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

This thread makes me glad that i live where i do....

RVBottomly said:

More discussion on "congested area."

http://www.aerolegalservices.com/Ar...vessel, vehicle, or structure (§ 91.119 (c)).

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.

Click to expand...

That was my point: The FAA for these purposes, lists three types of area: Congested, other than congested and sparsely populated. I’d bet the FAA would call ANY subdivision at LEAST other than congested, if not congested.

And, Bob, et Al, the FAA has made it clear that 91.119 doesn’t apply in the traffic pattern for an established airport, which would include Johnson Creek.

Now, if you’re flying your downwind two miles from the airport…..

And, low passes have been a target for the FAA for years. You’d better have a good reason….. At tower controlled airports now if you abort a takeoff or landing, you’re probably going to have to explain yourself. Seatbelt hanging out the door? Hmmm, there’s a reg covers that….

MTV

Even though I'm not exactly thrilled with the implications of the information, I'm very glad MTV and others are sharing the knowledge of these past rulings. Maybe they're common knowledge to many on here, but not to me. You'd think it'd be in everyone's best interest for the FAA to incorporate these interpretations/rulings in the regs? Go ahead and amened 91.113 to say "except when necessary for landing at a charted airport" or something like that.....I would prefer that this wasn't the "rule", but it'd be nice to not to have "secret" "gotcha" rules. Even better if they amended it to say "except when taking-off, landing, performing an inspection pass or executing a go-around/missed approach at any potential landing site....".

I can think of plenty of times even up in AK where there might be a boat or kayaker within 500 feet of a gravel bar that I would've considered landing on. Sometimes even another airplane. I have always passed on those spots, and it sounds like that is what you have to do. Normally the people are friendly and waving to the airplane when I pass over at 500+ feet, but ya never know.

So what happens when you’re making a low pass over the only gravel bar big enough for many miles to haul out a moose, and your buddies are standing off to the side?

alaskadrifter said:

So what happens when you’re making a low pass over the only gravel bar big enough for many miles to haul out a moose, and your buddies are standing off to the side?

Click to expand...

Safe to say if the guy from the Reno FSDO sees it, hears about it, or watches a video of a video of a video of it filmed by a potato: yer violated! Apparently plenty of other FSDO's too....tell your friends to stay 500 feet away and don't film it for youtube so that it can be out there for interpretation! I know it's a rhetorical question, but still....sad.

alaskadrifter said:

So what happens when you’re making a low pass over the only gravel bar big enough for many miles to haul out a moose, and your buddies are standing off to the side?

Click to expand...

A certain FAA inspector for many years would fly his 206 and camp along the Nushagak river near Portage Creek during King season. He made it his duty to not only fish but to make it a business trip by ramp checking planes on the river and up at the airport wearing his commando hat camo jacket, life vest, hip boots and that fancy wallet/badge thing around his neck. He managed to piss of the troopers and native corp land managers on a regular basis every summer. But that’s besides the point.


A friend of ours was having his girlfriend flown out from Anchorage by a fairly experienced private pilot. Our camp was on one of the few landable gravel bars (due to water level) and situated as such that our camp didn’t interfere with the landing area. Well, later that day FAA inspector JE shows up in his 206 and puts his tent right in the middle of the 1000ftish bar on the tire tracks.


Anyway the private pilot shows up in his dads Cessna 180 and thought he might be able to land next to the tent on the bar. He did a pass then and approach and almost touched the ground and he went around. He flew over at what looked a safe altitude and dropped a note (we arrived by boat and had no handheld to communicate with him) that he was going to look upriver for a better spot to suit his experience level.


The FAA guy watched all this and had the balls to come into our camp later on with a beer shoved in his waders and proceed to tell us we were going to have to give statements cause he was going to violate the private pilot on several different grounds. An altercation between some members in our group and the inspector escalated rapidly. The next morning he accused us of cutting his planes mooring lines and went to the troopers (who by then had enough of his crap during a previous trespass notice served to him at his former campsite.). He called me later (at home!) when I was back in ANC and said I supposedly had info on the cutting of those lines and as a federal offense it would not bode well for me as a new airline pilot supporting a young family.


The FAA tried very hard to fry that young private pilot. Very hard. But in the end they dropped their efforts due to other factors that regarded the witnessing inspectors behavior and actions. In the end it didn’t bode well for the inspector.


The point of this long winded post is………..ya never know who’s watching and one can get setup for a violation no matter how remote the area. Many years ago I received a letter of investigation for flying low over some hikers. I was flying low beachcombing on a remote coastal area………I never saw them.

It's prudent to delete flight tracking logs (for example Garmin's .CSV files) after flight unless needed. That's what the NTSB and FAA use to reconstruct the GPS derived flight path and altitude for incidents and accidents (in my experience from the NTSB Docket reports). Also, Google Earth and others can be used to estimate horizontal distance from 91.119 (c) undesirables to the planned flight path. If the LZ looks to be closer prior to flight then see and avoid.

Gary

How many of you go “inspect” a landing place you have intentions of using and leave after one pass? Especially when the surface is known to be good? Three or four approaches to get a feel for the look and the wind may warrant moving on if things aren’t right, but nobody I know looks once and leaves.

Difficult to grasp the reality of the situation without knowing more about the property he was planning to land on and the surrounding 10 acre plots. 10 acres really isn't much real estate. If it's surrounded by other 10 acre plots, how do you get in and out without flying over the neighbors at low altitude?

When flying helicopters, we are legal below 500' AGL but constantly looking to be sure we're not flying over people, boats, and livestock even when taking off or landing. Just because we can legally land a lot of places a fixed wing can't, doesn't mean it's a good idea. We do a high recon at more than 500' AGL before doing a low recon.

Wish people would relax until they have a better picture of what actually happened and where.

BC12D-4-85 said:

It's prudent to delete flight tracking logs (for example Garmin's .CSV files) after flight unless needed. That's what the NTSB and FAA use to reconstruct the GPS derived flight path and altitude for incidents and accidents (in my experience from the NTSB Docket reports). Also, Google Earth and others can be used to estimate horizontal distance from 91.119 (c) undesirables to the planned flight path. If the LZ looks to be closer prior to flight then see and avoid.

Click to expand...

Obviously I don't have knowledge of "all" Garmin systems but the G3X Touch display units which save CSV data logs to the SD card also store the data log internally. I know of no way for the user to delete this internal data log. This internal data log can be transferred to an SD card at any time. The internal log does have a limited time duration and data will eventually be overwritten.

I would think deleting data would be considered evidence tampering. Instead of suspension you could be looking at revocation, re Martha Lunken.
They already know exactly when and where you are via cell phone position data. Or, ADSB, if equipped.

GreggB said:

This isn't a FAA issue, this is Biblical. We are ruled by women and children because that is what we deserve. And if you are a nonbeliever know that it still isn't a FAA issue it is our current culture(ruled by women and children) and you can make any excuse you want for how we got here, but sending money to AOPA won't get us out of this.

Click to expand...

While I have my doubts about one look and see ya later, I'm reminded of a trip to a Chinese village where this lady was introduced to me as having received the very highest civic honor from the Chinese communist party. Her accomplishment? Ratting on the highest number of her neighbors for offenses to the communist party, such as expressing an opinion about anything. How about cases where the pilot is exonerated but spent thousands on their own defense. All parties need to be responsible for their actions, so is there any compensation for the time and money spent in one's own defense.

ScaleBackcountryPilot said:

I wonder if there is an exception for Ag Pilots? When I was younger I remember always loving it when a speeding AT-502 would pass less than 100' away from me playing out in the backyard. also loved waking up to the sound of it going back and forth across the corn, but I know some people can be pretty bothered by that.

Click to expand...

yes kinda, FAR 137. However that only applies “during dispensing in the field ” Part 91 applies as soon as you get out of the field. Another can of worms. Spray drift is another story of its own. Too many houses especially next to the chopped fields in the southern states. I got out of that years ago, too many complaints.

Steve Pierce said:

and Bill Bainbridge.

Click to expand...

Not to hijack the thread, but I spoke to Bill’s son, who is now leading B&C following Bill’s death last year. He is just as honest and a true gentleman as his father.

BC12D-4-85 said:

It's prudent to delete flight tracking logs (for example Garmin's .CSV files) after flight unless needed. That's what the NTSB and FAA use to reconstruct the GPS derived flight path and altitude for incidents and accidents (in my experience from the NTSB Docket reports). Also, Google Earth and others can be used to estimate horizontal distance from 91.119 (c) undesirables to the planned flight path. If the LZ looks to be closer prior to flight then see and avoid.

Gary

Click to expand...

First of all, access to that sort of data is covered under privacy rules. If you volunteer it…..good luck. Otherwise, it would require a search warrant to access.

As others have noted on this thread, don’t offer the investigators any information.

Now, theoretically, ADS-B data will not be used in prosecution…….

MTV

Colorado-Cub said:

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?

Click to expand...

I would say 91.119(a) covers that:
"anywhere-- an altitude allowing, if a power unit fails, an emergency landing without undue hazard to persons or property on the surface".

mvivion said:

Now, theoretically, ADS-B data will not be used in prosecution…….

Click to expand...

If you believe that, I have a bridge to sell you.

ADSB data will be used against you by the FAA. Make no mistake about that.

Just as any entity, FSDO personnel come in all shapes and sizes. A friend of mine, 60 yr. veteran IA, had his license revoked by emergency order. Charged him with 12 different violations, which cost him money he could not afford. The FSDO inspector was
a pony-tailed pretty boy Navy vet who didn't know a Cessna from a Piper. All as a result of an accident in a 172 by a local pilot who had not flown for years. Flew into a short farm strip on a hot day. Took off with FULL FLAPS, stalled and crashed.......thankfully no one was killed. The pilot claimed the engine did not perform. Engine tear down and inspection by a reputable engine shop revealed no issues. FSDO did not give up and found these 12 violations by the mechanic. Short story.......during the appeal 9 issues were immediately dismissed and the three that remained were, after the hearing, dismissed. The three included battery box and flap roller issues. Sad deal.
I am fortunate to live where I do and have a great relationship with the FSDO.......most of which are supportive of aviation and safety and one of the few in the country that is still open.
My point.........if we respect others property and airspace there is no problem with the FAA unless we encounter a bonehead as in this case. If we don't, it's on us.
Public property? Well, read my previous post.
p.s. If you do have to present before the judge and prevail there is an avenue whereby you can recoup most of your expenses. And don't intstall ADS_B unless you need it.

hotrod180 said:

I would say 91.119(a) covers that:
"anywhere-- an altitude allowing, if a power unit fails, an emergency landing without undue hazard to persons or property on the surface".

Click to expand...

Agreed.

There is no published minimum altitude was my point, and 91.119(A) simply gives the FAA an out to crucify you at their will. In that I mean: Altitude is helpful, however there is no amount of altitude that will guarantee a power off landing does not pose some sort of "hazard" to the ground (in the eyes of our overlords).

While some wording in this section of regulation is OK, overall it is vague garbage.

..........and, without ADS-B can the feds determine how far horizontally you are from said object?

cubdrvr said:

..........and, without ADS-B can the feds determine how far horizontally you are from said object?

Click to expand...

As MTV says, if you don't volunteer the information, it would far more difficult for them to prove horizontal distance without ADSB.

Information provided to us showed the FAA believes they are within 20'/3meter sphere of accuracy with their ADSB data. Having WAAS devices myself, I guess this is possible.

It is far easier to spoof ADSB data than it is to argue with the FAA regarding its trail.

Pretty easy to determine distance from other objects if there is picture or video and you have the camera details.

Wow, At some point I am thinking that there was a downwind turn involved.

Don't know Trent, Never met him, not going to watch the video, as the reality seems pretty simple here. This situation sucks for all.

FAA inspectors and NTSB judges are people. Like all people they form opinions, which are influenced by not only their own life experiences, but also from co-workers and job training- and by their boss.

Why is this important? Human nature. FAA and NTSB folks, generally are NOT SMALL PLANE PEOPLE!! Many come from government or military backgrounds- JETS! To them what many of us do is lunacy.

Start from there, and think about it.

Same issues with police, park rangers and such; do you hear the news about 'militarizing of police'? Even the BLM has SWAT teams... think about that. What do they get trained? Everyone is out to kill you! So when they come into a situation that is their outlook. Transfer that attitude into our sleepy town of 2,000 people, it is sort of stupid. In Chicago- heck yes that could be true.

Our local FSDO and I had a discussion about 14 years ago after a neighbor complained about my low pass in front of his house, where I eventually landed. The neighbor was told to mind his own business, but I was given cell phone numbers to call the inspectors and notify them when I had a situation that I knew might get reported. They wanted to be armed with information when the region office asked questions in the future to make their lives easier.

Long and short, you can either be looked at as a compliant aviator, or a bandit if you do this type of flying. It is fine to be a bandit and silent, but right or wrong, eventually some FSDO person is going to dislike your actions and start a process that will cost you time, money, and anguish. I don't have enough time to be dealing with that now.

My solution is to try to work with the FSDO folks to be more informed about their lives, and them about my flying. Their familiarity with what I do allows them to understand it more, and appreciate that there is skill and judgement used. When the eventual issue comes up, we start with at least mutual respect, instead of advasarial communications.

Again, these are people. They really don't want any more adversarial issues and problems than you or I do. But they have a job to do.

Again, sometimes a little respect and time getting to know the guys that will be calling can go a long ways. In fact, it can be to our own advantage to be able to ask questions directly to them, so if a problem does arise you can fall back on their statements. Like: Is this situation considered congested?

Congested areas: There are definitions on populations per square mile that map that out. There is also many case law situations that show a gathering in a normally non-congested area, (Burning Man as an example), will be considered congested.

In a flying career everyone will make a mistake. The FAA uses the word 'compliance'. Being viewed as compliant, or non-compliant, may cause the flow chart of FSDO action to change directions.

Every single pilot here wishes to follow all regulations.

Some of us are simply frustrated with the lack of clarity in some situations that may adversely affect our certificate.

Colorado-Cub said:

Every single pilot here wishes to follow all regulations.

Click to expand...

My problem with this whole deal is grammar. As the regulation is published, there is no question the actions described meet the definition needed for exception.


The regulation clearly states "except when necessary for landing..." And that phrase refers to the prohibited actions (XYZ). In court I would get two or three post` graduate level grammarians to diagram the sentence and depose them to support that. The exception does not regulate or even require a landing, only some the actions necessary for a landing. This is the summary dismissal point, in a real court. No impartial jurist would risk their career by allowing further proceeding with that simple concept properly presented.

What's important (to an appeal) is we're told the "judge" appears to have made a ruling based on the necessity of the landing as opposed to the necessity of (XYZ). Most days in the US there are zero necessary landings made. Landing is never necessary except in case of cessation of engine function or pilot incapacitation. The FAA even has fuel reserve regulations for flight to ensure that most landings are not necessary. But again the regulation does not attempt to regulate the landing, only some of the actions (XYZ) necessary for a landing. That's a most basic error that should win the appeal in a minute.

Per the FAA's own document, inspection passes are necessary for "off airport" landings. So this action is covered under the exception. As the regulating agency has shown this to be an excepted action, and the agency's own representatives have acted contrary to the agency's governing regulations, malfeasance could even be sited. That would remove the "corporate veil" and make the individuals liable - personally. And yes, the government does know this. I worked for the government and they were real big on this in an effort to get us all to go by the book. There have been cases where private individuals have sued government employees for their legal expenses - and won.

Reportedly mention was made by the deciding party that this was not a landing site because it lacked wind sock, lights, etc. associated with large commercial airfields. Not germane to the discussion as the FAA's own publication and guiding document for this operation specifically applies to off airport ops. The very existence of that document authored by the FAA legitimizes off airport operations, and so whether or not this is occurring at (what the decider feels is) an airport is immaterial.

Were this my case I would also look for family connections, complaint history and general character of the reporting party. Was it the original FAA guy's mom maybe? Why else would the original contact be so confrontational? We've heard so much about a kinder gentler FAA of late. Why is this guy going nuts over this?

Finally I would examine the right to Due Process constitutionally, especially regarding proven test cases in the US Supreme Court. Let's face it, an administering body saying, "you broke a reg. If you don't believe me you can ask my boss." is not true due process in any regard. I have a vague memory of a case dealing with exactly this during reconstruction; something about the governmental oversite agency going nuts. I could be wrong on that though, but I'm sure it's happened. The US legal system has always been the final arbiter of not only public issues but private as well, not in house imposters, bullying their constituency by telling them they are the authority.


That being said, I believe it was a poor idea to consider landing there. But I can't say I believe it in any way fails to comply. I know the type of area involved, but those in the Reno area would be well served to remember that the vast majority of your neighbors are Californians who are there because they couldn't afford California anymore. Out in true rural Nevada its a very different world, but around there, you may as well be in a San Fran suburb. Stay as far away from "civilians" as you can with an airplane.

Per "My Cousin Vinny'" Judge Chamberlain Hallar: That was a lucid, intelligent, and well thought out objection.

From what I’ve seen, most of the time the ALJ finds exactly as the FAA alleges. They rubber stamp anything FAA says.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

cubdrvr said:

..........and, without ADS-B can the feds determine how far horizontally you are from said object?

Click to expand...

Fly with a smart phone in your pocket? Better trackers than any adsb. Adsb is very unreliable, they are always poping the breaker.

dgapilot said:

From what I’ve seen, most of the time the ALJ finds exactly as the FAA alleges. They rubber stamp anything FAA says.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Click to expand...

Notice that the travel with the FAA attorneys? Not even an attempt to at impartiality.

Just remember that when the game is rigged, your options are limited.