That part is pretty well-established. What's a bit surprising is that they didn't even verbally slap the FAA particularly hard for the evidence destruction. That was probably because the content of the video-of-a-video was basically admitted, but they panel could have said more about it.
He didn’t. He only conceded that he came within the prohibited distance.
How exactly did he get the FAA to ****can its best direct evidence of where his aircraft was and when? Jedi mind tricks? Maybe the video wasn't quite so dramatic as the breathless neighbor Mrs. Lovejoy represented it to be...
The FAA somehow managed to lose the original video, apparently? Mind-boggling incompetence or Jedi mind trick, who can say? They had a video of the video, but the judge said that that couldn't be used under the doctrine of best evidence and so everything from the video was excluded.
this is the biggest joke of a regulation ever... basically the FAA sees you as guilty and you must provide proof of innocence. no pilot,ever,has complied with that FAR. Legally ambiguous and no way to prove you did comply.
It wasn’t that Cochran was that good. It was that the prosecutors were that bad.
The FAA also published a guide on how to consider if a landing is feasible. The ruling doesn't seem to be say fly-bys to consider feasibility are invalid, but that he didn't start high and continue lower to make his assessment. Starting high and going lower is the recommendation that the guide gives and the guide was central to his defense. That he didn't follow that guidance was a problem for his defense.
If Trent admitted the low pass then the loos of the video becomes irrelevant in terms of what it proves or doesn't prove. Having read the decision and some of the briefs, I think the argument about it wasn't about its exclusion (which the defense won), but about spoliation - the loss or destruction of relevant evidence. That would permit the judge (or jury in a court case) to at one extreme, dismiss the case for destruction of relevant evidence or, at the least permit an inference that, if the evidence was not lost, it would be harmful to the party that lost it. But even for that, if the content is conceded, it doesn't really matter and since the early cases talking about it, the concept has been somewhat watered down anyway (definitely since I did a presentation on it back in 2007).
It was some of both and IMO, especially Fuhrman. The cop is an a-hole works wonders as a defense strategy in a jury case.
It's shocking how many pilots here still base their opinion of this case on Palmer's recitation of what happened when there's abundant, some might say copious, evidence that he's full of ****. I'd go so far as to say that if you're really worried about this same thing happening to you, then you should either 1) reread the available information about this case, or 2) consider changing your behavior.
The finding on appeal mentioned multiple times that he had safer options to evaluate the field and that he didn't follow the guidance of the off airport guide.
Do they define high low intermediate and low?
Witness testimony was that he made a pass at near roof-top height. If that's high, what's low? The point is that he probably could have made at least one pass at a legal height....
Back to Mrs. Lovejoy, the aggrieved neighbor.
No spin required. Just reference to prior case law. Not NTSB, real courts. There was one when someone got busted under this reg for landing - not a low pass, but a landing - on a taxiway when there was a runway right next to it.
Witness testimony is usually the least reliable testimony. Especially when it comes to judging distances.
I don't see any altitudes mentioned to define that. All of those could be done below 500'
Since you cannot reason a man out of what he never reasoned himself into, I've decided to stop trying.
Well, they already found Trent at fault twice, the initial result and the appeal with clarifications. But if you want to make the argument that flying straight in at 100ft is the same as circling at an altitude high enough to "determine the best possible landing site in the vicinity. Check the wind direction and speed using pools of water, drift of the plane, branches, grass, dust, etc. Observe the landing approach and departure zone for obstructions such as trees or high terrain" then I guess I'll wish you luck. Didn't work for Trent, but maybe it will work for you if you just whinge and say "oh, but the guide doesn't specify an altitude".
I'm asking for OBJECTIVE, not SUBJECTIVE stances.
Is 100' high?
Nah, you're just enjoying arguing about this.
Since you describe it that way and consider your description dispositive, it seems to me that two different levels of review took a good hard look at the evidence presented -- and couldn't agree on what exactly happened. Instead, they groped around for whatever rationalization seemed good enough at the time to fit a desired outcome. And kick the can to the next level.
Again, subjective not objective.
We're talking about an off-field landing location. Those usually don't have taxiways. Nor runways lights.
Well, I asked for it before and you dodged it before. So, I'll ask again. What's your explanation for how 100ft straight in satisfies the guidelines in the off airport guide that Trent used as the foundation for his defense?
So read the multiple opinions that recite the facts of the case.
Satellite/aerial photos and the like provide for the high and medium passes, all that's left is flying low for ruts and rocks.
You must have access to much better photo sources than most of us if you have stuff that is only a few minutes old and shows current weather, water, obstructions!
