Trent Palmer (YouTuber Bush Pilot Channel) Suspended By FAA

DaleB said:
I saw something similar somewhere (cough..Gaston’s) when a Comanche went past at a pretty good clip. I think everyone had a realistic appraisal of its regulatory compliance, and I didn’t hear a single complaint. Weather or not you catch flak for things like that is all about the time, place, and audience.
Click to expand...

There were stray animals on the runway that needed to be chased off. Balee dat.

No seriously, there were bipedal mammals on the runway.
 
Lindberg said:
Why is it so hard to accept that a YouTuber made a high-speed low pass over his buddy's house and then when busted, lied to the FAA about it, and then when they didn't believe him, lied to YouTube about it?
Click to expand...

It's not hard to accept that. It's hard to accept that the judge found that inspection passes are not necessary. If they want to bust him for buzzing, charge him with that. Say to him "you were going way too fast for an inspection pass and there is no guide saying 60 degree turns are a proper way to do an inspection pass, we find that you were not doing an inspection pass, you were recklessly joyriding. 120 day suspension".
 
172andyou said:
It's not hard to accept that. It's hard to accept that the judge found that inspection passes are not necessary. If they want to bust him for buzzing, charge him with that. Say to him "you were going way too fast for an inspection pass and there is no guide saying 60 degree turns are a proper way to do an inspection pass, we find that you were not doing an inspection pass, you were recklessly joyriding. 120 day suspension".
Click to expand...
Meh...distinction without a difference.
 
Country Flier said:
Meh...distinction without a difference.
Click to expand...

HUUUUUUGE difference. If they say that inspection passes are illegal, then they make flying less safe. If they say that buzzing your buddies house is illegal, then they are being consistent with the letter and spirit of the regs and previous enforcement actions.
 
172andyou said:
HUUUUUUGE difference. If they say that inspection passes are illegal, then they make flying less safe. If they say that buzzing your buddies house is illegal, then they are being consistent with the letter and spirit of the regs and previous enforcement actions.
Click to expand...
Quote one case…just one…when someone else has been cited for just an inspection pass since Trent’s case, and I’ll agree with you.
 
Last edited:
I think the actual court documents make it pretty clear he's not being violated for choosing not to land. Since the FAA maintains that it wasn't a suitable landing spot, I'd expect they'd be even more interested in violating him had he actually gone through with the unsafe landing...

Nobody is saying inspection passes are illegal. But I think everyone agrees that you can't buzz over your buddy's house to "inspect" their pool as a landing site for your Twin Otter. And actually landing in the pool doesn't suddenly make it okay. ;)
 
babcock said:
I think the actual court documents make it pretty clear he's not being violated for choosing not to land. Since the FAA maintains that it wasn't a suitable landing spot, I'd expect they'd be even more interested in violating him had he actually gone through with the unsafe landing...

Nobody is saying inspection passes are illegal. But I think everyone agrees that you can't buzz over your buddy's house to "inspect" their pool as a landing site for your Twin Otter. And actually landing in the pool doesn't suddenly make it okay. ;)
Click to expand...
Yes, but it's so much more fun to accuse the evil FAA of prohibiting inspection passes.

Welcome to POA, Chris.
 
Wow, lots of pretty strong opinions here. I admit I like TP videos and know a couple of his flying friends. I can see both sides on this - actual inspection or buzzing a friend and getting caught. In the end - both the FAA and TP lost a great chance to teach people buzzing is stupid and making sure your planned landing location is reasonable and dont make anyone who may be close uncomfortable. Had the FAA approached TP and explained they got a complaint and since he has a large following, lets make this an education experience for everyone. TP puts a meeting with the FAA and him - maybe even the bitching neighbor on a podcast. They all get to tell their side of the story - TP says he was just inspecting the landing site and understands the neighbors complaint. The FAA makes a point to tell everyone - flying is a privilege and use good judgment especially when flying anywhere near others. Everyone wins - TP without admitting anything says he will be more respectful, the neighbor learns that it is necessary to make an inspection pass and the FAA comes off as the good guy mediator.
 
rockwoodrv9a said:
Wow, lots of pretty strong opinions here. I admit I like TP videos and know a couple of his flying friends. I can see both sides on this - actual inspection or buzzing a friend and getting caught. In the end - both the FAA and TP lost a great chance to teach people buzzing is stupid and making sure your planned landing location is reasonable and dont make anyone who may be close uncomfortable. Had the FAA approached TP and explained they got a complaint and since he has a large following, lets make this an education experience for everyone. TP puts a meeting with the FAA and him - maybe even the bitching neighbor on a podcast. They all get to tell their side of the story - TP says he was just inspecting the landing site and understands the neighbors complaint. The FAA makes a point to tell everyone - flying is a privilege and use good judgment especially when flying anywhere near others. Everyone wins - TP without admitting anything says he will be more respectful, the neighbor learns that it is necessary to make an inspection pass and the FAA comes off as the good guy mediator.
Click to expand...
The FAA's charter is not to be "good guy mediator." And he's a repeat offender and a liar. The FAA should reward that by increasing his exposure? Lol indeed.
 
What is there to learn? The regulations are pretty clear and the video shows he did a bit more than an "inspection pass". An inspection pass is something you do in the back country where you cant drive to the landing spot, not buzz your buddies neighborhood.
 
Lindberg said:
Read the NTSB decision.
Click to expand...

Keep in mind what the NTSB puts as cause for most accidents:

Primary cause: Pilot's fault.
Oh, the airplane coming from together had nothing to do with it?

I don't put much stock in the NTSB when they default on their findings.
 
EdFred said:
Keep in mind what the NTSB puts as cause for most accidents:

Primary cause: Pilot's fault.
Oh, the airplane coming from together had nothing to do with it?

I don't put much stock in the NTSB when they default on their findings.
Click to expand...
I don't put much stock in commenters who comment on something they haven't read.
 
Jeeze this whole incident should have been over and done with three years ago. Now we're gonna have a podcast?
 
Lindberg said:
I don't put much stock in commenters who comment on something they haven't read.
Click to expand...

I don't put much stock in commenters who make assumptions about what others have or haven't done.
 
I have been reading the NTSB report and this jumped out (and seems relevant to the thread)
End of page 41 - 42.
Respondent posits that the law judge misinterpreted § 91.119 in finding that a low inspection pass is not necessary for an off-airport landing, but the law judge did not issue such a finding. Rather, the law judge determined that respondent did not prove his affirmative defense that he met the prefatory clause – that his low inspection pass was necessary for landing during the November 24th flight. 297 The law judge reasoned that respondent had other alternatives for conducting the low inspection pass that did not violate the regulation by flying within 500 feet to any person, vessel, vehicle, or structure. Given that the law judge did not find that a low inspection pass is not necessary for an off-airport landing, he did not misinterpret the regulation as respondent suggests.
Click to expand...

https://s30121.pcdn.co/wp-content/uploads/2023/04/NTSB_Palmer_033023.pdf
 
I'd rather have threads evolve into Monty Python than devolve into 1930's central European politics...
 
The House version of the FAA reauthorization bill contains "The Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration shall not apply section 91.119 of title 14, Code of Federal Regulations, in any manner that requires a pilot to continue a landing that is unsafe."

So if this goes through all of you worried the FAA is going to come after you for legitimate inspection passes can relax.
 
babcock said:
...pilot to continue a landing that is unsafe."
Click to expand...

Typical crappy Congressional wording.

Pilot's interpretation:
...requires a pilot to continue a landing that the pilot believes is unsafe.​

FAA's interpretation:
...requires a pilot to continue a landing that the FAA believes is unsafe.​
 
Well in this particular case the FAA certainly considered the landing to be unsafe. Of course, they never said he should have landed so it's kind of a moot point.
 
I'm not sure whether this is new or not, but this interview with Trent Palmer's attorney was posted on YouTube today.

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