Thanks: 
Likes: I may have missed it but if his tires had touched the ground for a split second and THEN he went around would he be in this situation?
I may have missed it but if his tires had touched the ground for a split second and THEN he went around would he be in this situation?
The Backcountry Airport Guide does indeed mention 3 recon passes, starting with a high recon. If you're going to cite an FAA guide, it's a good idea not to cherry pick. The whole point of the high recon is to determine LZ suitability.Originally Posted by RedOwlAirfield
They use ADS-B data along with Facebook and Instagram.
what about the fire bombers, are they suspect also
Many moons ago, when I flew for FWS, we had a waiver from 91.119 for “Law enforcement activities”. Been a while, so don’t recall the exact wording. That went away in late 80s/early 90s.
Id be surprised if the FAA issues any such waivers these days, but fire fighting would certainly be a likely candidate.
That said, knowing agencies, misusing such a waiver would likely have consequences.
MTV
A group of houses within 1/4 mile has already been argued by the FAA to constitute a "congested area." and the precedent that a low pass is not necessary for landing for many, many years before Trent was born. This interpretation of this regulation is not new and the FAA has been busting people for doing this for quite some time.
https://pilot-protection-services.ao...ate%20highway.
There is an exception for ag pilots. It's codified in CFR 137.53. Although, it' ain't much of an exception - you have to get all grades of permission and jump through all kinds of hoops. Generally my understanding is most ag pilots will turn down a job like this due to liability.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text...r%20chemicals.
ScaleBackcountryPilot thanked for this post
Fire, ag dispersing ops are 137 not 91. No waiver required as long as you are operating 137.
By using Trent's own testimony and aerial photos of the landing site. Here it is, by the way (this was posted on the big tire STOL group on facebook so the authenticity maybe questionable - but it was claimed to be posted by a "friend" of Trents and he was attempting to use it to prove Trent was in the right. It seems the opposite to me:
ScaleBackcountryPilot liked this post
Operating under 137 does not exempt you from 91 rules. You have to adhere to both. And 137.53 describes the process for operating over congested areas. It's not a waiver in the sens of an "FAA waiver" but rather you must get a permission slip which is to a lay-person a kind of waiver.
FAR 137.29(c)
Right there in black and white. Congested areas are a whole different can of worms, not talking about that. And 500 ft is the law when ferrying.
These Ag pilots posting all over FB and YouToob doing gender reveals. Are they exempt by 137? Asking for a friend.
Except that a collection of houses - such as this subdivision has been interpreted by the FAA as congested (10 houses and a school, open beach with people, boy scout camp etc) - so it certainly would (could) apply. My understanding of the precedent, pretty well established at this point is that unless you are landing at an established airport you are required to adhere to the 500' bubble provision of 91.119(c). I guess part 137 isn't terribly relevant here - the FAA wasn't trying to argue it was congested - but they could and have in the past. I know that you can deviate from part 91 when applying, but ferrying you have to maintain the same separation required by 91.119 - and 137.51(b)4(ii) specifically says ag pilots have to adhere to part 91 here except during the actual dispensing - provided you have the permission slips mentioned in the other sections of 91.137.51. Ag pilots don't get to ignore part 91, if anything as a commercial pilot they should be even MORE aware of it.
I can count 10 houses in that picture above. And his buddy's house and the neighbors house are pretty dang close - at least 600'. I don't think it's a stretch to believe he came within 500 on his low approach. They spent 5 days arguing about it - it seems that Trent admitted to it and argued that it didn't matter because he was "landing." He wasn't spraying so I'm not aware of any other loophole that would allow him to get within 500' of a house.
https://www.faa.gov/about/office_org...rpretation.pdf
Here’s another spin on Trent’s situation:
Several years ago, a friend called me and said he’d been violated under 91.119. I asked the circumstances. He landed a seaplane on a lake which is partially (mostly) surrounded by homes. A fairly large lake. He flew his approach quite low over houses and a power line. He did in fact land. He was prepared to go to the Supreme Court, based on the “Except while landing” argument.
I asked him a couple questions:
First, what were the wind conditions? Answer: Light breeze…five knots or so. Could he have landed out in the middle of the lake, therefore maintains 500 feet above the houses as he passed them? Probably. Finally, could he have landed by flying over the end of the lake where there are no houses? Yes, but that would have required a crosswind landing, and my destination was a ways off.
I then asked why he felt that he couldn’t land in a five to ten knot crosswind?
His response: Those are almost exactly the same questions the feds asked. I suggested he take the sixty day suspension and call it good.
This is a point that hasn’t come up yet in this discussion: Are there places/circumstances where you simply cannot land because doing so would violate 91.119 AND maybe 91.13? The feds in my friend’s case clearly felt that he could have landed on that lake without flying closer than 500 feet to persons or structures.
So, if Trent REALLY wanted to land and visit his bud, could he have landed just outside the subdivision and maintained 500 feet separation? Or, can we land ANYWHERE we like, regardless of proximity to people or structures?
Careless and reckless may be hard to prove if nothing gets broken and nobody gets hurt. But it seems to me that may have been a more appropriate citation here.
And, don’t you Alaska guys just love what these folks call “Bush flying”?
MTV
On floats 91.115 applies after landing. I believe the 500' deal goes away, or does it?
Gary
"Backcountry Flying" is probably a more accurate term.
I kinda have an issue with calling what Trent did "backcountry flying." This was a subdivision, with nice homes already constructed. Now the lots are big-ish at 10 acres, but 10acres ain't that big. It's 660' by 660' and of the 12 lots in this picture only 1 of them is not built. Now he would have had to use some skills to get in there - but that ain't backcountry when you try to put your kitfox down in the middle lot of a subdivision and I don't see how he could do it without flying pretty dang close to a house either on approach or on the go around.
How is this not an act of showboating? The more I think about this, the more I think he's gettin' off pretty easy with 60 days. Coulda been a lot worse, even a 709 ride or if the FAA really wanted to make an example of him yank his certs and make him take his check ride again like Martha Lunkin. She only flew under the Morrow bridge in her 180. Waay more people know who TP is than Martha. She got the rough treatment because she was a former fed herself, it seems.
Maybe, but when I was growing up in Montana "backcountry" implied a day or more hike from the nearest settlement.
Good points there. When I said “backcountry flying” I was more referring to flying into strips for the intent of fun. In this case I agree he was probably getting a little showboaty and probably could have picked a different place to land.
Seriously? Who was he showboating too? A CCTV stream?
At what point do we own our own land? At what point can we as pilots say "I am safety conscious and care about my fellow man, but I have a right to fly my airplane in a manner in which is not dangerous to others, especially so on private property."
Just as all Karen's of the world collectively scream out: "No one neeeeeeds to land in their own backyard, even if they are not hurting anyone. Think of the children!"
I suspect very soon we will look like the EU; zero tolerance for aircraft and no such thing as off airport operations. Some opinions in this thread illustrate that clearly, then pander to the authority of the FAA as father must know best.
And before you attempt to build a straw man out of my statements: Please follow all federal, state, and county regulations and fly responsibly.
Now I'll wait 'til I hear from Paul Harvey...............
"Sometimes a Cigar is just a Cigar"
Oh, and I have nothing against Greg so don't think I am singling him out. I would trust him in a minute to land in my backyard!
Edit: Not sure about the rest of you hooligans though...
I haven't watched Trent's video and will not claim to be an expert on his specific situation.
But it seems difficult to reconcile the apparent reasoning from the FAA and how it relates to their own guidance to those of us operating off-airport. Their specific guidance includes ensuring the quality of the landing surface by successively lower passes and then by dragging tires before landing. I know this document has already been discussed but here is the FAA publication that is the standard for all off-airport operations again for easy reference.
https://www.faasafety.gov/files/noti.../AOAOG_Web.pdf
My concern is not the specifics of whether Trent was right or wrong. My concern is if the specific rationale of the ruling contradicts the agency's own position on how to safely conduct off-airport operations. I feel like the FAA is backing themselves into a corner with the rationale for this enforcement action as it appears to be presented here, and if the judge goes along then we will be stuck waiting for the agency to create some fix for the mess they are making. It reminds me of the issues with providing instruction in an experimental aircraft that were created by the FAA recently. There may or may not be a problem with the specific situation in question, but this interpretation of the rules will certainly create problems.
His 420,000 followers on the 'tube. You know he had the cameras rolling - he always does. The only reason we haven't seen footage is that it very likely doesn't actually exonerate him.
I don't have a problem landing in your back yard if your back yard is indeed big enough so that you can avoid those pesky federal regulations, such as 91.119(c) and doesn't piss off the neighbors who have just as much a right to their peace as we have to raise hell and party how we want to.
And clearly the neighbor didn't appreciate it in the least - or he wouldn't have dropped a dime to the FSDO on him. There's plenty of actual backcountry where we can exercise our privileges and stay 500' away from houses.
I'm not a fan of the nanny state either, mind you. I'm just not getting all up in arms about government over-reach over this particular situation. Plenty of more important over-reaches and under-reaches that seem far more important to me.
I lost my bet over Trevor Jacobs - I didn't think the FAA would do anything to him. This time I'm predicting TP will lose his appeal and get the 60 day slap on the wrist. I'd bet a wobble-pop of your choice payable at at the Missouri Breaks or New Holstein! Any takers?
Seriously? Who was he showboating too? A CCTV stream?
At what point do we own our own land? At what point can we as pilots say "I am safety conscious and care about my fellow man, but I have a right to fly my airplane in a manner in which is not dangerous to others, especially so on private property."
Just as all Karen's of the world collectively scream out: "No one neeeeeeds to land in their own backyard, even if they are not hurting anyone. Think of the children!"
I suspect very soon we will look like the EU; zero tolerance for aircraft and no such thing as off airport operations. Some opinions in this thread illustrate that clearly, then pander to the authority of the FAA as father must know best.
And before you attempt to build a straw man out of my statements: Please follow all federal, state, and county regulations and fly responsibly.
This conversation revolves around a series of unanswerable questions about what really happened at the hearing (we weren't there) and the actual flyover event (we weren't there either.)
I stopped watching Trent's videos when it became perfectly clear to me that he and the "flying cowboys" clique were not interested in anything but showboating and boasting for internet clicks and financial gain. If I want to watch commercials, I'll turn on the news. He's not seemingly interested in using his plane to get to beautiful places. Instead his formula is about landing somewhere bumpy on big tires, plant the cameras, fly off and come back for the benefit of the camera. Then show footage of three or four "cool" guys standing around their planes BSing each other. Then zoom off (of course remembering to fly back, land and retrieve the cameras you left on the ground to show you zooming off. But don't show that part...) And don't forget to blend in a little obligatory B-roll footage. And the commercial half way through.
Do I personally think that his focus on video production led him to forget to be considerate of or even aware of people outside of his audience? Yeah. I really do. You can't make money on their clicks.
The takeaway of the thread is that there is an issue with regard to flyovers that can easily get us into trouble. Until and unless the rules are changed, we need to remember that unfriendly people and cameras are everywhere. If you need to do a flyover near people, do it in a way that you can reasonably contend was a landing attempt with a needed go-around. It's just part of the world we live in now. The hard part will be remembering to do it.
Last edited by Tennessee; 05-03-2022 at 05:45 PM.
The only thing that surprises me about Trent's situation is that anyone is surprised about anything...
We will never live in a world where all people love and hate all things alike. Ever....
In this day and age it doesn't matter who or where you are, or even what you are doing. The government will never stop over reaching, it's why we've structured it the way we have. Because it is made of people (the kind that don't agree) so one side of a particular argument is always going to consider the other 'over reaching' .
The minute you forget about cameras you expose yourself to this type of situation. So Every time you do something you know somebody else may not like,
'You've got to ask yourself one question; 'Do I feel lucky?, Well do ya? Punk?'...... Dirty Harry
As to the Ag related questions, I will offer the following, with the single caveat that I am not a self appointed ambassador for the ag community, just another bus driver;
The Ag world is a 'sub world' of the exact same world the rest of us live in. It is comprised of the same gene pool, and consequently will be filled with the same varying minds and opinions. It is governed by the same FAA, in a regulatory 'part' that is equally subject to 'interpretation' as part 91. It is conducted in the exact world as Part 91 ops, and consequently subject to the same surroundings and cameras, We are NOT immune from the Dirty Harry analogy. There are slob ag pilots just like jet jocks or phantom drivers......
Spray professionally, and odds are strong that you will never have to stand before 'the man', or at least, that he will recognize you as a professional and aid in showing that, when you get your chance to explain. Spray with a chip on your shoulder, and fly like you own the sky, and you'll face Clint...
It is also worth noting that ferrying is not a part 137 portion of a flight, any pilot or operator who has actually learned the regs should know this. And, part 137 ops, like any other 'part' has differing regulations governing differing 'airspaces' in a manner of speaking. In the 137 world, operating in what's interpreted as a 'contested area' is subject to a different level of regulation even including aircraft maintenance requirements. Again do your best to do it right, and you'll probably have a long wonderful career.
FWIW, I have no beef with the flying cowgirls... Enjoy watching some of their antics, roll my eyes at others... just don't know that all the hoopla does anyone any good in the long run. Yes, they probably inspire a lot of youngsters to go fly something fun, but it is certainly going to draw a lot of hate mail from the other side... Glad it's them and not me...... mostly
Take care, Rob
Last edited by Rob; 05-04-2022 at 09:17 AM.
It depends.
Are you going to land on your first try sight unseen?
If so, no problem! If not, well...
(Joking of course. 500' separation is achievable or else we would have never tried it. But, you get my point.)
I would also point out that so far, we have all heard only Trent's interpretation of the case. We have not seen the FAA's violation notice, nor have we seen the ALJ's decision.
That is not to suggest that I doubt Trent's assertions. Often the devil is in the details.
Trent now has another video out stating clearly that he is an honest, law abiding pilot. He's working pretty hard to get ahead of this. I wish him the best.
MTV
I asked a respectable FAA inspector (yes they are out there) about the aborted landing in the situation I described many posts ago. In that incident he said the major sticking point was that the aircraft tire/tires DID NOT touch the ground. Even if they touched for a split second it would not have been an issue. The tent in the middle of the strip would have been within 500’ but they felt not close enough to warrant a careless and reckless operation. That’s if he touched the gravel bar.
When I shoot my six instrument approaches I do low approaches. At our major airport, that easily places me within 500 feet of lots of persons and property, and indeed congested areas like huge business complexes, not to mention restaurants and hangars.
Why am I not being violated? Should I start putting a main mount on the pavement?
I think this is fun topic for the liar's bench at the airport, the fire pit or the pub. I really, really wish Trent no malice whatsoever. I hope that is clear in my comments. I just don't see how he's gonna get out of this. I am on his side even if it's not obvious. I, too would like to fly within 500' of houses with impunity because I'm pretty sure I can do it without killing anyone. Truth be known, though... we all know pilots who got no business flying within 1/2 mile of a tree much less a human.
I also think that Luke Aikens is going to be in a far less defensible position when his action comes up - and we all know it's going to. I hope the pay check from Red Bull was worth it for him. Same for Luke - don't mean him any ill will - but when you know you need a waiver, and you get denied when you ask for it, it's not a good idea to pull the stunt for the cameras anyway and expect your gonna keep your cert. It ain't look good!
These guys are absolutely trying to seek attention and celebrity. They are getting paid for what they do. I got no problem with that either, it's good entertainment which I enjoy. They need to have thicker skin than the rest of us who do this anonymously for fun. I don't want any stricter regulations either. Just don't try to tell me you're the first to be dinged for crap we've been seeing others get dinged for decades.
This post was brought to you by Squ... click
The fact that it's an established airport matters in the interpretations of the reg. You have to realize that pilots have been cited and lost their certs for doing low approaches below 500' to locations NOT on an established airport, right? It's the inverse of your question - but the interpretation gives you your answer.
I guess at some point a landing site has to be established - which is why the FAA was asking about things like wind socks, lights, pavement, airport identifier, etc. None of that and you better make sure you stay 500' away on your inspection passes. I frankly don't see that as an undo burden on us.
https://www.yodice.com/pilot-counsel...t-a-case-study
So if someone now wrecks their plane making a perfectly legal off airport landing floats,skis, wheels, but legitimately argues the accident was caused because they could not legally make a proper inspection pass, can they sue the feds for damages?
NO
Huh? How'd you get there?
Bob,
No, there is a very specific letter from FAA legal on this. It clearly states that operations at established airports and within the traffic pattern are essentially exempt from 91.119. Now, if you’re four hundred feet below recommended traffic pattern altitude, maybe not. But, “normal ops”, no problem.
I really don’t see this as precedent setting regards enforcement of 91.119. There’s lots of case law on this, and we’ll established procedures outlined by FAA concerning off airport ops. I suspect the FAA is suggesting that operations IN a subdivision really aren’t what is described in their guide to off airport ops.
Any quick review of the regulations suggests that there will often be some “interpretation” required.
At some point common sense also should be applied.
Many years ago, I was involved in a case which was decided by an Administrative Law Judge. This was an environmental permitting process. I was a fairly new government guy, and was tasked with arguing the case before the ALJ. After the hearing, which we lost, the Judge invited me to dinner with him, to discuss the hearing.
The discussion over dinner was fascinating, and educational….which was the point. In short, the Judge explained to me how an ALJ is REQUIRED to function. He said that my arguments were well organized and compelling, but all he was allowed to consider was the specifics of the LAW, which in this case favored the other side.
Based on Trent’s video, and chatter on social media, it’s obvious that many don’t understand how an ALJ functions, and the rules they operate under. In these cases, right/wrong/ indifferent, the FAA is the “expert”. Their testimony is always going to have more weight.
And, the NTSB Board? Take a guess as to how they are required to view the differing views.
MTV
I guess I'm glad to have gone to the trouble to get my private strip on the charts, as a "established airport." Maybe...., I think. Seems like it you get in their cross hairs you're screwed no matter what, even if eventually proven right. Says the guy once sued by the EPA for $13,000,000.00, eventually settling for $300.00!
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks