• If You Are Having Trouble Logging In with Your Old Username and Password, Please use this Forgot Your Password link to get re-established.
  • Hey! Be sure to login or register!

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

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.
 
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
 
An inspection pass is not "necessary" for an off-airport landing at a new LZ? Really?

Sent from my SM-G965U1 using SuperCub.Org mobile app

Well, I’d agree with Trent that landing an airplane IN a built up subdivision certainly qualifies as an “off airport operation”. But, like with most things, context is kinda essential.

So, Trent was invited to land at this RC airplane “strip”. What do you suppose the odds are that the neighbor who called in the complaint was already complaining about RC airplanes flying around his house?

Not a good setup, in any case and a far stretch to assume this decision implies you can’t make an inspection pass on a gravel bar on the Xxxx River in Alaska.

I’d bet good money there’s some history in that subdivision.

MTV
 
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.

Thats Trent’s interpretation. I’m betting the AL Judge found that Trent flying closer than 500 feet to the neighbors home was not “necessary” for the operation.

MTV
 
91.119 does not say the landing must be necessary.

Trent is presenting in his video the judge felt the landing was not necessary, thus weighted the decision to violate.

I do not have any more information in his case beyond what is presented in the video, so I am not saying what he presented is fact or not.
 
Thats Trent’s interpretation. I’m betting the AL Judge found that Trent flying closer than 500 feet to the neighbors home was not “necessary” for the operation.

MTV

I don't find your interpretation unreasonable. It would be interesting to see the actual wording of the findings, although I suspect we never will.
 
Last edited:
Paint scheme, 2" N numbers (if applicable) on the vertical stab JUST above the horizontal stab, don't linger, and Situational Awareness.
Many pilots just "do stuff" without thinking.
As SB says.........everyone has a cell phone and camera.
It's our job to stay out of jail !
 
Trent is presenting in his video the judge felt the landing was not necessary, thus weighted the decision to violate.

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".
 
Last edited:
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


Giving a false statement is a huge mistake. Giving ANY statement is a mistake. Do not deny. Just giving name and birthday (for identification purposes) is all you need to do. Should you want to belt and suspender, name, birthday, and I understand my rights and I choose not to give you a statement.

The latter choice is what I would do.

Nobody talks their way out of trouble. Nobody.

Period. Hard stop.

Sikorsky
 
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:

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

:D
 
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
 
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.
 
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?
 
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?
 
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.
 
Last edited:
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!"
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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
 
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?
 
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.
 
Back
Top