• 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

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?
 
RedOwlAirfield said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
dryfarmer said:
what about the fire bombers, are they suspect also
Click to expand...

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.a...ns, the FAA,traffic on an Interstate highway.

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

MTV
Click to expand...
 
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/tex...spensing agricultural materials or chemicals.

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...
 
mvivion said:
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
Click to expand...

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:

palmerSite.jpeg

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

Attachments

  • palmerSite.jpeg
    palmerSite.jpeg
    125.9 KB · Views: 161
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.

SuperCub MD said:
Fire, ag dispersing ops are 137 not 91. No waiver required as long as you are operating 137.
Click to expand...
 
soyAnarchisto said:
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.
Click to expand...

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_or...ntron-AFS-800-2_2012_Legal_Interpretation.pdf

SuperCub MD said:
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.
Click to expand...
 
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
 
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.



ScaleBackcountryPilot said:
"Backcountry Flying" is probably a more accurate term.
Click to expand...
 
soyAnarchisto said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
soyAnarchisto said:
How is this not an act of showboating?
Click to expand...

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!"
:roll:

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.
 
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...

:D
 
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/notices/2015/Oct/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? ;-)

Colorado-Cub said:
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!"
:roll:

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.
Click to expand...
 
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:
Troy Hamon said:
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.
Click to expand...

Trent makes this point in the video and presents the publication to the camera. My understanding is that this will be the primary basis for appeal.
 
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:
soyAnarchisto said:
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
Click to expand...

It depends.

Are you going to land on your first try sight unseen?

If so, no problem! If not, well...

:wink:



(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
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

sj
READ This Before You Water Ski or fly near Water Supplies
Replies
19
Views
10K
joycub
joycub
bigrock
10 terrible airline pilots
Replies
4
Views
3K
OLDCROWE
O
S
Getting back to flying
Replies
3
Views
2K
stretch
S
B
Another loss in the airshow community
Replies
0
Views
2K
bprevost12
B
polarpete
Do You Remember Your First Off Airport Landing?PleaseShare
2 3 4
Replies
104
Views
70K
PerryB
PerryB
Back
Top