Trent Palmers Attorney Talks Case

[@mafp22w]

This attorney MUST win.

[@jonnyberockin]

“….. if you’re having fun, you must be doing something wrong” about sums up our fight as drone operators with FAA as well. Thanks Dan and Christy for another awesome episode!

[@dwaynemcallister7231]

Kudos to Trent for standing up and fighting, I hope he is successful.

[@AkPacerPilot]

I’m fairly confident he will be successful, because an actual court deals in facts, the faa has no facts, all they have are unsubstantiated opinions. Unfortunately for those of us who pay taxes, the faa will end up loosing this in federal court, then the faa will end up settling after threat of civil action from Trent to cover all the expenses Trent and others have spent to defend him. It won’t be the investigator or the ntsb who covers this, it will be you, I and everyone else. All because the faa and ntsb can’t follow the laws and constitution of our land.

[@jodyhill303]

The attorney Robert Schulte is superb. Knowledgable, articulate, and sincere. He is the perfect advocate for pilots.

[@DirtRoadie]

Hardly. He's just saying what YOU want to hear.

[@jodyhill303]

@@DirtRoadie Your comment demonstrates your intellect. I will not argue with an idiot. You sound like an FAA/Biden type of Democrat.

[@AceInvader]

​@@DirtRoadiecare to elaborate how he's not?

[@DirtRoadie]

@@AceInvader Making the same losing arguments over and over (0 for 3, heading toward 0 for 4), clueless about the actual law. Perhaps it's just that he has a bad case, but I'm not impressed. I don't think the appellate judges were either, based up the oral argument (which is available online). And he can't even pronounce "spoliation" correctly.

[@marcusbyler7837]

Thank you for fighting this battle. We as pilots are indebted to you.

[@stubryant9145]

Administrative Law is simply the fox watching the henhouse. Kudos to Trent and his team for standing up at great cost for what is right!

[@OpenCarryUSMC]

Administrative law IS NOT LAW

[@timfuscaldo3024]

@@OpenCarryUSMC What, it has the word law right in it. Look up administrative law. Society would all apart if it did not exist. It is a necessary evil. Instead of blaming the law one should blame the bureaucrats that abuse the law.

[@stubryant9145]

Administrative Law is actually merely rules set up within the Executive Branch. Real laws are enacted by Congress (or if at state level the legislature), which is the Constitutional way. Administrative Law judges I understand are employed by the executive branch, not the Judicial branch. They usually back up their side, which makes them the fox guarding the henhouse. Since the 20th century administrative law is the way government has been made to grow and grow- all without the accountability from the other two branches- until someone like Trent comes along, loses their appeal (which I absolutely hope does NOT happen!), then takes the issue to the federal district courts or higher. There has been a number of high profile cases in the past few years where the upper echelons of the Judicial branch have justifiably spanked certain executive branch agencies for serving the agency rather than We, the People. The percentage is small, but the effect is huge.

[@timfuscaldo3024]

@@stubryant9145 Yet they are still law and citizens are held to them. Government is granted by law to write rules and regulations that are considered law. The argument as to if it is law or not is well settled and if folks don't think so, then they are allowed to believe it. But they are still held to administrative law which guides and protects citizens in our everyday live. Do away with administrative law, society falls apart.

[@stubryant9145]

@@timfuscaldo3024 Tell this to SCOTUS who has recently started dismantling a few of these egregious overreaches! If Congress didn't pass it, and it doesn't amount to some procedural process, then it needs to be challenged. Administrative law was never intended to be legislative in nature. Which thanks to absurd interpretations over and over is what it has become. The agencies who abuse this the most must be reigned in lest we continue to allow our rights, our liberty, and the Constitution's intent to continue to erode into tyranny. We do need order, anarchy is indeed evil, but when the government is just as guilty as those they SERVE, those who ultimately possess the power they granted via the Constitution to government have an obligation to use the legal channels available to them to retake the excess power usurped through bureaucratic fiat.

[@josephsener420]

What a great discussion!

[@danblumel]

There is a name for this, its called a Kangaroo court.

[@AutonomousNavigator]

Yep. That's what they call 'administrative law' in America. Unelected Bureaucrats make the law, bureaucrats enforce it, and bureaucrats are the judge and jury too. They are accountable to nobody. "The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands, whether of one, a few, or many, and whether hereditary, self-appointed, or elective, may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny." James Madison We didn't learn about.this practice in our eighth grade constitution class, because this practice appears nowhere in the Constitution.

[@rsjanko]

“Lawfare”

[@wayneelliott2462]

Just maybe it is down to self regulation to allow harmony between those that want the privilege of flying and those that want to live in relative safety from what is above while they keep their feet firmly on the ground. Surely it is better to settle on common ground to allow all to function at will in conformity with predetermined rules!

[@seoceancrosser]

Banana republic

[@applemagnet633]

We call it tea time laws where I come from

[@stuarthall3874]

He's right. This is not just about Trent. This is about everyone of us who has to deal with a government regulatory body.

[@rogerguinn1642]

Didn't the landowner (who gave permission to Trent) fly RC aircraft there? I seem to recall that he had an RC Runway he invited Trent to land on. And the RC Aircraft community is VERY cognizant of the "Because we say so" philosophy of the FAA....

[@rogerdixon3700]

The CAA does the same here in NZ.

[@thatguy7085]

And that is the part everyone keeps leaving out… Trent had been flying drones and RC planes out of his buddies back yard. The neighbor had been complaining to the FAA about them ‘buzzing’ their house. It wasn’t like he had never seen the property and needed a fly over ‘inspection’. He had been there dozens of times and knew it wasn’t a place you can land a KitFox safely. A fool can see what happened. He buzzed the field… and also buzzed the neighbor. I will not go so far to say he deliberately buzzed the neighbor, but he might have.

[@marknielsen9315]

@@thatguy7085the inspection pass wasn’t about if he could land, it was a pass to see if the field is in a condition that was suitable to land at that”time” you can visit a place 100 times doesn’t mean that something hasn’t been left on the the intended landing location because it’s not a secure site like an airport.

[@rhkennerly]

The complainant is the Nextdoor neighbor to the guy with the RC field. He and Palmer have history.

[@jerseyshoredroneservices225]

​@@thatguy7085 I think you are mistaken about who is the fool. It doesn't matter that he had been there before it still a good idea to do an inspection pass of an off airport landing area. You never know if there's fod or any other reason that you shouldn't land there at any particular time. In your comment you said that it's not possible to safely land a kit fox there. That statement is 100% completely wrong.

[@speedbird3955]

This is happening across all government agency's and with increasing frequency. They make up rules and restrictions and your only recourse is to take them to court, a very time consuming and expensive action. Power corrupts = is not just an off handed quip anymore....

[@glenwhatley7366]

When they destroyed the evidence they sunk their own case. All the following witness testimony is now heresay.

[@evanfinch4987]

What is your proof of this trend?

[@n539rv]

The FAA has lost it’s way in this case and they need to be held to account. God bless Trent & this lawyer for sticking this out!

[@edcew8236]

The smart thing for the new administrator to do is to apologize to Trent and drop the case, with insults to all the FAA folks who pursued this.

[@DirtRoadie]

Hardly. I'd suggest that Trent man-up, recognize his idiocy and apologize to the neighbors for being a selfish ass., In the future, he can act like a grown-up and consider how his actions affect others. The FAA was right, The NTSB was right (twice): www.ntsb.gov/legal/alj/OnODocuments/Aviation/5947.pdf (includes full FAA transcript) www.ntsb.gov/legal/alj/OnODocuments/Aviation/5956.pdf and the DC Circuit Court of Appeals was right. www.cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/opinions.nsf/9B99619D7738F0E585258B32004F1B80/$file/23-1239-2057751.pdf Although quite frankly I don't know who the bigger ass is, Trent or his lawyer - who may have seen a big soapbox for self promotion and been a driving force behind this charade.

[@ferebeefamily]

Thank you for the video.

[@thefencepost]

This was posted 6 days after the court hearing. What was the result of the hearing?

[@doughudgens9275]

It takes a while for the court to issue an opinion, usually months. If it was heard by a 3 judge court, that can be appealed to the entire circuit court. Next stop then, US Supreme Court. The USSC is not a fan of executive agencies creating laws by creative interpretation of Congressional actions, and hopefully the DC Appeals court takes this into consideration.

[@richardpalm3202]

They said the appeals court hearing was scheduled for March 11th, which was last Monday. Has anyone heard how it went?

[@TakingOff]

Not yet. Ive asked.

[@richardpalm3202]

@@TakingOffA recording of the oral argument session is available at the link below. Discussion of this case starts just before minute 29. An attorney/pilot who listened said that the judges seemed disinterested. 🙁 kzbin.info/www/bejne/apfGYWqZpL-fn7s

[@rjeautomotive6545]

They lost, now they are 3 and zero

[@jamesburns2232]

😳@@rjeautomotive6545

[@PackAttackMan2]

I went on the DC Appeals Court website. The decision isn’t posted.

[@Michael-iw3ek]

This is sick - how can a judge who is a pilot rule this way??

[@JennaHartDemon]

Maybe they jealous their doctor killer can't land on a river bank after watching KZbin?

[@wolfkin73]

I don't believe he is a pilot. Rarely are anyone in NTSB hearing pilots

[@Michael-iw3ek]

@@wolfkin73 In the interview the lawyer said that the judge in the hearing was a licensed pilot himself. I was very surprised by that too.

[@rhkennerly]

Go read the 140 pages of hearing transcript. Palmer hung himself, and, with his AOPA lawyer’s help, actually got his suspension lengthened.

[@Michael-iw3ek]

@@rhkennerly Where to get the hearing transcript?

[@skyd8726]

This is why "FAA" stands for "Fundamentally Against Aviation". When their own staff cannot provide an impartial evidential presentation in court... damn.

[@scottschmidt8835]

Great video, thanks and good luck. We need to keep protecting our rights to fly.

[@tjotwo]

I seem to recall a landing strip in Texas that required an initial low pass to make sure and scare cattle away from the landing strip. I think I read it in a book that listed airport and air field instructions -- before cell phones and tablets -- paper maps and paper nav aids of other types.

[@RWBHere]

It happens at some landing strips in Britain, to scare birds and sheep away.

[@adamr9215]

There are many small airports like that in Alaska.

[@timj9350]

Excellent interview.

[@1bengrubb]

Wow I never thought I'd say I love an attorney this guy's awesome

[@evanfinch4987]

Dude when I was covering cases as a GA reporter I discovered how the law attracts some of the most interesting and thoughtful people.

[@1bengrubb]

@@evanfinch4987 I guess the guys that wrote our Constitution were pretty interesting and thoughtful individuals!

[@mortekaieve4729]

It's probably a bad thing that the judge is a pilot. While it gives them some understanding the job of a judge is to research what they don't know and listen to experts that can provide that information and make a judgement on those facts (although the FAA employee being their expert is a whole other issue), but the judge, who is a pilot, is deliberating a case where a governing body that oversees them is at question. So what if the judge suddenly starts getting scrutinized by the FAA if the deliberation goes the wrong way, or there is less scrutiny in the future because the judge ruled "properly"?

[@thatguy7085]

No… the judge knows it was not an official RC field… it was his buddies house and he had surveyed it dozens of times from the ground. Flown drones and RC… (And likely by the air too based on the number of complaints.)😂 He got caught on a video… buzzing… plane and simple. Plain and simple too. I’m almost willing to say, he did the neighbor buzz job on purpose.

[@mortekaieve4729]

@@thatguy7085 If true I would totally agree with the attorney when he says the FAA should claim he buzzed and not that it was an "improper landing spot" and go off that. Just a strange and disingenuous way for the FAA to go about things whether you agree with what Palmer did or not. RC field, no RC field, official RC field, whatever, none of that is even a factor in the FAA's complaint. If the FAA set a complaint with 91.119 as part and additionally claimed that it was an ongoing dispute between neighbors and it was intentional due to that dispute then it's a totally different argument. That's not what they did, though. How does anyone know at this point whether or not Palmer did want to land the airplane and was uncomfortable after the inspection other than Palmer? If they made the case for buzzing they could have at least brought in all of the parties to testify and gathered more actual evidence, possibly came to a more agreeable conclusion for the aviation community. At this stage it seems like its 90/10 public opinion in favor of Palmer which is also not great for the FAA.

[@bubbaman12289]

I did a go around as a student pilot at my class d since it was gusting 15 and I was able to land the first three laps no problem last one just shifted me a bit off center and I didn't feel comfortable with the approach. I notified tower immediately and climbed... And after a 2 full minutes of a firm talking to from tower and old time got on the mic and said he is landing and coming to the tower to have a "talk" with him. Then he came to my schools fbo and talked with me and said Never apologize for a go around if you don't feel comfortable there was only 3 small planes in the pattern and absolutely rimmed the tower out for making me apologize and stop my touch and goes to full stops only. So if they make a go around a "ready for the number" procedure I'd say more students will be pushed into bad situations.

[@EXROBOWIDOW]

The city of Torrance, CA has now banned touch-and-go landings. Think the FAA will do anything about that?

[@someguyontheinternet7165]

Direct from the FAR 91.119 Except when necessary for takeoff or landing, no person may operate an aircraft below the following altitudes: (c) Over other than congested areas. An altitude of 500 feet above the surface, except over open water or sparsely populated areas. In those cases, the aircraft may not be operated closer than 500 feet to any person, vessel, vehicle, or structure. So you can’t scope out a landing site within a 500ft slant range of any person, vessel, vehicle or structure…. That’s fair enough. I follow the logic that far. But that also seems to mean if you spot a problem late in the approach that you couldn’t perceive from 500ft away before, tough luck kiddo because a go around / diversion then defaults to breaking 91.119. You are committed to that unsafe landing… and likely getting slapped with 91.13 for that careless and/or reckless operation. Now I’m not exactly an aviation focused attorney but that feels like it’s in conflict with the spirit of the law.

[@thatguy7085]

So I guess the guy that jumped out of his plane and let it crash could have just said… “hey, I was landing. I just didn’t want to be in the plane when it hit the ground.” 😂 He didn’t need to do an aerial survey of the RC strip… he had flown there dozens of times, likely buzzing the neighbor with them too. 😂 He knew he couldn’t land there already. It was a buzz job that should not be condoned by anyone. I’m almost willing to say… He buzzed the neighbor on purpose for complaining to the FAA about the drones and RC planes.

[@igclapp]

It's a misconception being spread around that Trent would not have been violated if he had landed. There was a case decades ago where a pilot landed at a site that the FAA/NTSB felt was unsuitable and they violated him.

[@747Max]

Why are you landing in an area that causes you to get within 500' of people, buildings etc. Just because I can, because it's fun. What about the court of public opinion, there are 3 eyewitnesses that now have a very negative opinion of GA. This was just a stupid pilot trick.

[@craigsanders6925]

@@747Max Most small GA airports have you landing within 500 feet people, buildings, etc..... I just used google maps to measure the distance from the centerline of the runway where I usually fly out of and it is 400 feet to the front of the hangar, I found others that are as close as 175 from the runway to a hangar, go around and you broke the rule. Friends used to land on our 5 acre pasture when I was in high school.

[@747Max]

@@craigsanders6925 - While I'm sure there are SOME airports (older more or less "grandfathered") that is true, it's far from MOST. Regardless, you are operating on/at an established airport. This is the point the judge was making that the lawyer was trying to obfuscate. The FAA has discretion (and often exercises it) when to enforce that rule, and if they tried to do it at an airport, the judge would throw the case out. Make any off airport landing you want, just don't break the 500' rule.

[@canoe365]

Reminds me of when two FAA guys decided to ground Bob Hoover. It boiled down to "Because I said so", a personal vendetta.

[@patrickheavirland3599]

Good morning from Minnesota! Great episode

[@garyweber8201]

The "because I said so" method is also how motor vehicle divisions operate as well. If someone is arrested for the suspicion of driving under the influence of alcohol or other intoxicants, their drivers license gets immediately suspended prior to any due process. If it turns out that they're unable to prove the DUI/DWI, the suspension still stands. Even if the case gets eventually dropped as in my daughter's case, that case dismissal happened after she had already fulfilled her 90-day suspension.

[@evanfinch4987]

There's an argument that administrative suspension in cases of DWI protects the public.

[@evanfinch4987]

What a fascinating examination of the system.

[@norcanexs.g.llc.4625]

Not knowing where the line is applies to so many things in life, if not then we would not need lawyers and courts. Government does not want you to know, it's called keeping you stupid so that they can move the line as they see fit.

[@challenger2ultralightadventure]

It's these kind of actions by a government agency that breeds distrust, and eventually, disrespect. The FAA really stepped in "it" this time, and I feel they aren't admitting they were wrong, out of stupid pride.

[@cessna177flyer3]

I agree that is certainly part of it. I was involved (along with several others) in a very poorly conducted U.S. Air Force audit a few years ago. Once the investigating officer (who was judge, jury, and executioner) reached the wrong conclusion, despite lots of evidence to the contrary, the die was cast. Our pleas to General Officers further up the chain of command resulted in additional investigations, but with the sole purpose of proving the original ruling was correct. Only after we obtained outside counsel were we able to recoup the money (10s of thousands of $) that was wrongfully taken from us. Yes, the government will double down to protect its own, even when it knows it is wrong.

[@glennwatson]

Regulators need to look up Australia's Civil Aviation Safety Regulations 91.265 and 91.267 and use it as a reference to modify the rules. For VFR flights, valid reasons to fly below 1000ft over populous or 500ft above unpopulated areas: To determine the suitability of an aerodrome for a landing, Missed approaches, conducting circuits (pattern work), go-arounds, simulated emergency landings without passengers, carrying out airshow maneuvers and some others I won't mention. I realise making a list of specific items can be dangerous when it comes to regulations since there will be scenarios the regulators haven't thought about, but so can under documenting.

[@lenmetallica]

Australia is about the same size but more sparsely populated than the US. The US has around the same number of airports as the rest of the top 10 countries combined, maybe more. Australia is nowhere near the top 10. So two completely different scenarios that really can't be compared. In Australia there are way more scenarios that call for the need for bush flying and off-aerodrome landings. In the states, the opposite is true, they have so many airports, that justifying an off-airport landing is much harder and so the rules reflect that accordingly. The legal proceedings in this case might have been a mess but let's be honest here, in the interest of safety and with the rise of social media, I could see why they couldn't let this go unpunished.

[@glennwatson]

@@lenmetallicaAustralia and the mainland US share roughly the same land mass, US mainland is larger, and US has some very sparsely populated areas out in nevada. Also even for normal airports, there are no exclusions for inspection passes at the moment in your regulations.

[@lenmetallica]

@@glennwatson I was literally just looking that up, I was mistaken and corrected my statement. You're always going to have sparsely populated areas in the vast majority of countries, but the problem is aviation is federally regulated and generally has to be applied everywhere. I would hazard an (uneducated) guess and say that they cannot formally restrict or allow certain actions on individual states very easily? Assuming they wouldn't go that route for whatever reason, they would have to resort to making provisions for sparsely populated areas, and how would they go about defining that and prosecuting based on just subjective definitions? Maybe they could have different rules once you're north of a certain parallel like how Canada does it, but how much time and effort are they going to put in for such a small percentage of the population? I don't know, you bring up a good point but if I were the FAA, this would be near the bottom of my to-do list.

[@glennwatson]

@@lenmetallica more of a regulator issue then a faa one. I’m sure the faa advise on law changes. There are senators trying to push for reform how they go I don’t know. I’m looking into the Alaska one at the moment since I know there are some special flight rules for Alaska specifically but from what I been told by Alaskan pilots there some rule changes but mostly the same.

[@lenmetallica]

@@glennwatson that's good to know, it's honestly only going to benefit safety in Alaska then.

[@beach4me2007]

I was thinking of getting a pilots license but why would I spend the money when the government can make up a rule and fine me or take away my license on a whim.

[@HongyaMa]

Started a near riot at an IA refresher with FAA legal in attendance - Q: Is the FAA libel for expenses and Lost income because of Investigations later found to be "Unfounded" or not... A: Yes. That's when all the Stuffing hit the Fan... glorious

[@SteelDoesMyWill]

Somebody blasted past my house (less than 100 feet) at 3 am in some type of Sports Car that sounded like it had straight pipes with no baffles or mufflers, back-firing and popping at ear splitting decibels. It woke me up from a dead sleep and scared my dog so bad that he barked non-stop for 10 minutes before I could calm him down. Pretty sure that car woke up the entire street, probably the whole neighborhood. I don't see a Federal Agency hauling him into court and threatening sanctions, fines, or suspending his license, hell, the cops could care less and wouldn't even come take a report!

[@TakingOff]

yup

[@jimcripps3612]

We had a case like this in the UK basically a "Right Stitch Up" by the authorities. Once they go past a certain point they do not like backing down no matter what the actual facts. There is an old adage that the Justice must not only be done but also be seen to be done. You make your minds up as to this case!!! Regards, Jim the Brit

[@RWBHere]

Kangaroo court.

[@airgliderz]

At a glider port in Colorado where sometimes we flew the tow plane supercub low over the airport to chase the deer off the airport because gliders are so quiet when landing deer do not hear them coming....

[@patakanz]

“if you’re having fun, you must be doing something wrong” I think this attitude has spread far further in society than many would like to admit. You don't have to encroach on legislation to see it.

[@evanfinch4987]

If this were 1955 the government would've made their decision and you'd probably just be screwed. Also, as much as it can be fun, flying is serious business--I have no problem with the regulator biased in that direction. This case sucks and is unfortunate, but the sun has shown on it which typically does prove curative even if its gradually.

[@trustyaeronaut]

I enjoyed that episode. Thank you. When you take a step back, I can't really see any way for this to end up good for GA/recreational pilots. The simple reality is that the majority of the general population doesn't want recreational airplanes flying less than 500' from their house. If we all (FAA included) work hard enough to make this a big enough deal, I suspect we will get some regulations on this and I don't think regulations generally lead to more freedom. :(

[@EXROBOWIDOW]

Many residents of Torrance, CA don't want to hear airplanes at all. The city has banned touch-and-go landings, and restricted other maneuvers. They're also trying to kick out 4 out of 10 flight schools, or something like that, because of the noise. Santa Monica is getting rid of its airport altogether. Many Los Angeles residents want to shut down Whiteman Airport in the San Fernando Valley. I keep wondering how many of these residents are actually afraid of flying, and hate/fear airplanes, versus how many fly on commercial flights and don't make the connection between GA airports and their ability to hop on a commercial flight with well trained and experienced pilots.

[@GyrocopterGirl]

What? If the FAA gets through with this, then it is defacto impossible to land off Airfield. Therefore, they need to fight for the rule of law.

[@trustyaeronaut]

@@GyrocopterGirl Hmmm. I think there are plenty of places off airport we can still land at without ending up in people's back yards. But, ultimately, I doubt the FAA really cares if they win or loose here. If they loose, they will be able to use this case as an example of why they need more regulations to keep pilots from stretching the boundary's of these gray areas.

[@raffly4449]

You should see how the FAA treats repair stations, ODA and individual designees. There is SO MUCH attitude of “I want it done MY way or I will violate you and shut down your business”. That’s bad enough but inspectors change every couple of years and the new inspector never like the way things are currently done and forces tons of changes again. This cycle repeats every couple years and adds serious costs to doing business. It’s stupid and it’s all about interpretation which changes over and over.

[@wayneelliott2462]

Are you talking about poor people skills which would be individual issues, or are you suggesting that those personal behaviour traits are prerequisites to being employed by the FAA?

[@fraserwatt6417]

The question is not just about a oilot flying within 500 ft of a structure, person or vehicle; which first of which is allowed to do when making inspection passes to determine if he could land, but the the FAA's own regulations actually SPECIFICALLY INSTRUCT pilots to make inspection passes to determine if the landing site is adequate AND SAFE for him to make a safe landing. The FAA appear to be deliberately ignoring their own regulations. It looks suspiciously like the FAA judge went into this case with his mind already biased against Trent. It appears as if the FAA was actually out to get Trent, come what may.

[@747Max]

@fraserwatt6417 - No, there is no regulation that "SPECIFICALLY INSTRUCT pilots to make inspection passes to determine if the landing site is adequate". There is an online guide the FAA published that provides suggested guidance (not mandatory). Nowhere in that guidance does the FAA even suggest it's ok to get within 500' of buildings, people, etc. during an inspection pass.

[@rhkennerly]

No instruction. An advisory bulletin. And it doesn’t relieve a pilot of his responsibility under *.113

[@skyboy1956]

there is no such "regulation" It's a FAAST advisory publication intended for pilots in Alaska.

[@jerseyshoredroneservices225]

​@@skyboy1956 Does it say that it's intended for Alaska? Off airport landings happen all over the country so it seems unlikely that they would make a publication specifically for Alaska and ignore every other state, while not even using the word Alaska in the publication. I think it's much more likely that you just made that up.

[@jerseyshoredroneservices225]

​@@rhkennerly 91.113 Right-of-way rules: Except water operations.? What does that have to do with this case?

[@phatboizbackyardkustomz9006]

Good stuff! Hell even in the helicopter we do high recon, low recon before landing!

[@SavageSac]

I agree but in Helicopters we don't have the "500ft rule" like fixed wing do

[@DISOPtv]

Me being in the gun industry- first time? Gotta keep ALL our rights.

[@DISOPtv]

Child can't stand to hear a motor because the karen instilled fear into that child. The child doesn't know any better and it's a learned fear from the karen, not the event.

[@lenmetallica]

Are you really saying that negative reactions to excessive noise are taught generationally? Excessive noise has been scientifically documented and studied for decades as being detrimental to our health. If you paid any attention at all, you'd know noise abatement has nothing to do with the allegations.

[@Iflyagrasshopper]

The kid is traumatized… because an airplane flew too close to him.. what kind of parents raise this kind of kid?

[@EXROBOWIDOW]

@@IflyagrasshopperTo be honest, loud noises, including airplanes, can be scary-- especially if you're not expecting them. After the Northridge quake (from which we received no property damage), every time a big jet took off from LAX and rattled our windows, I had the fear it was another earthquake. I usually hear an earthquake rattling the house before I feel it, and some of those airplanes over 6 miles away are real bone-shakers, depending on atmospheric conditions. Over time, I gradually became re-acclimated to "It's just an airplane, not an earthquake," and the fear went away. Then again, I've lived all my life with airplanes flying nearby. I could disagree that the child learned the fear from the parent, because young children are naturally afraid of loud noises. But there are good parent / bad parent ways to deal with the child's fear. A good parent will help alleviate the child's fears. A bad parent knows they can use the child's trauma to win court cases and possibly get money, or other things they want. I'm not judging the parents in this case. Maybe they really are afraid of airplanes. Or maybe they moved to a rural area under the mistaken notion of "peace and quiet in the countryside." Even the Reno Air Races are no more, because of the population growth in the area (as I understand it).

[@flyingkevo]

How do I get a hold of you guys? Would like to talk to Robert about a case... where "except as necessary" is interpreted by the FAA inspector as not an approved airport/seaport FAA is trying to suspend

[@lisaleedavidson]

If deterrence is the purpose of the regulation, the law or regulation must be clear as to the elements of offense (transgression). Failure to have that in the regulation or definitions for the regulation or statutes prevents prosecution under the old common law standards which most of our laws and regulation are based upon.

[@kennyFF033]

This is turning out to be a rather high profile case... Mr. Palmer has lots of friends and even more viewers. If the FAA knew what was good for them, they would quietly exit stage left/right. Trent is known for being a capable yet cautious pilot. The Flying Cowboys do their shenanigans, sure... but they are still following the rules and being safe. You couldn't find a better group of guys if you ask me. But nobody does, so... God Bless, be safe.

[@philipritson8821]

There's a question of balance here. The neighbour has a right to the quiet enjoyment of his/her property hence the 500 feet rule. Trent did violate that 500 foot rule. The allegation is Trent was buzzing the neighbour. Trent has a right to conduct an off airport landing, which he did not undertake in this case after undertaking an inspection pass.

[@robschulte127]

The FAA's mission is not to vindicate private property rights. They is well-outside its jurisdiction and ken.

[@Mike-01234]

Did he fly with in 500 feet of someone else's property where he didn't have permission? I think it was just a misunderstanding that the people who complained thought he was messing around buzzing his friends property. FAA once they got involved didn't matter to them they will never admit when they are wrong. Lessons learned don't fly near any ones property unless they have large piece of land not near anyone else.

[@Coops777]

@Mike-01234 Totally agree with you

[@cessna177flyer3]

Agree. Where are the homeowner's rights in all this?

[@danblumel]

​@@cessna177flyer3 Which homeowner??

[@thatguy7085]

I’m almost willing to say… he buzzed the neighbor on purpose. He knew the neighbor had been complaining about the drones and RC planes… then he buzzed a RC strip he knew already he couldn’t land at, because he had been there dozens of times before. This lawyer paints a get out of jail free story though for anyone that wants to buzz. Hey, I was going to land on that building… I wasn’t buzzing anyone. Reality… this was dangerous and should not be condoned by anyone.

[@jimmydulin928]

In Ag, crop dusting if your old like me, we are flying near property of others all the time. FAA, administrative law, uses the old medieval trial by oath. The opinion of the pilot with the highest rating will be the "expert," which puts us ahead of the homeowner usually. However, I alway told my crop dusting students, don't get into the position where the homeowner can say, "he went right over the top." Now, the homeowner is afforded the expert point of view.

[@stellar1620]

This is Bob Hoovers case all over again!!!

[@voodoonft6184]

So how else are you supposed to measure or deem a potential landing site safe if you are not able to do a ‘landing inspection’ using visual time speed and distance? If the site is not deemed safe by the pilot in command he/she just don’t land.

[@mikejettusa]

He said there's nothing wrong with having fun and testing your limits and the limits of your aircraft. Absolutely true as long as it does not put anyone else in danger. He did not make this distinction, but should have IMO.

[@HoundDogMech]

Again, "The FAA Ain't Happy untill Eeryone else is UNHAPPY".

[@mntdshootrdoc1]

How might now the overturning of the Chevron deference apply? Does it apply or am I just grasping at straws here?

[@lesfillin]

Trent was flying an aircraft which has STOL capability. He could potentially do a short field landing. If he were in a Learjet, there would not have been any chance to land there and he would have been buzzing them.

[@ricklangley9482]

If all of Trent's flight in the area below 500 ft AGL was in line with the intended landing path, I think his defense team should have an easy case defending him. If he was doing low circles or passes from the sides, maybe not so easy?

[@MrThuggery]

The phrase is "The destruction of the chain of evidence". Incompetence abounds.

[@mlw19mlw91]

Would Trent's friend give me permission to land and takeoff from his place all day? I'd love to legally land to annoy the karens who reported this LOL

[@xheralt]

I really hope the judge spares some thought for the precedent he's setting....he's essentially outlawed go-arounds below 500 ft. "If you don't actually land, your entire approach was legally invalid" So just jam your craft in, or else! So what if you crash?!

[@michaellauer3397]

There needs to be punishment and “pay to play” for Karens and freshman pilot-come-Judges.

[@kevinm3751]

The judiciary system in this country is in a horrible state! More and more we are seeing courts and judges who are ignorant of the laws they are put on the bench to rule on. We are in huge trouble if those elected or otherwise put in positions of power are incompetent and or incapable of ruling under the laws our society have created that we all live by! Making matters worse is a judge never gets reprimanded or removed when they are clearly incapable of doing the job they are there to do! When there are no consequences for these judges and legal officials, there is no chance of getting a fair trial and it erodes and undermines our legal system!

[@reason6835]

Three separate judges are “ignorant of the law?” I’m gonna go out on a limb here and say they probably know the law better than Trent’s groupies.

[@okoboji2001]

It's pretty hard to inspect the suitability of an off-airport landing strip if you need to fly higher than you can safely inspect the landing area.

[@wayneelliott2462]

Why, when you only have to have 500ft separation from structures people vehicles or vessels you can fly as low as you like otherwise, and remember you need the landowner/occupier or agents permission before you can land, unless an emergency. In an emergency landing you will have selected a site and be configured to land well before 500ft unless it happens during take off.

[@automan1223]

rumor has it the neighbor has a ax to grind, previously warned / complained about his low pass - landings etc. my opinion is that person has connections & they want to make an example of Trent. Sad part is that it takes only ONE squeaky wheel to cause all sorts of grief. As a pilot of 20 years I have many stories. Life is not fair sometimes.

[@MarsMan1]

Maybe the FAA should be looking up Boeing's AZZ.

[@shaunroberts9361]

This was great. Been watching Trent for along time. And wow Very interesting how the FFA runs business.

[@mmayes9466]

The FFA deals with a lot of manure for sure ! !

[@stediasse]

Football Federation of Australia?

[@BKetch]

Hopefully the case up at the Supreme court called the Chevron Doctrine will resolve this and end this case.

[@jimwells4240]

So many Karens in the USA today....I hope Trent wins BIG !!!

[@desertfox3860]

My understanding is that Administrative Law Judges must have a "preponderance of evidence" for enforcement and I don't think they have it in this case!

[@scottthefamilyman1533]

So what we don't know is how close he actually was. If he really did put people at unnecessary risk (risk that could have easily been avoided), then it seems that the law would apply. If he was super close, perhaps he should have made a higher pass first. I think the real issue is the fact that the actual video disappeared. Either way, I think the law will likely be updated to be more specific after this case going up the courts.

[@quinnjim]

Hard to say who is right without seeing the video. If Trent was doing 100kts at 10’, he’s guilty. If he’s higher and slower, then it’s clearly an observation pass. I tend to believe Trent’s version.

[@thatguy7085]

With the sheer number of complaints by the neighbor to everyone about aircraft buzzing their house… and Trent flying drones and RC at his buddies house dozens of times before… I’m almost willing to bet this wasn’t the first buzz job. This was dangerous and should not be condoned by anyone.

[@Jetpilot801]

I’ve seen the video. Worst “inspection pass” I’ve ever seen.

[@jamesbruzgis9476]

Keep up the fight. Freeeeeeeeedom!

[@GyrocopterGirl]

Very important to fight for the rule of law. And not just for, because I said so. We lost our Dog that was stolen because the judge said so and gave all credit to the woman that stole our dog. Is the system in the USA corrupt?

[@Artiscrafty]

I get it, but here’s food for thought. IF i was a property owner and decided to let my buddy land on my property i would probably out of consideration of my neighbors at least inform them that not to get alarmed if someone is doing a low pass inspection. That pre knowledge for a bystander/ neighbor may have prevented a nasty phone call. Just sayin

[@treborheminway3814]

As soon as the faa destroyed evidence, they soiled the case and they should not be able to prevail against the pilot. To be a "power of control" requires, professional standards be maintained. Good luck.

[@WeBeGood06]

Buzzing Housing Developments and calling it an "Inspection Passes" is not going to Fly. When is Trent Palmers' not going to Fly punishment begin? When is Taking Off going to interview the Neighbor who got Buzzed? That might be an interesting interview.

[@danblumel]

If they are "smart" they don't want any exposure.

[@cherokeerookie]

You’re absolutely right. I think Trent has done a great job of spinning this into something it’s not. I want to hear from the other party. This is only a small part of the feud and we aren’t hearing all of it.

[@gabekremer7148]

You clearly dont understand case law

[@mafp22w]

What an ignorant comparison. Comparing 10 acre parcels to a housing development infuriates me that you would do that.

[@reason6835]

I agree 100%. Obviously the FAA can't allow this or it would open the door to pilots using "inspection pass" as an excuse to buzz houses.

[@neintje8275]

If the distance to homes and people and other property is to be a certain distance, then many airports will have to be relocated privately and commercially.

[@WeBeGood06]

General Aviation vs John Q Public who doesn't want to be buzzed. John Q Public has a 500 to 1 constituency advantage when it comes to Laws and Regulations. Taking Off should interview John Q Public, the neighbor, and ask for a copy of the video.

[@EXROBOWIDOW]

If a copy of the original security camera video even exists, That's the question.

[@ryanbarry2505]

Argue if you will about the possibility of Trent purposefully buzzing the neighbors house and using "intent to land" as a cover up. I don't think we will ever be able to 100% determine if he was really planning on landing there or not. That's because if it was a buzz, then clearly Trent and his friend preplanned to be on the same page. If both the pilot and the land owner openly agree in court that permission was granted to land, then there is no way to prove what his intent actually was (so aka the case should be dismissed). What is factual though is that this court case is pretty messed up and unfair. Between the paid off "expert" testimony by the FAA and accepted testimony regarding a "piece of evidence" that was thrown out, this case is definitely shady. I think we should all be more focused on the fact that this trial is UNFAIR, and about the government trying to CONTROL us citizens. In the current political climate, many of us are concerned about too much governmental control and our rights being violated, and this case is yet another small step in that bigger picture. Please let's stop focusing on Trent's intent since it can't be proved (and innocent until proven guilty, right?), and let's start focusing on what is proven - an unjust trial and an overextension of the government's power.

[@demagescod9657]

Some will just crash land rather than go around and say they feared FAA retribution if they were to go around.

[@igclapp]

There is no need to do away with whatever safety procedures you had been using before. Trent's case did not change anything.

[@KevinSmithAviation]

Excellent episode Dan and Christy. It is insane what Trent is going through. I hope for sake of the GA community, that he is successful in winning his case. Thank you for having Trent's attorney on the show to give us some details of the case. Keep up the excellent work. Safe skies my friends 🇺🇸🛩️

[@hpdmp3486]

No longer "scales of justice" opinions, hearsay, hurt feelings. "That is not their lane" but FAA is "compelled" to do something which results in guilty of the accused

[@nattybumpo7156]

I'm from the FSDO and I'm here to help 😉

[@jamesburns2232]

🤥

[@nattybumpo7156]

@@jamesburns2232 Exactly, lol. Great emoji. Going to have to use that one!

[@bobbysenterprises3220]

Im going to get flamed right out if here but here i am As a UAS operator or as the FAA sags "pilot" The CAA cares little if its rules are actualy contributing to safety or are reasonable in more than one specific set of circumstances and often are impossible to follow due to technological limitations, their own contradictions, or the laws of physics. The child tramua is also so touchy. Im sure in some cases its a actual issue. However having a "semsitive" child it could be anything that prompts kids to be almost paralyzed with fear for unknown reasons. Example scared of seing the red blinking lights on the towers on hilltops. Took her to go see them up close, explained what they are, showed videos on how they work. Emd up finding one at a garage sale and made a small floor pole nightlight from it. Now 18 she notices them and checks out what types of antennas are on them when we travel. And since we have birds reallzes why its important the red ones blink.

[@sfrahm1]

"Because I said so" Exactly! Go get 'em. Thank You for fighting this battle.

[@utahrusty7555]

This is what happens when a Non Elected Bureaucracy with ZERO oversight is allowed to selectively enforce what ever "Rules" they wish! This is Chevron Deference at it's worst, and is about to be shut down HARD by the United States Supreme Court! In Trents case here, he Should have been granted Lenaty, but the FAA has chosen to make a mountain out of a mole hill, likely to specifically target Trent for his public personality!

[@wayneelliott2462]

The majority of agencies are unelected, what do you mean no oversight?, are you aware that the FAA is subservient to the NTSB, therefore the NTSB provides oversight, and are you aware that all governmental agencies are subject to judicial oversight and review at anytime they depart from determining and applying legislation in a given incidence by those wronged making a lawful challenge to the process.

[@DarylOster]

@@wayneelliott2462 The SCOTUS has been reigning in federal agency over-reach in several agencies: The ATF over-reaching the second amendment of the US constitution, The EPA making rules that have no basis in law, etc. ... and now we are about to see the FAA get their hands slapped by the SCOTUS for the same thing. Trump's appointments have clearly restored some rights and freedoms guaranteed by the constitution, i believe they are just getting started.

[@mafp22w]

FAA is a bunch of bullies. And we have to pay their salaries. I’m starting to prefer those on welfare to those working in the government. Private sector work pays for both, but at least those on welfare aren’t bullies.

[@markmcgoveran6811]

Yeah you might figure out that you've lost because you're trying to fly that low over a place and land where the houses are too close together and it's considered aviation over a town those houses are less than a thousand feet apart if they're 10 acre parcels and you can't fly down through there. Trent flew in on a bad situation that was going nowhere and the people that live there had small rc models. There's plenty of off airport places to land in Nevada besides town where the houses are less than 1,000 ft apart so by definition on a 10 acre unit you have nowhere to land. You would have to have 50 acre parcels to you have enough space between the houses. The people on the ground complaining about this accident waiting to happen flying so close to their house have some rights too and their lawyer is not on the show.

[@stevewildman1045]

You are clueless to the landing distances of said aircraft. I was forced by law the faa pushed to register a ultralight to experimental category which I did. It's manufactur states 300 feet landing in documented literature. Facts are stated on off field landings in the fars. Kangaroo court at best.

[@mmayes9466]

@@stevewildman1045if you had to register your ultralight, that means it was illegal to be operated as an ultralight.

[@dtsh4451]

If I were Trent, I would have bought his friend’s land and turned it into a homeless shelter 🤡🤣

[@ScottBissell]

Or a piggery. Noone likes to live next to a pig farm.

[@thatguy7085]

And that is why I, as well as the judges, believe it was a deliberate buzz job. This was no where near the first buzz job for the neighbor and no where near the first call to the FAA. Trent didn’t need to do a survey… he had been there flying drones and RC planes dozens of times. He knew how big it was before he buzzed his buddies house.

[@sizzelot]

@@thatguy7085 except as posted elsewhere he didnt know if the runway was clear of rc planes, children, tractors, etc. Best to survey it before you just assume it is clear and land and hit something.

[@johnirvine3346]

The only this I have an issue with is the attorney says pilots want to test their limits and the limits of the aircraft and that there isn’t anything wrong with that. I completely disagree. People can’t go out on public roads and test the limits of their car or motorcycle because it endangers other people and property. Same should apply to pilots flying in public places. Test your abilities at Reno or in the middle of nowhere. That’s what motor vehicle drivers have to do. IMHO

[@EXROBOWIDOW]

This WAS near Reno, and "the middle of nowhere," except now it's not the middle of nowhere, it's outside Reno, and even the Reno air races are no more because of the expanding developments. But I agree that the attorney's statement was poorly worded. Maybe "try new maneuvers" or "expand skillset" would be better.

[@jamiesmith6918]

Has Trent at any point gone on record stating precisely what his objection was to landing at the site at the time? Or is his persistent assertion of it being an "inspection pass" becoming his recurring convenient defense of having buzzed or otherwise deliberately antagonized the neighbor? For all the airtime this case has gotten within aviation circles that specific aspect hasn't been widely discussed.

[@EXROBOWIDOW]

Given what has already happened with this case, it would be extremely unwise for Trent to give any more details. That's just from a legal standpoint. The less you say, the less your words can be turned against you. Remember that anything and everything you say can be used against you. Words and statements are super easy to twist and misunderstand. Bringing a specific problem with the landing site into this case would be pointless. I don't think any wise person wants the FAA, the administrative court, or the real courts to start splitting hairs. "Oh, an endangered turtle was crossing the landing site. Of course you couldn't land." "Wait-- you didn't land because a rattlesnake was crossing the runway? Really? You should have just landed on the snake. Two problems solved at once!" For a pilot, "I didn't think it was safe" should be adequate.

[@xheralt]

If the child was harmed....that's a CIVIL case that doesn't involve the FAA! Prove it, and get your Doctor bills reimbursed! That doesn't involve excessive penalty of license loss!

[@TakingOff]

Exactly, way out of the FAA's lane.

[@markbyfield7050]

Because I say so .... sounds just like the ATF, EPA ....

[@neilblankenship7900]

Sounds like someone living by the window in hopes of seeing anything they could bitch about and then gloat about.

[@raygunsforronnie847]

Meanwhile, the FAA accepted Boeing's self-certifications of airframe subassemblies. "Oh, because you said so? Sure!" No lack of irony here.

[@pilotpeego1820]

I'm sure the FAA has watched Trent's videos on KZbin, and formed a biased opinion. Again, this case should be dismissed.

[@mmayes9466]

I’m sure none of Trent’s followers are biased, lmao,

[@beach4me2007]

I wonder how much this attourney has charged Trent so far? It’s obscenely expensive to fight something like this. I wouldn’t be surprised if this specialty attorney is $800 an hour +

[@EngineerK]

Rules create workarounds that create more rules. Eventually you won't be able to fly without breaking a rule because it's impossible to remeber them all. It's called a nanny state and it's happening in every sector of our lives. I suspect it's worse in Canada. They freeze your bank account up here if you don't play nice.

[@sizzelot]

Why doesnt Trent just get a jury trial and see what a jury has to say? Im almost certain the FAA could not get 12 jurors to agree Trent is guilty based on what ive heard.

[@DanKeys-m8u]

I may be the only one, but I think Trent and his lawyer are plain wrong on this one. They seem to share a basic misinterpretation of the regulation. The regulation prohibits flying closer than 500 ft to things on the ground . . . except when it is necessary to do so in order to land. They instead are interpreting the regulation to prohibit flying closer than 500 ft to things on the ground . . . except when performing a maneuver that happens to be ‘necessary for landing’. To show how absurd this interpretation is, I can argue that a descent from cruise altitude is something that is obviously ‘necessary for landing’ for all of us, whether on-airport or off-airport. Therefore, by Trent’s logic, once I begin that descent, the no-buzzing rules no longer apply, and I am free to fly as close as I want to anything and everything on the ground. I think we can all agree that this is a silly and nonsensical interpretation of the rule. The question here is not whether the inspection pass was necessary for landing, but whether flying closer than 500 ft to things on the ground was necessary for landing. The FAA is saying that Trent had every opportunity to safely and legally land on his friend’s property, (including conducting an inspection pass), and that there was nothing that made it “necessary” to fly within a few feet of a couple of kids innocently playing in their own back yard next door, except for his own poor judgment and reckless decision-making. As much as I like Trent, I think the FAA may have a point here.

[@ulbuilder]

If one takes the time to read the trial transcripts they will discover that Trent flew very low OVER structures including a propane tank. Additionally you will find it was not necessary to fly OVER those structures to land or to do an inspection pass. Trent himself, on the stand, admitted he could have done his inspection from the other direction and not need to fly over structures yet he chose to fly over structures. I wish people would quit twisting this into "do an inspection pass, decide it's unsafe to land and you will lose your license because you did not land" when the real issue actually is "do an unsafe inspection pass, when you had the choice to do a safe inspection pass that did not put people and structures on the ground at risk you lose your license irregardless if you landed or not." It was not necessary to fly over structures to inspect or to land, Trent admitted it was not necessary and he could have flown a different path that was safer yet he chose to do it anyway.

[@mmayes9466]

No, you are not alone.

[@cherokeerookie]

My opinion is Trent’s friend got him involved in this feud, Trent obliged as a good friend does. Did he break the law no, but the FAA knows that there was beef and knows this inspection pass, although legal, is part of this feud. Trent should have not done anything to throw gas on this fire. And he did. That’s the issue.

[@DISOPtv]

That and the karen probably knows a higher up.

[@nickharris418]

Maybe ... but there again, prove it. Men must challenge those who wish to impose their opinions on us. It is our responsibility. With out resistance they will feel empowered.

[@cherokeerookie]

@@DISOPtv I think that’s trying to simplify the situation too much. We don’t know who the Karen is in this situation. You have only heard the loudest voice which is Trent’s. It would be unwise to think the public has all the info.

[@cherokeerookie]

@@nickharris418 that’s why he have so many stupid regulations. There are grey areas which as long as they are respected everyone gets along but the minute someone uses the inspection pass “grayness” to piss someone off, now the rule will be 20 paragraphs long. It’s like the 8yr kid getting in the space of the other one and saying I’m not touching you I’m not touching you. No, you are not, but still deserves a punch .

[@thatguy7085]

He had already been to the field, flown drones and RC planes there… and knew he couldn’t safely land there. This was a buzz job that no one should condone or support. It wasn’t safe, and my bet… not the first time by plane, drone, or RC. The neighbor had complained a bit to everyone. He got caught on video… Busted!