• 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

A wind sock at one end sure would help the case. Maybe we could get an RAF work party out there to put one in?

There is a wind sock in the middle and it is maintained (last time by myself). The one at the East end is gone. Don't know if it was stolen or simply blew away. Windsocks don't last long in the Arizona sun especially if secured to the frame with plastic cable ties. I use safety wire.
 
You also ask how the FAA defines a congested area. Determinations of what constitutes a congested area under the regulations are made on a
case-by-case basis.

MTV

Right there, that's the essence of tyranny. Laws and regulation that can be bent at will to meet the needs of the government that is trying to find you in violation.
 
Yes, I'm pretty sure I was at the same fly-in in at JC. I really do have tremendous respect for Kevin Quinn, Jason Sneed, Steve Henry, Trent and Scott Palmer, Mike and Mark Patey... and especially Kyle Bushman. Those guys are awesome.

These guys were not the first to be out doing this stuff, nor even the first to be putting awesome videos on youtube however... Some of the OGs decided to back away from publishing videos of their exploits because of incidents, access issues, and well sometimes the coolest poop happens when there's no cameras rolling.

Personally speaking, I give a LOT of credit (blame) to Greg Miller. I bought all his DVDs and learned A LOT. We also have a fantastic cadre of VERY active pilots here in Colorado from which to draw a lot of inspiration.

Once again, I wanna be clear to Trent and his fans. I'm super interested in this topic from my own learning perspective - don't think I'm piling on. I wish him a positive outcome, of course. If I'm wrong about my understanding and interpretation of the regs, I'll happily admit it when the time comes. The best of us can make mistakes and misunderstand the law.

You're not wrong

Ever hear how they got their name? Don't want to bring this thread off topic...
 
Last edited:
Established, misstablished....

I'm not sure why anyone thinks that makes any difference in the world in a regulation world that leaves so much up to interpretation... and of course semantics.

It has been suggested that this type of open endedness is tantamount to tyranny.... my tin foil hat blew away long ago, I think it was written this way so that we'd occasionally have to use brain cells and common sense instead of having an absolute definition or parameter for every single gas we passed.

Congested is not predefined because it in fact can be defined in an almost infinite amount of ways. I for one don't want to have to carry around an encyclopedia worth of definitions to tell me if congested in Los Angeles, CA is the same as congested in Manson, IA... I will do the best I can to asses what I believe that to mean on a case by case basis. And then if I'm wrong I'll take my licks... (accountability....there's a novel concept that some seem to have forgotten)

As to the *Established Airport* operations I will offer the cliff notes of a portion of a PT137 chief supervisor competency ride I did with 4 (yes 4) FAA Aviation Safety Inspectors. The whole story is fun, but only one snippet relates to this thread (and only because of the airport tangent).

For the test I was having the inspectors meet us at our base at Imperial airport. IPL not IML, big congestion difference....
Anyways, in light of the frequent military activity, FedEx, regional, and Careflight ops, we had initially agreed to meet there at the big airport, satisfy the knowledge portion, satisfy the aircraft requirements, then they could observe a departure of their choosing and travel to a nearby farm strip to watch the dispensing (of water) load dumping (again water) and then a landing of their choosing as well.

As fate would have it that day, we woke up to a drizzle. It was one of those rains that was light, but going to be light for the day or days... I kept to the plans and just as we pulled in to IPL the lead Inspector called and said;


"it's raining in San Diego"
yes it's raining here as well I replied...
"what do you want to do?"
well... here's the deal... we've been trying to get together for months. This is obviously not spraying Wx, so if this question is to determine whether I am competent enough to make that decision, let's tick that box, and keep on with the test, because while it is raining, it is still very vfr and actually a nice day to fly.
"great choice, we'll head that way"
8)

So all 4 arrive, contrary to all the nightmare stories of 'feds gone wild', all 4 where genuinely good to deal with.

The only sticky wicket moment was when I suggested that rather than venture off to a muddy farm field, perhaps they should just hop in the fuelers golf cart or courtesy car and observe the whole thing right here at the airport. The military traffic was light that day, and with the calm wind I could use the crosswind strip and leave the big one to the big boys.

the cross wind strip at IPL has a fence, next to a road, next to an entire city of apartments right across that road. Right away the #2 safety inspector piped up;

"will turning around over those apartments be within your PT 137 regs?"

I knew right where she was going with that, because clearly I was not 'dispensing economic poisons' nor conducting non dispensing aerial work operations related to agriculture, horticulture, or forest preservation' which of course would be the only portion of a part 137 operation that allows us to deviate from
91.119, and even if I had been, the relief would not have been the same as it most certainly was (even in my mind) a congested area...

And just then, there in front of God and everybody FedEx made a landing exactly where I proposed to make my simulated spray runs and dump, rainwater coming off it's wings good enough to qualify for a spray run itself...

There must have been 100 reasons why this would be safe, easy and expedient... and then there's the established airport... there could have been a lot to say..

Me? 'Let's go spray in the mud', I declared :lol:.... I was simply looking to make their life easier with a little common sense, she on the other hand was charged with testing my skills, and knowledge, and her point was correct....

I got my certificate signed, they got to watch a cool airplane do cool things, high fives all around... What more could you ask for?

Speaking of correction,

I have been taken to task for my initial post in which I said the ferry part of a part 137 OP is really part 91.... and of course, if you want to cite regs, that is incorrect, the entire flight is a part 137 operation. Here again I was simplifying in the name of common sense. What the regs say about it is exactly this;

Notwithstanding part 91 of this chapter, during the actual dispensing operation, including approaches, departures, and turnarounds reasonably necessary for the operation, an aircraft may be operated over other than congested areas below 500 feet above the surface and closer than 500 feet to persons, vessels, vehicles, and structures, if the operations are conducted without creating a hazard to persons or property on the surface.


To my way of thinking, that means if you are not spraying, or turning back in to a spray run, part 91 stands.

I'm not the writer here, I'm not the messenger, heck I don't even like it, in fact I don't even like flying any higher than I'd care to fall out of it...

Take care, Rob

soyA, Amen, and you've got too much common sense for todays world :lol:
 
Last edited:
One of those youngsters here! The Flying Cowboys are the reason I got into flying :smile:

First and foremost, good on them for inspiring you!
Next congrats on your flying journey, I hope it is long, safe and prosperous.
and lastly, I hope you're paying attention, you now posses the crystal ball that Trent did not 20 minutes before that infamous flight.... I bet he wishes he did

Take care, Rob
 
Right there, that's the essence of tyranny. Laws and regulation that can be bent at will to meet the needs of the government that is trying to find you in violation.

I think your tin foil hat got a little too snug there……

So, how would you define a “congested area of a city, town or settlement or open air assembly of people” so that it’s easily identified, including by a pilot in flight?

There are several problems with many of these regulations, not the least of which is, of course, The preponderance of Philadelphia Lawyers among our ranks. But also, some of these things are just close to impossible to define in such a way that a pilot in the air can say….oops, don’t go there. There’s a tremendous variety of circumstances here.

So, the THEORY is, you (the FAA) hire competent, knowledgeable and reasonable Inspectors to make these determinations.

as we’ve all seen, that doesn’t always happen. Secondly, the FAA seems to have no mechanism to reverse an errant Inspectors’ judgement. THAT is the real problem here, NOT the regulation. I was horrified last year at OSH when the Administrator got up at the AOPA tent and told us that he was just as angry about the Warbirds decision as we were.

Seriously? If the Administrator can’t fix these kinds of things, the agency is broke, and needs to be fixed.

Unfortunately, the subject case probably isn’t going to do it.

MTV
 
Jon from Fly8MA with his take, if you have 20-30 mins. I know plenty of you will disagree with it, but I think a lot of us are viewing this from a similar perspective.

 
So, the THEORY is, you (the FAA) hire competent, knowledgeable and reasonable Inspectors to make these determinations.

as we’ve all seen, that doesn’t always happen. Secondly, the FAA seems to have no mechanism to reverse an errant Inspectors’ judgement. THAT is the real problem here, NOT the regulation. I was horrified last year at OSH when the Administrator got up at the AOPA tent and told us that he was just as angry about the Warbirds decision as we were.

Seriously? If the Administrator can’t fix these kinds of things, the agency is broke, and needs to be fixed.

Unfortunately, the subject case probably isn’t going to do it.

MTV
Exactly, perhaps this had something to do with his leaving his term of office early?
 
I think your tin foil hat got a little too snug there……

MTV

I admit that I was being too hyperbolic there, but my point stands anyway. We need good laws. Good laws make good people. Laws and regulations should be brief, straightforward, easy to understand and easy to interpret by the public and the authorities.

We should not have to live with vague laws and regulations that have no real definition. It gives the government too much power to take away your freedoms at will. Like:

"Changing lanes too many times" on the highway.
"Making fun" of politicians.
Not "feeding your pets enough."
"Being mean" to your spouse.
"Acting crazy" at a football game.
"Drinking more than you should'" at the beach.
Catching a fish that's "too small."
"Being disrespectful of the animals" at the zoo.
"Not wearing the right clothes" at the PTA meeting.
Flying "too fast" in class B airspace.

With today's mapping and demographic technology, high resolution "congested area" maps could be generated by a sophomore geography major using a well defined formula of some sort. If the FAA felt like it was important enough, it could publish these maps annually & anybody who wants to could refer to it at any time. I would prefer that pilots just use common sense, but we all know that won't happen all the time. When they don't, busting them should be easy and objective.
 
Last edited:
It is also worth noting that ferrying is not a part 137 portion of a flight,
Take care, Rob


this was the only portion of Robs statement I took exception with. It does matter how you state something. This is a perfect example. Had he said the part 91 rule for 500 ft applies during the ferry flight he would have been correct.
No issues Rob, just that how one phrases a comment can make a complete different meaning.

Brian
 
this was the only portion of Robs statement I took exception with. It does matter how you state something. This is a perfect example. Had he said the part 91 rule for 500 ft applies during the ferry flight he would have been correct.
No issues Rob, just that how one phrases a comment can make a complete different meaning.

Brian
No worries here Brian. You are absolutely correct, I was sloppy with my verbiage. And to your point, it is probably how a lot of these situations come to be.

Take care, Rob
 
I admit that I was being too hyperbolic there, but my point stands anyway. We need good laws. Good laws make good people. Laws and regulations should be brief, straightforward, easy to understand and easy to interpret by the public and the authorities.

We should not have to live with vague laws and regulations that have no real definition. It gives the government too much power to take away your freedoms at will. Like:

"Changing lanes too many times" on the highway.
"Making fun" of politicians.
Not "feeding your pets enough."
"Being mean" to your spouse.
"Acting crazy" at a football game.
"Drinking more than you should'" at the beach.
Catching a fish that's "too small."
"Being disrespectful of the animals" at the zoo.
"Not wearing the right clothes" at the PTA meeting.
Flying "too fast" in class B airspace.

With today's mapping and demographic technology, high resolution "congested area" maps could be generated by a sophomore geography major using a well defined formula of some sort. If the FAA felt like it was important enough, it could publish these maps annually & anybody who wants to could refer to it at any time. I would prefer that pilots just use common sense, but we all know that won't happen all the time. When they don't, busting them should be easy and objective.

Have you ever been cited for driving 57 mph in a 55 zone? The law is clear there…..speed limit is a line. Yet small infractions are rarely enforced. Point is hard and fast rules are often not enforced “strictly”. There are a lot of reasons for that-the police officer has to rely on his equipment, etc, but the big one is, the cop has to justify that citation to his Prosecutor, to the court and ultimately to his Captain. Any of whom will almost certainly say “two over? Seriously?”

Most law enforcement officers are expected to use discretion. Draw too hard a line, and the prosecutor may say, Nope. Or you may alienate a judge if it gets that far. Or, your City councilman and the Mayor…..

By the same token, get too generous and there can also be consequences for the officer.

But, FAA Inspectors aren’t trained as law enforcement officers, though they do serve in that role. But, perhaps more importantly, in the FAA, none of that supervisory infrastructure to moderate and supervise enforcement by the Inspector seems to exist. Essentially, FAA Legal appears to be there primarily to defend whatever Inspectors cite, regardless of circumstances or validity of the charge.

There is a reason we have checks and balances in our justice system. It’s unfortunate that the FAA doesn’t adopt the same procedures. Most of these kinds of cases would either go away or be dealt with very differently.

MTV
 
With today's mapping and demographic technology, high resolution "congested area" maps could be generated by a sophomore geography major using a well defined formula of some sort. If the FAA felt like it was important enough, it could publish these maps annually & anybody who wants to could refer to it at any time. I would prefer that pilots just use common sense, but we all know that won't happen all the time. When they don't, busting them should be easy and objective.

Holy cats. over the last decade the TFR BS has become a nightmare for folks that just want to take a joy ride in the evening. Now you want to spend more money to have more restrictions that we need to spend more time researching as these restrictions will come and go at all hours of day and night???

Give me a break, see a crowd, get away from it.

Looks like lots of folks/houses? Climb or turn away.

If you create the perception that you are a 'cowboy', and there is question as to your judgement and willingness to comply with regs, expect the FAA to take action. My observation one stupid oops will get you a phone call. Lots of actions that look stupid, or questionable putting others at risk, (in THEIR opinion), you can expect things to be less congenial.

Take responsibility and realize that youtube is putting focus on our flying. Time to get the heck away from people, or climb to 2,000 and stay away from towers.
 
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).

BTW these are all 1-1.5M dollar homes, welcome to New California.
 
Many of the arguments above implicitly criticize regs that are somewhat blurry and require judgement to apply.

Blurry rules:
The good - leeway in judgement allows an FAA inspector to consider all the factors, and overlook some operations in the grey areas, or just maybe provide a little guidance for next time.
The bad - there are always a small but not insignificant number of inspectors, for their own reasons, that will use the leeway to be particularly critical and enforce where they probably shouldn't.

Bright line rules:
The good - unambiguous rules reduce the application of judgement and give a lot of guidance.
The bad - bright line rules are a) overinclusive, because the drafters fear missing some corner case, and b) in practice always still require judgement (which leads to more bright line rules, and so on) because language itself is ambiguous.

Personally, I'd rather have blurry rules and work on institutional aspects to reduce abuse. More and more bright line rules make it harder, not easier, to operate.

An exercise in judgement means that you consider the context, not just parse the regs and consider only those facts that fit.
 
So, putting aside all the legalese, how do blurry rules apply to Trent?


  • There is no history of landing at that site
  • The approach to land was within a subdivision of large lots and houses, not some remote backcountry field
  • The owner of a lot, his child, and a propane tank, were 100-150’ away from the plane at 100’ on final
  • It appears that Trent did not do progressively lower passes* to inspect the field. (LMK if I missed something this)

I suspect the ALJ more or less agreed with the FAA that, taken together, this wasn't a landing, it was a buzz job. The exception in 91.119 does not apply if it was not a landing.

I can't find the actual ALJ opinion, but it appears that it was inartfully worded ("the wheels didn't touch"), which will likely bite someone later when an ambitious inspector tries to enforce it.

So, it is justified to criticize the ALJ opinion and at the same time criticize Trent's actions. I don't think criticizing the FAA for enforcement against Trent is warranted.

* Inspection passes need more discussion.
When I'm looking at a new field, I may make as many as a dozen passes (why be in a hurry?), starting at 800' or so and working lower. You need 700-800' to see vertically through the trees on the approach and departure ends. Had Trent started high and made multiple passes, he likely would have seen the people and structures (propane tank), and gone elsewhere. If he didn't, then intentionally flying close to people who are unaware of what is going on is a bad move, even if you can argue that the rules allow it.
 
Last edited:
"If you create the perception that you are a 'cowboy', and there is question as to your judgement and willingness to comply with regs, expect the FAA to take action. My observation one stupid oops will get you a phone call. Lots of actions that look stupid, or questionable putting others at risk, (in THEIR opinion), you can expect things to be less congenial.

Take responsibility and realize that youtube is putting focus on our flying. Time to get the heck away from people, or climb to 2,000 and stay away from towers."


That about sums it up.
 
For legal interpretation, I believe the more important word is "for", not "necessary". So, "except when necessary for landing/takeoff...", means, that if it is necessary to operate an aircraft below 500' for the purposes of (safely) landing/takeoff, then the 500' restriction does not apply. I wish Trent the best in his legal case.
 
This is an interesting topic. A friend of mine loves to fly low and slow, window up door down over huge pastures of farm land. No way would he ever intentionally overfly a person, yet I can see the potential to do it by accident if he is unable to spot someone in the field who is crouched down or hidden by a shrub that obscures his outline. In such an occurrence is the pilot at fault for failing to see and avoid? A human can be anywhere at any time on this planet, including remote wilderness, and then pop up to film you.
 
This is an interesting topic. A friend of mine loves to fly low and slow, window up door down over huge pastures of farm land. No way would he ever intentionally overfly a person, yet I can see the potential to do it by accident if he is unable to spot someone in the field who is crouched down or hidden by a shrub that obscures his outline. In such an occurrence is the pilot at fault for failing to see and avoid? A human can be anywhere at any time on this planet, including remote wilderness, and then pop up to film you.

Luckily, I think most people won't automatically reach for their phone to video us, and than go to the bother of following up with a complaint to the FAA. Someone had it in for Trent and his buddy it sounds like to me, official rules and regs aside. Depends on where one lives I'm sure, but during hunting season around here, it's hard to do. Not as simple as staying at a certain altitude, when flying thru mountain passes and over ridge tops. If I'm clearing the 9K ridge behind my place, with the intent of dropping into the 4500' valley on the other side, I may JUST clear it (in no wind conditions) and no way can I see a person in time to avoid an overfly of them, too many trees. Best takeaway here on this thread: stay away from people as much as possible.
 
For legal interpretation, I believe the more important word is "for", not "necessary". So, "except when necessary for landing/takeoff...", means, that if it is necessary to operate an aircraft below 500' for the purposes of (safely) landing/takeoff, then the 500' restriction does not apply. I wish Trent the best in his legal case.

While your thought process is not flawed, the FAA and judge can decide it was 'not necessary because the pilot could have done a 45 degree bank turn at the end of the intended strip, climbed at Vx and avoided the other house,' (an example).They won't care about turbulence, hazards to the turn, or any other of the thousand factors that pilots must judge, it looks good on paper to them so fry baby fry.:evil:
 
This is an interesting topic. A friend of mine loves to fly low and slow, window up door down over huge pastures of farm land. No way would he ever intentionally overfly a person, yet I can see the potential to do it by accident if he is unable to spot someone in the field who is crouched down or hidden by a shrub that obscures his outline. In such an occurrence is the pilot at fault for failing to see and avoid? A human can be anywhere at any time on this planet, including remote wilderness, and then pop up to film you.

No, they don't bother attempting to photograph the airplane that "nearly killed them" while tenting in a forest.

They simply go to FlightAware (or the like), find pictures, registration home address, everywhere said airplane has been in the last 30 days, then cry to the FAA which kicks off the witch hunt. No pictures, video, or even visual required.

And for the FAA apologists, ADSB will not be used to "clear" you. It is accurate enough to nail you, but in investigators own words: "It is not accurate enough to show no wrong doing."

The only reason we are having this conversation is because someone with enough notoriety has experience what many pilots already have. The FAA will never be proven wrong and the violations will continue until your attitude improves and you stop flying where you are legally able to.
 
No, they don't bother attempting to photograph the airplane that "nearly killed them" while tenting in a forest.

They simply go to FlightAware (or the like), find pictures, registration home address, everywhere said airplane has been in the last 30 days, then cry to the FAA which kicks off the witch hunt. No pictures, video, or even visual required.

And for the FAA apologists, ADSB will not be used to "clear" you. It is accurate enough to nail you, but in investigators own words: "It is not accurate enough to show no wrong doing."

The only reason we are having this conversation is because someone with enough notoriety has experience what many pilots already have. The FAA will never be proven wrong and the violations will continue until your attitude improves and you stop flying where you are legally able to.
How could ADS-B be bad, AOPA was 1,000% for it? Every innocent person and airplane should be required to wear an ankle bracelet. For safety right? Or surveillance, as that is what the S in ADS-B stands for. We deserve ADS-B, it was obvious from the beginning and yet pilots self righteously went along with it.
 
How could ADS-B be bad, AOPA was 1,000% for it? Every innocent person and airplane should be required to wear an ankle bracelet. For safety right? Or surveillance, as that is what the S in ADS-B stands for. We deserve ADS-B, it was obvious from the beginning and yet pilots self righteously went along with it.

Not all of us

Glenn
 
This is an interesting topic. A friend of mine loves to fly low and slow, window up door down over huge pastures of farm land. No way would he ever intentionally overfly a person, yet I can see the potential to do it by accident if he is unable to spot someone in the field who is crouched down or hidden by a shrub that obscures his outline. In such an occurrence is the pilot at fault for failing to see and avoid? A human can be anywhere at any time on this planet, including remote wilderness, and then pop up to film you.

For many years, I flew low level surveys, most of which took place over “sparsely populated” country. Some of surveys meant seven hours a day at 100 feet to 200 feet.

I spent a lot of time thinking about this very topic, knowing full well that my employer likely wouldn’t defend me.

And since then EVERYBODY has a high resolution video camera in their pocket.

Be careful out there, folks.

MTV
 
Similar to MTV last Century I did fisheries surveys and telemetry wheels-skis-but mainly floats. No policy then from employer...they had or wanted little involvement. Everyone on the ground was used to aircraft flying around Alaska. Today....I'd not expect anyone to ignore a noisy aircraft w/o wondering why they were there and who they were. Time and "person" have changed.

Gary
 
Back
Top