I've been a professional pilot for 30 years, Naval Aviator, current testt pilot and I have a 190 that I take off airport here in Washington state (I work in Seattle if that tells you for who). I am a DPE. What trent palmer got he was lucky. 60 days is nothing for what he did.
@@robertoler3795 what did he do that we're not being told? It sounds like he used ADM and went around. As a DPE I would hope you would consider that a good thing because sometimes not going around kills pilots.
@@MaxRunia who knows what he was doing. he has told a few lines. but the key is you cannot in populated areas just bulldoze some land and call it an airstrip I say that having a 3000 foot airstrip on my farm in TX and along with six other "pieces of land (each 20 acres) Having a strip on Whidbey island. plus he was arrogant at the FSDO I know its wonderful little guy agains the FAA...wow send him money :)
@@robertoler3795 Curious if you live in WA how you would know he was perceived as arrogant. And even if he was (he said the hearing lasted 5 days, personally I might be more than arrogant if I was in that situation), the decision should be based solely upon if he did or did not bust the regs.
@@robertoler3795 he certainly does not live in anything close to what anyone would call a “populated area“. You can legally land on certain roads or highways in Nevada so you certainly can land on your own damn property or a friends in the sparsely populated area
The FAA (through an asshole medical examiner) prevented me from realizing a lifelong dream of being a private pilot. I took my rejection letter to my physician, who found no evidence of the kidney failure the medical examiner claimed I was about to die from, but after a year of trying to get the decision reversed, I gave up. That was 20 years ago. I hate them all.
I will tell you There is a Heaven Over everyone's head With a Savior Jesus Christ who Did our weight and Balance Cancelling our debts so we can Go to Heaven. I Badly busted a check ride and everyone was horrible ugly to me during PPL ASEL training Then my family had my medical and license revoked it was years ago GOD HAS NOT FORGOTTEN either. God dealt with most of these people already and their souls are in Hell now Accept Christ and for eternity Fly at speed of thought. The dream is NOT over if you Accept Christ.
I was rejected too but with hard work and persistence of jumping through the FAA hoops I am now 5 years later a commercially licensed pilot and striving for more.
You risking your license to post videos doing the same thing Trent got his suspended for speaks volumes. 1. You know you’re not doing anything illegal, therefore it’s safe to post 2. You’re putting yourself on the line to stand up for the entire community and what we believe in. In other words; if we go down, you’ll go down with us. You’re willing to take the risk by putting yourself on the line for the betterment of everyone. (Even though it shouldn’t be a risk) Thank you.
The FAA/NTSB needs a civilian review board to appeal FAA /NTSB decisions to, with the power to over rule and expunge decisions as well as to bring disciplinary action against bad administrators.
FAA is a “civilian review board”. Everyone of those people are just civilians, they are abusing their status in ways we have not intended them to do. Wouldn’t another board just add to the problem?
@@trevors3450 you are correct they are civilians but with government authority my Intent would be to give the power back to the non government people, ironically as the founding fathers intended the country to be in the first place. ALL of the Washington alphabet agencies are out of control.
@@turninmonyin2noise978 if the government hires a bunch of people, funds a regular review board and gives them power over another governmental organisation, that review board becomes another governmental organisation.
CFII here. Love how you mentioned, "just because a government official has an opinion doesn't make it law". I once heard from an old instructor, "The FAA used to be here to actually increase safety, now they act as a police force"...
What happened to the pilot in command has the final say? We have the authority to break any regulation within the limits of the emergency. If a field is unsuitable for landing its imperative you don’t land. The FAA needs to be accountable. There needs to be consequences for their actions of negligence. As a pilot for any negligence; so to should be FA.
You have no say so for the use and enjoyment of a persons property. Yes, property owners own the airspace above their property from the depths of Hell to Heaven above. This has been common law since around 1300 AD… and the US Supreme Court has affirmed this in a case against the US Military. This is a SECRET pilots really don’t want the public to take notice of. Remember the mess with flight training being a commercial operation and someone in Florida saying it wasn’t, and pushed the issue… yea, then it goes out of the FAA and Administrative law arena. The US district court and then the US Appeals court (if he makes it there) will have to use Supreme Court president and Trent will lose… may even get his certificates revoked. Yes, the Appeals Court could decide this needs to be looked at for criminal charges. Things can get ugly real quick when you decide to challenge something where you have no leg to stand on. The FAA can not give someone the right to fly over anyones property… even to land.
@@thatguy8005 what was the case against the military? Not sure if laws passed before our country was founded actually have any bearing on anything since 1776 (unless incorporated in actual law).
@@thatguy8005 this is a completely inaccurate and incorrect statement. The airspace above a property is never the property of the land owner. If whet you say were correct there would be no aviation anymore.
I have been a law enforcement officer for almost 13 years and we need to make sure that this " put a case on someone and let them fight their way out of it" mentality stops. Thanks john, a lot of these pilots are scared to speak up, these are great points, we should make our voices heard.
Typically prosecutors I've interacted with at the state and federal levels are smart enough to be a good "check and balance" for the public and not take on BS cases, but it seems that failed here miserably
Well, as an alleged law enforcement officer you might want to go review the law. Here is the BIG SECRET… no pilot wants the public to know… The Supreme Court has affirmed in a case against the US military… a property owner owns the airspace above his property to the heavens above. You don’t have a right to fly… and… you don’t have a right to fly over anyones property at any altitude you wish… EVEN TO LAND. Your airport can be shut down if it is shown to disturb the owners of the surrounding airspace. That is why this case shouldn’t be pushed by Trent. He is an A$$ that buzzed someone’s home he knew was pissed from his RC and drone buzzing. He should have taken his medicine and forgot about it. Now, the public will be well informed of this airspace ownership… drones will not be able to fly, airports can be shut down over this… And in the end, Trent still could have his certificate revoked, not just the lite suspension of only 2 months for a clearly deliberate act of buzzing an already pissed off neighbor using a full sized plane.
Everybody that works in and with the FAA needs to watch this video. And understand the harm they can do by being poorly educated on the regulations they are supposed to know/enforce. Excelent video, I hope more aviation youtubers make videos about this.
The problem is they really don't give a fat rats @ss. The only time they even start to care is if they get lots of public blow back that makes them look really bad. Like the public humiliation the FAA goons got over their treatment of Mr. Bob Hoover. This is what happens when the qualifications for a government position centers more around what's between the individuals legs rather than what's between their ears!
The FAA is staffed by college grads and not from the industry these days. Plus, the FSDO in question is not willing to admit being wrong therefor resistance is futile, they are the FEDs.
Once again, Very well said an I agree with everything you say. I’ve been a pilot for over 45 years and have takeoff and landed on private property with the land owners permission many times. I have even had my own 1,000 foot grass strip used by myself and other pilots. I have always been safe and never had a problem. However, there were at times some local landowner or neighbors complained to authorities and or FAA. Even had friends from the FAA come out and take a look and tell me they see no regulations broken, looks safe and would let the neighbor know just that. The moral of the story with some neighbors are, they are not happy unless your not happy. Commonly referred to as neighbors from hell. What the FAA is doing here with Trent is not right and loosing credibility with many pilots. To take the rules and twist them around the way they are doing is absurd. I really feel the FAA owes Trent an apology for the way they have handled this and frustrating times they have caused him. Hope I hear some change on the thinking of this one. 🙏
Well said! When my neighbors complain I always offer them fair market value for their property, when they decline I don't feel bad flying off of my land which, at least for now, is my RIGHT
Sad… after 45 years you don’t understand flying is in fact a privilege. You have no right to fly… you have no right to fly over anyones property at any altitude. That is right, you are using an easement of someone’s property every time you fly. The FAA is just a mediator that attempts to keep the land owners happy. This is affirmed in a US Supreme Court case against the military where they were actually landing… the land owner had a loss of use and or enjoyment of his property… property which extends from heaven above to Hell below. Airspace use is like a side walk in someone’s front yard. It is an easement for a specific use. The land owner still owns the land the side walk is on, however, should the sidewalk become a nuisance the sidewalk can be removed from the owners land. Again, the FAA can not lawfully decide how someone’s property can be used… just as they can not decide that instruction isn’t a commercial activity… they can not decide how high someone can fly over private property… even to land. That is the bomb shell about to hit… because some A-hole buzzed a house of a neighbor he knew was already pissed off… and had reported the annoying RC and drone use on before. There was serious bad blood going on here. And the FAA, the judge, and I are not fooled by this ‘I was going to land BS’… He is about to open a can of worms… and should have had his certificates revoked.
@@thatguy7085 Sounds like you are the neighbor in question here…? You seem to have been present at the hearings in FAA vs Trent Palmer, having first hand info regarding what’s said during these hearings?
@@erikherje3414 In Trent’s own videos he admits that he was cited before for landing on an RC field. He had property rights explained to him. He also admitted he had surveyed the alleged landing zone from the ground. This was a buzz job. The neighbor had clearly complained before about the drone and RC planes to the FAA. The neighbors reaction also showed he knew exactly who Trent was… and I have no doubt Trent knew this neighbor was pissed before he used his big ‘toy’, that is his own description, to up the anti. I’m not fooled, neither was the FAA or judge.
Sure, convince the NTSB to whom you can appeal FAA decisions, that the FAA decision is wrongly decided. BTW, the NTSB board is run by someone with no pilot license, but she does have a Moped Operator endorsement on her car driver license.
@@tscottme oh a Dan Gryder fan. By yours and Dans logic, only people that have been in airplane crashes should be allowed to investigate airplane crashes because no one can be trained to to that job. Has to come from experience.
This is one of those squeaky-wheel-gets-the-grease situations ... combined with an ignorant authoritarian predator in the FAA. One problem with the world (and this case) is that good folks don't try to make trouble. They look for simple friendly ways to people to not annoy each other. Frankly, in a case like this the FAA should have refused to proceed until after Trent and the trouble-maker sat across a table and had a conversation to explain their situations and positions to each other and try to work things out. Instead, the trouble-maker did what turns him on --- made trouble. Unfortunately, they got hooked up with a "judge" who is obviously an authoritarian == someone who thinks "what I say goes" - because he has a certain job. Like many others like them, these two human predators just love to make trouble for human producers (Trent). Some people have no freaking idea about STOL and bush-pilots. Just as one example, I have just over 500 hours of flying ... and probably 90% of my landings (and therefore takeoffs too) were at places where nobody had ever landed an airplane before. Quite often bush-pilots land on back roads (dirt roads). When some people (who don't "think", just "react") that sounds insane. They will often say "roads are for cars, not airplanes". My answer to that is ... how many people have you seen ride a motorcycle on a road? How many people have you seen ride a bicycle on a road? How many people have you seen ride a skateboard on a road? How many people have you seen ride a tricycle on a road? How many people walk on a road? Yada, yada, yada 100 times over. Frankly, it never occurred to these tiny-minded people that roads are for whatever roads are useful for ... including landing and takeoffs in those airplanes that can safely land and takeoff on roads. Just because you don't see many people ride their scooters on the road, doesn't mean scooters cannot or should-not ride on roads. When I think about this trouble-maker I am reminded of the few times I've lived near other humans. Now and mostly in my life I've lived in extreme boonies where I can't see other humans. But when I have lived near other humans, what have I been subjected to? For one, almost everywhere "civilized" that I ever lived there was at least one neighbor who owned a dog that they kept outdoors ... a dog that would bark and bark and bark and bark off and on ... *ALL NIGHT LONG.* Or places where people would run their noisy motorized lawn-care equipment at dawn. You get the point? Even if someone did land a small bush airplane next door, the noise would be momentary. Actually, landing is quiet. It is takeoff that generates some noise (full power for takeoff). Unfortunately, it is tough for us reasonable folks to hassle trouble-makers, because that's opposite from our approach to life. But realistically, what Trent (or his neighbor-friend) should do is have a few dozen bush pilots land their airplanes on his property, and takeoff from his property at dawn every day ... until the neighbor goes insane and kills himself, or moves away ... whichever comes first. Unfortunately, our tendency to "not make trouble" works against us and lets trouble-makers cause endless hassles and troubles for others ... *with no reason not to.*
Great video John. The judge, in my opinion failed by arguing about a necessary landing. Clearly the language of the CFR is about what is necessary for the landing, not whether or not the landing is necessary. However, these government employees must be aware of this mistake, but don't seem to care. That said, the FAA does answer to congress so there is hope.
Yep, totally agree. The point should have been about the actions necessary to conduct a landing or takeoff, not whether a landing or takeoff itself was necessary. In this case, the maneuver Trent performed was necessary in order to perform the landing he was attempting. Similarly, the guy who kept buzzing the restaurant, his maneuvering wasn't necessary because, as you mentioned, he could have used more runway, etc.
What a great Video! Last week on the TakingOff channel posted a comment and got crucified by other pilots . They said I was an idiot . My comment was that I believe we should contact our congressmen and have them change the FAA so we can be judged by our peers and not a FAA employee that’s not even a pilot .
I am trying to follow but you have lost me!, how can you reasonably say "judged by FAA employee" My understanding is a complaint was made, a complaint that was evidenced that is, resultantly the FAA investigated then passed the completed investigation to attorneys retained by the FAA to consider that there had been a serious breach of rules and to determine the likelihood of a successful conviction if the pilot was prosecuted, based on the attorney assessment the FAA decided to bring legal action in a court of law which they won, so how have you been lead to comment as you have?.. I fear you say this is a "great video" simply because it only deals with one side and makes many comparisons and observations which have no relevance here.
The Canarsie approach to 13L at JFK puts you a lot lower than 500' over buildings in a congested area, in an airliner. And I certainly would not hesitate to go around there if needed, in fact I have. The FAA doesn't always get it right.
Yes, the FAA is not even permitted to let people fly at JFK if the property owners below say ‘hell no’. Airspace use is not a right. Guess who owns the airspace… hint, it isn’t the government.
I am a student pilot out of D-95 and got back into aviation because of people like Trent Palmer and the flying cowboys !!! This ruling would destroy everything that made me decide to get back into aviation again after a 30 year break !!! I am not sure who to contact about this and am not sure they would listen if I did !! I do hope this gets resolved according to the rules they have set down and not some interpretation by a small group trying to exert their will above the rules !! I will contact my representative and try to stress this so thank you for making people aware through you channel !!! Best of luck to us all - D-95 student pilot !!!
My dad had a private strip about 5.5 miles east of D95. It was a 2000ft grass strip on his property with 100ft trees on one end and power lines on the other end. There is another house within 1000ft to the side of that runway. I can say from experience that there are times when the wind were not good that we’ve had to make a goaround to try again if the approach wasn’t perfect. Under this new precedent we would be in violation. In this the FAA has 100% got it wrong. Blue skies to another Lapeer area pilot!!
I was show boss at a dedication to a new runway opening. During the pilot brief, it came time to set the altitude for low passes for the flying show planes. I had two FAA representatives from the Houston FISDO office which was monitoring the event. To be legal, we had to have showlines established and a 500' line of tape, enforced, to establish a crowd line. The crowd line was set back not from the centerline of the runway but to the edge. One of the FAA reps insisted the minimum altitude to be 500' AGL. I debated stating in non congested areas, which this did qualify, that the FAR said nothing about altitude otherwise why establish a show line. The Senior representative agreed with me and I set the altitude to 50'. I basically owned that airspace for the period of published time of the event. The junior member was not happy that I dared to debate him publicly and provided the FAR evidence to show his misinterpretation of the law. So many of the people who are sworn to uphold the law, including police and other agencies officials, do not know the law they have pledged to uphold.
And this is where I run into an issue. I'm building the funds and time to start my private pilot certificate journey and I'm not trying to have to learn what's in FAR AND some random administrative judge's unwritten opinion that sidesteps the (poorly) established federal administrative rulemaking process and that I can run afoul of without having any way of knowing? I don't know if I'm ready to put my family's livelihood on the line for that. I'm an average Joe that already gets the stink eye from everybody for being a local LEO. Not ready to be chastised for the news heading "Local LEO defies judges order by..."
Great video, sir. I appreciate your voice and passion on behalf of the community. Thank you for using your experience, knowledge, and influence to leverage this issue. As a newer pilot, it’s tough to hear cases like Trent’s because we often always second guess ourselves in our decisions as we learn and grow. We think “If someone as experienced as Trent can get suspended, I’m screwed…” We rely on these PIC standards for safety and reassurance as we develop our skills. The last thing I need in my mind while I’m on short final and honing my skills is something that compromises the safety I’m trying to practice every day. We appreciate you.
This is the best video I have seen for aviation in a while, you are spot on and I support everything you said! I will gladly sign any paperwork to support that the FAA is held accountable.
My mistake of using certain medications 15 years ago prevented me from getting a first class certificate. The FAA is really efficient when it comes to creating a pilot shortage.
I've been stuck for two years after having my medical wrongly revoked/suspended (already had a class III and was applying for a class I and a condition that an AME said was a non-issue was used by the FAA to revoke both). My family and I spent thousands trying to follow the rules and getting the needed medical reviews to get my medical back and for months now the report has been sitting with the FAA with Oklahoma City refusing to review it. I've lost 2 years towards my degree in a part-141 university program because of this and it oftentimes feels like there's nothing I can do to get them to act on anything.
I understand what your saying about Oklahoma City, so in May 2019 I did my first ever FAA medical so I could get my student pilot certificate because I was going to college for an aviation program. At the time of my medical, it asks if you ever attempted suicide, which I had in 2007 when my soon-to-be ex-wife left me, I got better from the depression and moved on with my life. From 2007 to the time I went for my medical I had no attempts to take my life, no therapy, and I was good. I was a truck driver and I have had to do the TSA threat assessments and everything else, even have my hazmat. Yet the FAA in OK City still messed with me about getting my medical for flying. I also have sleep apnea which made things even worse. So, it ended up taking about a full year of BS, I even had to go see a Psychiatrists to have him sign off on me before the FAA finally allowed me to get my Class 3 medical. I understand keeping things safe by the amount of time it takes them to work and the bs they make people go through is nonsense. I hope they get it straight with you also and can get on with your schooling.
I'm going on 5 years I've done and passed everything they told me to do....my last denial said they didn't share the psychiatrist optimism even though he has worked with the FAA for 20 years and It was the doctor the FAA told me to go to and see with their personal recommendation.
@@loganb6286 I've never really understood why they are the way they are. They seem to ignore evidence from doctors that they themselves work with wasting the time of both the pilots and doctors.
I’ve been flying for 31 years. An ATP and now building my own plane. This video is so disturbing, rage inducing and scary all at the same time. This craziness is just further proof we’re living in the Matrix and they’re just messing with the code. SMH. #MadasHell
The old adage to never invite the man into your life, fits perfectly here. Avoid the FAA at every possible opportunity. There is zero upside and nothing but risk to your license, medical or career. As always, sufficient altitude helps keep the FAA away.
"A kitfox is like a kite with a rotax strapped to it." 😂😂😂😂 and thank you, the call for AOPA to organize us is an excellent idea. looking forwards to receiving that same email in my e-mailbox.
Expecting ramifications or corrective actions when a government bureaucrat makes mistakes, or acts in a vindictive and hostile manner, is a futile endeavor.
Trent thought he was being helpful when he went in and spoke with them and admitted it was him flying. It seems the FAA needed the "Don't speak to cops" treatment and make them prove he was the one flying his plane. Supposedly all they had was a video of a video from a surveillance camera. Who knows, maybe someone took it for a joyride without him knowing...
Or who’s to say he didn’t land on the next attempt, and the recording of a recording didn’t show that, making the whole argument null and void… I’m kind of with you on this, exercise your 5th amendment right, your not required to help them investigate you and contact an attorney early on… personally i think they should be required to read you Miranda Rights if they have any intent to violate you, and anything shared prior to Miranda Rights should be not admissible in the charges against you. If anything came from this in legislation, that would likely be the most helpful to protect pilots rights.
Absolutely brilliant. Thankyou for highlighting this situation. I agree 100% there needs to be accountability to correct complete and utter stuff ups such as the Trent Palmer case
Not the FAA… this is Trent’s interpretation, not the FAAs. He may open up a can of worms though far worse then the commercial instruction ruling. The FAA is not permitted to decide how a persons property is used. You think you have a right to fly… here is the bad news… YOU DO NOT. Property rights go from heaven above to hell below. The FAA is merely mediator, between the pilots and the property owners for the use of a property easement (air space). You may hate the FAA, but they are the only reason you can have flying ‘privileges’. That is right… even the airlines do not have a ‘right’ to operate.
@@donbrowncfi The FAA makes regulations for one reason… to protect the airspace owners. Who is that? Who ever owns the land below. Go watch ‘yes, you own the airspace above your land’ by Law professor Steve Lehto. You are using an easement when you fly your plane above someone land… and you had better remember this. The FAA actually does not have a legal right to authorize anyone to fly over private property at any level. They just facilitate the use of an airspace easement. And that easement use is limited to not disturbing the owners of the airspace.
The FAA, AOPA and EAA have become advocates of the industry instead of for the people in cases like Palmer. I used to be a member of AOPA and EAA but not any longer because I felt I was wasting my money. What they did to Palmer is wrong! John, thanks for sticking out!
Excellent commentary. Great points. The FAA has done more to erode and inhibit General Aviation than promote it and make it safe. Bureaucratic suits out of control and trying to justify their jobs. Thanks for the video.
39 years ago after just passing my FAA private check ride, my dad and uncle (both long time pilots) told me that if I wanted a long and stress free flying career to stay out of the FAA's view as much as possible. This has been great advise as I have seen many of us "little guys" as well as some well known airshow pilots get tangled up in the FAA nonsense even when clearly doing nothing wrong. I don't know Trent or what happened, but I can say posting your flying exploits on the internet certainly increases your risk of trouble. I worked as a DAR for a few years and can say that most people at the local FSDO/MIDO were reasonable to work with, but there were a few that clearly wanted to give pilots a hard time. I will continue my flying early mornings before most people (and the FAA) are even awake and will never post my legal, yet FAA provoking backcountry flying shenanigans.
Except this FAA person didn't care about Trents posts .. He just took the word and I think video of a whining neighbor who lived where the landing attempt took place and ran with it
As a new commercial pilot (I'm sure any pilot of any level would feel the same way) I cannot believe the FAA's ruling on this. Trent is incredibly lucky to have the following that he has for this situation. The only solution to preventing these situations that I can imagine is that whoever is allowed to make the final ruling on any given matter that pertains to an aviator's ADM is a person who has recieved pilot training themselves and understands the risks involved, as well as the importance of PIC authority. The training involved could be a minimum of a PPL (or some comperable certificate) or perhaps a special course dedicated to training the specific aspects involved in PIC authority as well as what good ADM is and looks like. And that without this training, or some similar substitute, a person would not be allowed to make a ruling on any federal regulation involving pilots or aircraft as it pertains to inflight actions/decisions taken. The course should include the basics of these checklists, why they are important for all pilots to learn, and how to use them for a given scenario; IMSAFE PAVE 5p's and DECIDE This simple lesson would take no more than 5-10 hours of ground training/self study and could involve a written test and/or video test of scenario training to ensure that there is an understanding of the basic importance of these lessons. If we as pilot's are expected by the FAA to know this information then the people deciding the fate of our licenses should know this basic information at a minimum. Resources for the course; Single-Pilot Crew Resource Management (2015) General Aviation Joint Steering Committee Safety Enhancement Topic Pilot's Handbook of Aeronautical Knowledge (2016) FAA-H-8083-25B Ch. 2, Aeronautical Decision-Making AOPA's Weather Or Not Thunderstorm Challenge (And their online courses) www.aopa.org/training-and-safety/online-learning If the person who decided to suspend Trent's license is a pilot themselves then they should be assigned remedial training on all of these topics, although I highly doubt that they are an aviator of any kind. Also, the moment the Off Airport Ops Guide Pg. 3, TECHNIQUES FOR OFF AIRPORT OPERATIONS section was mentioned, it should have cleanly settled the case cut-and-dry.
I hope your career as a pilot would include some aviation law. You have no right to fly… and you have no right to fly over anyones property. That is right… you have no right to fly over the airspace owned by the property owner below. The government has an easement of the airspace, however that easement can not disturb the use and enjoyment of the property owner. There is a US Supreme Court ruling against the US military over this issue. A property owner owns writhing the bounds of his land… to the depths of Hell to the Heavens above. Planes flying over someone’s land are like people using a side walk. The government doesn’t own the land… the land owner does. The government can not say people can live on the side walk… or, for that matter… even walk on the side walk if it disturbs the owners use and enjoyment of his land. The owner could demand the side walk be removed if the easement bothers the owner. I’ve actually seen areas on ATC radar maps where this was done. The FAA has no legal right to say anyone can fly at any altitude… even to land. Pilots hate the FAA… however, the FAA is just a mediator between the pilots and the land owners… for the use of an easement that doesn’t disturb the owners. Here an owner complained someone was buzzing their home. He is damn lucky it isn’t a revoke of ‘privileges’. Because that is what flying is… a privilege.
@@donbrowncfi I also don’t think he is being completely up front about everything. He has been told by the FAA before not to land on RC fields… did you know that? He also has flown RC aircraft at his buddies house and knew if he could or couldn’t land his big ‘toy’ there… note that he was told not to land on RC fields, this would include makeshift fields… and he could ‘care less’… There is no way this was the first time the neighbor complained… and there is also no way he didn’t know the neighbor was pissed off over the drones and RC planes next door buzzing their house… and they knew each-other… so his actions were most likely deliberate. This actually makes his actions worse than Red Bull… and Trevor Jacob, the jack ass that bailed out of a plane and let it crash. Those two incidents had no intention of harming someone on the ground… this one appears to be a FU in the face of a neighbor, intentionally disturbing or harming them. This could go south real quick. I still say he got off super lite.
Very good points addressed. Congrats. I am even not a pilot, but simple logic shows the FAA did a mistake they should correct before they loose the trust of the pilots and public.
As a crop duster (28 yrs) it is in my opinion that with today's cell phones and the hundreds of off strip landings Trent Palmer has successfully made maybe there was unknown calls to the FAA that Trent was not aware of and it came back to bite his butt. I lived in Carson city for years and was up in Trent's neck of the woods many times in the air and on the ground. Good video
Tyrannical moped operators have no business dealing in case law where aviation is concerned. Especially if they cannot pass a comprehensive reading class.
As a CFI, I’ve worked with the FAA extensively over the past 30 years. Most of the people I’ve worked with have been great….some not so much as one would expect to find in any large governmental bureaucracy. My experience is their hot button really lights up when a non pilot complains about some observed activity perceived to be unsafe. In this instance, as I understand it, one of the neighbors complained about Palmer’s landing attempt because he came close (how close I don’t know) to the guys house or place of business or some structures and that is what set the whole process off. Was that not the case?
Sorry if that came across wrong. I should have phrased it as a question. Everyone keeps talking about whether or not it was a necessary landing. Does the Reg say anything about it having to be necessary to land?
91.119 doesn’t make any evaluation on whether a landing or take off is itself necessary. The word “necessary” refers to the operation of the aircraft at a particular altitude or distance from structures. The FAA cannot even read their own regulations properly.
Wonderful break down. Thank you for digging in. Government overreach is a huge issue, not only in aviation. Thanks for putting this together, you knowledge and insight is greatly appreciated.
You absolutely have to be kidding me! I am stunned beyond measure. More of our freedoms are being taken every day, and it feels like an unwinnable fight and it leaves us voiceless and unable to fight back. Flying is my passion and my life, and I love it more than anything else in this world, but it feels like a hopeless battle going up against principalities like this. (a sort of "David and Goliath" scenario," and I think issues like this are written by people who aren't pilots or are being paid a great deal to sway a vote like this. 😢 I'm sorry that this even happened to you, but know this, you're not alone in this fight, and we have your back. DO NOT ACQUIESCE... EVER!
Citizens have no power over the FAA. They aren't elected. Congress funds EVERYTHING by pretending there is an "emergency" every 6 months and passing a "fund everything at last year's level plus x% increase."
One of the big problems in aviation is pilots landing in conditions in which they should have gone around. Now, the FAA along with their lazy legal associates, have created an environment encouraging pilots to land under all conditions. Great video!
Unfortunately, this is about big brother weeding out the non meek among us. If you think you have rights, they claim you only have privileges which they will revoke for anything you do or just to make an example out of you to intimidate others. The politics here is similar to the anecdote about slow cooking a frog in a pot of water. Our rights will evaporate if we aren't paying attention. The tactic is to keep us divided so as individuals we have no power and if we organize we will be seen as dangerous for seeking to collectively preserve our rights. We are on the receiving end of psychological warfare.
Thanks Jon for this great information video. The regs seem to be very messy. From my understanding it appears the FFA is a little to far out over their skis. I like you hope they can correct their error and save face without just powering over Trent and others who have faced this same problem.
Excellent video. Examples of federal government overreach and abuse are obviously larger than aviation, but pilots should insist on the following. 1. The right for a trial by your peers, specifically pilots. 2. Enforcement of corrective action to educate or retrain FAA employees when errors are made. 3. Enforcement of disciplinary procedures, including employment termination, if an FAA employee is found guilty of repeatedly abusing their authority.
It says "necessary FOR takeoff or landing", not "for a necessary takeoff or landing"... so it does not matter if the landing is necessary or not. Why are people making and enforcing regulations when they can't even read them correctly, let alone the fact they have no flying experience???
Honestly it makes me want to just forget about getting my license. I have completed all the training and just need to take the tests... these situations and the families that keep filing (and winning) lawsuits against engine and aircraft manufacturers because their loved one had water in the tank or forgot to put fuel in it and got in a stall spin, making it incredibly impossible to afford to fly, just why bother? People don't have common sense anymore.
The federal Gov has been inching into authoritarianism for many years. The so called “Patriot Act” put the foot on the accelerator and shoved it to the floor. Look closely, both parties are pushing it. Just seems one a bit harder than the other.
@@fjohnson9749 my brothers theory is both parties have the same goal just different roads to get there. We're the ones that can change it. But it makes it hard with only allowing echo chambers. Instead of spreading knowledge and not just propaganda, agendas and false information.
Excellent video, it boggles my mind that this wasn't immediately thrown out because Trent was showing caution as every good aviator should have. That grumpy neighbor was just looking and WAITING for a chance to do this.
I am Trying to wrap my head around this from both a pilots perspective as well as a public one. Initially I was on Trents side. Now I’m not so sure. I think perhaps he was in the wrong. I think the judge might be right. Taking an argument to a relative extreme can sometimes create clarity in grey situations. Take this example for instance… According to your and Trents interpretation…. It would be legal and rational to land a helicopter in a backyard in a densely populated suburbs. With 1/4 care zoning. A backyard in the suburbs becomes an airport if you could possibly land there…. As long as the rotor blades can Miss the trees and not scratch the paint in the porch. If the sound wakes the baby or the rotor wash damages the shingles or breaks a window then thats my problem; as the pilot is in his rights. And by that logic a helicopter can fly around and hover at any altitude for as long as he wanted over neighboring houses to see if he could land there that day; ‘cause Gosh darn it he just might work up the nerve to try it one day. He could legally Hover over my backyard just 50 feet from my house let’s say….band do so for as long as needed to work up the balls to do it. Does that sound reasonable? This obviously would not be cool…. So there goes your argument. So if this example is unreasonable…. Then You CAN’T land anywhere it is possible; as it is “not necessary” and would be highly bothersome to the public. So some minimum distance from my house, or any other, would be required to be reasonable. 500 feet seems about right to me. Now if I buy a house next to an airport…. I expect planes to land close to me and fly over. No problem…. But by your logic; And Trents…. There is no distance too close to a house that would prohibit landing... or flying over repeatedly and relentlessly. So if a guy could land somewhere in a super STOL bush plane but he needed to buzz my house by less than 50 feet; he could? And this should be a legal and protected action? Could he/she do this every day? Multiple times per day? Let’s not conflate true backcountry with populated rural areas. It seems to me that if you need to get closer than 500 feet to a dwelling that is not on an airport than maybe that place is not a good place to land. Maybe this is reckless or not in the public’s best interest. I certainly don’t want planes flying over my house closer than 500 feet…. And I’m a pilot that Loves planes. How would you feel if your house was getting buzzed by ten feet? 50? 100? What’s the minimum you would accept? I think that the judge used bad wording in his ruling…. But I’m not convinced yet that his ruling was wrong. Certainly there is a minimum acceptable distance to keep your aircraft away from My house…. And for me to keep mine away from yours. What do you think it is? 500 feet seems about right to me.
Did you see the satellite view of the properties .. clearly not densely populated at all .. an example of where off airport pilots fly and land all the time in friends back yards .. Your example of the helicopter doesn't make sense because you say scraping trees and breaking windows .. who does that , Where trent chose to try and land is typical of off airport work .. And legal
I am not proposing that Trent needed to lose his license... as I agree that he DID NOT BREAK ANY RULE. My point is that on an "elective" off airport landing there should be some minimum number of feet that would be acceptable. What I am proposing is that the rules are vague and need to be better defined. So what is the minimum number of feet that is acceptable to buzz someones house? 5 feet? 50? 200? 500? This should be clarified to remove the ambiguity. The judge should have defined this in a non ambiguous way, and should not have taken Trents license. He should give it back, and make a statement or propose a new rule or guideline. As a pilot, and as a home owner that is is a scenic area where low flying airplanes and helicopters often fly over, I think 500 feet is reasonable. I would not want planes coming closer than that to my house. If you need to get closer to a home (except your own) than 500 feet, i think it is not a reasonable place to land unless in an emergency, If you want to use your property as an airstrip, awesome, but IMO not if you have to get closer than 500 feet to another house; exce[pt maybe with prior explicit and written home owner permission for any home that you need to get closer than 500 feet of. So there should be a non-ambiguous minimum. If not 500 feet... than what is your minimum that you would accept as reasonable?
What we need to do is get to the bottom of what REALLY went down in this case. This wreaks of favoritism, on both sides of the case. A FAA employee on site was the complainant, and Trent was the defendant. The employee pissed and moaned about a situation that he simply didn't like, and got a response from the FSDO and the FAA- he evidently had some kind of clout. Trent, on the other hand, was a spectacular target for the FAA- the perfect pilot to make an example of. This had nothing to do with safety- it was about catering to somebody with money or power, and slapping down a TH-cam celebrity (which the FAA HATES). THIS NEEDS TO GO BEYOND the unjustness that Trent has been handed.
Trent was either buzzing an RC strip or attempting to land at one in a populated area. then no doubt he was arrogant in front of the inspector. this is a lot of populism drum banging
No… this was a private citizen that complained numerous times about a make shift RC field put in next door…one Trent obviously used. Then Trent upping the screw you with a full size toy buzzing. Very stupid and he got off lite. I’m not fooled and neither was the FAA or judge.
Trent's videos have always done a great job to promote GA flying while also promoting safety. Hoping his appeal goes well.. Anyone who's giving money to the AOPA should be emailing them over this..
I'm not a pilot but follow Trent, you and many others because I love GA. Just took a discovery flight at 62 in January. Let me know when that petition gets started and I will gladly sign it.
I have tracked this IDIOCY back to the years of the Obama regime. It became ok in the mind of government bureaucrats at all levels to CREATE new INTERPRETATIONS of the rules to in order to do what they, the bureaucrat, thinks should be done. And they knew that since they were THE AUTHORITY, they could not be questioned and in most cases there is no simple recourse, except maybe one that would cost lots of money or time. "I may be wrong but do you have enough money and time to fight this?" In other words Obama didn't do much himself about anything, what he was though was an enabler.
while I can't say what president it started with, I do have to say the continuing increasing trend of "executive orders" and the like has setup a really bad situation in america. My career is trying to keep a company in compliance with such regulations (not FAA in this case, but another couple of agencies)... and the biggest thing I think people dont realize is the whole admin law process... literally the first several steps in experience with a regulator, all the balls are in their court... because you are not in a "judicial" court, instead you are in an "admin law" court, which is run by the administrative branch, the same that promulgated the rules (in theory in compliance with the actual law given by congress, but not always), and the same branch that sighted you for noncompliance. Even when you get beyond the admin court process, the judicial process favors the admin branch's view (see chevron deference). One basically has to show that the "rule" is somehow not in compliance with the actual "law" congress passed (which is hard, since almost all agencies have some charter rule like "in the protection of the public" etc). It is a horrible place to be. And people don't realize so much of what one can be fined / etc for is in the realm of admin law.
The FAA needs to be rained in, they have gotten so far off of their mandate that congress set for them to promote aviation and aviation safety. With that judges ruling, I could see even getting violated during a check ride, when the dpe says to preform a go around… even at a airport with lights, runway markings, wind sock and an Awos. Why, because there was no intent to land.
Im a big fan of you USA GA pilots and how you have advanced all things aeronautical over the last century but can see how your going to suffer if this case is allowed to set 'that' precedent. The PiC must be allowed to go around, to penalize a flyer who doesnt land because he deems it unsafe to do so is ridiculous. The intent to land here is or was questioned & isnt this point anymore now. The point of this whole facade is that, one FAAs persons opinion is being forced on every American Pilot or his intent to force it on all future off airport landings that you attempt in your/the future. You must have this decision ( overturned). GP. Ex Air force Ex Police Officer. Uk.
I bet a neighbor complained and this was the FAA response. Call the government and bad things can happen but people call all the time for minor things.
The go arounds before the landing are for a procedure called "A LASSO APPRAISAL". Length, Altitude, Sides, Slope, Obstructions. LASSO Appraisal. Retired Bush Pilot and aerobatics CFI
The FAA lives in a closed loop system. Oversight is managed by the FAA. Judgements made by FAA judges are written for them by airspace safety investigators. The FAA has regulations that they are supposed to be held to and you can find them under 8900.1. Good luck with that though because it’s like being in the Mafia , it’s a family affair and no one in FAA is held to any standard of accountability from within. Which brings me to this: until “absolute immunity” is taken away from the FAA it will remain a lawless, wreckless, self governing entity with absolute authority to rule every regulation as they see fit. Think about this for a moment and let it resonate. A sitting senator or even an ex-president can be subpoenaed or even charged civilly or criminally but not an FAA representative. Boeing and Southwest debacles were happening the same time the feds were chasing imaginary regulations to enforce. Makes you wonder if aviation safety is really all that important to the FAA or is it more about making themselves relevant…
funny thing is, I know of a place where military aircraft routinely fly closer than 500 ft to people, structures, and vehicles with absolutely no intent on landing. And to top it off it is in a national park. Its one thing to do this type of flying on a military base, but to allow this in a national park is the height of hypocracy in our federal government when compared to this Trent Palmer story.
If it’s the same place I’m thinking about, where photographers camp out to get some canyon strafing photos, it is no longer allowed after that incident in 2019. Now it’s 1500’ agl through that area.
I’ve always watched your channel and enjoyed it. This I think however is one of your most important videos you’ve ever put out, it’s certainly a critical video that does need a call to action putting our FAA back in check. 100% the EAA, AOPA need to be involved with this case, as a member who has paid dues and also paid legal dues they should be on board fighting for Trent. It does concern me when it comes to paying for the legal portion of the AOPA membership that twice you’ve tried to use it and they haven’t helped. Just like in the corporate world lazy attorneys are collecting a paycheck and forget where it comes from and don’t give a damn about helping what doing what they’re actually getting paid for, just as long as the money still rolling through the door, it does make me rethink paying the fee?
all paying the AOPA legal advocacy fee does is get you a list of aviation related attorney office numbers for a free 30 minute phone call........something you can do on your own for free.
(It’s been awhile since I’ve reviewed this specifically but I’m pretty sure pilots can appeal an administrative law judge ruling to the NTSB. Right?) I think we need to change the system in three ways: First, being a pilot (or better yet at least a commercial pilot) should be one of the minimum requirements necessary for a person to be an administrative law judge. I think that alone would do a lot to squash rulings that are clearly and completely wrong and not in the spirit of safety. Second, anyone who becomes an admin law judge should have extensive training on all aviation regulations (and the sprit of safety behind aviation regs) and a thorough knowledge of aviation accident history. I believe this would also cut down on incorrect rulings like this one in Trent’s case which could potentially have a negative impact on safety by discouraging pilots to perform go-arounds out of fear of prosecution. And thirdly, a record should be kept of every ruling an admin law judge has had overturned and when 3 rulings have been overturned that person should lose the position of admin law judge and be forced to be retrained and retested on aviation regs and aviation accident history mentioned in point two. You’d think the FAA would be smart enough to know that targeting people (especially highly visible ones) who try to follow the rules like Trent, who personally promotes safety in aviation to others via TH-cam, does way more to damage the FAA’s mission of promoting and increasing safety and gaining compliance than it does to further the FAA’s mission of safety and compliance. P.S. I’ve never understood people trying to buddy up to the FAA. Make no mistake they are never on your side and this nonsensical ruling just reiterates that fact.
Trent did appeal this case. I disagree with your ps though. I am one of those people and it has served me well. If something like this happens to me, they know who I am before they ever call me. Also, I have found them to be on my side several times. This one random case on the other side of the country does not negate that
And here you think the judge is wrong… you have listened to one side of an argument. Bet you wouldn’t like that if I caused you of something you didn’t do… and no one heard your side of the story. Better step back and pull the foot out of your mouth. You have no right to fly. It is in fact a privilege. You have no right to fly over anyones property… even to land. Trent is about to find this out… yes, he will likely be sued. If the federal judge believes Trent is not telling the truth… we’ll, now we are talking about federal criminal charges. This isn’t the FAA… or administrative judge. Someone did something stupid, got spanked, and now is crying.
@@thatguy7085 can you site the law that states that you do not have the right to fly over anyones land? I've never seen anything of the sort. He did have permission to land, so that is a null point
@@chrisbowpiloto it has been common law from 1300 AD to the present. The airspace used above peoples property is like a side walk easement. The property owner still owns the land where the side walk is located, the government has designated airways (basically sidewalks in the air) pilots do not have a ‘right’ to use these anyway they wish. In fact if the people on the side walk disturb the owner of the property, the side walk (or in this case air space) can be shut down or removed for further use. I have actually seen this done to airspace while working for the DOD and FAA.
I loved your video. I’ve agreed with Everyone who has spoken on this , including Trent himself. What I don’t like about this is we will never hear the rebuttal from the FAA and makes me feel we won’t be heard by them and those who make the decisions. As an AOPA member, A&P in training and soon to be student pilot I am hopeful that Trent appeals the decision with success. Thank you for your videos and your voice and hope it’s heard by all.
I've been a pilot for 25+ years. What the FAA is doing is just another knee jerk reaction to political pressure that will do nothing but hurt aviation in the long run. They did it in 2012, and they're doing it again 10 years later. In 2014, I had to do a go-around from less than 500 feet while dealing with a faulty ammeter gauge in a twin. I had a student pilot in a 172 cut me off during the approach. I missed putting the gear down during the GUMPS check because I had to focus on not running his dumb hide over. I was about 250 feet from landing when someone called "GEAR! GEAR! GEAR!" over the radio, so I went full power and did a go-around. Had this rule been in place, not only would I have lost my license for doing the go-around, and I would have been pressured into landing an aircraft without the gear extended.
No… the FAA is saving your ability to fly. Here is some really bad news… you have no right to fly. You also have no right to fly over anyones property…. This was affirmed by the US Supreme Court in a case against the military. The FAA can not through any regulation give you the right to fly over anyones property, even to land. Yes, like the case in Florida where some jack ass thought it was a good idea to challenge the meaning of flight instruction as not being a commercial activity… this can be the worst thing to happen to aviation in a long time. Once people realize… hey I own the airspace above my house… airports will begin to get shut down left and right.
@@thatguy8005 Firstly, you're referencing US v. Causby where a large military aircraft flew 83 feet above a farmer, which lead to the creation of 14 CFR Part 91.13 and 14 CFR Part 91.119. Secondly, airspace above and including someone's house isn't owned by the homeowner. It's owned by the FAA and is typically Class G, which extends from the surface to between 700-1200 Feet AGL or may extend up to 14.500 ft MSL, also known as the bottom of Class E Airspace. The exception of where it isn't Class G starting at the surface is when it is either Class E, D, C, or B. Thirdly, I do have a right to fly. Please see Public Law 112-153, which was first signed into law by President Obama which forced the FAA to submit Letters of Intent and allowed a more streamlined appeal process.
@@hyenafur Go read the actual case law. Or if you are lazy, go watch here on TH-cam, Law professor Steve Lehto on the matter. A person does own the airspace above their property to the heavens above. The FAA tries to regulate an easement of private property (privately owned airspace) It is like a side walk in your front yard. You still own the land, however, should the easement cause a loss of enjoyment… yes, the side walk can be removed. I’ve actually seen airspace mapped out when working for the DOD and the FAA. I was surprised it could be done. It does happen and even worse, it doesn’t have to be mapped.
@@SoloRenegade I guess the Supreme Court is wrong… go watch Law professor Steve Lehto on airspace ownership. The government has an easement. They only own the airspace over government land. There is no right to fly, there is property rights.
You summed up the problem better than anyone I’ve heard on this case. Like most pilots I go to absurd lengths to stay legal. If cases like this become the norm you will see a lot of GA pilots loose respect for FAA regulations and start to outlaw their flying which would be damaging for everyone. Thanks for making this video and shedding more light on this case.
The FAA made me wait 3 months before sending me a medical form for my doctor to fill out. What could they be doing that took so long? Did they run out of stamps? I had to sit around 3 months to bring my medical up-to-date! But from what some of my friends have told me I've had relatively good luck with the FAA.
As someone just now getting into pilot school, I can tell you my passengers and my safety will be and is number 1 on the list. So it's pretty messed up that the FAA would od something like this to cause even more panic and confusion during a potentially critical in-flight moment of decision for the pilot.
The FAA is judge, jury, and executioner. Pesky citizens need to thank the FAA employees they decide to come to work and only take away as few pilot licenses as they do. We are not worthy. I'm sure every pilot that was/will be penalized has thought about doing something wrong or will do something wrong before or after their license was pulled. Let them prove otherwise during the hours of 9-11am and 12-5, minus holidays, vacations, personal days, and the odd solar eclipse or parade and during govt "shutdowns".
"What would a reasonable pilot do" A reasonable pilot would not be trying to play "Backcountry Pilot" in a developed subdivision. There are 12 houses within 1/4 mile of the spot in question. If this enforcement leads to a a precedent whcih makes like difficult for pilots involved in actual back country flying, then we have Trent's poor judgment in choosing to do this stunt in an inappropriate place to thank for this. If he had stuck to doing off airport landings in the actual back country, none of this would have started.
I guess you haven't visited Wasilla, alaska or any of the 100 plus airstrips in much more densely populated areas than this. I'd say at more than 50 of those strips it is impossible to land or takeoff with more than 50' clearance from homes or other vehicles. There are literally so many strips the FAA chooses not to chart them do to chart congestion
![เปิดบ้าน นาราเครปกระเทย 1 ไร่ ขายขาดทุนหลัก10ล้าน เอามาใช้หนี้!!! l [Nickynachat]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/0jz84VFWVP4/mqdefault.jpg)
I've been a Private Pilot since 1988 and FAA air traffic controller since 1992. The FAA's decision to suspend Trent Palmer is 100% wrong.
I've been a professional pilot for 30 years, Naval Aviator, current testt pilot and I have a 190 that I take off airport here in Washington state (I work in Seattle if that tells you for who). I am a DPE. What trent palmer got he was lucky. 60 days is nothing for what he did.
@@robertoler3795 what did he do that we're not being told? It sounds like he used ADM and went around. As a DPE I would hope you would consider that a good thing because sometimes not going around kills pilots.
@@MaxRunia who knows what he was doing. he has told a few lines. but the key is you cannot in populated areas just bulldoze some land and call it an airstrip
I say that having a 3000 foot airstrip on my farm in TX and along with six other "pieces of land (each 20 acres) Having a strip on Whidbey island.
plus he was arrogant at the FSDO
I know its wonderful little guy agains the FAA...wow send him money :)
@@robertoler3795 Curious if you live in WA how you would know he was perceived as arrogant. And even if he was (he said the hearing lasted 5 days, personally I might be more than arrogant if I was in that situation), the decision should be based solely upon if he did or did not bust the regs.
@@robertoler3795 he certainly does not live in anything close to what anyone would call a “populated area“. You can legally land on certain roads or highways in Nevada so you certainly can land on your own damn property or a friends in the sparsely populated area
The FAA (through an asshole medical examiner) prevented me from realizing a lifelong dream of being a private pilot. I took my rejection letter to my physician, who found no evidence of the kidney failure the medical examiner claimed I was about to die from, but after a year of trying to get the decision reversed, I gave up. That was 20 years ago. I hate them all.
I will tell you There is a Heaven Over everyone's head With a Savior Jesus Christ who Did our weight and Balance Cancelling our debts so we can Go to Heaven. I Badly busted a check ride and everyone was horrible ugly to me during PPL ASEL training Then my family had my medical and license revoked it was years ago GOD HAS NOT FORGOTTEN either. God dealt with most of these people already and their souls are in Hell now Accept Christ and for eternity Fly at speed of thought. The dream is NOT over if you Accept Christ.
I was rejected too but with hard work and persistence of jumping through the FAA hoops I am now 5 years later a commercially licensed pilot and striving for more.
You risking your license to post videos doing the same thing Trent got his suspended for speaks volumes.
1. You know you’re not doing anything illegal, therefore it’s safe to post
2. You’re putting yourself on the line to stand up for the entire community and what we believe in. In other words; if we go down, you’ll go down with us.
You’re willing to take the risk by putting yourself on the line for the betterment of everyone. (Even though it shouldn’t be a risk) Thank you.
In a truly FREE SPEECH country it's NEVER ILLEGAL TO SPEAK ⚠️
The FAA/NTSB needs a civilian review board to appeal FAA /NTSB decisions to, with the power to over rule and expunge decisions as well as to bring disciplinary action against bad administrators.
Oh, you mean like a court of law?
FAA is a “civilian review board”. Everyone of those people are just civilians, they are abusing their status in ways we have not intended them to do. Wouldn’t another board just add to the problem?
@@trevors3450 you are correct they are civilians but with government authority my Intent would be to give the power back to the non government people, ironically as the founding fathers intended the country to be in the first place. ALL of the Washington alphabet agencies are out of control.
@@turninmonyin2noise978 if the government hires a bunch of people, funds a regular review board and gives them power over another governmental organisation, that review board becomes another governmental organisation.
CFII here. Love how you mentioned, "just because a government official has an opinion doesn't make it law". I once heard from an old instructor, "The FAA used to be here to actually increase safety, now they act as a police force"...
they really dont. what they try and stop is foolishness passing as judgment. like guys who buzz or jump out of airplanes and crash them on purpose
this is how most regulatory police forces work. Just look at the ATF...
@@bermchasin both ATF and FAA do a pretty good job
@@robertoler3795 RFLMAO. okay bud.
@@bermchasin yeah I think that they are
What happened to the pilot in command has the final say? We have the authority to break any regulation within the limits of the emergency. If a field is unsuitable for landing its imperative you don’t land. The FAA needs to be accountable. There needs to be consequences for their actions of negligence. As a pilot for any negligence; so to should be FA.
That's honestly the best argument I've heard so far, It was either land and kill someone or go around and get violated, like wtf
e have the authority to break any regulation within the limits of the emergency
OK what was the emergency?
You have no say so for the use and enjoyment of a persons property.
Yes, property owners own the airspace above their property from the depths of Hell to Heaven above.
This has been common law since around 1300 AD… and the US Supreme Court has affirmed this in a case against the US Military.
This is a SECRET pilots really don’t want the public to take notice of.
Remember the mess with flight training being a commercial operation and someone in Florida saying it wasn’t, and pushed the issue… yea, then it goes out of the FAA and Administrative law arena. The US district court and then the US Appeals court (if he makes it there) will have to use Supreme Court president and Trent will lose… may even get his certificates revoked. Yes, the Appeals Court could decide this needs to be looked at for criminal charges.
Things can get ugly real quick when you decide to challenge something where you have no leg to stand on.
The FAA can not give someone the right to fly over anyones property… even to land.
@@thatguy8005 what was the case against the military?
Not sure if laws passed before our country was founded actually have any bearing on anything since 1776 (unless incorporated in actual law).
@@thatguy8005 this is a completely inaccurate and incorrect statement.
The airspace above a property is never the property of the land owner.
If whet you say were correct there would be no aviation anymore.
I have been a law enforcement officer for almost 13 years and we need to make sure that this " put a case on someone and let them fight their way out of it" mentality stops.
Thanks john, a lot of these pilots are scared to speak up, these are great points, we should make our voices heard.
Typically prosecutors I've interacted with at the state and federal levels are smart enough to be a good "check and balance" for the public and not take on BS cases, but it seems that failed here miserably
As an LEO myself I completely agree 💯
Amen to this comment!!!
Well, as an alleged law enforcement officer you might want to go review the law.
Here is the BIG SECRET… no pilot wants the public to know…
The Supreme Court has affirmed in a case against the US military… a property owner owns the airspace above his property to the heavens above.
You don’t have a right to fly… and… you don’t have a right to fly over anyones property at any altitude you wish… EVEN TO LAND.
Your airport can be shut down if it is shown to disturb the owners of the surrounding airspace.
That is why this case shouldn’t be pushed by Trent. He is an A$$ that buzzed someone’s home he knew was pissed from his RC and drone buzzing.
He should have taken his medicine and forgot about it.
Now, the public will be well informed of this airspace ownership… drones will not be able to fly, airports can be shut down over this…
And in the end, Trent still could have his certificate revoked, not just the lite suspension of only 2 months for a clearly deliberate act of buzzing an already pissed off neighbor using a full sized plane.
20 year cop. Make that three.
Everybody that works in and with the FAA needs to watch this video. And understand the harm they can do by being poorly educated on the regulations they are supposed to know/enforce. Excelent video, I hope more aviation youtubers make videos about this.
The problem is they really don't give a fat rats @ss. The only time they even start to care is if they get lots of public blow back that makes them look really bad. Like the public humiliation the FAA goons got over their treatment of Mr. Bob Hoover. This is what happens when the qualifications for a government position centers more around what's between the individuals legs rather than what's between their ears!
Great job. Thx for addressing this.The FAA definitely need to be held accountable
They won't though
All that has to be done... Outlaw "Karens" within 500' of aircraft.
The FAA is staffed by college grads and not from the industry these days. Plus, the FSDO in question is not willing to admit being wrong therefor resistance is futile, they are the FEDs.
That FAA Inspector obviously needs to be held accountable. Not everyone with authority deserves or needs that authority
Once again, Very well said an I agree with everything you say. I’ve been a pilot for over 45 years and have takeoff and landed on private property with the land owners permission many times. I have even had my own 1,000 foot grass strip used by myself and other pilots. I have always been safe and never had a problem. However, there were at times some local landowner or neighbors complained to authorities and or FAA. Even had friends from the FAA come out and take a look and tell me they see no regulations broken, looks safe and would let the neighbor know just that. The moral of the story with some neighbors are, they are not happy unless your not happy. Commonly referred to as neighbors from hell. What the FAA is doing here with Trent is not right and loosing credibility with many pilots. To take the rules and twist them around the way they are doing is absurd. I really feel the FAA owes Trent an apology for the way they have handled this and frustrating times they have caused him. Hope I hear some change on the thinking of this one. 🙏
Well said! When my neighbors complain I always offer them fair market value for their property, when they decline I don't feel bad flying off of my land which, at least for now, is my RIGHT
Sad… after 45 years you don’t understand flying is in fact a privilege.
You have no right to fly… you have no right to fly over anyones property at any altitude.
That is right, you are using an easement of someone’s property every time you fly.
The FAA is just a mediator that attempts to keep the land owners happy.
This is affirmed in a US Supreme Court case against the military where they were actually landing… the land owner had a loss of use and or enjoyment of his property… property which extends from heaven above to Hell below.
Airspace use is like a side walk in someone’s front yard. It is an easement for a specific use. The land owner still owns the land the side walk is on, however, should the sidewalk become a nuisance the sidewalk can be removed from the owners land.
Again, the FAA can not lawfully decide how someone’s property can be used… just as they can not decide that instruction isn’t a commercial activity… they can not decide how high someone can fly over private property… even to land.
That is the bomb shell about to hit… because some A-hole buzzed a house of a neighbor he knew was already pissed off… and had reported the annoying RC and drone use on before.
There was serious bad blood going on here. And the FAA, the judge, and I are not fooled by this ‘I was going to land BS’…
He is about to open a can of worms… and should have had his certificates revoked.
@@thatguy7085 yeah
@@thatguy7085 Sounds like you are the neighbor in question here…? You seem to have been present at the hearings in FAA vs Trent Palmer, having first hand info regarding what’s said during these hearings?
@@erikherje3414 In Trent’s own videos he admits that he was cited before for landing on an RC field. He had property rights explained to him. He also admitted he had surveyed the alleged landing zone from the ground. This was a buzz job.
The neighbor had clearly complained before about the drone and RC planes to the FAA. The neighbors reaction also showed he knew exactly who Trent was… and I have no doubt Trent knew this neighbor was pissed before he used his big ‘toy’, that is his own description, to up the anti. I’m not fooled, neither was the FAA or judge.
We need a petition to have this decision against Trent overturned and have those rogue individuals removed from office.
Sure, convince the NTSB to whom you can appeal FAA decisions, that the FAA decision is wrongly decided. BTW, the NTSB board is run by someone with no pilot license, but she does have a Moped Operator endorsement on her car driver license.
Oh… don’t worry. He appealed and he had better hope these judges don’t spank him harder.
Yes, they can still order his certificate revoked.
@@tscottme that's how democracy works. we can petition the gov when the majority knows the gov is in error.
@@thatguy7085 YOU ARE the neighbor from hell, buzz off to a retirement facility
@@tscottme oh a Dan Gryder fan.
By yours and Dans logic, only people that have been in airplane crashes should be allowed to investigate airplane crashes because no one can be trained to to that job. Has to come from experience.
This is one of those squeaky-wheel-gets-the-grease situations ... combined with an ignorant authoritarian predator in the FAA. One problem with the world (and this case) is that good folks don't try to make trouble. They look for simple friendly ways to people to not annoy each other. Frankly, in a case like this the FAA should have refused to proceed until after Trent and the trouble-maker sat across a table and had a conversation to explain their situations and positions to each other and try to work things out. Instead, the trouble-maker did what turns him on --- made trouble. Unfortunately, they got hooked up with a "judge" who is obviously an authoritarian == someone who thinks "what I say goes" - because he has a certain job. Like many others like them, these two human predators just love to make trouble for human producers (Trent).
Some people have no freaking idea about STOL and bush-pilots. Just as one example, I have just over 500 hours of flying ... and probably 90% of my landings (and therefore takeoffs too) were at places where nobody had ever landed an airplane before. Quite often bush-pilots land on back roads (dirt roads). When some people (who don't "think", just "react") that sounds insane. They will often say "roads are for cars, not airplanes". My answer to that is ... how many people have you seen ride a motorcycle on a road? How many people have you seen ride a bicycle on a road? How many people have you seen ride a skateboard on a road? How many people have you seen ride a tricycle on a road? How many people walk on a road? Yada, yada, yada 100 times over. Frankly, it never occurred to these tiny-minded people that roads are for whatever roads are useful for ... including landing and takeoffs in those airplanes that can safely land and takeoff on roads. Just because you don't see many people ride their scooters on the road, doesn't mean scooters cannot or should-not ride on roads.
When I think about this trouble-maker I am reminded of the few times I've lived near other humans. Now and mostly in my life I've lived in extreme boonies where I can't see other humans. But when I have lived near other humans, what have I been subjected to? For one, almost everywhere "civilized" that I ever lived there was at least one neighbor who owned a dog that they kept outdoors ... a dog that would bark and bark and bark and bark off and on ... *ALL NIGHT LONG.* Or places where people would run their noisy motorized lawn-care equipment at dawn. You get the point? Even if someone did land a small bush airplane next door, the noise would be momentary. Actually, landing is quiet. It is takeoff that generates some noise (full power for takeoff).
Unfortunately, it is tough for us reasonable folks to hassle trouble-makers, because that's opposite from our approach to life. But realistically, what Trent (or his neighbor-friend) should do is have a few dozen bush pilots land their airplanes on his property, and takeoff from his property at dawn every day ... until the neighbor goes insane and kills himself, or moves away ... whichever comes first. Unfortunately, our tendency to "not make trouble" works against us and lets trouble-makers cause endless hassles and troubles for others ... *with no reason not to.*
It is crazy that Trevor Jacob gets his license back and actual good pilots suffer the wrath of FAA.
That is wild that apparently he did get his license back.
Great video John. The judge, in my opinion failed by arguing about a necessary landing. Clearly the language of the CFR is about what is necessary for the landing, not whether or not the landing is necessary. However, these government employees must be aware of this mistake, but don't seem to care. That said, the FAA does answer to congress so there is hope.
And can’t pilots appeal a ruling to the NTSB?
I agree. That’s a great point.
Yep, totally agree. The point should have been about the actions necessary to conduct a landing or takeoff, not whether a landing or takeoff itself was necessary. In this case, the maneuver Trent performed was necessary in order to perform the landing he was attempting. Similarly, the guy who kept buzzing the restaurant, his maneuvering wasn't necessary because, as you mentioned, he could have used more runway, etc.
Trent said that he is appealing. Everything can be appealed up to the Supreme Court or a law passed by congress.
What a great Video! Last week on the TakingOff channel posted a comment and got crucified by other pilots . They said I was an idiot . My comment was that I believe we should contact our congressmen and have them change the FAA so we can be judged by our peers and not a FAA employee that’s not even a pilot .
I am trying to follow but you have lost me!, how can you reasonably say "judged by FAA employee" My understanding is a complaint was made, a complaint that was evidenced that is, resultantly the FAA investigated then passed the completed investigation to attorneys retained by the FAA to consider that there had been a serious breach of rules and to determine the likelihood of a successful conviction if the pilot was prosecuted, based on the attorney assessment the FAA decided to bring legal action in a court of law which they won, so how have you been lead to comment as you have?.. I fear you say this is a "great video" simply because it only deals with one side and makes many comparisons and observations which have no relevance here.
Who would have thought that a government employee sucks at their job. Government motto..."We don't care because we don't have to"
The Canarsie approach to 13L at JFK puts you a lot lower than 500' over buildings in a congested area, in an airliner. And I certainly would not hesitate to go around there if needed, in fact I have. The FAA doesn't always get it right.
Yes, the FAA is not even permitted to let people fly at JFK if the property owners below say ‘hell no’.
Airspace use is not a right. Guess who owns the airspace… hint, it isn’t the government.
Why not? In the worst case, martyrs could be made to make sure the FAA knows they screwed up.
Plenty of airports around the US & world that have business or residences in close proximity to runways. KMDW is a classic.
@@fjohnson9749 Then couldn’t pilots simply boycott landing at them if they don’t want to make martyrs?
I am a student pilot out of D-95 and got back into aviation because of people like Trent Palmer and the flying cowboys !!! This ruling would destroy everything that made me decide to get back into aviation again after a 30 year break !!! I am not sure who to contact about this and am not sure they would listen if I did !! I do hope this gets resolved according to the rules they have set down and not some interpretation by a small group trying to exert their will above the rules !! I will contact my representative and try to stress this so thank you for making people aware through you channel !!! Best of luck to us all - D-95 student pilot !!!
My dad had a private strip about 5.5 miles east of D95. It was a 2000ft grass strip on his property with 100ft trees on one end and power lines on the other end. There is another house within 1000ft to the side of that runway. I can say from experience that there are times when the wind were not good that we’ve had to make a goaround to try again if the approach wasn’t perfect. Under this new precedent we would be in violation. In this the FAA has 100% got it wrong.
Blue skies to another Lapeer area pilot!!
I was show boss at a dedication to a new runway opening. During the pilot brief, it came time to set the altitude for low passes for the flying show planes. I had two FAA representatives from the Houston FISDO office which was monitoring the event. To be legal, we had to have showlines established and a 500' line of tape, enforced, to establish a crowd line. The crowd line was set back not from the centerline of the runway but to the edge. One of the FAA reps insisted the minimum altitude to be 500' AGL. I debated stating in non congested areas, which this did qualify, that the FAR said nothing about altitude otherwise why establish a show line. The Senior representative agreed with me and I set the altitude to 50'. I basically owned that airspace for the period of published time of the event. The junior member was not happy that I dared to debate him publicly and provided the FAR evidence to show his misinterpretation of the law.
So many of the people who are sworn to uphold the law, including police and other agencies officials, do not know the law they have pledged to uphold.
And this is where I run into an issue. I'm building the funds and time to start my private pilot certificate journey and I'm not trying to have to learn what's in FAR AND some random administrative judge's unwritten opinion that sidesteps the (poorly) established federal administrative rulemaking process and that I can run afoul of without having any way of knowing? I don't know if I'm ready to put my family's livelihood on the line for that. I'm an average Joe that already gets the stink eye from everybody for being a local LEO.
Not ready to be chastised for the news heading "Local LEO defies judges order by..."
Haha...be sure to forward the news article when you cross their path!!!
Great video, sir. I appreciate your voice and passion on behalf of the community. Thank you for using your experience, knowledge, and influence to leverage this issue. As a newer pilot, it’s tough to hear cases like Trent’s because we often always second guess ourselves in our decisions as we learn and grow. We think “If someone as experienced as Trent can get suspended, I’m screwed…” We rely on these PIC standards for safety and reassurance as we develop our skills. The last thing I need in my mind while I’m on short final and honing my skills is something that compromises the safety I’m trying to practice every day. We appreciate you.
This is the best video I have seen for aviation in a while, you are spot on and I support everything you said! I will gladly sign any paperwork to support that the FAA is held accountable.
My mistake of using certain medications 15 years ago prevented me from getting a first class certificate. The FAA is really efficient when it comes to creating a pilot shortage.
Would you mind providing more information? I'm quite curious.
They should get rid of class 3 medical
If you haven’t, contact Dr. Bruce Chien, Senior HIMS AME. He’s helped write HIMS protocols.
@@KazKimura Don't forget to tell him he needs a fat wad of cash, too.
@@JoseMejia-hy7op Why? I mean, they have Basic Med which is a decent alternative, no?
I've been stuck for two years after having my medical wrongly revoked/suspended (already had a class III and was applying for a class I and a condition that an AME said was a non-issue was used by the FAA to revoke both). My family and I spent thousands trying to follow the rules and getting the needed medical reviews to get my medical back and for months now the report has been sitting with the FAA with Oklahoma City refusing to review it. I've lost 2 years towards my degree in a part-141 university program because of this and it oftentimes feels like there's nothing I can do to get them to act on anything.
I understand what your saying about Oklahoma City, so in May 2019 I did my first ever FAA medical so I could get my student pilot certificate because I was going to college for an aviation program. At the time of my medical, it asks if you ever attempted suicide, which I had in 2007 when my soon-to-be ex-wife left me, I got better from the depression and moved on with my life. From 2007 to the time I went for my medical I had no attempts to take my life, no therapy, and I was good. I was a truck driver and I have had to do the TSA threat assessments and everything else, even have my hazmat. Yet the FAA in OK City still messed with me about getting my medical for flying. I also have sleep apnea which made things even worse. So, it ended up taking about a full year of BS, I even had to go see a Psychiatrists to have him sign off on me before the FAA finally allowed me to get my Class 3 medical. I understand keeping things safe by the amount of time it takes them to work and the bs they make people go through is nonsense. I hope they get it straight with you also and can get on with your schooling.
I'm going on 5 years I've done and passed everything they told me to do....my last denial said they didn't share the psychiatrist optimism even though he has worked with the FAA for 20 years and It was the doctor the FAA told me to go to and see with their personal recommendation.
@@loganb6286 I've never really understood why they are the way they are. They seem to ignore evidence from doctors that they themselves work with wasting the time of both the pilots and doctors.
your not alone in this
I’ve been flying for 31 years. An ATP and now building my own plane. This video is so disturbing, rage inducing and scary all at the same time. This craziness is just further proof we’re living in the Matrix and they’re just messing with the code. SMH. #MadasHell
The old adage to never invite the man into your life, fits perfectly here. Avoid the FAA at every possible opportunity. There is zero upside and nothing but risk to your license, medical or career. As always, sufficient altitude helps keep the FAA away.
"A kitfox is like a kite with a rotax strapped to it." 😂😂😂😂
and thank you, the call for AOPA to organize us is an excellent idea. looking forwards to receiving that same email in my e-mailbox.
Expecting ramifications or corrective actions when a government bureaucrat makes mistakes, or acts in a vindictive and hostile manner, is a futile endeavor.
All the more reason to raise money and challenge this.
In my 1st solo flight i did two go around, since i made a too high approach, and landed on the 3rd attempt. Glad that no FAA inspector was there...
"Beware, a ornery neighbor with a hair up there ass is always watching...with a cellphone, of course."
Hope your instructor spends a lot of time with you on FARs
Trent thought he was being helpful when he went in and spoke with them and admitted it was him flying. It seems the FAA needed the "Don't speak to cops" treatment and make them prove he was the one flying his plane. Supposedly all they had was a video of a video from a surveillance camera. Who knows, maybe someone took it for a joyride without him knowing...
Or who’s to say he didn’t land on the next attempt, and the recording of a recording didn’t show that, making the whole argument null and void… I’m kind of with you on this, exercise your 5th amendment right, your not required to help them investigate you and contact an attorney early on… personally i think they should be required to read you Miranda Rights if they have any intent to violate you, and anything shared prior to Miranda Rights should be not admissible in the charges against you. If anything came from this in legislation, that would likely be the most helpful to protect pilots rights.
Rule #1, admit to nothing. End of conversation.
After what they did to Bob Hoover, I would put nothing passed them.
@@johnmarks3412 yup, Better yet, show up with a lawyer and don’t talk.
Absolutely brilliant. Thankyou for highlighting this situation. I agree 100% there needs to be accountability to correct complete and utter stuff ups such as the Trent Palmer case
Great video. FAA is acting dangerously with this new precedent. Forcing pilots into making dangerous landings in order to comply with this ruling.
Not the FAA… this is Trent’s interpretation, not the FAAs. He may open up a can of worms though far worse then the commercial instruction ruling. The FAA is not permitted to decide how a persons property is used. You think you have a right to fly… here is the bad news… YOU DO NOT. Property rights go from heaven above to hell below.
The FAA is merely mediator, between the pilots and the property owners for the use of a property easement (air space).
You may hate the FAA, but they are the only reason you can have flying ‘privileges’.
That is right… even the airlines do not have a ‘right’ to operate.
I’m pretty sure the FAA enforces Regulations not “precedents”
@@donbrowncfi You are correct, and Apple decides what my iPhone types when I’m not looking. 😜
@@donbrowncfi The FAA makes regulations for one reason… to protect the airspace owners. Who is that? Who ever owns the land below. Go watch ‘yes, you own the airspace above your land’ by Law professor Steve Lehto. You are using an easement when you fly your plane above someone land… and you had better remember this.
The FAA actually does not have a legal right to authorize anyone to fly over private property at any level. They just facilitate the use of an airspace easement. And that easement use is limited to not disturbing the owners of the airspace.
The FAA, AOPA and EAA have become advocates of the industry instead of for the people in cases like Palmer. I used to be a member of AOPA and EAA but not any longer because I felt I was wasting my money. What they did to Palmer is wrong! John, thanks for sticking out!
Excellent commentary. Great points. The FAA has done more to erode and inhibit General Aviation than promote it and make it safe. Bureaucratic suits out of control and trying to justify their jobs. Thanks for the video.
👏👏👏 Best response on this matter so far on TH-cam or anywhere.
Everything needed to be said, was said here!
The FAA is broken.
The government model is inherently broken. Nothing unique about the FAA.
39 years ago after just passing my FAA private check ride, my dad and uncle (both long time pilots) told me that if I wanted a long and stress free flying career to stay out of the FAA's view as much as possible. This has been great advise as I have seen many of us "little guys" as well as some well known airshow pilots get tangled up in the FAA nonsense even when clearly doing nothing wrong. I don't know Trent or what happened, but I can say posting your flying exploits on the internet certainly increases your risk of trouble. I worked as a DAR for a few years and can say that most people at the local FSDO/MIDO were reasonable to work with, but there were a few that clearly wanted to give pilots a hard time. I will continue my flying early mornings before most people (and the FAA) are even awake and will never post my legal, yet FAA provoking backcountry flying shenanigans.
Except this FAA person didn't care about Trents posts .. He just took the word and I think video of a whining neighbor who lived where the landing attempt took place and ran with it
As a new commercial pilot (I'm sure any pilot of any level would feel the same way) I cannot believe the FAA's ruling on this. Trent is incredibly lucky to have the following that he has for this situation.
The only solution to preventing these situations that I can imagine is that whoever is allowed to make the final ruling on any given matter that pertains to an aviator's ADM is a person who has recieved pilot training themselves and understands the risks involved, as well as the importance of PIC authority. The training involved could be a minimum of a PPL (or some comperable certificate) or perhaps a special course dedicated to training the specific aspects involved in PIC authority as well as what good ADM is and looks like. And that without this training, or some similar substitute, a person would not be allowed to make a ruling on any federal regulation involving pilots or aircraft as it pertains to inflight actions/decisions taken.
The course should include the basics of these checklists, why they are important for all pilots to learn, and how to use them for a given scenario;
IMSAFE
PAVE
5p's and DECIDE
This simple lesson would take no more than 5-10 hours of ground training/self study and could involve a written test and/or video test of scenario training to ensure that there is an understanding of the basic importance of these lessons. If we as pilot's are expected by the FAA to know this information then the people deciding the fate of our licenses should know this basic information at a minimum.
Resources for the course;
Single-Pilot Crew Resource Management (2015) General Aviation Joint Steering Committee Safety Enhancement Topic
Pilot's Handbook of Aeronautical Knowledge (2016) FAA-H-8083-25B Ch. 2, Aeronautical Decision-Making
AOPA's Weather Or Not Thunderstorm Challenge (And their online courses) www.aopa.org/training-and-safety/online-learning
If the person who decided to suspend Trent's license is a pilot themselves then they should be assigned remedial training on all of these topics, although I highly doubt that they are an aviator of any kind. Also, the moment the Off Airport Ops Guide Pg. 3, TECHNIQUES FOR OFF AIRPORT OPERATIONS section was mentioned, it should have cleanly settled the case cut-and-dry.
I hope your career as a pilot would include some aviation law.
You have no right to fly… and you have no right to fly over anyones property.
That is right… you have no right to fly over the airspace owned by the property owner below.
The government has an easement of the airspace, however that easement can not disturb the use and enjoyment of the property owner.
There is a US Supreme Court ruling against the US military over this issue.
A property owner owns writhing the bounds of his land… to the depths of Hell to the Heavens above.
Planes flying over someone’s land are like people using a side walk. The government doesn’t own the land… the land owner does.
The government can not say people can live on the side walk… or, for that matter… even walk on the side walk if it disturbs the owners use and enjoyment of his land. The owner could demand the side walk be removed if the easement bothers the owner.
I’ve actually seen areas on ATC radar maps where this was done.
The FAA has no legal right to say anyone can fly at any altitude… even to land.
Pilots hate the FAA… however, the FAA is just a mediator between the pilots and the land owners… for the use of an easement that doesn’t disturb the owners.
Here an owner complained someone was buzzing their home. He is damn lucky it isn’t a revoke of ‘privileges’. Because that is what flying is… a privilege.
All FAA inspectors are ATP CFII MEI and 1500 hours at an absolute minimum.
Maybe Trent just isn’t being truthful about the whole story
@@donbrowncfi NOT TRUE. Depends on what is being inspected. Some don’t even fly at all.
@@donbrowncfi I also don’t think he is being completely up front about everything. He has been told by the FAA before not to land on RC fields… did you know that? He also has flown RC aircraft at his buddies house and knew if he could or couldn’t land his big ‘toy’ there… note that he was told not to land on RC fields, this would include makeshift fields… and he could ‘care less’… There is no way this was the first time the neighbor complained… and there is also no way he didn’t know the neighbor was pissed off over the drones and RC planes next door buzzing their house… and they knew each-other… so his actions were most likely deliberate.
This actually makes his actions worse than Red Bull… and Trevor Jacob, the jack ass that bailed out of a plane and let it crash. Those two incidents had no intention of harming someone on the ground… this one appears to be a FU in the face of a neighbor, intentionally disturbing or harming them.
This could go south real quick. I still say he got off super lite.
@@donbrowncfi PS… I was an FAA systems inspector
Very good points addressed. Congrats.
I am even not a pilot, but simple logic shows the FAA did a mistake they should correct before they loose the trust of the pilots and public.
All good points, especially on authority to make aviation decisions.
As a crop duster (28 yrs) it is in my opinion that with today's cell phones and the hundreds of off strip landings Trent Palmer has successfully made maybe there was unknown calls to the FAA that Trent was not aware of and it came back to bite his butt. I lived in Carson city for years and was up in Trent's neck of the woods many times in the air and on the ground. Good video
Tyrannical moped operators have no business dealing in case law where aviation is concerned. Especially if they cannot pass a comprehensive reading class.
Your vids helped me through my instrument ride, keep the content coming.
Thumbs up for you and Trent speaking up. Just subscribed, good luck with this channel!
Thanks Paul!
As a CFI, I’ve worked with the FAA extensively over the past 30 years. Most of the people I’ve worked with have been great….some not so much as one would expect to find in any large governmental bureaucracy. My experience is their hot button really lights up when a non pilot complains about some observed activity perceived to be unsafe.
In this instance, as I understand it, one of the neighbors complained about Palmer’s landing attempt because he came close (how close I don’t know) to the guys house or place of business or some structures and that is what set the whole process off. Was that not the case?
Well said... I wonder if pilots can violate FFA employees when they screw up.
Pffft. No 😂
Right on assessment! “an ego is a terrible thing to waste” seems to be the government secret motto!
LMAO...there's a few select gov employees that should wear that bumper sticker with pride.
The reg doesn’t say a necessary landing, it says necessary for takeoff or landing.
Gee...you should've popped into that hearing for 15 seconds and done some enlightening.
Sorry if that came across wrong. I should have phrased it as a question. Everyone keeps talking about whether or not it was a necessary landing. Does the Reg say anything about it having to be necessary to land?
91.119 doesn’t make any evaluation on whether a landing or take off is itself necessary. The word “necessary” refers to the operation of the aircraft at a particular altitude or distance from structures. The FAA cannot even read their own regulations properly.
Wonderful break down. Thank you for digging in. Government overreach is a huge issue, not only in aviation. Thanks for putting this together, you knowledge and insight is greatly appreciated.
You absolutely have to be kidding me! I am stunned beyond measure. More of our freedoms are being taken every day, and it feels like an unwinnable fight and it leaves us voiceless and unable to fight back. Flying is my passion and my life, and I love it more than anything else in this world, but it feels like a hopeless battle going up against principalities like this. (a sort of "David and Goliath" scenario," and I think issues like this are written by people who aren't pilots or are being paid a great deal to sway a vote like this. 😢 I'm sorry that this even happened to you, but know this, you're not alone in this fight, and we have your back. DO NOT ACQUIESCE... EVER!
thank you for speaking out
You are absolutely 100% correct on all points.
So if he does it again, crashes can he then sue the judge and FAA for promoting an unsafe practice?
FAA lobbied by airlines to save some fuel
@@BondJFK Then could he instead get his pilot’s license in Canada and simply pay the American overflight fee?
Is there an active petition online somewhere about his ?
I agree we must hold people in the FAA accountable that chose to freely to interpret the rules how the see it
Citizens have no power over the FAA. They aren't elected. Congress funds EVERYTHING by pretending there is an "emergency" every 6 months and passing a "fund everything at last year's level plus x% increase."
One of the big problems in aviation is pilots landing in conditions in which they should have gone around. Now, the FAA along with their lazy legal associates, have created an environment encouraging pilots to land under all conditions. Great video!
Unfortunately, this is about big brother weeding out the non meek among us. If you think you have rights, they claim you only have privileges which they will revoke for anything you do or just to make an example out of you to intimidate others. The politics here is similar to the anecdote about slow cooking a frog in a pot of water. Our rights will evaporate if we aren't paying attention. The tactic is to keep us divided so as individuals we have no power and if we organize we will be seen as dangerous for seeking to collectively preserve our rights. We are on the receiving end of psychological warfare.
Thanks Jon for this great information video. The regs seem to be very messy. From my understanding it appears the FFA is a little to far out over their skis. I like you hope they can correct their error and save face without just powering over Trent and others who have faced this same problem.
Any aviation youtuber that doesn't make a video on this will be unsubscribed. Thank you for this.
Excellent video. Examples of federal government overreach and abuse are obviously larger than aviation, but pilots should insist on the following.
1. The right for a trial by your peers, specifically pilots.
2. Enforcement of corrective action to educate or retrain FAA employees when errors are made.
3. Enforcement of disciplinary procedures, including employment termination, if an FAA employee is found guilty of repeatedly abusing their authority.
It says "necessary FOR takeoff or landing", not "for a necessary takeoff or landing"... so it does not matter if the landing is necessary or not. Why are people making and enforcing regulations when they can't even read them correctly, let alone the fact they have no flying experience???
Ah...the eternal question....
That’s how I read it too.
Honestly it makes me want to just forget about getting my license. I have completed all the training and just need to take the tests... these situations and the families that keep filing (and winning) lawsuits against engine and aircraft manufacturers because their loved one had water in the tank or forgot to put fuel in it and got in a stall spin, making it incredibly impossible to afford to fly, just why bother? People don't have common sense anymore.
Bureaucracy at its finest. A group of people who aren't pilots telling pilots how to fly.
The BATFE is doing the EXACT same kinds of things and over stepping their bounds. It MUST stop.
The federal Gov has been inching into authoritarianism for many years. The so called “Patriot Act” put the foot on the accelerator and shoved it to the floor. Look closely, both parties are pushing it. Just seems one a bit harder than the other.
@@fjohnson9749 my brothers theory is both parties have the same goal just different roads to get there. We're the ones that can change it. But it makes it hard with only allowing echo chambers. Instead of spreading knowledge and not just propaganda, agendas and false information.
Excellent video, it boggles my mind that this wasn't immediately thrown out because Trent was showing caution as every good aviator should have. That grumpy neighbor was just looking and WAITING for a chance to do this.
I am Trying to wrap my head around this from both a pilots perspective as well as a public one. Initially I was on Trents side. Now I’m not so sure. I think perhaps he was in the wrong. I think the judge might be right.
Taking an argument to a relative extreme can sometimes create clarity in grey situations. Take this example for instance…
According to your and Trents interpretation…. It would be legal and rational to land a helicopter in a backyard in a densely populated suburbs. With 1/4 care zoning. A backyard in the suburbs becomes an airport if you could possibly land there…. As long as the rotor blades can Miss the trees and not scratch the paint in the porch. If the sound wakes the baby or the rotor wash damages the shingles or breaks a window then thats my problem; as the pilot is in his rights.
And by that logic a helicopter can fly around and hover at any altitude for as long as he wanted over neighboring houses to see if he could land there that day; ‘cause Gosh darn it he just might work up the nerve to try it one day.
He could legally Hover over my backyard just 50 feet from my house let’s say….band do so for as long as needed to work up the balls to do it. Does that sound reasonable?
This obviously would not be cool…. So there goes your argument.
So if this example is unreasonable…. Then You CAN’T land anywhere it is possible; as it is “not necessary” and would be highly bothersome to the public. So some minimum distance from my house, or any other, would be required to be reasonable. 500 feet seems about right to me.
Now if I buy a house next to an airport…. I expect planes to land close to me and fly over. No problem…. But by your logic; And Trents…. There is no distance too close to a house that would prohibit landing... or flying over repeatedly and relentlessly.
So if a guy could land somewhere in a super STOL bush plane but he needed to buzz my house by less than 50 feet; he could? And this should be a legal and protected action? Could he/she do this every day? Multiple times per day?
Let’s not conflate true backcountry with populated rural areas. It seems to me that if you need to get closer than 500 feet to a dwelling that is not on an airport than maybe that place is not a good place to land. Maybe this is reckless or not in the public’s best interest. I certainly don’t want planes flying over my house closer than 500 feet…. And I’m a pilot that Loves planes. How would you feel if your house was getting buzzed by ten feet? 50? 100? What’s the minimum you would accept?
I think that the judge used bad wording in his ruling…. But I’m not convinced yet that his ruling was wrong. Certainly there is a minimum acceptable distance to keep your aircraft away from My house…. And for me to keep mine away from yours. What do you think it is? 500 feet seems about right to me.
Did you see the satellite view of the properties .. clearly not densely populated at all .. an example of where off airport pilots fly and land all the time in friends back yards .. Your example of the helicopter doesn't make sense because you say scraping trees and breaking windows .. who does that , Where trent chose to try and land is typical of off airport work .. And legal
I am not proposing that Trent needed to lose his license... as I agree that he DID NOT BREAK ANY RULE. My point is that on an "elective" off airport landing there should be some minimum number of feet that would be acceptable. What I am proposing is that the rules are vague and need to be better defined. So what is the minimum number of feet that is acceptable to buzz someones house? 5 feet? 50? 200? 500? This should be clarified to remove the ambiguity.
The judge should have defined this in a non ambiguous way, and should not have taken Trents license. He should give it back, and make a statement or propose a new rule or guideline.
As a pilot, and as a home owner that is is a scenic area where low flying airplanes and helicopters often fly over, I think 500 feet is reasonable. I would not want planes coming closer than that to my house. If you need to get closer to a home (except your own) than 500 feet, i think it is not a reasonable place to land unless in an emergency, If you want to use your property as an airstrip, awesome, but IMO not if you have to get closer than 500 feet to another house; exce[pt maybe with prior explicit and written home owner permission for any home that you need to get closer than 500 feet of.
So there should be a non-ambiguous minimum. If not 500 feet... than what is your minimum that you would accept as reasonable?
Hey Steve it’s Kent in Napa borrowing Alex’s phone to connect to Alex who is on his way to ROTC and is hoping to fly fighters😁
What we need to do is get to the bottom of what REALLY went down in this case. This wreaks of favoritism, on both sides of the case. A FAA employee on site was the complainant, and Trent was the defendant. The employee pissed and moaned about a situation that he simply didn't like, and got a response from the FSDO and the FAA- he evidently had some kind of clout. Trent, on the other hand, was a spectacular target for the FAA- the perfect pilot to make an example of. This had nothing to do with safety- it was about catering to somebody with money or power, and slapping down a TH-cam celebrity (which the FAA HATES). THIS NEEDS TO GO BEYOND the unjustness that Trent has been handed.
Trent was either buzzing an RC strip or attempting to land at one in a populated area. then no doubt he was arrogant in front of the inspector. this is a lot of populism drum banging
What is the basis for your claim that the neighbor who complained was an FAA employee?
@@andrewalexander9492 I would be curious to know that as well. We have been told that is not true.
No… this was a private citizen that complained numerous times about a make shift RC field put in next door…one Trent obviously used.
Then Trent upping the screw you with a full size toy buzzing.
Very stupid and he got off lite. I’m not fooled and neither was the FAA or judge.
@@thatguy7085 I suspect you are right on the money with that. well said
Guess I was in violation at Mobile, AL, because we waved off our landing due to an animal on the runway.
Trent's videos have always done a great job to promote GA flying while also promoting safety. Hoping his appeal goes well.. Anyone who's giving money to the AOPA should be emailing them over this..
I'm not a pilot but follow Trent, you and many others because I love GA. Just took a discovery flight at 62 in January. Let me know when that petition gets started and I will gladly sign it.
We all know the motto of the FAA: We are not happy until you are not happy. Remember what they did to Bob Hoover
Jon, thank you for this excellent analysis of this horrible decision by the FAA. Let’s hope it gets reversed.
I have tracked this IDIOCY back to the years of the Obama regime. It became ok in the mind of government bureaucrats at all levels to CREATE new INTERPRETATIONS of the rules to in order to do what they, the bureaucrat, thinks should be done. And they knew that since they were THE AUTHORITY, they could not be questioned and in most cases there is no simple recourse, except maybe one that would cost lots of money or time. "I may be wrong but do you have enough money and time to fight this?" In other words Obama didn't do much himself about anything, what he was though was an enabler.
while I can't say what president it started with, I do have to say the continuing increasing trend of "executive orders" and the like has setup a really bad situation in america. My career is trying to keep a company in compliance with such regulations (not FAA in this case, but another couple of agencies)... and the biggest thing I think people dont realize is the whole admin law process... literally the first several steps in experience with a regulator, all the balls are in their court... because you are not in a "judicial" court, instead you are in an "admin law" court, which is run by the administrative branch, the same that promulgated the rules (in theory in compliance with the actual law given by congress, but not always), and the same branch that sighted you for noncompliance. Even when you get beyond the admin court process, the judicial process favors the admin branch's view (see chevron deference). One basically has to show that the "rule" is somehow not in compliance with the actual "law" congress passed (which is hard, since almost all agencies have some charter rule like "in the protection of the public" etc). It is a horrible place to be. And people don't realize so much of what one can be fined / etc for is in the realm of admin law.
This is called progressively losing your rights..
The FAA needs to be rained in, they have gotten so far off of their mandate that congress set for them to promote aviation and aviation safety. With that judges ruling, I could see even getting violated during a check ride, when the dpe says to preform a go around… even at a airport with lights, runway markings, wind sock and an Awos. Why, because there was no intent to land.
Im a big fan of you USA GA pilots and how you have advanced all things aeronautical over the last century but can see how your going to suffer if this case is allowed to set 'that' precedent. The PiC must be allowed to go around, to penalize a flyer who doesnt land because he deems it unsafe to do so is ridiculous. The intent to land here is or was questioned & isnt this point anymore now. The point of this whole facade is that, one FAAs persons opinion is being forced on every American Pilot or his intent to force it on all future off airport landings that you attempt in your/the future. You must have this decision ( overturned). GP. Ex Air force Ex Police Officer. Uk.
It really seems like the FAA would be much happier if no one could fly
I bet a neighbor complained and this was the FAA response. Call the government and bad things can happen but people call all the time for minor things.
Thank you for some great points and ideas!
The go arounds before the landing are for a procedure called "A LASSO APPRAISAL". Length, Altitude, Sides, Slope, Obstructions. LASSO Appraisal. Retired Bush Pilot and aerobatics CFI
The FAA lives in a closed loop system. Oversight is managed by the FAA. Judgements made by FAA judges are written for them by airspace safety investigators. The FAA has regulations that they are supposed to be held to and you can find them under 8900.1. Good luck with that though because it’s like being in the Mafia , it’s a family affair and no one in FAA is held to any standard of accountability from within. Which brings me to this: until “absolute immunity” is taken away from the FAA it will remain a lawless, wreckless, self governing entity with absolute authority to rule every regulation as they see fit. Think about this for a moment and let it resonate. A sitting senator or even an ex-president can be subpoenaed or even charged civilly or criminally but not an FAA representative. Boeing and Southwest debacles were happening the same time the feds were chasing imaginary regulations to enforce. Makes you wonder if aviation safety is really all that important to the FAA or is it more about making themselves relevant…
Unfortunately I think the mission is to eliminate general aviation and reserve flight for the military.
All takeoffs are optional, all landings are mandatory.
Well said brother !!!!
funny thing is, I know of a place where military aircraft routinely fly closer than 500 ft to people, structures, and vehicles with absolutely no intent on landing. And to top it off it is in a national park. Its one thing to do this type of flying on a military base, but to allow this in a national park is the height of hypocracy in our federal government when compared to this Trent Palmer story.
If it’s the same place I’m thinking about, where photographers camp out to get some canyon strafing photos, it is no longer allowed after that incident in 2019. Now it’s 1500’ agl through that area.
The FAA has no jurisdiction over the Military.
I’ve always watched your channel and enjoyed it. This I think however is one of your most important videos you’ve ever put out, it’s certainly a critical video that does need a call to action putting our FAA back in check.
100% the EAA, AOPA need to be involved with this case, as a member who has paid dues and also paid legal dues they should be on board fighting for Trent. It does concern me when it comes to paying for the legal portion of the AOPA membership that twice you’ve tried to use it and they haven’t helped. Just like in the corporate world lazy attorneys are collecting a paycheck and forget where it comes from and don’t give a damn about helping what doing what they’re actually getting paid for, just as long as the money still rolling through the door, it does make me rethink paying the fee?
all paying the AOPA legal advocacy fee does is get you a list of aviation related attorney office numbers for a free 30 minute phone call........something you can do on your own for free.
(It’s been awhile since I’ve reviewed this specifically but I’m pretty sure pilots can appeal an administrative law judge ruling to the NTSB. Right?)
I think we need to change the system in three ways:
First, being a pilot (or better yet at least a commercial pilot) should be one of the minimum requirements necessary for a person to be an administrative law judge. I think that alone would do a lot to squash rulings that are clearly and completely wrong and not in the spirit of safety.
Second, anyone who becomes an admin law judge should have extensive training on all aviation regulations (and the sprit of safety behind aviation regs) and a thorough knowledge of aviation accident history. I believe this would also cut down on incorrect rulings like this one in Trent’s case which could potentially have a negative impact on safety by discouraging pilots to perform go-arounds out of fear of prosecution.
And thirdly, a record should be kept of every ruling an admin law judge has had overturned and when 3 rulings have been overturned that person should lose the position of admin law judge and be forced to be retrained and retested on aviation regs and aviation accident history mentioned in point two.
You’d think the FAA would be smart enough to know that targeting people (especially highly visible ones) who try to follow the rules like Trent, who personally promotes safety in aviation to others via TH-cam, does way more to damage the FAA’s mission of promoting and increasing safety and gaining compliance than it does to further the FAA’s mission of safety and compliance.
P.S. I’ve never understood people trying to buddy up to the FAA. Make no mistake they are never on your side and this nonsensical ruling just reiterates that fact.
Sounds pretty good to me!
Trent did appeal this case. I disagree with your ps though. I am one of those people and it has served me well. If something like this happens to me, they know who I am before they ever call me. Also, I have found them to be on my side several times. This one random case on the other side of the country does not negate that
And here you think the judge is wrong… you have listened to one side of an argument.
Bet you wouldn’t like that if I caused you of something you didn’t do… and no one heard your side of the story.
Better step back and pull the foot out of your mouth.
You have no right to fly. It is in fact a privilege. You have no right to fly over anyones property… even to land.
Trent is about to find this out… yes, he will likely be sued.
If the federal judge believes Trent is not telling the truth… we’ll, now we are talking about federal criminal charges.
This isn’t the FAA… or administrative judge.
Someone did something stupid, got spanked, and now is crying.
@@thatguy7085 can you site the law that states that you do not have the right to fly over anyones land? I've never seen anything of the sort. He did have permission to land, so that is a null point
@@chrisbowpiloto it has been common law from 1300 AD to the present. The airspace used above peoples property is like a side walk easement. The property owner still owns the land where the side walk is located, the government has designated airways (basically sidewalks in the air) pilots do not have a ‘right’ to use these anyway they wish. In fact if the people on the side walk disturb the owner of the property, the side walk (or in this case air space) can be shut down or removed for further use.
I have actually seen this done to airspace while working for the DOD and FAA.
I loved your video. I’ve agreed with Everyone who has spoken on this , including Trent himself. What I don’t like about this is we will never hear the rebuttal from the FAA and makes me feel we won’t be heard by them and those who make the decisions. As an AOPA member, A&P in training and soon to be student pilot I am hopeful that Trent appeals the decision with success. Thank you for your videos and your voice and hope it’s heard by all.
I've been a pilot for 25+ years. What the FAA is doing is just another knee jerk reaction to political pressure that will do nothing but hurt aviation in the long run. They did it in 2012, and they're doing it again 10 years later. In 2014, I had to do a go-around from less than 500 feet while dealing with a faulty ammeter gauge in a twin. I had a student pilot in a 172 cut me off during the approach. I missed putting the gear down during the GUMPS check because I had to focus on not running his dumb hide over. I was about 250 feet from landing when someone called "GEAR! GEAR! GEAR!" over the radio, so I went full power and did a go-around. Had this rule been in place, not only would I have lost my license for doing the go-around, and I would have been pressured into landing an aircraft without the gear extended.
No… the FAA is saving your ability to fly.
Here is some really bad news… you have no right to fly.
You also have no right to fly over anyones property…. This was affirmed by the US Supreme Court in a case against the military.
The FAA can not through any regulation give you the right to fly over anyones property, even to land.
Yes, like the case in Florida where some jack ass thought it was a good idea to challenge the meaning of flight instruction as not being a commercial activity… this can be the worst thing to happen to aviation in a long time.
Once people realize… hey I own the airspace above my house… airports will begin to get shut down left and right.
@@thatguy8005 Firstly, you're referencing US v. Causby where a large military aircraft flew 83 feet above a farmer, which lead to the creation of 14 CFR Part 91.13 and 14 CFR Part 91.119. Secondly, airspace above and including someone's house isn't owned by the homeowner. It's owned by the FAA and is typically Class G, which extends from the surface to between 700-1200 Feet AGL or may extend up to 14.500 ft MSL, also known as the bottom of Class E Airspace. The exception of where it isn't Class G starting at the surface is when it is either Class E, D, C, or B. Thirdly, I do have a right to fly. Please see Public Law 112-153, which was first signed into law by President Obama which forced the FAA to submit Letters of Intent and allowed a more streamlined appeal process.
@@thatguy8005 you have no clue what you're talking about, and totally disregarding the circumstances of Palmers case.
@@hyenafur Go read the actual case law. Or if you are lazy, go watch here on TH-cam, Law professor Steve Lehto on the matter. A person does own the airspace above their property to the heavens above. The FAA tries to regulate an easement of private property (privately owned airspace)
It is like a side walk in your front yard. You still own the land, however, should the easement cause a loss of enjoyment… yes, the side walk can be removed.
I’ve actually seen airspace mapped out when working for the DOD and the FAA. I was surprised it could be done. It does happen and even worse, it doesn’t have to be mapped.
@@SoloRenegade I guess the Supreme Court is wrong… go watch Law professor Steve Lehto on airspace ownership. The government has an easement. They only own the airspace over government land.
There is no right to fly, there is property rights.
You summed up the problem better than anyone I’ve heard on this case. Like most pilots I go to absurd lengths to stay legal. If cases like this become the norm you will see a lot of GA pilots loose respect for FAA regulations and start to outlaw their flying which would be damaging for everyone. Thanks for making this video and shedding more light on this case.
The FAA made me wait 3 months before sending me a medical form for my doctor to fill out. What could they be doing that took so long? Did they run out of stamps? I had to sit around 3 months to bring my medical up-to-date! But from what some of my friends have told me I've had relatively good luck with the FAA.
Thank you. Nailed it
The number one purpose of all government entities is to serve themselves. For the FAA “safety” is a very, very distant second or third.
As someone just now getting into pilot school, I can tell you my passengers and my safety will be and is number 1 on the list. So it's pretty messed up that the FAA would od something like this to cause even more panic and confusion during a potentially critical in-flight moment of decision for the pilot.
The FAA is judge, jury, and executioner. Pesky citizens need to thank the FAA employees they decide to come to work and only take away as few pilot licenses as they do. We are not worthy. I'm sure every pilot that was/will be penalized has thought about doing something wrong or will do something wrong before or after their license was pulled. Let them prove otherwise during the hours of 9-11am and 12-5, minus holidays, vacations, personal days, and the odd solar eclipse or parade and during govt "shutdowns".
Well said and thanks so much for sharing.
"What would a reasonable pilot do" A reasonable pilot would not be trying to play "Backcountry Pilot" in a developed subdivision. There are 12 houses within 1/4 mile of the spot in question. If this enforcement leads to a a precedent whcih makes like difficult for pilots involved in actual back country flying, then we have Trent's poor judgment in choosing to do this stunt in an inappropriate place to thank for this. If he had stuck to doing off airport landings in the actual back country, none of this would have started.
I guess you haven't visited Wasilla, alaska or any of the 100 plus airstrips in much more densely populated areas than this. I'd say at more than 50 of those strips it is impossible to land or takeoff with more than 50' clearance from homes or other vehicles.
There are literally so many strips the FAA chooses not to chart them do to chart congestion
Where are the other flight schools on this. Good job John. You have guts. I could think of another word but I will keep it clean.
Appreciate it!