Trent Palmer’s Pilot certificate suspended for going around at an off-airport landing site

[soyAnarchisto]

I think he's saying this around 12:18 or so.

But my problem is I think Trent is doing some pretty awkward mental gymnastics and is trying to squirm out of a noose he tied for himself. I doubt the judge is making the case that the landing itself was necessary or not - clearly just landing doesn't have to be necessary. However was it necessary that he do a low pass within 500' of the neighbors house to make a landing that he could have made elsewhere not causing him to ever be within 500' of anything covered in 91.119?

Read the reg again, CAREFULLY:

[QUOTE] Except when necessary for takeoff or landing, no person may operate an aircraft below the following altitudes: [/QUOTE]

Note that it doesn't say anything about whether the takeoff or landing is necessary. Just that to violate part C it has to be necessary for a landing. Guy could have landed on another part of the property, not within 500' of the other home. And he proved that by going around.

But to me the smoking gun that is very clear is the fact that he ADMITTED that it was an "inspection pass" and not a landing. Seems pretty clear now, he openly admitted he had no intention of landing - it was a pass to drag the field and inspect it - which does not give him the right to be within 500' of people, structures, or vehicles. Trying to argue it was a landing seems to be a mistake. If he'd had a better lawyer and never admitted in the very first consultation that he was making "passes." I've seen some posts that the lawyer supposedly made on facebook - and frankly if that was my attorney I'd fire him on the spot for talking about my case in a very unprofessional manner. I'm not sure that attorney was much more than another inexperienced kid with a still-wet JD.

There's no new danger to our privileges here. Just stay 500' away from people, homes, and vehicles and there's no issue landing in sparsely populated areas. Especially when trying to land at anything other than established airstrips. Stay out of your friend's back yard if you can't stay 500' away from the neighbors' home. It just ain't that hard.

Would you please provide a time stamp at which that was said. What I heard was "You didn't land so the landing exemption of 91.119 does not apply".

[JP]

There is a bit of a macro lesson in this. Getting people to report on other people is super easy to do.

Especially when someone in authority tells them "those kind" of people are bad/the source of our problems/say the wrong things/think the wrong things/aren't worthy or protection, etc. Authority always promises you that there will be no repercussions and they will take responsibility for dealing with problem people. They will assure you that you are doing the right thing--for your country, democracy and the ministry. You are a good citizen for helping out.

It starts small but spreads. Eventually it becomes a way of life. You become very careful about what you do or say in the presence of anyone. You say it won't happen to you, just others. It's how the unimaginable eventually happens and a 15 year old girl and her family are marched out of an attic and into oblivion on a tip from a fellow citizen. Solely because of who they were.

The FAA is kept in check by the APA, for the most part. Such is the world of Congressionally delegated rulemaking. You may avail yourself of the 5th and smile, give them ID and the requisite aircraft paperwork. But you don't have to say anything. Nothing. The burden is on them to prove you are, indeed, bad. Ultimately, after a good deal of time and money you get to go to appeal into an actual Article III court.

For now.

[Flyingde]

If I recall this is not his first rodeo with the feds. Didn’t he get violated once already for waterskiing?

[OLDCROWE]

I guess I'm lucky my picture from a game camera was sent to the game warden and not the FAA. I don't know if deer stands and feeders count as structures.

Likely do, being man made.

[RVBottomly]

I’ll pass on a bit of advise handed down to me from a fed. Deny deny deny. Never admit you were flying. Might be your one get out of jail free card. If they don’t have a clear picture of you breaking the reg there’s nothing they can do. They get excited after they ramp check the airplane and call back and say you didn’t tell me you annualed it. You didn’t ask. You asked if I flew. Kind of sad as a young guy in aviation they have completely given me a horrible outlook on them.
They’re not happy until you’re not happy.

They will make outlaws out of everyone.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I agree with this. Don't admit anything.

I don't practice aviation law, but I have years in criminal defense and admin law. Without an admission by Trent, could the FAA have proven it was him flying? A cellphone capture of a survellience video? It would have been a lot harder, anyway.

It's sad. Decent people want to explain and come to agreement. It isn't a good idea when dealing with any kind of enforcement investigation.

[mvivion]

Trent has presented the FAA Judge/Jury/Executioner believes his landing was not necessary. Even if the FAA has directed us to inspect possible landing zones thoroughly for safety reasons, none of that matters since the landing was not necessary.

That is different than how the regulation is worded: "...except when necessary for landing/takeoff..."

What exactly constitutes a necessary landing?

I would argue landing at my home, on my own property, to use the lavatory constitutes necessary landing. In possible situations, I may even declare an emergency. Yet, one complaint proven to be an abuse of the ADSB system and in congruent with multiple data sources was enough for the FAA to disregard multiple FAA licensed pilots (witnesses) and join the witch hunt to find the rogue pilot who flew 800+ feet over someone hiding in the woods.

Those in this thread that state "never ever talk to the FAA" don't realize how right they are.

Nope, that is NOT the point of either the regulation or where I suspect the FAA is going with this. The POINT of the regulation is, don't fly your airplane within 500 feet of someone's house. That said, IF doing so is NECESSARY to accomplish that landing, flying closer than 500 feet MAY be legal.

Could he have flown a steeper approach? A dogleg to final? landed from the opposite direction?

I wasnt there, so I don't know. But, the point of this is flying closer than 500 feet to persons or property.

MTV

[Colorado-Cub]

There's no new danger to our privileges here. Just stay 500' away from people, homes, and vehicles and there's no issue landing in sparsely populated areas. Especially when trying to land at anything other than established airstrips. Stay out of your friend's back yard if you can't stay 500' away from the neighbors' home. It just ain't that hard.

Except if it is necessary for landing.

But, only if the landing is necessary.

And only if you are actually landing, not just thinking about landing. Not even if you are thinking really hard about landing. Nope.

[mvivion]

There is a bit of a macro lesson in this. Getting people to report on other people is super easy to do.

Especially when someone in authority tells them "those kind" of people are bad/the source of our problems/say the wrong things/think the wrong things/aren't worthy or protection, etc. Authority always promises you that there will be no repercussions and they will take responsibility for dealing with problem people. They will assure you that you are doing the right thing--for your country, democracy and the ministry. You are a good citizen for helping out.

It starts small but spreads. Eventually it becomes a way of life. You become very careful about what you do or say in the presence of anyone. You say it won't happen to you, just others. It's how the unimaginable eventually happens and a 15 year old girl and her family are marched out of an attic and into oblivion on a tip from a fellow citizen. Solely because of who they were.

The FAA is kept in check by the APA, for the most part. Such is the world of Congressionally delegated rulemaking. You may avail yourself of the 5th and smile, give them ID and the requisite aircraft paperwork. But you don't have to say anything. Nothing. The burden is on them to prove you are, indeed, bad. Ultimately, after a good deal of time and money you get to go to appeal into an actual Article III court.

For now.

Trent was landing or trying to land, on an RC Model Airplane "strip". Wanna bet that reporting neighbor has been frustrated by the RC aircraft activity in past? And, maybe there's a little history between those neighbors? There's almost always more to these stories than appears.

MTV

[Colorado-Cub]

Nope, that is NOT the point of either the regulation or where I suspect the FAA is going with this. The POINT of the regulation is, don't fly your airplane within 500 feet of someone's house. That said, IF doing so is NECESSARY to accomplish that landing, flying closer than 500 feet MAY be legal.

Could he have flown a steeper approach? A dogleg to final? landed from the opposite direction?

I wasnt there, so I don't know. But, the point of this is flying closer than 500 feet to persons or property.

MTV

I am not disagreeing with you, and that is how I understand (understood?) the intent of the regulation as well, however that is not what I heard Trent present.

Again, I do not know the truth of any of it. I do know we were railroaded for something even sillier than Trent's violation with even less evidence, so my salty outlook may haze my opinion of the FAAs intentions.

[Colorado-Cub]

Dumb question but the hive mind may know:

Are glider pilots violated if they land out closer than 500' to structure, person, or dairy cow?

[RVBottomly]

Dumb question but the hive mind may know:

Are glider pilots violated if they land out closer than 500' to structure, person, or dairy cow?

Practically, probably not because they accomplished the landing.

But I wouldn't say it is out of the realm of possibility. Suppose the glider pilot had a choice between a 500 acre corn field and a 1 acre soccer field by a school, and he chose the soccer field?

[tempdoug]

where is greg swingle when we need him, sure miss his videos. they were the best. always put a twist of humor with stuff. anyone? and to be honest, ive seen trents videos and have never opened or watched a one of his but i scour the internet looking for gregs.

[Colorado-Cub]

where is greg swingle when we need him, sure miss his videos. they were the best. always put a twist of humor with stuff. anyone?

I am willing to bet Greg S would chose to land in the soccer field because that is where the porta potty's are located.

"I ain't walking across no dang field. I gots the phat tires!"

[frequent_flyer]

Read the reg again, CAREFULLY:

I have read it carefully and each post I have made on this topic is, in my opinion, entirely consistent with the intent and language of the regulation.

In summary:

91.119 has no relevance to the necessity for landing and the necessity for landing has no relevance to 91.119.
91.119 defines altitudes below which an aircraft may not be flown.
The only times that there can be a deviation from the altitudes specified in 91.119 is if a takeoff or landing is being performed AND that takeoff or landing cannot be performed without violating one of the requirements of (a), (b), or (c) in which case (a) and/or (b) and/or (c) do not apply while the takeoff or landing is being performed.

Some parts of CFR 14 seem quite poorly written to me but I see no ambiguity in 91.119.

[Colorado-Cub]

In the context of our discussion, 91.119 does not specify altitude. It specifies proximity.

For instance, if you can land without undue hazard (vague), you can fly at 10' AGL as long as you are 500' away from person, vessel, vehicle, or structure.

Except when necessary for takeoff or landing.

[frequent_flyer]

In the context of our discussion, 91.119 does not specify altitude. It specifies proximity.

"Except when necessary for takeoff or landing, no person may operate an aircraft below the following altitudes:" Yet you argue that 91.119 does not specify altitudes. I suspect a cognitive dissonance.

[BC12D-4-85]

Can I assume unoccupied vessels, vehicles (any?), and structures (any including tent camps?) require 500' separation spacing as much as those occupied? I've never given it much thought but will confirm same from the local FSDO.

Gary

[Colorado-Cub]

OK, I will play:

91.119 (c): An altitude of 500 feet above the surface, except over open water or sparsely populated areas. In those cases, the aircraft may not be operated closer than 500 feet to any person, vessel, vehicle, or structure.



So, what is the minimum altitude requirement for sparsely populated areas?

[cubdrvr]

OK, I will play:

91.119 (c): An altitude of 500 feet above the surface, except over open water or sparsely populated areas. In those cases, the aircraft may not be operated closer than 500 feet to any person, vessel, vehicle, or structure.



So, what is the minimum altitude requirement for sparsely populated areas?

That's an easy one.......... Tires just above ground/water level as long as you are 500' from persons, vessels, etc.........if I read the reg correctly.

[frequent_flyer]

OK, I will play:

So, what is the minimum altitude requirement for sparsely populated areas?

0.0 recurring feet unless then there is a person, vessel, vehicle, or structure within 500 feet of the aircraft.

[Colorado-Cub]

Exactly.

There is no minimum altitude requirement in the context of this discussion. There is a proximity minimum.

[Colorado-Cub]

0.0 recurring feet unless then there is a person, vessel, vehicle, or structure within 500 feet of the aircraft.

Apparently you and I share the same cognitive dissonance. Welcome to the family!

[courierguy]

I never lock my hangar, no telling who could access my plane and take it for spin, so to speak, without me knowing about it. The dog ate my logbook.

[Eddy Lewis]

It appears that helicopters are exempt from this rule. So I assume when flying in the fixed wing I will have to stay 500 above the river where boaters might be present.


Sent from my iPhone using SuperCub.Org

[mvivion]

Exactly.

There is no minimum altitude requirement in the context of this discussion. There is a proximity minimum.

Ah, but that’s assuming the FAA considers a subdivision with ten acre lots to be a “sparsely populated area”. I’m not sure I’d make that assumption. This is the agency which concluded in one case that a small Boy Scout camp constituted a “congested area” after all.

MTV

[bob turner]

Thanks for this thread. We were having a discussion based on it over beers this evening.

I shall omit the location, but there is a popular tour available where ATC authorizes an 800' msl altitude over what looks to me like a congested area.

One of my favorite copilots told me his buddy was busted because two people in a rowboat was congested. I wonder how the feds would view about 20 sailboats.

I am often (daily) cleared for an early crosswind. Sometimes that is over some pretty congested stuff - I hope this "necessary" idea is not someday an issue. It is generally safer than a long upwind over very congested shopping areas.

[Colorado-Cub]

Ah, but that’s assuming the FAA considers a subdivision with ten acre lots to be a “sparsely populated area”. I’m not sure I’d make that assumption. This is the agency which concluded in one case that a small Boy Scout camp constituted a “congested area” after all.

MTV

That is an interesting question I have asked in the past, but have never come away with a repeatable answer.

Many years ago during primary training I was instructed the VFR sectional dictated what was dense vs sparsely populated, so I assumed the sectional was the basis of the FAA definition. Since then I seem to remember pilots being violated due to sparse/dense interpretations.

How can a pilot tell (before hand) how the FAA will define a given geographic area when planning a flight?

[Colorado-Cub]

Interesting links found regarding the subject:

https://pilot-protection-services.ao...congested-area

https://www.eaa.org/eaa/aircraft-bui...opulated-areas

It does appear the definition is at the discretion of the FAA to be used against the pilot as they see fit.

Oh my.

[ScaleBackcountryPilot]

Interesting links found regarding the subject:

https://pilot-protection-services.ao...congested-area

https://www.eaa.org/eaa/aircraft-bui...opulated-areas

It does appear the definition is at the discretion of the FAA to be used against the pilot as they see fit.

Oh my.

Yeah it seems they make a lot of those flexible in their favor.

[DENNY]

SOOOOOO, as someone who had the opportunity to give his license back to the FAA for 12 weeks all I can say is he is lucky!! Mine could have been for 1/2 a year but because of my good looks gave me less (my story and I am sticking to it). We really need to see the other half of the story!! About 5 weeks ago I was flying down the Skwentna at 1,000 ft when a cub below tree level (flight of two) called on 122.9 and said turning back someone in trouble. I looked down and below me was a cub and 180 on the river. They landed and said a they had a injured snow mobile rider that flagged them down. I stayed above after first call because that is what we do up here and I had the back open for a Medivac. I went down to check on the guy but arm was not broken so he just wanted a ride to Skwentna. Every day planes fly that river below the tree tops. THAT IS THE SKWENTNA RIVER IN ALASKA. People depend on aircraft and the pilots that fly them, if you don't live in that world don't expect people to understand that damm loud noisemaker you just flew over the house. If you want to check out a RC AIRCRAFT STRIP??? might want to use Google earth or the car first. JUST SAYING. Show the video and location. DENNY

[RaisedByWolves]

Never forget, even with Administrative Law (executive department regulations), you still retain your 5th amendment right of not self incriminating. About 90% of FAA enforcement actions that result in penalties are due to self incriminating oneself. As stated above Deny, Deny, Deny! If the tower asks you to contact them when you land, park the plane and go home. Calling the tower is self incrimination. It is very hard to do, but never volunteer information.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Good thing adsb won’t be used to tattle tale on you either. Oh wait…


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[RVBottomly]

More discussion on "congested area."

http://www.aerolegalservices.com/Art...%20%28c%29%29.

That case involved an aerial applicator spraying near an area of homes.

Trent's case, of course, did not involve a congested area. Nevertheless, I can see the FAA applying the same kind of reasoning for subjection (c): "Over other than congested areas", which has the 500 foot minimum altitude "except over open water or sparsely populated areas."

What exactly is "sparsely populated"? Case by case, no doubt.

[Narwhal]

Good discussion, glad I brought it up here on Supercub.org with pilots who have real experience dealing with this type of situation.

Here is where the surveillance pass was conducted (at the invitation of the property owner to land there).

https://www.google.com/maps/@39.7929.../data=!3m1!1e3

[GreggB]

Dumb question but the hive mind may know:

Are glider pilots violated if they land out closer than 500' to structure, person, or dairy cow?

Glider pilots ridge flying is an unopened can of worms...

[Tennessee]

Where does a planned go-around on an IFR practice approach fit in to this if it takes you over a house or business?

The people who organize events like the drag races at the High Sierra fly in had better be listening and measuring distances to the judges and audience with a certified laser ruler.

Safety comes first. If you have to do a flyby to check for wildlife, you do it. But...

Dozens of backcountry flying videos could be reviewed by backcountry aviation opponents or FAA investigators and fly-by violations could be fabricated from what is freely available on the internet.

Places like Johnson Creek can be lined with other pilots less than 500 feet from the action, taking videos with their smart phones and sharing the videos on facebook and youtube.

To protect yourself and other pilots, be careful with your youtube and facebook accounts, people. Think before you post. Think about reviewing and deleting some of what you HAVE posted.

[cubdrvr]

Lots of good points made on this thread........most of them meaningless unless we know the exact definition of words. In the event of a reported violation, we get a judge to give us his answer after spending
time and $$$ with a couple attorneys.
Does previous case law apply as FAA cases are not conducted in real courts?

[JP]

Trent was landing or trying to land, on an RC Model Airplane "strip". Wanna bet that reporting neighbor has been frustrated by the RC aircraft activity in past? And, maybe there's a little history between those neighbors? There's almost always more to these stories than appears.

MTV

You are right--that's likely what happened. My comment was a broader observation on human nature.

I am concerned with the rapidly escalating modern trend of people who self empower themselves against others they disagree with. They report them. They Dox them. Etc. I bitched about this trend a few years back when the FAA started getting sent pilot videos, some of which had been on SC.org. And authorities got involved.

I think of my client who just spent 22k clearing his name after being falsely reported to a government agency by a jealous brother. The agency, without any due process or ability to show any proof, simply declared him liable. Only in a real court was he cleared.

Due process is pretty important. Yet you now regularly see opinion pieces in major publications arguing that some people shouldn't be entitled to it at all.

I also think of my client who was marched off at the age of 7 after his late father was turned in for having "modern" art at the house. By their dear friends and neighbors. He has a plate in his head from a Nazi jack boot and a hearing aid in his destroyed ear. Or a college friend marched off to dig his own grave for harboring chickens during the Pol Pot regime. I can still hear him screaming in his sleep down the hall in our dorm.

But it's probably overall nothing to worry about because it always happens to someone else.....



Sent from my SM-G981U using SuperCub.Org mobile app

[40m]

Good discussion, glad I brought it up here on Supercub.org with pilots who have real experience dealing with this type of situation.

Here is where the surveillance pass was conducted (at the invitation of the property owner to land there).

https://www.google.com/maps/@39.7929.../data=!3m1!1e3

Even from space it looks like a great place to avoid.

[frequent_flyer]

Here is where the surveillance pass was conducted (at the invitation of the property owner to land there).

https://www.google.com/maps/@39.7929.../data=!3m1!1e3

I had a close look on Google Earth and I don't see anywhere I would want to land. On the other hand there is enough room to cut a nice 500 ft runway and add a windsock. According to Trent's video that would seem to make landing there ok with FAA. I look forward to chapter two.

[dgapilot]

Glider pilots ridge flying is an unopened can of worms...

Yeah, lots of times with the wingtip about 25’ from the trees!


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk