The FAA Suspended My Pilots License

[@daffidavit]

As a pilot who soled in 1968 and got his CFI in 1972 and became a licensed attorney at law in four states and is on the AOPA board of attorneys, I'd like to put in my two cents. As I see it, the first question is: (1) Did Trent Palmer have the right to land at an off-airport area? (2). If so, did he have a right to make a go-around during a legal approach to landing? As I see it, all approved airports have "obstructions" less than 500 feet from the landing area. If Palmer was given permission to land at an off landing-place by the property owner, that place became a valid place to land, despite whether there were obstacles or obstructions nearby. The fact that he had a right to land automatically gave him the right to reject the landing if he felt it unsafe. The FAA is trying to say that Trent was "buzzing" his friend's home. But since there was permission to land given by the homeowner at a designated place, that "designated place" became a viable and permissible place to land. The fact that Trent decided not to land for safety purposes should not be used against him. The AOPA and other aviation groups need to join in his challenge against the FAA. Remember the U.S. senator who changed our aviation laws because he was charged with "buzzing" when he landed on a closed runway with construction workers at the end of the runway? The FAA went after him. But being a Senator, he amended the laws to give us the Pilot's bill of rights. Those rights include many things that you did not seem to recognize including a jury trial. I highly recommend that Trent Palmer contact Michael Yodice, Esq. and his sister, Katherine, some of the most knowledgeable aviation attorneys in the USA. His father was once the official AOPA attorney and had monthly legal articles in FAA regulations. Trent, call Michael Yodice or his sister Katherine Yodice at 301-695-2300. Give them my email address. They know me very well.

[@paulkainer269]

Awsome

[@frankwilson1776]

You're an ijeout. Let us all know your true credentials.

[@arturoeugster2377]

Thank you, this is very encouraging.

[@arturoeugster2377]

one more thing relating to unwritten good practices: A landing is a go around with the option to land. > Blancolirio

[@bradjohnson1578]

@@paulkainer269 lol

[@blancolirio]

Very well presented Trent! This is a terrible precedent set by the FAA and NTSB and I'm confident this ruling will be overturned on appeal. This strikes me as a 'high profile' celebrity gotcha case from the local FSDO similar to what happened to Bob Hoover some years ago. Stby for an update...Jb.

[@john-martin]

The video hasn’t come out yet, so how would you know any details.

[@gasfiltered]

@@john-martin These people have many, many media accounts and platforms through which they reach people, including paid sponsorships which allow early access to content. The video has come out, just not for normal people who don't pay for free content.

[@john-martin]

@@gasfiltered Emotional damage

[@raypearce2974]

@@john-martin the video is up its just unlisted until the premier

[@lucaszoll65]

@@john-martin I believe that Trent shared this video with at least two other KZbinrs that dive into FAA reports and share their opinions on the matters. I believe Dan Gryder (possibly wrong spelling) did a video that said Trent shared the video with him and blancolirio.

[@patrickpowell2236]

I've worked for the FAA 29 1/2 years, including towers at busy airports and remote Alaska airports. I fly my own personal plane to work during summer. I'm 100% with Trent Palmer on this. Making a safe inspection pass is REQUIRED prior to a first possible landing in a new location. The FAA's Las Vegas FSDO has a history of punitive actions in their work culture.

[@stewartmckinley7058]

Write a letter

[@malcolmyoung7866]

Justifying their existence by bullying legitimate fliers..

[@nieves9306]

The Faa should be thanking him for inspecting, this was to help other pilots on future approaches

[@martinporter6478]

I’d like to hear FAA’s side of story too. There’s always two sides. You don’t get done for speeding by driving slow either. Just saying

[@donanders2110]

@@martinporter6478 there may be two sides but never too!

[@raynixon6767]

Hi Trent, just thought I'd point out a couple of things related to your initial contact with the FAA and how that might have gone differently. As a long-time professional pilot, now 40+ years, probably the best advice I've ever heard is don't talk to the FAA until you're ready. This case seems to have some elements within it that relate to this. Before I start, let me state for the record that I'm on your side for sure. I totally get the pickle you're in. Any one of us could have easily stepped on this landmine. It just happened to be you on that day and I truly wish the best outcome for you on this. So I offer my input here primarily for the benefit of the larger audience to learn about how the FAA works and how one might have acted differently in terms of self protection. Factually, your "intention to land" is a condition that exists within your own mind as you make your approach. The person filming the approach didn't know what you were thinking and neither did the FAA - until you told them. The only reason any of this is even in question is because you told them you were making an inspection pass. The Off Airport Ops Guide doesn't supersede or obviate the FARs. It talks about the value of inspection passes and how to conduct them but it doesn't give you the authority to ignore FAR 91.119 or any other reg. Notice also that it is published by the friendly FAA folks up in the great state of Alaska. The assumption the guide is making is that you are operating out in the boonies. It conveniently doesn't address your situation directly, and of course FAR 91.119 doesn't say "Except when necessary for takeoff or landing or inspection passes on unimproved airstrips..." . Even if you were to successfully show a conflict between FAA advisory publications and 14 CFR 91, you'd still lose because Federal law will always take precedence in any such conflict. Unfortunately, that's what sucks about being a pilot. When you're the PIC, it's all you, bro. My take on this is that you did nothing actionable until you told the FAA you were making an inspection pass. I think had you immediately consulted an attorney upon being contacted by the FAA, you likely would have been stopped from making this statement. All you had to say was that you intended to land but were unsatisfied with the landing surface as you approached and conducted a go around. Then, despite any posturing on the part of the FAA, they wouldn't have any legal basis to pursue you since you had permission to land from the property owner and were therefore not committing a trespass. And this brings me to the two points I'd like to make: 1) As pilots, everyone should assume from this point forward that everything they do, wherever they do it, is being recorded on HD video from the best and most incriminating angle, and 2) THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A FRIENDLY, INFORMAL CHAT WITH THE FAA. So don't talk to them until you have to, and even then don't do it until you're ready. That means until you have a lawyer. Everything you say can and will be used against you, so resist the urge to cooperate and rely upon the good and benevolent and understanding nature of the government in response to you explaining the particulars of what you were doing and why. This case proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that doesn't work! Consider enrolling in AOPA's pilot protection services (no, I don't work for AOPA, I'm just a member). It costs only $60 per year above the basic AOPA membership and gives you access to AOPA lawyers who can help you avoid problems like this from the outset. Okay, I'll make one last point..... 3) Try to find out what the FAA wants to talk about when they contact you, even though you have no intention of meeting them anytime soon. If they won't tell you until you go in, then you have a choice to make - go in alone, go in with an attorney, or don't go in. Personally, I'd probably go in just to find out what the issue was with the firm resolution that I'm not making any statements or answering any questions. As soon as you find out what the problem is, tell them you don't want to talk about it without counsel present and leave. This gives you the opportunity to give your lawyer your story about the incident in advance, and it allows you to fill out a NASA safety report and receive the ID strip by return mail before you engage any further with the FAA. The NASA report filing gives you certificate protection as follows, quoting the ASRS program literature: "....although a finding of violation may be made, neither a civil penalty nor certificate suspension will be imposed if: 1. The violation was inadvertent and not deliberate; 2. The violation did not involve a criminal offense, accident, or action under 49 U.S.C. § 44709, which discloses a lack of qualification or competency, which is wholly excluded from this policy; 3. The person has not been found in any prior FAA enforcement action to have committed a violation of 49 U.S.C. subtitle VII, or any regulation promulgated there for a period of 5 years prior to the date of occurrence; and 4. The person proves that, within 10 days after the violation, or date when the person became aware or should have been aware of the violation, he or she completed and delivered or mailed a written report of the incident or occurrence to NASA." The NASA report would have actually protected you in this case even after you told the FAA you were just making an inspection pass, because you could state that you believed you were in compliance with all FARs and that during your approach you estimated all property was at least 500 feet away from your aircraft at all times. They would then have to prove that it wasn't, and even if they were able to do that, your statement would make your violation unintentional and therefore out of reach of certificate action had you filed the NASA report within 10 days of being notified by the FAA of the alleged violation. The worst they could've done then would've been to put a warning letter in your file. (And warning letters go away after a bit of time if you commit no further violations.) Anyway, food for thought. Wish you the best!

[@forrestgourney691]

damn bro I get it you know the codes but jesus how long did it take you to type this out?

[@raynixon6767]

@@forrestgourney691 About a fortnight, but that's a lot less time than someone would spend having a swordfight with the FAA, so hopefully it could be useful someday to someone. Could have been shorter, point taken.

[@TrentonPalmer]

Hey Ray, this is all great insight! Thank you for taking the time to write it out. I do hope it helps someone else that might find themselves in the position I was/am in. Luckily I was and am a member of the AOPAs PPS, so that has covered most of my lawyers fees which is honestly a life saver. I definitely learned a lot through all of this. It hasn’t been a fun ride at all but I will be prepared if I ever find myself in a similar position again

[@justinbukoski1]

I have never seen more helpful advice in the comments. It also reinforces the adage "never speak to the authorities, especially if you are innocent". Folks, enforcement agencies exist to punish you. That is their sole mandate. Don't talk to the police or any other enforcement agency.

[@mercster]

@@forrestgourney691 Is this always your reaction when someone intelligent shares useful information? Were you a cast member on 'Idiocracy'?

[@BFlay95]

I'm a flight instructor and an airline pilot. The precedent set here is concerning and goes against everything I have ever taught and what was taught to me at the airlines. For all our sakes I hope you win this! It sounds like a bunch of non-pilots trying to tell pilots how to fly

[@skyhawk_4526]

I agree. I wonder if any of these administrative law judges and FAA attorneys have any aviation experience themselves.

[@evilhairlessmonkey7700]

My guess is that the Environmentalists are putting pressure on the FAA to keep aircraft from flying into remote places (follow the money)

[@sirdo946]

Yeah i'm not a pilot (studying aero engineering though) but even i see how absurd this is. The fact that you'd be forced to land despite potentially assessing the landing site as unsafe is incredibly absurd. I mean like... i'm just speechless

[@RobertMChambers]

Exactly, the ALJ heard a biased side from the FAA laywers wanting to string him up and unable to weigh the pros/cons because he's not a pilot or at least aviation aware the hearing was more of a foregone conclusion against him.

[@beneidem369]

The way Trent describes the judge's interpretation of the rule seems to be that if Trent landed instead of making a low approach, the operation would be completely legal, but because no landing was actually made, the operation is no longer legal. If this is indeed the judge's line of thinking, I think it is totally bogus.

[@scottmanley]

Dang.... things like this make me even more concerned about sharing video from my training.

[@airmotivewelding8012]

KZbin is a great way to get noticed, good editing.

[@Nathaniel_Belles]

And I think that’s the point Trent is trying to make, people shouldn’t be afraid to make passes at landing sites and people won’t do them! Good luck Trent!

[@NETBotic]

Scott, don't try to take the airplane into space and you'll be good ; )

[@sigmasquadleader]

Careful selection of what you share will be your best production process.

[@Cogzed]

THE MAN SCOTT MANLEY! MANLEY INDEED! ;)

[@ryangieseking6137]

Has anybody started a petition for this? As a flight instructor, this scares the heck out of me for everything I’ve been teaching my students. A go around is ALWAYS the right answer. Having the mentality of “I HAVE to put this airplane down” (unless an emergency is present) is flat out dangerous and could absolutely put the public in danger on the ground. Hang in there Trent, we’re on your side.

[@GTgyro]

Can't see the forest for the trees, can you...Did it ever occur to you that this whole thing is about the guy on the ground who complained, and NOT the pilot who lost his license for 60 days? No, I thought not. He did not lose his license for a go around, he lost if because he invaded someone's 500 ft safety space above private home. Duh. THAT guy did NOT want aircraft operations established overhead, and adjacent to his property, and he had every right to see to it that the FAA regs were enforced to make sure it didn't happen again. Petition my ass.

[@Nialija]

@@GTgyro well your kind of right. but Trent stated that the point in the violation was only enforced because he decided to NOT LAND. Therefore it wasn´t a necessary landing. thats basically violating the "no excuse go around rule" and this rule is absolutely necessary to make sure there is no pressure for anyone to decide to go around or in that case to diverge. The worse type of landing is a forced one.. even for skilled pilots. So yeah. the neigbor and the possible violation of the 500 ft bouble was the start but not the point of this case. Anyway, i don´t think a petition would serve any purpose, but the case is kind of scary.

[@kurtnelson9714]

Hang in there, Trent! You'll get through this. And hopefully those laws will be amended.

[@DLehrke]

@@GTgyro That's an argument for why the neighbor would make a complaint, not an argument for a violation. We don't really care about the neighbor's feelings(beyond them eventually leading to additional legislation) If what Trent's side is, is factual, this is absolutely absurd. Classic case of asshole neighbors, being assholes. A simple conversation asking them to not perform any more aircraft operations might have easily solved this... if not, contorting regulations to benefit what I imagine is some well-connected civilian, is not an acceptable solution.

[@sightline4004]

@@GTgyro Yeah, it's about the neighbor using an incoherent technicality to exert power and reduce safety for the entire community.

[@foreverautoenthusiast6585]

Sounds like your friends neighbor had a problem long before you showed up. Hoping the issue gets resolved/dropped soon. Thanks for sharing bro!

[@flyingmachineworks]

FAA- “we have a publication on how to land off airport” Judge- “still needs a wind sock, lights, markings, gas.”

[@gmr2048]

I might be wrong, but I think that ruling makes like 99% of Alaska illegal.

[@darksidefloyd1]

You know what the only way around this is to bring a sky diver friend with you to jump a head and put up a windsock. Trevor Jacob was a man ahead of his time. He just didn't get the windsock up in time.

[@johnmarkey5470]

Exactly. Gods, I am holding back my anger at the obvious contradictions in the judge's statements.

[@TritonTv69420]

@@gmr2048 that's exactly what i said in another comment. There arent as man karens in Alaska though...

[@garion464]

I was thinking the same thing! Their own pub documents the SOP for off-field landings. Explicitly stating to make low level observations BEFORE a landing attempt! Almost makes me wonder if there’s not a political hidden agenda buried in this to ‘limit’ our personal freedoms. I know I sound like a conspiracy nut, but at 58yrs young, these past few years I’ve seen some crazy 💩…

[@AllAmericanAviation]

Trent - I’m sure you know how to do this and your attorney has advised you of this - file a FOIA if you haven’t done so already. Freedom of Information Act. It will make the FSDO release all public records.

[@StevenOBrien]

Friendly reminder that Harrison Ford has never had his license suspended after: Crashing his plane into a golf course, landing on a taxiway (and nearly crashing into a 737), and crossing an active runway without permission while another plane was taking off.

[@kevinrtres]

Money, influence, power!

[@calebupton4023]

@@kevinrtres money being the major problem solver in this situation.

[@Saltee323]

And now he is even an FAA spokesperson for runway incursions. They don't even hide their bias for the elites any more.

[@bearowen5480]

@@calebupton4023 Har! That's perfectly executed sarcasm! Bullseye, Caleb! 👍🐻🇺🇲🇺🇦

[@sierramikebravo7332]

I think he could have also negligently shot someone and escaped culpability too, being a Hollywood type and all that

[@WHATSINSIDEFAMILY]

The FAA needs some reform. This is disappointing

[@mattk8810]

Bro he jumped out of the plane he was flying

[@charlesoxley7242]

@@mattk8810 different person. Trent is not Trevor Jacob.

[@kharjai5433]

@@mattk8810 headline news reader identified

[@utley]

govt needs reform period.

[@xblackdog]

@@utley Exactly, I can't think of a single govt agency that doesn't either need to be dissolved, or have significant restructuring. It'll never happen tough, sadly. The ultra rich have everything to lose if it does.

[@johnbierman4200]

As an attorney it embarrasses me when the legal system fails to recognize common sense. Without knowing the regulations at their micro level, it seems you win on appeal. The tragedy is that it ever became necessary for you to respond to the nonsense. Thank you for doing so on our behalf. We are with you brother.

[@Cassiusisback]

wouldnt trents attorney have been able to make expert hearings? if 10 professional pilots would back up trents actions, i really doubt the judge would have made the same decision. i have the strong feeling, trent was the only pilot in this hearing and his attorney really fucked up his job.

[@dr_jaymz]

The law isn't concerned with common sense. Only appointing blame or who's at fault, or if that fails, who has the most money to spend. The FAA is like any Aviation authority, the more they try to embellish rules to avoid ambiguity the worse they make it. Its argument is logically flawed, you can either make off field landings or you can't, it cannot be both. A flyby to check the landing site counts as take off and landing sequence. Then.... when it comes to aviation, there are some on that think that people in GA are concerned with what they are doing in their back garden - which is just tiny mindedness. I'm only looking at my landing spot and looking out for power lines etc.

[@johnbierman4200]

@@dr_jaymz You shouldn’t talk in absolutes. There are some very fine FAA employees doing there job that actually support our freedom to fly. Trent just didn’t find one.

[@johnbierman4200]

@@Cassiusisback No matter how skilled the lawyer there are some cases impossible to win because of the personality, the lack of knowledge or even bias of the judicial officer. Because the system is far from perfect you always want to avoid having a third party judge your conduct. And sometimes you can’t do that. S#$&t happens!

[@MrBlahblam]

So the FAA wants pilots to land in unsafe areas in order to justify inspection passes?! How do these people get into the positions of authority?

[@adrianchristopher5867]

They are government appointed! That is, they need not have any experience or qualification, just a vote. Courts are in a 'squarespace', (shaped in a square) therefore they only exist in the fiction. Your person name is written in CAPITALS, also a 'squarespace', therefore, also a fiction. UPU Styles manual. UPU stands for the Universal Postal Union. A book published in Switzerland for the law people to abide by, which, by the way, they are NOT!!! Check the Judge, who probably himself does not know his arse from his elbow when it comes to flying, just making rules. This is just an excuse to introduce the Hegelian dialect, create the problem, wait for reaction, then provide the solution, i.e. your extraction of privileges!

[@theresacaron4238]

They hire moped riders.

[@freakfly23]

Because people like us are no longer involved in our own governance. We allow them to get there through apathy.

[@ld1775]

Positions of authority? How do these people even know how to tie their shoes?

[@thekill2509]

Most ALJs don't know anything except law. They rely on the Regulatory inspector to determine what is right and the assumption on their part is that the regulatory inspector will be reasonable and exists to operate in balance between a Karen on the ground and a pilot in the first place. It's a problem in cases like this. As far as inspectors, there are some who love to flex. It's unethical but it is what it is. It's why the Founders always preached minimal government, because government attracts tyrannical thug flex types.

[@macfly4649]

Youre a good man for taking this on Trent. You could "easily" walk away and take the 60 days, not caring about the future. There needs to be more good men like yourself in the world today.

[@grandsoleil56]

Yet all those dudes jumping out of good planes or swapping planes ruining it for the rest of the GA guys

[@adamsfusion]

This is quite literally the definition of miscarriage of justice. If fees have been assessed (civil penalties), Jarkesy v. SEC potentially could show that the FAA ALJ may have violated Trent's 7th amendment right to a jury trial.

[@MrNavyjack]

I took my private pilot training in 1975. Many years later, the rural airport I learned at was closing. It was now abandoned except for one derelict airplane due for scrapping. I walked out to the old plane with my dog. The gate had the “restricted to authorized personnel” sign on it. A car pulled up and the man walked out to me. He identified himself as a FAA investigator, showed me his credentials and started chatting. He said he lived locally but worked for a FAA office in a neighboring state. He was headed (that day) to a regional airport. He hadn’t logged a ramp check in a long while, and asked if I would be willing? I went from unguarded to suspicious instantly. Reluctantly, I asked if this was legal. He assured me it was, pulled out a tablet and began the interview. Hmmm . . . A closed airport. Nobody around. Just an broken down airplane, a old pilot and his dog. He asked, what was I doing there? Could I prove I held an airman’s certificate? Had I read the warning on the gate? I told him the reason for my visit,to reminisce and exercise my dog. I showed him my pilot license. He asked, how did I know if the airport was closed? I asked him if he saw any airplanes or signs of life? The friendliness had gone out of his voice as he wrote on his tablet. Do you know the meaning of the sign in the gate? Yes sir. I was eligible as a certificate holder to be there. “Your dog is not,” he replied in frustration. He closed up his tablet. Thanked me for my time and informed me that I would be informed by letter if anything more was to be considered. My take away is that the FAA is not a pilot’s friend. Always be careful even talking to ATC. Anything may and can be used against you. The agent who interviewed me was not a pilot. He was a bureaucrat. Your aviation passion means nothing to somebody looking to score points at their FSDO. Be a member of a flying organization that offers legal access. Don’t ignore a letter from the FAA. Don’t do it on your own. It only gets worse. Get assistance and keep flying.

[@soldotnaman]

Amen! I was an airline safety analyst and had an argument with an FAA bureaucrat with regard to de-icing and anti-icing. I proved him wrong and he slandered me for several years. Because his reputation was well known, his slander was not harmful. He still comes around occasionally and will spend inordinate amounts of time at my facility. Last time, he complained about the font on some of my equipment placards🤣🤣🤣

[@stephen4764]

Your dog was a hazard to the planes that do not land on a Closed runway. Say what? 🤔

[@ericfermin8347]

Reagan had it right.

[@mattwilliams3456]

Carry a shovel with you on any future walks like that, and leave a bit of silence after the comment that no signs of life are visible.

[@geronimo5537]

An faa agent is a low level germ trtying to move up the chain. Why or how he was also at this derelict runway is strange. I wouldnt have shown him anything without being a police officer.

[@SoCalFlyingMonkey]

Well explained Trent. I’m sorry you are going through this. I haven’t seen every single video of yours but ALL of the ones I’ve seen do nothing but show you as a responsible and safe pilot who cares greatly about general aviation and works hard to inspire others and show what’s possible with our amazing freedom to fly. Seems like you should be the last person to have that freedom restricted. I hope the ruling is overturned to prevent the dangerous precedent you mentioned. I think a lot of pilots already feel the external pressure of fear of violation or fear of investigative process during many phases of flight that lead to less safe decisions…such as not declaring an emergency when doing so would be the safest thing to do.

[@kobrapromotions]

Oh wow Socal!

[@mycosys]

About 3 years (and 3 weeks) ago Trent posted "How To Waterski An Airplane, and Why You Probably Shouldn’t" saying that he had received an FAA violation from something he did a year before, then explaining how it works and how to do it. Its quite possible that put the nose of some pen pusher out of joint since this incident would have to be fairly soon after that video.

[@marcfoery4032]

@@cdb9033 that's a different guy

[@Jibbs_actual]

@@cdb9033 Jesus christ that was NOT Trent. That was TREVOR JACOB. Don't start spreading bs when you don't even know the details.

[@lewcoles3378]

I think this could’ve been better explained if the viewers had a image of this property, maybe a google earth screen shot etc. Not defending FAA, just kinda vague description of this location.

[@Johnsonhesp]

"There wasn't a windsock, runway lights or markers so it isn't an acceptable place to land" well I guess every bush pilot and seaplane pilot are now breaking the law when they fly. If these regulations are also applied to heli pilots (I'm a UK based pilot, and not a heli pilot, so I'm unfamiliar with heli + FAA rules) then they're also breaking the law now. Oh and inspection passes and go arounds are also now illegal. What a ridiculous statement and precedent.

[@tonyppe]

exactly why appeal is the required next step. this wont stick, but such a lot of work, time and expense to go through

[@divingfalconfpv4602]

The grass field actually runways here in ny have no lights I ever seen. Though a pilot said once there's a frequency sometimes you can click to turn on lights. I never goggled it

[@Tomyironmane]

Are we surprised? Look at the absolute dog's dinner of a BullSlap Hash they're pulling in Boca Chica. Ask anyone. The worst words in any language are "I'm from the Government and I'm here to help."

[@Ayeshteni]

Inspection passes and go-arounds still wouldn't be illegal, provided you then landed. It would be illegal if you determined that the landing was too dangerous or in some other way unviable and elected not to land. Which is bonkers.

[@GrzegorzDurda]

He violated airspace in a bush plane.

[@clivelohrey218]

Thanks Trent! It takes courage to stand against ego's in a big system and to do what's right.

[@andrewyates7629]

That Judge just created an undue safety hazard to Pilots and Passengers and should be ashamed of their actions, resign, or be fired effective immediately. The NTSB, or whomever has the power to reverse the decision, should rule in your favor. Hopefully you’re talking with AOPA, Flight Safety, the Patey crew, Gryder, and Blancolerio to help get the word out about this Judges’ poor decision making skills. I’m fired up! We should all be making a call to our Senators and Representatives to make sure this decision is reversed and the Judge is removed from their position. What do any of the FAA rules mean if the ones who write them cannot follow them?

[@tedsaylor6016]

When the FAA asked for a "sit down" at their office, that was the time to engage an Attorney and have THEM do the talking. How doing an Inspection Pass or deciding not to land (for whatever reason) is a violation is ridiculous.

[@MACE1-1]

Absolutely correct...!

[@AnthonyRBlacker]

Any time any organization that's involved with alphabet soup (FBI, DEA etc) you NEED a lawyer, never speak alone.. never speak at ALL.. that's what lawyers are for

[@UncategorizedContent]

You said it yourself, it was ridiculous AND there was a perfectly good explanation. Lawyering up immediately would be costly and could give a prosecutor a reason to think you're hiding something. That's not trivial when the judge is also the jury so perception and opinions matter

[@UncategorizedContent]

@@AnthonyRBlacker "Yes sir, you can call your lawyer while we dismantle your vehicle." Better hope that pot head son of yours didn't drop anything when he borrowed your car last week. I'm not saying your son is a pot head, but there could be any number of situations where this strategy could backfire

[@arctain1]

@@UncategorizedContent - no. Completely erroneous advice. By the time the FSDO contacts anyone, they’ve already determined the outcome they are seeking. Boneheaded thought that you may be perceived badly - HINT: THEY ALREADY PERCEIVE YOU BADLY. THAT’S WHY THEY ARE GOING AFTER YOU … - and therefore shouldn’t engage a lawyer is asinine, stupid, and will cause the negative crap to occur, innocent or no. Legal representation is there to have a professional represent YOUR rights from people who want to close your case with guilt, admitted or perceived wrongdoing, or negligence as quickly as possible. An attorney working for you keeps your best interest at the forefront. If you get a call from the FSDO, get an attorney involved before you say ANYTHING. At all. Even if your teenage son isn’t a pothead…

[@pratzj]

I am an attorney, pilot and follower of this channel and this makes me extremely mad.

[@reesenelson9665]

It seems so unfair, it's really upsetting to me, I can't imagine what it's doing to you. This is absolutely horrible

[@clearviewdentistry5558]

Is there value to all of us private pilots signing a petition/rebuttal or anything like that to aid in the appeal process?

[@GabrielManzanero]

@@clearviewdentistry5558 I second this question

[@JeffDooley70]

I second this question. Also.

[@nicholasthon973]

Please reach out to help Trent and his legal team if you can. They need this to not get into case law.

[@m783w]

I’m pretty sure the neighbour was previously disgruntled that there were RC planes flying in his backyard interrupting his “serenity”, there was probably some history or tension between the two property owners. This was the “last straw” for the neighbour who did the report.

[@garycook5125]

90% of my flying is low altitude aerial photography, so your event is a real call for concern for others like myself. Thanks for sharing your story.

[@Keys879]

The FAA has been on some weird stuff recently. I helped an A&P repair an aircraft out of state. We flew out and, using minimal equipment, replaced a window on an aircraft on the field. We set it to cure and made sure it held. The FAA came and inspected it for a school and determined the window was improperly installed. So we flew back out and inspected the work. The window didn't seem to be leaking, falling out, broken, scraped, etc. But we nevertheless uninstalled the window, called the manufacturer and reinstalled the window as per the job card. The FAA inspector came back out and failed the window a second time. Wrote to the A&P's employer, demanding he be fired and stating his license should be revoked. Called our local FSDO and told them the A&P was a danger. So I filed a formal complaint against the FAA Inspector / FSDO and had an investigation launched. Within days the Inspector had the charges dropped and admitted he had no idea what was required for the installation of the window on that specific model of airplane. The local FSDO even admitted it was a bogus claim and made comments of how egregious it was. The FAA ultimately dropped the investigation from my end. The whole thing was terrible and cost the guy his job, literally through no fault of his own. Absolutely ridiculous.

[@beneidem369]

I'm not an aviation law expert, but this sounds exactly opposite to everything I've learned in flight training about landing anywhere. A strict interpretation of this rule might also apply to any missed approach anywhere. Does this mean that when performing an Instrument approach to a runway and you get down to minimums (200ft for a standard ILS) and you don't see the runway so you go around. You are 200 feet above a structure (the approach lighting aids) and because you didn't land, your descent wasn't for the purpose of takeoff or landing? This is backwards to the training every pilot has ever received, yet seems to be the logic being applied here.

[@RonMarish]

Very good points. I need to turn in my certificate because i am guilty of a practice approach without landing

[@jamesbrooks7104]

That's exactly what I was thinking, makes no sense.

[@beneidem369]

Makes me wonder if this rule would be interpreted differently for a practice instrument approach with the intent to go missed, versus an approach with the intent to land but ending up going missed. Also consider that a "low approach" IS a type of landing. You can't put it in your logbook as a landing, but ATC treats a low approach as a landing and departure for traffic count purposes, same as a touch and go or stop and go. In my mind, there's no doubt that Trent was conducting a low approach over a private airstrip and should be perfectly legal, regardless of if he actually intended to put the wheels down on a subsequent pass or not.

[@sizzelot]

I think this judge and FAA attorney both demonstrated they have no common sense which is becoming a pandemic in society today. Its about time all public officials be able to pass a common sense test before they are given a job and fired if they later appear to lose that common sense.

[@matthewchapman3507]

The judge probably isn't a pilot, so they aren't thinking about the can of worms they're about to open with this ruling.

[@JC_Musician]

The number one lesson from this should be, never talk to “law enforcement” without contacting an attorney. My opinion in this case is the FAA is wrong and is setting a dangerous precedent. As stated in the video above, pilots are now effectively required to make a dangerous landing to avoid losing their license if they inadvertently do something the FAA will otherwise suspend their license for.

[@skyhawk_4526]

I don't think it would have helped him to have brought an attorney to the initial meeting at the FSDO. It seemingly hasn't helped him in the subsequent hearings either. And as a pilot, you are required to cooperate and truthfully answer questions in an administrative inquiry. Failure to cooperate could be grounds for suspension as well.

[@JeffDooley70]

Yep, that's what he is saying.

[@davidpringuer3553]

@Ro Herms totally agree 👍

[@DT-jz3wn]

@Ro Herms 100%.

[@RobertMChambers]

Never talk to any kind of law enforcement or FAA functionaries without suitable (meaning aviation knowlegable) representation

[@mvieck68]

Best of luck man. I feel for you and completely understand your worry. Makes me sick, with something that seems so obviously straight forward, that they would rule this way. Especially when the FAA literally write an official procedure for what you did. Again man, good luck, really hope things get corrected.

[@KaonashiKobayashi]

As a flight instructor, this is terrifying. How many short *paved* strips have persons/vehicles/structures that you need to pass over below 500 feet in order to land properly? I can think of three within 25 miles of me. The end result of this precedent is going to be that a go-around at many airports, not just off-field, during a normal approach, becomes illegal. This is fundamentally undermining the golden rule of landings that the FAA and instructors alike have been teaching for years, which is that "you can always go around". Are we really about to enter an age of aviation where I would have to recommend to my students "If you pass within 500 feet of a building you have to land or the FAA is coming for your license."? There needs to be a much bigger fuss about this. I sincerely recommend that people contact their respective congress members and ask them to pressure the FAA for for some sensibility. This is about to severely damage aviation safety and undermine 40 years of ADM principles.

[@the11382]

This sounds like a ruling that would result in a major crash if actually followed. Better not have people die trying to make unsafe landings. I expected more sensibility.

[@nocalsteve]

Relax, this isn’t going to change anything. The rule allows you to fly within 500’ when actually attempting to land. This is about low passes while not attempting to land. Apples and Oranges!

[@TxRocketeer]

@@nocalsteve He was attempting to land. That's the whole point. If this stands, you cannot reject a landing site if you happened to pass within 500 ft. of a person, structure of vehicle. You have to land. Also the whole verbage about the landing needing to be necessary really bothers me. Takeoffs are optional, landings are mandatory. So, I guess we cannot take off now because you cannot make a landing if it is un-necessary? Since when does a bureaucrat get to decide if ANYTHING we want to do is necessary?

[@nocalsteve]

@@TxRocketeer By his own admission, he was doing an “inspection pass” not a landing. He wasn’t landing, he flew over the area and, apparently flew within 500’ of a house. This was not necessary for a landing as he wasn’t attempting to land.

[@greeneggsandsam2014]

I'm 99 percent sure the FARs have a clause within the distance from person/structure regs that says something like: "unless during landing or takeoff". Will go check my copy of the FAR/AIM

[@akpilot9468]

“Requires a wind sock, lights, centerline”?!?? Tell me the FAA Lawyer and Judge have never flown in Alaska without telling me🤣🤣

[@markmcgoveran6811]

You do realize that you can't land in town in Alaska any more than you can land in town anywhere else in America? There was no landing strip there never had been a landing strip there there was a place that people flew toy airplanes so that would probably be a toy airplane landing strip. He is very handy being a doctor of something at finding the regulation saying he can make an inspection pass over landing strip and then say that he couldn't see the landing strip where the landing point was on the landing strip so he couldn't land. He seems to overlook the fact that the regulations also define what is a landing strip. Even a bush pilot from Alaska might know that an RC airplane is a radio-controlled toy airplane. Even a bush pilot from Alaska might know that an RC airplane landing strip is a toy airplane landing strip. If we change the law and made that a landing strip and made those RC airplanes an airplane, everybody could take his radio controlled airplane right down to an airport and fly it. I have great respect for Bush pilots that land and save lives. This guy is not a bush pilot this guy is flying an inspection pass over a toy landing strip. He was in the airspace over a town of some sort. That's why they have a minimum lot requirement of 10 acres. Look at it from the other side if you were a bush pilot and you saw a landing strip on the map and you decided to land there when you got there there's no wind sock and they only fly toy airplanes in and out, would you just shine it on and say great it's your landing field if you can land a toy airplane there. A landing strip is defined legally as a place where airplanes land and take off. No airplane has ever landed on this landing strip only toys have landed there.

[@AureliusR]

@@markmcgoveran6811 What, and I can't say this strongly enough, the HELL are you talking about?

[@markmcgoveran6811]

@@AureliusR I'm talking about this guy States as a fact they have an RC airplane and they have an RC airplane runway. A radio-controlled airplane is a toy. A radio-controlled airplane landing strip is not an airplane landing strip. Can I dumb it down farther for you?

[@AureliusR]

@@markmcgoveran6811 Where, in ANY of this, was an RC plane mentioned? Where are you pulling this BS from?

[@markmcgoveran6811]

@@AureliusR did you watch the video? In the first 2 minutes he says he has a friend who lives in a sparsely populated residential area with a minimum lot size of 10 acres...... Then he goes on to say his friend has an airstrip that he flies in and out of with radio-controlled airplanes.... Then he continues and says his friend asked him to make an inspection pass of his friends property...... Then after he gets in trouble for making an inspection pass over a friend's property and a residential district, he is making an inspection pass over a landing strip.

[@littleferrhis]

As a CFI I always get nervous doing manuevers around like any houses(especially ground reference) because the FAA does not give a fuck about pilots. It never has. Just look at their engine out recommendations for night flight where they want you to land in unlighted areas(I always tell students to screw that rule land on an empty road. Or their ancient mental health laws that I’m still working through to this day. They didn’t suspend you because you brome a rule, they suspended you because someone got scared and thought it MIGHT be illegal. The FAA cares about the image of aviation, the rules are just an extension of that.

[@thengine7]

You learned the lesson that every white collar criminal knows. The real crime is to get caught. White collar crime is unbelievably rampant... it's just that NO one goes after it unless someone pisses someone off in the government.

[@kevin.keen.socialmedia]

I agree. The FAA likely received a complaint and decided that Trent did a low pass and busted 500 AGL, regardless of how the regulation is actually written and what Trent was actually doing. I don't think landing would have altered the outcome for Trent if it was possible.

[@lovetofly32]

Yeah no joke. And what has always blown my mind is the strict laws on aviation just simply because people are scared of flying and heights. If the same kind of logic applied to motor vehicles we would even be able to drive anywhere! I mean every damn day we pass other vehicles on two lane roads twards eachother inches appart from alot of other drivers with not only little experience but a car that's never been inspected! I mean seriously! They could have tires about to blow or steering about to fail and they get to freely drive at you at a combined speed of over 100 mph! And that kinda shit DOES happen every damn day killing people! But ohhhh if it has wings and flys we gotta have strict inspections on that! Doesn't make any sense.

[@ryanpayne7707]

Personally, this is why I'm planning to pick up a pair of PVS-14s and get some practice with them before I fly at night solo.

[@scenicbearviewing]

Say roads do not make the best runways. There are signs to hit, light poles, power lines, bridges ect. Except for a big empty interstate highway.

[@notpoliticallycorrect]

You did an excellent job articulating this legal case! Please let us know the outcome of the appeal. We love you and we appreciate all that you do!

[@thesleepyweasel3775]

"... it's now down to 60 days, which is better." And that's how they get you. Threaten with something ridiculous, so you feel relieved when you're only abused "a little."

[@tonyppe]

this will be reversed and I hope trent can recoup lost earnings from them as compensation.

[@MACE1-1]

The FAA is full of federal employees who do not fly, have no interest in aviation, and are sucking the government tit and everyone is up in arms with surprise because of their behavior...If you guys only knew what goes on at FISDooky behind closed doors it would make you sick to your stomach...

[@krozareq]

@@tonyppe Not likely that's going to happen. The feds screw people over all the time. It's their favorite pastime. He screwed up by talking to them in the first place without representation. That's how they get people.

[@Ayodehi]

Please tell me you're not going this alone.. definitely something that AOPA, EAA, and all the other advocate groups should be rallying behind. I can't imagine this judge has ever stepped foot in a bush plane.

[@bamascubaman]

Time to mobilize the rest of pilot industry to your defense, get those amicus briefs in your defense filed.

[@nmnmnm35]

He needs more help than them

[@bamascubaman]

@@nmnmnm35 if it takes more than them, it probably proves that this is a corrupt deal. If so, it might not be possible to bring enough to bear to win.

[@timmythepilot]

i think the Faa & Ntsb are trying their best to take the"F" out of Flying. Which means their " Lying". Everyone needs to get behind Trent. Carry on my man carry on. !!!!!

[@JazNBlue]

Great idea Ben. There is absolutely no reason he should have to do this alone. This is a crazy situation and the Judges ruling in that case is extremely wrong.

[@andrewstewart3133]

This is what we in the land down under would call a “cluster f_ck” is circumstances, egos, jealously, a vindictive neighbour, etc. The system is failing you Trent! Please don’t do this alone as per another comment. And yes Squarespace is awesome and I use it for my business in Melbourne Australia. Good luck with the appeal.

[@es330td]

Thanks for fighting the good fight! As someone aspiring to someday own property with a landing strip I appreciate you doing this.

[@TheRagnorox]

Just another case of the FAA overstepping their authority! Fight the good fight Trent!

[@AshtrayAnnie]

Isn’t this the same guy that did a whole rant about that other KZbin pilot that purposely crashed his plane? Maybe it’s karma going around lol?

[@1zanglang]

@@AshtrayAnnie No. It isn't karma. Probably, you didn't listen what he said in this video, or you didn't understand. The two situations you mentioned have absolutely nothing in common.

[@AshtrayAnnie]

@@1zanglang I 100% understood. You’re clearly missing what was being said lol In other words, talking about someone else’s situation that you have a VERY limited knowledge of….when you should just keep quiet and let the investigators do their jobs….Is bad karma. Hence now the karmas being returned his way, and no his license is suspended lol.

[@AshtrayAnnie]

@@parttimecripple that’s not how karma works silly😂. You would just go to jail if that’s what was in order and you did something beyond the law. It’s not “I should go to jail” it’s “you will”. It’s so funny and cute how you twist words without understanding the meaning. Awww

[@Tubajock2]

That's an insane ruling. As someone with an aviation law minor I find this incredibly concerning.

[@jayklink851]

I have a friend, who is honestly, quite the skilled pilot, but never officially received his license. If he were to get caught, could they permanently impound his aircraft? How severe are the penalties for flying without a license?

[@soyanarchisto4443]

@@jayklink851 The FAA can only really revoke a certificate - so if your "friend" doesn't have one to begin with well there's not much more they can do to him. There are other problems however with civil liability - so your friend better never, ever screw up and damage property or hurt someone because the gross negligence will mean he will then lose everything else he might own and insurance companies will never pay out. My dad use to say, "Boy, only break 1 law at a time!"

[@Tubajock2]

@@jayklink851 I cannot give legal advice in not an attorney

[@southjerseysound7340]

as a ag pilot this would make everything I do illegal. There's no way I could operate. Flying from airports just isn't feasible with some of the windows I've got. Not to mention the costs for the farmers😮

[@Complete.cyclepath]

Fuck em and fly

[@flyinbryanfpv]

Honestly, that may be a good point for the attorney to use in the appeal... idk

[@southjerseysound7340]

@@flyinbryanfpv I've already sent some emails his way including contact information for myself and some very experienced and respected ag guys in his area that are willing to help in anyway possible/needed.

[@pipthebadger3723]

@@flyinbryanfpv could be a good protest to this ruling too. "Sorry the country isn't getting fed, but the FAA said my job is illegal now"

[@flyinbryanfpv]

Good. Wonder if a petition is possible...? This would have a significant effect on farmers and other ag operations. Apologies as I'm not familiar with large ag operations but is there like a farmer association/guild/group that might put pressure on the faa? (Especially if they see increased cost) Im actually curious about heli operations? There's a heli here in the east coast that swings a saw blade for high voltage lines in the mountains.... seems like this could potentially have an effect on this type of operation as well.

[@pushing2throttles]

13:00... you put it clearly enough. I'm a commercial pilot and CFI. I understand your argument about case law precedent and agree with the problem your case creates.

[@flytelaw1]

As both a Lawyer and Airline Pilot, I can say that there is a lot here to "chew" on. An Appeal usually can only be made upon the grounds of either a "mistake" in law or in "fact" or a combination of mistake in "law and fact". Certain findings by the presiding arbiter/Judge may be difficult to put aside. Trent, I would be happy to review the Judgment to see what evidentiary issues and appealable grounds there may be and to review what findings in fact the Judge has established. I agree that there is a "slippery slope" precedent argument and the rules to "stare decisis" look to the level from where that decision is made in combination with applicability of the facts to the case. The question as to the "chilling effect" on the flying community because of this decision has yet to be established. I am inclined to ask the question as to whether the Judge deliberately wanted to induce an Appeal to settle this area in law once and for all????? I suspect that many people have had cases similar to your case. I think your concern for the flying community at large is both honourable and worthy of support from that same community. I think an online petition would be valuable and sensible in your case. I think the vast majority of the flying community are behind you as we collectively see the potential of falling prey to the same unfortunate circumstances. Good luck and keep your chin up:-)

[@nicholasthon973]

Please help this case, this is important and needs more than one legal mind to prevent it from horribly slipping into case law.

[@retiredsmlltwncop3985]

Well opined! Most impressive!

[@davegraff]

Why does this judge overturn the precedent set by the FAA "allowing" every other go-around in history? Isn't that a precedent that needs to be respected?

[@cf453]

As a surveyor, I would certainly question the measurement technique he described. There's no way I would be comfortable making even a _qualitative_ determination based on that evidence. That said, I would also question if this is a case of some dudebro youtuber misrepresenting buzzing his buddy's house to get the social media dogs out.

[@mderline4412]

Where (and how), does one find the text of the actual ruling !? I stumbled around the FAA site, with just Trent Palmers name ! Hoping you'll accept, Perry Masons $1. ;)

[@Bofadees]

Trent I’ll say this, having dealt with ALJ’s from other Federal Government agencies, as a lawyer based upon what you’re telling us, this Judge screwed up so badly that the ruling will never stand. I wish you all the best!!

[@KnightDriveTV]

Yeah, but the person defending themselves has to endure the cost of forcing the legal system to correct its error...hopefully. Federal level agencies...BLM, FAA, WildLife and Fisheries...good luck facing those agencies. Their enforcement agents are all maniacs in my experience.

[@Bofadees]

@@KnightDriveTV Trent isn’t defending himself, but I get what you’re saying. If this gets past the administrative law stage and into the Federal Courts, I would expect AOPA, EAA and others to join in helping defend him and overturn this ruling.

[@pilotboy217]

@@Bofadees wrong, I guarantee Trent was trying to land on someones property and private airfield when it was unnecessary and there was no emergency to be there. I think he made a mistake thinking that everywhere is a viable landing place for him. And the fact he didn't land made it even worse because he made multiple low passes and we all know how low Trent be flying 😂

[@nunziobusiness1509]

@@pilotboy217 Someone didn't pay attention to the video. Do you know how big 10 acres is?? A landing doesn't have to be "necessary" based on the conditions of the chosen landing site. Sounds to me like you're the Karen neighbor who tattled to the FAA.

[@bruce2357]

@@nunziobusiness1509 I do I worked in surveying. If it was an exact square it would 660' on each side. It's 435,600 square feet so if it's a rectangle then any combination of length and widths that equal 435,600 when multiplied would be 10 acres. If it's oddly shaped then it gets more complicated. Approximately 7.55 football fields with the end zones included.

[@nathanputratz1341]

Your KZbin Channel was the reason I got into flying! The reason I took Sporty's Online course! Also You have been such a positive influencer on us aviators across the world. Don't give up for us GA guys.

[@VictoryAviation]

He is super positive. He's also a positive influence on the entire aviation community. The FAA should be thanking him for keeping pilots accountable for their actions.

[@capnpete1154]

FAA overreach, again. They have way too much authority and way too little understanding of the facts.

[@wolfsokta]

Same here! I wouldn’t have gotten my license without Trent’s influence.

[@grayrabbit2211]

Similar story here. Trent's videos got me interested in aviation. Would I ever do back-country flying like this myself? Nope. I'm a low-time pilot and know my limitations. But Bush flying is essential in parts of the country and I have the utmost respect for people who pull it off safely. What passes for VFR conditions in Alaska would make any Lower 48 pilot shudder.

[@cantutacticalstocks]

Well done. Thanks for making the video. Your pursuit of justice for other pilots is admirable, honorable and worth the cause for all pilots. As a West Point graduate who understands the value of honor with our Honor Code your journey and time & money for justice is beyond reproach. I hope someone truly understands the value and error of the past FAA ruling made in your case. Isn’t that why we have Go-arounds? (Passed Army helicopter pilot and fixed wing pilot.) You are a first class pilot in my books!

[@slickit86]

I hope someone of influence sees this video and is able to "catch" this situation before it gets more out of hand. Good call on making a video about your experience in this case.

[@adamr9215]

That judge needs to be investigated. For him to ignore the FAA’s own rules and make a false conviction is a crime. The FAA lawyer needs to be disbarred as well.

[@DemonratsRevil]

😂😂 please see the second amendment to the constitution if you think that judges are expected to uphold the laws of the land.

[@jerm1386]

This is a bad take. It is literally the FAA's Lawyer's job to make the best case against Trent as possible. You'd be disbarring them for doing their job. And as Trent alluded, there is significant deference given to the administrations that write and enforce these rules. I think this is a case where too much deference was given and a wrong decision was reached. The solution here is to make sure you're prepared on appeal to explain why this Judge's ruling was Clearly Erroneous given the existing material provided by the FAA for instances exactly like this, where Trent was following the best practices of the FAA itself. Was there ignorance on the part of the FAA investigator and the judge in this case? Sure sounds like it. Was there behavior that would result in a judge being investigated or an attorney being sanctioned? Not likely.

[@yonghominale8884]

@@jerm1386 you can be disbarred for gross incompetence.

[@skrzek]

@@jerm1386 There is a difference between preparing a case for somebody and knowingly misrepresenting the law to the judge. Misrepresentation in case of a lawyer is criminal.

[@jerm1386]

@@yonghominale8884 Yeah somehow I doubt "Zealously advocated for their side of the argument" and "Allowed the judge to come to a conclusion" falls into the realm of gross incompetence. I think part of what was at play here is the prosecuting attorney's case was so batshit crazy (good-faith interpretations of the law can be batshit crazy or dead wrong, but can still be made in good faith) that Trent's lawyer wasn't prepared to discuss the implications the interpretation could have (or didn't do a good job convincing the judge of the broader implications), and the judge wasn't interested in thinking for themself

[@Jahdoh]

My take: You’re a victim of your friend’s neighbor who obviously has a beef with your friend, yourself or aviation in general. I’m surprised the FAA even took it this far. Best wishes. Do what you can and keep broadcasting your journey through life & aviation. You’re a great pilot. PS: The not landing after an inspection pass is idiocy. A legal oxymoron.

[@richardmartin6533]

perhaps Trent should sue his friend's neighbors for legal expenses, punitive damages, lost wages... etc., etc. teach them a lesson for sticking their nose in other people's business...

[@barefootalien]

Yeah, it sounds to me like this neighbor is some sort of local official or businessperson with a lot of political clout, throwing their weight around. There should be consequences for that kind of thing. That isn't what this country is supposed to stand for.

[@RADIOACTIVEBUNY]

@@barefootalien I mean... there can be...

[@barefootalien]

@@RADIOACTIVEBUNY Rarely. Too rarely.

[@yamkaw346]

Haha yeah I’d fly over that neighbor at 501 feet in circles all day

[@KavaKavana]

Keep up the good fight. If logic in the courts prevails which it still may then hopefully this whole case gets tossed out. Best of luck, thanks for sharing

[@jeffbailey7328]

Trent! I just got my tailwheel endorsement last week and my PPL a month before that. Your videos including a few other aviation KZbinrs kept me motivated when I hit a Plateau in my studies. Thanks for fighting back and helping to keep aviation accessible for the rest of us.

[@PARTner91]

Trent, you’ve done a great job presenting this information without letting your emotions dictate how you present it. Thank you for appealing this ruling, to help all of us backcountry pilots. We appreciate your effort to fight it.

[@FeralPreacher]

This is a great example of some "legal team" flexing its muscle saying 'We control whatever we want, and you have no recourse'. Typical bureaucracy at its worst. Good luck in fighting this travesty of justice. The dangers that this precedence will cause are immeasurable. Thanks for sharing.

[@Faithful_Tribe]

Probably just didn’t like his plane because it has patriotic coloring.

[@geoh7777]

In some countries like France (which gifted us the word "bureaucracy"), you have to make friends with the bureaucrats first, then they will do for you the task that only they are allowed to do.

[@JimSefton]

@@Ryan-mq2mi You have a good point but it is not relevant to what we are talking about here. By the sounds of it Trent should have been allowed to land there (legally, I mean, it's his friend's land). The issue of whether it pissed off his neighbour or whether he should have tried to make him happy is nothing to do with this. It's a bit like my neighbours having a party in their garden every weekend and being noisy... providing they do it in the day and not at night there is nothing I can do about it... sure it makes them bad neighbours but doesn't mean it gives me any right to try to get them on a technicality that they hung their washing at the wrong height or something... This is just plain ridiculous. And just to clarify, the issue here in this video is the FAA, not the neighbour... they are the experts and should make the right decisions, no matter who reported it. If it wasn't the neighbour it could have been the postman or a passer by, it shouldn't matter.

[@EfficientRVer]

@@JimSefton Having a friend with an airplane doesn't give you a right to have them buzz the neighborhood. This was not a suitable place to land an airplane, because if it were, Trent would have stuffed his plane in there with no problem.

[@johnnybarbar7435]

@@Ryan-mq2mi With 10 acres at the RC strip, I seriously doubt the neighbor is getting "buzzed".

[@ZuluLifesaBeech-]

I've heard some stupid bureaucratic crap in my life but, THIS is in the top 5!!! Fight this miscarriage of justice, Sir! As you said this fight is for all pilots. I pray you will win for all American aviators! 🇺🇸 🙏

[@circusboy90210]

12:58 an extremely dangerous precedent , it ignores the whole reason for an inspection pass. please do fight this.

[@n7565j]

I live in rural western NC, and if this ruling sticks flight instructors could loose thier ticket for just pulling the power on a student doing practice power out landings!!! This is insane!!!

[@Keys879]

The FAA is out of line.

[@Zookieb4]

I dont think that's the same situation because even tho you're pulling the power in order to land. Palmers intent was not to land during his first pass.

[@pnwnative4465]

@@Zookieb4 it was a necessary part of the land/don’t land decision. Can you explain how his behavior of arriving at the land/don’t land decision (which was textbook by the governing body prosecuting him) was ‘not part of the landing process?’

[@batymahn]

We live in insane times!

[@nate4036]

@@pnwnative4465 exactly. Definitely want to look over a spot a couple times. First for my safety, second for anyone else’s safety, and lastly for the safety of the plane. This is ridiculous. There’s some guys that land beside the Mexican restaurant to eat in Ocoee TN. They land in a 100-200’ and take off even shorter. Literally less than a 100’ from 411 hwy, and within 50’ of building. No one says anything.

[@nigelappleton2963]

Using the FAA’s logic here, it would seem that missed approaches and go-arounds could violate the law if you chose to not actually land at that airport. Bet the airline industry will just love that!!

[@justsomeguy6474]

That is how a child would look at it.

[@clarkgriswold-zr5sb]

With the PIC ultimately responsible, it sounds to me like an ATC commanded go around could result in a 91.13 and 91.119 violation. Lots of people placed at risk in the back, and on the ground. This needs to go to the FAA chief lawyer for interpretation. Or a friendly congressman to intervene - again - in FAAs chronic stuupidity.

[@lIlIlIlIlIlIlIllIlIlIlIlIlIlI]

Never seen an airline land at an off airport spot with no markings or runway lights 🤦

[@PlasticAssasin8]

nah, if it has a marked runway, even a sock they wouldn't pursue it

[@skyhawk_4526]

@@PlasticAssasin8 So all he needs is for his friend to put up a windsock, and he's good to try it again.

[@dylanc2806]

so basically dont do an inspection pass just land no matter the risk. got it, good job guys

[@juststeve5542]

No, do the inspection pass (it's in the book), but no matter what you see, you must then complete a landing. Sounds dangerous to me FAA...

[@dylanc2806]

@@juststeve5542 yep doesnt matter if its a crowd of people having lunch you must land or you will lose your license

[@dougbradley193]

There’s a bus of nuns in the middle of the landing strip/area. Sorry nuns but per the FAA, we both have to fit, no matter what. I mean, what if someone fills out a hurt feelings report with the FAA!!?? I hate it but it seems to me that like every other three-letter federal agency, it looks more like it has nothing to do with regulations, law, or common sense and everything to do with control. More freedoms at stake here.

[@FreemanFPS]

@@juststeve5542 They are turning an inspection pass into a forced landing. As long as you have power you are not obligated to land. I think the FAA made a huge mistake.

[@MAHONEY1940]

Should have done a touch and go.

[@TailwheelTimes]

You need a better attorney. This case never should have even made it to a hearing. You are correct, we cannot afford to lose the appeal. I hope AOPA and EAA step up to help. Good luck.

[@pyroman698]

I was about to say, AOPA and EAA should have a contact within this case due to the precedence of this ruling. The ruling will affect soooo much of GA. Seems like the FAA is going back 50 steps instead of forward 2.

[@donbrowncfi]

Hmmm, made it to hearing, got suspended, it’s almost as if Trent isn’t telling the whole story

[@jcmcclain57]

@@donbrowncfi I tend to agree with your opinion. If I were in his position I would be laser focused on the alleged violation and specifics related to codes violated. He was very generalized in his statements. Not knowing the whole story, it is hard to judge the situation. More specific details of the exact violations should have been given with specific defenses argued. It sounds a bit like sour grapes because he actually admitted that it was his airplane and him flying. Regardless of physical evidence your voluntary admission on the record is enough to convict in any court. First rule in any type of enforcement encounter, I invoke my right to remain silent and have an attorney.

[@johnbierman4200]

Don’t disparage his attorney, you can’t win against those who have closed minds.

[@nickpedersen3032]

Umm...he actually explained the regs they claim were in violation, why, and what was argued in defense. The only thing that may be "sketchy" is that he wasn't actually doing a low inspection pass, but just flying by to say hi.

[@flyer1297]

During every checkride I’ve been through, I was tested on my aeronautical decision-making to perform a go around or missed approach if you, as the pilot, do not feel comfortable with continuing the approach. It’s crazy how their ruling contradicts what they preach.

[@craigsanders6925]

Did a go around on my first landing on my PPL checkride, gusting winds caused me to balloon and then drop, going around...... I was certainly within 500 feet of two planes waiting to take the runway.

[@MACE1-1]

NO its not crazy...Its what the FAA has done for the past 30-40 years that I know of...The FAA is full of a bunch of non-flying idiots...

[@SergeantExtreme]

WhistlinDiesel: Hey FAA! Can I drop a Hilux from a helicopter at 10,000 feet? FAA: Sure. We have no problem with this. Trent Palmer: Hey FAA! Can I do an inspection pass of a runway to make sure I'm comfortable with landing safely at the location? FAA: WHAT?!? F**K NO!!! That's reckless and irresponsible behavior!!!

[@kennycampbell24]

As a seaplane pilot I’d hate to have this precedent used against me. There’s no runway markers, lights, or windsocks in the middle of the water. And there’s no way I’m landing in a new body of water without multiple inspection passes. And of course I don’t want to be forced to land anytime I do a low inspection pass and conclude I’m not comfortable.

[@MrMaxeemum]

Seems you need to make that runway legal, put a windsock up etc then land and take off regularly just make sure the neighbour gets the message.

[@amoliski]

I was thinking the same. Lots of go-arounds to make sure you're landing as perfectly as possible, I'm sure the neighbor won't mind multiple passes in the interest of safety!

[@mattwilliams3456]

@@amoliski Organize a fly in.

[@saltMagic]

@@mattwilliams3456 on an early sunday morning

[@chad5617]

Yesssssss please. Make it happen.

[@SB5v]

Why? No one should feel hostility in their own home. I don't think its unreasonable to not want a plane flying low over your backyard..Also consider without context the neighbour saw or heard a plane flying low for no apparent reason and reported it. Thats pretty normal.

[@NovejSpeed3]

Trent isn't worried about his verdict he's worried what this could do to back country flying if it's upheld. He's basically worried how this could effect others and their love for aviation.

[@Tkamsker]

exactely i can invite all of you in our country (Europe except France ) where this is already the case We even require an "tower" in small grass airfields ) so beware the beginnings fight for your freedom !!

[@pinkdispatcher]

@@Tkamsker You are saying in France off-field landings are allowed? I'm not far from the border, maybe I should explore this some time.

[@tedferkin]

@@Tkamsker Yup it almost feels in the UK that they are trying to get rid of GA flying. Airspace restrictions are getting worse and worse each year, there are very few areas left for recreational flying, and most areas you have to be fully kitted up and endorsed for full IFR.

[@ThomasGabrielsen]

A good point!

[@daniels2761]

@@tedferkin heck in the US we barely have GA aviation. Have to be a millionaire to afford it too. Aside from the big iron boys you're talking 50+ year old planes for $50k+.

[@allrightspreserved4766]

Never talk to ANY government body without going through an attorney. THEY ARE ONLY THERE TO RUIN YOUR LIFE AT ANY COST if they think you did even the slighted thing wrong (because it justifies their actions in their minds). When they called him for a “meeting” it was to let him talk himself into trouble. He should have forwarded the request directly to his lawyer, and this likely would have just gone away.

[@GaragebandandBeyond]

FAA regulations have stifled aviation industry for decades. There are sooooo many ridiculous regulations, I mean hell a guy with an older airplane can't put a modern, reliable and efficient engine in because of the regulations. How is that keeping us safer? Sorry to hear that you're going through it....it's never fun dealing with any government agency that is not spending their own money.

[@daniels2761]

The FAA has become exceedingly efficient at ruining private aviation.

[@GaragebandandBeyond]

@@redfox435cat Yeah but if you fly something like a Tri-Pacer for example, you are stuck with the 1950's technology under the cowling.

[@hortojef]

@@sncy5303 Exactly. More than anyone else, the lawyers have done the most damage to US general aviation. The government's part of this is creating the bureaucratic framework that lawyers then exploit for their own gain... it's a miracle US general aviation even exists considering the compounded impact of government bureaucracy and rampant litigation... I suppose one day they'll succeed in actually killing it, then they'll move on to the next host...

[@JL-bd3gt]

@@criticalevent Not at all, they want to destroy GA in favor of the airlines.

[@ShuRugal]

@@sncy5303 FAA regulations enable litigation culture. add to that, the laws forbidding NTSB findings in court make it impossible for MFRs to defend themselves from frivolous lawsuits when some idiot flies a perfectly good plane into the ground. A few years back, some lawyer came into the Mooneyspace forum asking if someone had a J-model he could disassemble in front of the courthouse to show off how "dangerous" the dual magnetos are.... in relation to a case where some idiot took off with five gallons of WATER in each fuel tank and died as a result. NTSB findings were very straightforward, but Textron was stuck defending themselves against this lawyer's fucking circus act because those findings are inadmissible.

[@ivansemanco6976]

On the one side FAA publish instructions for outlanding, on the other they punishes you for following them... Strange. Thanks Trent for all your work for us.

[@bwcritch]

You'd think they'd use this situation as an example of smart decisions because rather than making the unsafe landing, Trent weighed out the risks while making the pass and aborted the landing, as any good pilot should have.

[@ivansemanco6976]

@@bwcritch Exactly.

[@snsdb42]

Wow 😯 I’m a student pilot and “go arounds” are drilled in as a safety necessity. I really hope you win your appeal. Sounds like maybe the “neighbor” had an axe to grind and knows someone 😏 Best of luck

[@BeardedPilot]

Sorry to hear! There are some seriously ruthless and unjust people in position of power... The judge did not think this through logically... Something needs to change... You have my full support...

[@joshwold2000]

I feel way more stressed about this than is normal. Without knowing details, it feels like the FAA/NTSB are making examples of very visible figures to portray themselves as strict. I truly hope this isn’t the end of this. We’ve lost way too many freedoms. We can’t let aviation fall into those rising levels of restriction. I’m so sorry this has happened to you Trent. We’re all rooting for you.

[@TheScottClifton]

This is such a BS situation, I can't believe this even went to a hearing. Hopefully the AOPA is involved and is also fighting this decision.

[@fredwilliams8305]

As a member of the Experimental Aircraft Association I was pleased to learn that they wholeheartedly support Trent in his appeal to the FAA.

[@brandon1566]

Faa has become a complete joke, half of them don't have a clue about the regs they state.

[@pub6023]

You are 100% correct in standing your ground, all private pilot’s owe you a special thanks for preventing the precedent being set. If you lose the appeal then all pilots might as well burn their licences and the FAA guidelines book!

[@allanhitchmoth3099]

"Necessary Landing Procedure" Sounds to me like someone is willfully misrepresenting the law itself. I'm not a pilot.... not even close... but I know the difference between a "Necessary Landing" and a "Necessary Procedure" for landing.... which would, of course be a "Necessary Landing Procedure." It's not the landing that's necessary, it's the procedure. I just got off a jury, and you wouldn't believe the convolutions of language and reason I had to deal with..... At this point, it's beginning to sound like the system itself is becoming more of a threat to the general public than the "bad guys" we're all trying to get rid of! 😡

[@nicklikesradio]

Thats because of the bad guys in it and the good guys who follow the letter instead of the spirit

[@BradAcquilin]

Like the ATF??

[@volatile100]

Beginning to? It has been like that for decades.

[@pws3rd170]

@@BradAcquilin no no, it’s clearly the AFT, as per Biden

[@tankacebo9128]

you're beginning to believe.

[@dgkcpa1]

Reminds me of the FAA's treatment of air show pilot and aviation great Bob Hoover. The FAA said he wasn't fit to fly. Other countries, medical and aviation experts disagreed. Bob won his case after 3 years, and said the following: “What happened was wrong… and what happened to me is still happening, every day, to aviators everywhere who did not have the expert help I had.”

[@androidphone1901]

Really?? To Bob Hoover?? They never talk about that one

[@Captain_Dark]

@@androidphone1901 Yea he was perfectly fine to fly and flew way better than most pilots. They said he was too old.

[@charleswesley9907]

@@Captain_Dark Too old ? He could out fly all of them . And he was in excellent condition. His problem was a FAA idiot.

[@rex8255]

There's another fellow named Bruno Vassal. He had his license suspended for 7 months because he was asked to do an impromptu aerobatics display at an air show. He did so, perfectly safely, never flying over the crowd, etc. His heinous crime? He didn't fill out paperwork to get permission from our Lord and Masters in DC.

[@charleswesley9907]

@@rex8255 Yet , a youtuber flew his powered parachute to almost 18,000 ft just outside of a class B airspace , put it on KZbin . Another to 15,000 ft and put it on youtube . You know they didnt have a Mode S transponder . I havent heard anything about them getting busted. They claim its legal to do so. One powered chute had a plane pass directly under him on another video. He said with astonishment , he didnt see me!

[@duuurs]

I really believe aviation litigation cases like this SHOULD have a jury, maybe 5 or 7 currently certified pilots or at least pilots who at one point held a license/certificate for more than 1 year. It would help diffuse the institutional bias.

[@RobertMChambers]

That would never happen, the FAA would actually have to prove their point to sway the jury... this way they just have to tell the ALJ what the truth is (because they are the truth) and he needs to suspend/revoke

[@uploadJ]

Actually, it IS possible to get this action before a normal court and OUT of ALJ hands ...

[@zachv1942]

Should throw a mechanic in there. We go by the book.

[@TheIbkiss]

Wow I feel for you, I wish you all the best and hope sense prevails

[@rztricky]

Trent is absolutely correct The thought of this violation threat is the last thing a pilot needs to fixate on in that flash moment of a crucial decision to commit, or in emergency

[@g-rod5199]

The FAA seems once they "Invest" Man hours into a case follow the original notion that was had. They are utilizing this to set an example, since they know that you are a knowledgeable bush pilot on KZbin. And THANK YOU for appealing, not only did you not do anything wrong per FAA's instructional manuals on Off airport landing you are standing up and making sure this isn't an inherent loss of flying privilege's. You are right, if this is the case, that inspection passes are illegal, if you deem it unsafe and don't land, then that creates an inherently more dangerous airspace, due to pilots feeling that they are legally obligated to land or face penalties, fines, and suspension on flying....

[@deekamikaze]

So would this be a good basis, if you forced a landing, to sue the FAA because you HAVE TO land by law after doing an inspection pass? Seems like the FAA is setting themselves up for failure.

[@g-rod5199]

@@deekamikaze I honestly don't think so, seeing the FAA would be very difficult, the government backing means they will be VERY unlikely to admit fault on their own account... but that is a good point, I think it would happen, but winning the case would be extremely difficult.

[@apengelly86]

knowledgeable bush pilot on KZbin 100% this is why he should of told the public sooner he might of got more support and it would of problably gone away when they realised how stupid they are being but because he kept it to his self witch is admirable but stupid.

[@oldscratch3540]

Agreed, it's a goof judge.

[@garylanthrum5544]

Trent: Thanks for fighting to establish a reasonable precedent for the rest of us. We're all wishing you success in this battle - both for yourself, and for the rest of us that land off airport from time to time. The potential downsides if this goes the wrong way are scary.

[@mchase4]

What a complete waste of time by the FAA. Glad you are sticking to your guns and fighting it

[@jacksons_drones]

Trent, you are the banner child for private pilot safety and operations. You do your best to stay within compliance and are a great role model for experienced and novice private pilots like myself. It’s a real shame they have chosen to come after you. It doesn’t feel right… and I think many can agree.

[@ImTK3K]

This is absolutely insane to me. I have no idea how anyone with half a brain could see this any other way than how you presented it. The fact that there is literally an FAA guide to off airport landings that you followed to a T but yet they're still trying to make an example of you is insane. Wishing you the best of luck in your appeal Trent, I appreciate you fighting for the rest of us.

[@Cougar1212]

You answered your own quiery, Their decision was what it was BECAUSE they have half a brain!

[@zefallafez]

Even if someone in government has half a brain, they are trained not to use it.

[@philwoods2255]

Because there is more to the story than Trent’s side?

[@seaward206]

I’m so grateful to all of my FAA instructors and tower controllers. But the FAA administration is like a crazy uncle that you just can’t trust. Good work Trent. You’re fighting for all pilots and aviation enthusiasts now and for years to come.

[@christopherwhull]

The FAA administrative people are goverment job lawyers, because if they were commercial pilots they would be working the line in the demand market. Trent who is also a commercial drone pilot will experience a significant economic loss because some Karen called the FAA hotline and emailed second hand video. What Trent should have done is sent his lawyer to the first meeting to properly respond to the 2nd hand video....a lawyer can properly phrase "what is hell is that?" long before admitting to flying in the area in the most recognizable single engine aircraft since the sprit of st louis. Now we have to get a Reno FISDO official moved to somewhere he can no longer harm general aviation.

[@Jason_The_Man]

My Dad was a senior Capt for Continental back in the 80’s. He did some time in the training Dept and he hated the FAA. They’d pass guy that my dad would not and they’d argue with him. He kicked them off his aircraft.

[@josiatokirina1788]

Basically, your friends property/landing site was not suitable do to unfriendly neighbors! Thank you Trent for sharing your difficult experience.

[@kerbalairforce8802]

Unfortunately, he couldn't identify a Karen from the air

[@emergencylowmaneuvering7350]

Dont bring excuses for FAA abuses. All pilots should fight those bad FAA inspectors. No excuses for them. No help to their evil an power trips.

[@flycory]

Normalize the inspection pass. Personally this makes me angry. Sorry Trent.

[@harrisonprickett5290]

Sounds like the Off airport guide needs to be written into the regs. Since apparently it means nothing according to this ALJ

[@skyhawk_4526]

@@harrisonprickett5290 I hope he wins the appeal. It's nuts that the FAA isn't even considering their own publication in hearing this case.

[@blegi1245]

@@harrisonprickett5290 no, you just have to make the inspection pass at or above 500 feet. And if you abort the subsequent landing below 500 feet that's illegal. The regulations are only for your safety.

[@Astro95Media]

I'm pissed ... Trevor Jacob gets a slap on the wrist for intentionally crashing a plane, disposing of the wreckage and trying to deceive the world about it. Trent safely flies away after deciding a situation is potentially dangerous and gets suspended. This judge is a moron at best.

[@sfergson727]

@@blegi1245 that is the dumbest thing I have ever heard. So if I encounter wind shear on short final and go around, that is illegal? Give me a effing break.

[@jennieanddavis]

This is crazy. Can’t imagine how hard this has been for you - sorry you had to go through this. Thanks for sharing this with us.

[@namnis1192]

Dude is a wanker, can’t even consider he made mistakes.

[@rkmacdonald]

And you wonder people don’t want to cooperate with government agents.

[@robertstutzman9928]

Also who had this remote home adjacent to your friend who is probably annoyed with the RC traffic already and has the ability to get them to act with inadmissible vidio like using Hearsay evidence to start proceedings. Must have a "good old boy" pulling strings 😡 sorry just my opinion..been there...

[@michaeldose2041]

@@rkmacdonald Uh, well, I for one don't. Anything you say can and will be held against you. That along with the presumption of guilt and unlimited resources makes any government agent very dangerous.

[@tammylbarnett1]

You have to fight for yourself and all others who are in the same situation! The training and handbooks are there for reason... If it's not truths as of today the fight! My brother in law is a pilot too and I wouldn't want him to see him in this situation either! Good luck!

[@Project-Air]

Well, this is messed up. These regulations seem so inconsistent. Hope you get it sorted, Trent!

[@paul8645]

Yooooo your here i love your channel

[@paul8645]

😸😸

[@seektruth3307]

The "regulations" are not inconsistent, it is unscrupulous bureaucrats who will twist the rules to enhance their careers regardless of who is harmed in the process. Big government at its best.

[@weaselsworld]

Kinda makes one wonder who that douchebag neighbor knows. Probably some crotchety old guy who's already repeatedly outraged over his neighbor flying RC aircraft around and disturbing his afternoon nappies, so he took this as another tattle opportunity. Entitled assholes ruin everything. Also, what a freaking circus. The FAA gets to spend days, weeks and months putting together their own case against you, without ever really communicating with your own lawyer (which they're supposed to be doing), and wasting everybody's time presenting their own studies as evidence, based on a secondary recording that was never actually submitted/accepted as evidence itself, rendering almost everything they're arguing completely irrelevant to the case! So if the original proof of wrongdoing is not in evidence, how the hell does the FAA even get to continue pressing a case against you at all when they're reduced to little more than "he said" (asshole neighbor)/"he said" (your buddy)? Buddy has an airstrip, buddy confirmed he invited you to land. At that point all they should really be able to try arguing is that his airstrip was unsafe to land at. which it sounds like the judge did. HOWEVER, then he goes the extra mile and still declares you at fault because you didn't actually land, so your "violation" of those regulation parts could stand, despite the fact that you didn't land BECAUSE IT WASN'T SAFE TO DO SO. God these drawn out legal theaters are so infuriating, and of course everybody on down the line getting paid. I'd be out for blood on that entitled neighbor...

[@masonmax1000]

the laws are inconsistent or as I like to call it vague so the FAA can basically twist it in there favor.

[@steveasher9239]

We're all pulling for you Trent. As a glider pilot, my fellow pilots and I have HAD to land wherever we could; on occasion. There was a ranch strip I picked out at 800 ft (having given up hope of finding a thermal) and with that altitude traded for airspeed I made an inspection pass and found the strip unmaintained and actually too narrow for my 70 ft wingspan (given the adjacent vegetation). I just whipped back up and made a landing in the weeds. What are they going to do to pilots in that equivalent of an engine out scenario. So I'm REALLY pulling for you.

[@elkcircle7245]

Both glider and SEL for me; I've always considered landing out a sailplane in a field or whatever is available to be an emergency, and have done so on many occasions: if you can't climb out there's no other option other than crash. But flying power I'd avoid making a low pass over something that isn't a recognized airstrip (and preferably on the chart) for full size aircraft, if there's anything within 500ft on the ground. Particularly a structure that might have a camera. At one glider club I fly, one member who lives in a home alongside the approach to the landing strip was even able to convince the board to enforce a regular approach glide path, by showing security camera footage of people squeaking in at low altitude.

[@steveasher9239]

@@elkcircle7245 I'm private glider, commercial SEL(and tow pilot, now that'll scare the pants off you) and commercial HAB. (Lived near Albuquerque and flew in the ABQ int. balloon fiesta a few times). You land those puppies anywhere and it can me much more harrowing than an outlanding in a glider; believe it or not. We would fly across the glider field at any altitude and angle to the runway. I don't think I'd do that anymore given the wisdom of age. There's nothing quite like like a clogged runway with gliders landing in a contest. Now that's mayhem. BUT no. I would never "drag" a field in SEL. I completely agree with you.

[@elkcircle7245]

@@steveasher9239 I agree about low pass contest finishes - I used to do that but increasing age has also made me wiser.

[@skyhawk_4526]

The key phrase to me is, "Except when necessary for takeoff and landing..." Could you legally land on your friend's property? Yes. Was the inspection pass a necessary step in order to conduct that landing safely? Yes. I'm no aviation attorney, but I'd say the inspection pass is completely within the FAR they are citing, because ensuring the landing area is actually suitable for a landing is "necessary" for conducting a safe landing. Let's assume you decided not to do the planned inspection pass. Instead, you decide to attempt the landing, but as in the inspection pass, you decide to abort the landing attempt because it's not clear it can be done safely. This would basically be the same thing, and I can't see that violating the FARs either. What would be a likely violation is committing to the landing when conditions were unsafe. I hope you win an appeal on this. Edit: I even posted this comment early in the video before you made this very argument. I don't see how the FAA can fault you for literally following the advice in their own publication.

[@TheMorphium]

They'll argue that the publication was printed by a third party contractor...

[@aztecpilots2144]

We don't know where exactly he was planning to land" do we? 10 acres in a rural subdivision isn't very big. If square, the sides are 660ft. Wonder why he doesn't provide details 🤔

[@keithsmith4236]

@@aztecpilots2144 think he said the minimum lot size was 10 acres not his friends lot

[@aztecpilots2144]

@@keithsmith4236 I don't think he said how big his friends lot is. Easy to clear up though. Show us a Google map

[@SRTPCC]

LESSON: NEVER DISCLOSE ANY INFO TO AUTHORITIES! THEY'RE NOT YOUR FRIENDS..., THEY ARE LOOKING TO PROSECUTE YOU!!!!!

[@959_MC]

how is this applicable? what they are prosecuting him on has nothing to do with anything he said. Sure this is true, but its like having your friend grounded because their parents wrongly thought they had drugs, and you turning around and saying "LESSON: DONT MURDER PEOPLE"

[@curtsauce3947]

@shawn4161 you say that like people flying 747s (an aircraft costing millions) would ever be a problem. Keep on bootlicking

[@curtsauce3947]

@shawn4161 ur right, the government should be able to take our rights away regardless of proof or anything else. How could I be such a moron.

[@curtsauce3947]

@shawn4161 keep licking the boot man.

[@allrightspreserved4766]

Ive been scrolling and waiting to see someone comment this. Never talk to ANY government body without going through an attorney. THEY ARE ONLY THERE TO RUIN YOUR LIFE AT ANY COST if they think you did even the slighted thing wrong (because it justifies their actions in their minds). When they called him for a “meeting” it was to let him talk himself into trouble. He should have forwarded the request directly to his lawyer, and this likely would have just gone away.

[@rtaylor9549]

Wow, just imagine the impact a decision like this would have on the bush pilots in Alaska

[@Bywater-S]

Yikes this would be very very bad here in AK. But then again most that fly in Alaska don’t have valid cert. even more so on floats or skies. It’d play havoc on us that go out hunting and landing on gravel bars etc. Hell that’s why most have tundra tires for the plane. This just wouldn’t work up here.

[@alexandermenzies9954]

There is a very 'large' country where its pilots regard a go-round as a loss of face. That culture is resisting demolition . With 400 passengers behind the cockpit, such an attitude has great potential for huge loss of life. This case is a microcosm of the same scene; the last thing any other country needs is an importation or encouragement of that rubbish behaviour. May the appeals judge (and the alj) soon fly when a go-round saves their life.

[@loft306]

@@alexandermenzies9954 yep.

[@tropicthndr]

Just goes to show the depths of stupidity in the FAA, who are still covering their tracks from their 737 MAX coverup.

[@ckm-mkc]

@@Abledoggie42 The irony of this is that the pass was to establish whether it was a safe landing and Trent decide it was not. Imagine if he had landed unsafely then crashed into the neighbors house.....

[@pcliftonjr]

The FAA seems to be expending a lot of energy on this. Makes me wonder who the "concerned" neighbor was 🤔.

[@darthrevan2063]

Cough Karen cough

[@danilodistefanis5990]

DarthRevan or some mobster from the govt. they are in the end t:èrr?ô0rists and đr uG?DeAl3rS.

[@williamrgrant]

Likely more of a relationship than simply "a concerned citizen". Perhaps the neighbor knows somebody higher up who assured them "it would be taken care of."

[@snoopstp4189]

@@darthrevan2063 no doubt Karen thinks she is a big deal and probably a donor club member of some dempublican ahole, this is the time to push back and say FU karen and your bureaucrat gestapo.

[@reinhardtvonlohengramm8466]

fr33maison

[@brentdavidson1]

Best thing here Trent is you made safe flying decisions and you and your plane are able to go through this undamaged. The community has your back here!

[@n0rg]

As I continued listening to this, I'm appalled at the FAA's reasonings. I'm even more incensed as to why a neighbor in a rural area decided to do this. Hateful and vindictive?

[@francisbalzer9324]

Thank you, Trent, for pushing through the appeals process for the rest of us. You are very well spoken and present a quality Video. It seems absurd to think that we may have to bounce the wheels on the ground to qualify as aa attempted landing.

[@ABC-rh7zc]

You explained that really well and it seems very clear (from the evidence presented) that they simply don't have a case. Stay strong!

[@carlhendricks349]

All pilots need to send in letters asking for this to be dismissed. This will effect all pilots.

[@NttrrBttrr]

lol...yeah my letters in the mail

[@Anon54387]

The pilots that have looked at this say that Trevor was in the wrong - to a person.

[@justin4n6]

Might be more worth it to ask for clarification to their own rules regarding off airport landing. Have one of their own say that want Trent did is in fact legal and allowed. That might help better than a bunch of free our boy Trent!

[@jdawgmotor330]

@@Anon54387 Who?

[@z987k]

@@justin4n6 That was my thought to, go through the decision and then send a letter to the chief counsel and make them go against themselves either way.

[@TheWaynecollins]

Sorry to hear about your suspension Trent. Based on your description of what happened, I don’t think you did anything wrong. I hope the ruling is not upheld. Love your videos, waiting to see more. Good Luck. Wayne

[@jamestroupe77]

Your discussion of this makes complete sense and your reason to continue appealing the judgement to stop a very bad precedent being created is commendable. Keep up the good fight!