expand...
So you support a system where the outcome is determined entirely by who's doing the judging and not the facts, as long as the outcome is what you've determined the outcome should be, regardless of the facts.
 
Lindberg said:
Like when you believe posters here when they say they'll do a low pass and then just say they were setting up for a precautionary landing because they heard a sputter, but at the last minute all was right with the world again.
Click to expand...
I believe the posters here. It's against the Terms of POA to lie.:fingerwag:
 
Lindberg said:
So you support a system where the outcome is determined entirely by who's doing the judging and not the facts, as long as the outcome is what you've determined the outcome should be, regardless of the facts.
Click to expand...
Don’t presume. I support a system more closely informed by a higher moral standard that also only judges *actual* crime, as defined by that standard, and attested to by 2-3 witnesses.
 
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 sent an email to my regional rep about what AOPA is doing, or rather not doing, lately that is really getting on my nerves. Got a wonderful forum letter telling me "they love everybody and are the best thing since pockets on a shirt for any pilot or wanna be pilot ... BTW your renewal is due."

I promply sent in a notification that I will not be renewing and I want no further contact from them whether it's a phone call, email, text, or something in the mail box. I was a member for a number of years but I can't see that they are worth the cost these days. If something ever changes (I'm not holding my breath) I may reconsider.

I don't hate the FAA. I haven't ever had an issue with them and have been treated quite fairly in any interaction with them. Of course I really try to play by the rules and not do anything to draw any attention to myself.

PS: Perhaps you should open a poll on who POA hates the most ... ;)
 
Salty said:
And if you did that 50 feet above my house, hell yeah I’d be calling people. I live in the downwind of my airport. I don’t expect people flying over my house at 50 feet.
Click to expand...

I agree. You should be calling 9-1-1, because they're about to crash. There's no other reason someone would be 50 feet above your house on downwind. That's not a "practice engine out."
 
Salty said:
We have no idea what actually happened, so I'm not in anyone's camp. No doubt if only the FAA prosecutor had posted we'd all want to string Trent up.
Click to expand...


Clearly, you have no idea how much some of us hate tyrants.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Feh
I don’t know if it’s been said prior but right or wrong he does a great job of selling GA to the masses(edit: younger masses). Crucifying him,(right or wrong) gets rid of a ambassador to GA that is good at selling to younger generations.
 
I saw AOPA made a post about it/plug for their legal service plan on their Instagram here: https://www.instagram.com/p/Cc_JLmXJMQ7/?utm_source=ig_web_copy_link
"AOPA is concerned about the case involving Trent Palmer, the FAA’s handling of it, and potential future implications for safety and backcountry flying.

We remain fully supportive of the rights of pilots to land on appropriate off-airport locations, or to execute a go-around at off-airport locations if conditions indicate a landing will not have a safe outcome. This applies to pilots of both fixed and rotary wing aircraft.

As a member of our Pilot Protection Services, Trent continues to receive legal support from an AOPA panel attorney."
 
I live on the edge of town, directly in line with final for RWY 28 (KDNA). My brother in law is a LEO. He called last month to see if I was flying (I wasn't) ... I asked him why ... he indicated multiple calls for "aircraft in distress" ... it turned out to be a crop duster:confused::D
 
luvflyin said:
Certainly makes sense to pick a truly landable spot if you're going to do that. But why do it and get that close that you may have to truly land with only a 20 foot notice that you are going to have to do so. You would be able recognize long before that if you had planned the Approach correctly. It seems kinda silly to me to push it beyond that point.
Click to expand...

The CFIs in my area are pretty hard core ... I think the DPEs are as well.
 
RyanShort1 said:
Because if they were really his fellow peers - actual taildragger pilots and farmers, I’m pretty sure they’d be more reasonable.
Click to expand...
Have you ever been on a jury? That's not how it works. If the defendant is on trial for dealing drugs, the jury is not composed of other dealers.
 
danhagan said:
The CFIs in my area are pretty hard core ... I think the DPEs are as well.
Click to expand...
The DPE's want you to go down to 20 feet during simulated engine outs to an off airport site??? I'm having trouble getting my head wrapped around that?
 
luvflyin said:
The DPE's want you to go down to 20 feet during simulated engine outs to an off airport site??? I'm having trouble getting my head wrapped around that?
Click to expand...

I don't know about all of them as I have experience with the one that tested me ...
 
Everskyward said:
Have you ever been on a jury? That's not how it works. If the defendant is on trial for dealing drugs, the jury is not composed of other dealers.
Click to expand...
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.
And yes.
 
Last edited:
danhagan said:
I don't know about all of them as I have experience with the one that tested me ...
Click to expand...
That would be a hard no for me. I’d take a fail before doing that. Mostly because it’s not safe and there’s no good reason, but also because it’s against the regs.
 
Salty said:
That would be a hard no for me. I’d take a fail before doing that. Mostly because it’s not safe and there’s no good reason, but also because it’s against the regs.
Click to expand...
It’s not safe? If you pick a good spot (like a grass runway that you spotted) it’s as safe as anything else…
 
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...
Well sure, if you’re practicing on top of a runway. But then why only 20 feet, and even more important, what does that have to do with this topic?
 
We were in Kentucky one time (like 2 weeks ago) when someone did a very low pass over the runway, er, well over a part of it anyways. We were going to call the authorities but then we realized it was a safety inspection so we were all OK with it. Encouraged it actually. For safety. We were all safer because of it.
 
eman1200 said:
We were in Kentucky one time (like 2 weeks ago) when someone did a very low pass over the runway, er, well over a part of it anyways. We were going to call the authorities but then we realized it was a safety inspection so we were all OK with it. Encouraged it actually. For safety. We were all safer because of it.
Click to expand...
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.
 
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...
As I recall, the safety inspection was absolutely above tree tops… so plenty of altitude.
 
DFH65 said:
Key phrase being "ALL AVAILABLE". Grass strips near us in the spring are always iffy. Rain in the last hour could make it a no go. So you could have called and got a report and the situation changed in the hour it took you to fly there.
Click to expand...

A charted sod airport, even if it is private, is a bit different than an off airport site. If you decide to do a low pass and violate the FAR, it’s on you.
 
kurttruk said:
I don’t know if it’s been said prior but right or wrong he does a great job of selling GA to the masses(edit: younger masses). Crucifying him,(right or wrong) gets rid of a ambassador to GA that is good at selling to younger generations.
Click to expand...

Does he though? Not picking on the guy, as he is but one of many of what I dub "hipster aviation" peddlers. I'm just not sure what showcasing the STOL/bAcKcOuNtRy version of an Icon A5, lifestyle branding exercise, does for the "masses" that cannot afford current housing rental prices as it is. The majority of whom received an inflation adjusted paycut this year. Hell, I'm an above median income earner, and my "raise" was a 5% paycut after inflation.

My point being, how relatable is clowning around off-pavement, sometimes gratuitously wrecking kites worth more than the median SFH in the Country? It's one thing for people to do that in junker modded bumper cars on the weekend at the local drag/dirt strip for less than a couple grand in parts and labor, it's another to do that in half a million dollar flying jet ski.

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. This is just another flat-billed Tech Bro humblebragging on youtube, so the argument is moot.

At the macro level, little of what is being peddled on social media by hipster aviation is actually helping our insurance rates going forward, which is about the only "social" aspect about this hobby I care about anymore. We got enough externalities to go around (looking at you, murderous ERAU) as it is, we don't need the help.
 
hindsight2020 said:
Does he though? Not picking on the guy, as he is but one of many of what I dub "hipster aviation" peddlers. I'm just not sure what showcasing the STOL/bAcKcOuNtRy version of an Icon A5, lifestyle branding exercise, does for the "masses" that cannot afford current housing rental prices as it is. The majority of whom received an inflation adjusted paycut this year. Hell, I'm an above median income earner, and my "raise" was a 5% paycut after inflation.

My point being, how relatable is clowning around off-pavement, sometimes gratuitously wrecking kites worth more than the median SFH in the Country? It's one thing for people to do that in junker modded bumper cars on the weekend at the local drag/dirt strip for less than a couple grand in parts and labor, it's another to do that in half a million dollar flying jet ski.

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. This is just another flat-billed Tech Bro humblebragging on youtube, so the argument is moot.

At the macro level, little of what is being peddled on social media by hipster aviation is actually helping our insurance rates going forward, which is about the only "social" aspect about this hobby I care about anymore. We got enough externalities to go around (looking at you, murderous ERAU) as it is, we don't need the help.
Click to expand...
I'll agree with a lot of your points, but I do give palmer some credit. He flies a kitfox, and while it's probably the nicest kitfox in the world, it's a far cry from an icon. He has also made several videos highlighting the costs involved in aviation, and how to minimize them through mogas burning EAB's. He ought to be right up your alley other than the flat brim hat.
 
There are plenty of backcountry haters in the broader aviation community, the response of many in this thread was quite predictable. They're no different than the anti second amendment gun fudds who believe the only type of legal gun should be a single shot 12 gauge and think all semi-automatics should be confiscated. Maybe the only type of airplane that should be legal is an A320 with the autopilot engaged at 200 feet and an autoland from an ILS done every time? Works great for China! OK OK, the political elites can still have their gulfstreams.

I don't do aerobatics or fly warbirds, but I heartily embrace a pilot's right to to that flying, even if it's not as statistically safe as an A320 on autopilot for 99.99999% of every flight. I'm sure aerobatic aircraft and noisy warbirds might even offend a few grandmas and Karens on the ground near the airports they're based out of.

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. Who has this pilot injured or put at risk?
 
Last edited:
Was it water-skiing? I thought he got a talking-to for something having to do with flying a drone or RC plane next to his plane? Both?
 
455 Bravo Uniform said:
Was it water-skiing? I thought he got a talking-to for something having to do with flying a drone or RC plane next to his plane? Both?
Click to expand...

He got violated about 4 years go for water skiing in his kitfox with a passenger on lake Tahoe. FAA violated him on 91.13 careless/reckless (because he had a passenger) and 91.119(a), alleging that he somehow would've caused undue hazard to persons or property on the ground if his power unit failed. I'm not really sure I understand how 91.119(a) applied in that case, but that's what they got him on. 12m 20s in is where he talks about it.

 
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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top