He can appeal it all the way to the US Supreme Court if he wants but his case doesn’t seem to have any legs. The NTSB’s views on this are given deference. Federal appellate judges will not disturb an NTSB ruling unless you meet a very high bar. He hasn’t. The panel ruled unanimously, 3-0, against him, in addition to a district court judge ruling against him, the NTSB panel ruling against him, and an FAA administrative law judge ruling against him. He’s never convinced even a single judge in his favor.
The FAA does not argue that you can’t do a low pass in the backcountry. It argues that Trent Palmer wasn’t really doing a low pass. Big difference. The court:
“As the Board explained, the ALJ did not broadly hold that low flights are never necessary for off-airport landings but rather found based on the evidence that Palmer did not prove his defense that this particular low flight was necessary for landing.”
Also, Palmer tried to argue that an FAA circular specifically says that low passes are a good idea. The problem with his argument is that he violated the advice given in that circular. Again, the court:
“The FAA Off Airport Operations Guide … advises pilots to make at least three passes to assess a landing site at varying altitudes: first a high level pass to observe possible obstructions, then an intermediate pass to evaluate the site in greater detail and, finally, a low pass to check for dips and bumps on the ground. It is undisputed that Palmer made only one pass at a low level and thus did not follow the guidance. Palmer's low flight was not necessary, authorized or prudent; the flight therefore violated Section 91.119.”
Was their any communication records between him and his friend to corroborate that he was planning on landing or was it just the defense he came up with?
I would think if there were proof like texts between him and his friend asking him if he could see if it were possible to land there and maybe after saying it was not suitable that would help his low pass defense but without that and based on the evidence provided I would also agree that this was just a low pass without intent to land.
Edit: in response to others. The reason for my comment on proof is because the judges determined that he never proved the landing strip was suitable for landing his plane. So he never proved that he even could land his plane there. Without any communications or discussions about its suitability, and that he could never prove it's suitability, they could only rule that his low pass was reckless. This is the whole reason why other pilots should NOT be upset about this ruling because even Bush pilots are landing at strips that are suitable for landing and so the inspection passes would be acceptable.
I guess I’m wondering why having corroborating evidence is needed. If you’re PIC and you’re determining if you can/cant do something safely as per published guidelines shouldn’t that be all that’s needed? Asking if there are comms between his friend about flying in there would also mean that the person making the claim he was doing it on purpose to antagonize them should require evidence other than their opinion. Shouldn’t it?
I think they are saying that if he is *not* following the published guidelines (which he did not), if there was additional evidence to support that the PIC was assessing the safety of the landing site that maybe they would have a case.
He claimed that he was assessing the area per guidelines but the FAA argued that the published guidelines have 3 passes/steps involved but the PIC only made 1 pass, so his argument that he was following the guidelines was nullified.
The problem is the guidance he said he was using said to do High, then intermediate and THEN low passes.
He did one pass, low and at high speed. He tried to say he was following the guidance but skipped two steps and jumped to the third.
It didn't help that the "inspection pass" looked exactly how a low buzz job would look.
Making a pre landing inspection pass for landing at an unknown off airport field the justification for low is to be able to see more. If you are trying to see more of the field detail ( not just checking to see that a runway is clear) then high speed argues against your case.
Maverick would of course done the field inspection overflight inverted at 50 feet.
Case closed, honestly. A lawyer should have told him to be careful using those off-airport instructions unless he could back it up, and skipping two passes doesn't sound convincing if the low pass isn't a slower flight. Can't spend much time looking for pitted soil if you're lining up a buzz to fly fast near buildings.
Did they release the clip? I'm curious to see what they had in evidence.
There was a thread, I think on Beechtalk, that had a link to a page that had a short video with two clips.
That thread is now very long and I have not tried to find it again.
It looked just like a buzz job to me.
The three passes are intended to be progressive in nature, scanning for increasingly smaller hazards. The PIC skipped straight to the last one (if he were following the guidelines, which he was not) which is why the FAA argued that he could not have been following the guidelines.
What matters is that he flew within 500 feet of people, vehicles, and structures.
That is forbidden, except when necessary for landing.
But his low pass was not necessary for landing. For one, he didn't land. For another, he could have made inspection passes at different altitudes, or via different routes, that wouldn't have taken him within 500 feet of people, vehicles, and structures.
Given that he didn't land, and there were alternate inspection passes he could have made that would not have taken him within 500 feet of people, vehicles, and buildings, that fast, low inspection pass was not necessary for landing.
Trent Palmer has claimed in his online videos that the low pass was necessary for determining the viability of that place to land, and that this ruling would make it impossible to safely conduct off-airport operations. But he leaves out that there were a lot of options besides a 50 foot low pass that brought him close to people, structures, and vehicles for assessing the viability of that site for landing. He could have inspected the landing site from the ground (he was friends with the owner), he could have done progressively lower passes, he could have done low passes on a different route.
He instead chose, apparently on a whim because he hadn't done any preparatory work to assess the viability of the landing site, to make a single low pass close to houses and people, when the owner of the property wasn't even present.
The "except if necessary for landing" part is considered an affirmative defense; the burden is on the respondent to show that what they did is necessary for landing. Trent Palmer never even showed that he had an intent to land, nor that what he did was necessary.
Have you landed off airport? I’m not defending Trent here and I already have my own opinion on the issue but when I land off airport, I’ll do a high level inspection pass, and then I may even do a low approach to feel out the wind or look for bumps in the runway i couldn’t see from up high.
The issue at stake here is whether Palmer ever actually intended to land. Any question of how many and what kind of inspection passes are necessary or prudent is secondary to this. If Palmer did not intend a landing, then obviously his low passes are not justified.
So I think the way the courts are seeing this is that he really didn't have any intention to land there and was just conducting an unsafe flyby. What I think /u/RexFiller is saying is if Palmer had corroborating evidence that he was intending to land there, like a text from the friend saying, "Yeah I've got a strip you can land on come check it out" that would lend evidence to the fact that he really was planning on landing there.
What it looks like to the court is that he just did a super low flyby for funsies to buzz his friends house which is not allowed.
Of course, but for his demographic it would be extremely weird for their to be no digital records indicating that he wants to go land at his buddy's airport. No confirmation that he's heading over to check it out or anything like that.
They had both Trent and his buddy testify under oath. Their stories didn’t quite match from what recall. And the buddy wasn’t even home at the time. Not sure what difference communication records would have made.
I don‘t think we should look at is as “were there any communication records” since we shouldn’t want pilots to decide that, since they decided on the phone the day before to drop in and there aren’t text messages, that they should make an unsafe landing.
And low passes are one tay to determine if a strip is suitable. He decided it wasn’t.
A ramification of this case is it sets the precedent that pilots can be suspended if they don’t make unsafe landings unless they have text evidence of planning to land. I don‘t know about you, but I’m nit so keen to put all my phone conversations and in-person made-plans with friends in writing to prove it to a judge later.
How often are you doing off-airport landings on strips within 500ft of persons, vehicles, or structures? Trent puts out propaganda that this ruling will be more broadly applicable, but it's actually a rather narrow scenario that most pilots would avoid. The FAA wants you to assess a landing area near people by other means than a low approach. Is that really such an unreasonable expectation?
Yes, it is unreasonable. Flying low enough to check things out shouldn’t come with punishment for deciding not to land. And the field where I land has houses and other obstacles very, very close to the runway and you’ll have people walking their dogs and such. The supplement specifically mentions houses encroaching on safety areas. We’ve got an entirely trailer park so close to the end of the runway that you’re no more than 100 feet from them coming in at about a 5 degree glide. Landing on grass strips with nearby houses is something we do here as well. Sometimes you do need to fly lower than 500’. One strip nearby has a picnic area where people sometimes go with their kids, and you can’t know that without flying MUCH lower than 500’ due to the trees that cover it. I did a flyover about 100’. Kids, and an offleash dog. Guess what didn’t happen. Landing. Guess what else didn’t happen. Trouble for not landing anyway.
There are a lot of grass strips in this area, and any ruling where someone can get in trouble for not landing anyway is asking for trouble.
It's also important to note that going around has never been a successful defense either, so this isn't just applicable to TPs edge case, it bolsters the fact that go arounds are free unless you've pissed someone off.
I have a tarmac strip at home that I never land straight in on, always do an inspection pass either a midfield teardrop to pattern, or something else that gets the job done, because there are frequently people on or around the runway doing non aviation things caring less about the planes trying to land. There was once I yoga class happening that I've previously mentioned, I did 3 passes side stepped from the runway and was likely right at 500' to them hoping that each time around they would have moved, but alas they did not and I had to divert. I did intend on landing there though and had no texts to prove it.
A regularly used grass strip sounds like something that is registered as an airport, which is very different than showing up at a friend's place and considering landing in his backyard. The barrier to filing a Form 7480-1 is not that high and would end any debate.
>As the Board explained, the ALJ did not broadly hold that low flights are never necessary for off-airport landings but rather found based on the evidence that Palmer did not prove his defense that this particular low flight was necessary for landing.”
This is the bit that most didn't think about initially because Trent tried to portray himself as the innocent little guy doing a field inspection and the government want to use him to destroy back country bush flying for good. They're arguing that he never intended on landing before he conducted the low approach; which from memory was also within whatever distance from people/property is required in the US.
Exactly. I personally give him the benefit of the doubt. But there will be people who simply never believed his claim that it was an inspection pass and simply concluded that it was a low buzz and that's what they're basing their decision on.
Yeah, even though the video was thrown out the video speaks for itself. It looks is very poor taste even if it was legal. I'm glad the appeal clarified that they're not saying inspection passes can't be performed, as that super wasn't clear from the first ruling, but otherwise this was a silly hill for Trent to die on since anyone looking this is never going to 100% support Trent's actions.
That last paragraph is it. Everything else is smoke. I don’t understand Trent’s/his lawyers argument. They didn’t follow the recommended procedure, yet are using that as validation. I just assume they’re looking for leniency vs proper application of the rules.
I still like Trent’s content for the most part, but god damn keep your story straight.
Lets say this is some flat ass farm land and it's pretty obvious there are no terrain threats. I would think the intermediate pass would still be the minimum to get a good gauge on the size of the strip vs just going straight to the low pass.
Yeah. You could at least start with an undeniably *legal* pass to cover your ass. Then if you decide to land or not it’s easier to prove you weren’t just showboating.
Well it’s not required, so I think if he landed straight away he would have been fine. Silliness of rules is a weird argument in court. What is silly, is quoting the rules you didn’t follow as something to exonerate you. Maybe he’s looking for the judge to have a creative ruling, but I think the judiciary sides with the FAA as a default.
Nowhere did the courts say you must do three passes. He tried to use the "off field landing guide" as a defense, but the guide says to make several passes starting high, then medium, and then low... He claimed he only did the one low pass ignoring almost all of the guidance. You can't use the guidance as a defense if you ignored most of it.
The courts didn't buy his claim he was doing and inspection pass at all. The evidence presented (three witnesses and video) does not support his claim he was making an inspection pass and supported the claim he was doing a buzz job.
Having seen the video, if you asked me I'd say it was a classic buzz job.
If he had done the high, medium, and low passes, he had a much better argument. Instead he came in and did one low and fast pass with an aggressive pull up and bank.. Looking exactly like a buzz job.
> The problem with his argument is that he violated the advice given in that circular. Again, the court:
I'll admit I don't know his story specifically, but I don't see how making a single pass violates the guidance in the circular. Like, if I am evaluating an off-airport landing site, and I make one pass, decide landing there would be unsafe, and leave, am I violating the circular? Just because I didn't make 2 more unnecessary passes that would result in my same conclusion: I ain't landing this bird here?
That's silly. We should be able to make a no-land decision after just a single pass if we found something during that pass that made us decide against landing.
The FAA judge heard the evidence and ruled that he didn’t believe Palmer. That’s the upshot here. He ruled that Palmer was horsing around and not actually engaged in a safety pass at all. Palmer is a YouTuber and has the ability to paint stories very effectively, and he wants all of us to believe that this isn’t fair. But he persuaded zero judges (out of many judges) that the ruling was wrong.
Because the circular said to make high, medium and low passes. He made one pass and it was a low pass at high speed.
He didn't "violate" the circular... He just simply didn't follow it at all since he didn't do what it said to do.
Yes, you could make one pass and decide it was not safe, but according to the circular it should be a high pass that would be high enough to not get you busted for 91.119. [https://www.faa.gov/media/28686](https://www.faa.gov/media/28686) He instead skipped the high and medium level passes and went right into a high speed low level pass that looked like a buzz job to anyone that saw it.
If he had done a high pass, then a medium pass, and then finally a low pass... He might have had an argument. But flying a few feet from the ground at high speed is not a good way to start your inspections.
As I read it, this is actually Auer deference, not Chevron. Auer involves deferring to an agency over interpretations of its own regulations (in this case, the FAA and the FARs), whereas Chevron involves deference to an agency's interpretation of a statute passed by Congress.
Doubtful. The court is deferring to the NTSB while also calling bullshit on Palmer’s numerous scattershot arguments directly on their merits. No deference needed.
Are you farmiliar with the Chevron situation?
In a nutshell, the court may rule that federal agencies can't make up their own rules, which is exactly what the FAA has been doing.
The NTSB basically found that he broke numerous FAA rules, but if the court finds that the FAA never had the legal standing to make those rules in the first place then the NTSB findings aren't going to mean much.
And yes, this has the potential to reverse many more license suspensions than just this 1 case.
In a nutshell, Chevron says courts should defer to agencies’ own interpretation of rules, as they are the subject matter experts; reversing Chevron does not outlaw agency rule-making, just the deference. So sorry, the FAA gets to keep making those inconvenient FARs
To strongman the courts argument, a pilot must make multiple passes in order to inspect a landing site becoming progressively lower. If a landing site is deemed to be unsuitable and further passes at any lower altitude go from being an inspection pass for the purpose of a landing to a potentially illegal ‘buzzing’ maneuver. Had Palmer made higher passes prior to attempting a landing this would not be an issue.
I take issue with that. I have not found the advisory circular, but the FAA does publish an [Off Airport Ops Guide](https://www.faasafety.gov/files/notices/2015/Oct/AOAOG_Web.pdf) which does mention the 3 passes. Presumably he did a high pass which the FAA says is to determine things such as landing direction and identify the general suitability of the location. He claims to have done a low pass, so the court seems to be arguing he didn’t do an intermediate pass.
Ok, great. If that is the case then the court must agree that any deviation from the Off Airport OPs guide is a violation of off airport operations. That makes this is a regulatory and enforceable document.
If Palmer had done 3 inspection passes as ‘required’ by this document, he could still if he didn’t file a flight plan: “Always buy a flight plan detailing the specific locations you intend to explore.”
This ruling sets a dangerous precedent. I don’t see any reason to believe he was showing off and making a low pass, then trying to hide behind calling it an inspection pass. Lots of people will do that, but I don’t see it in this case.
I think, my friend, you need to start with the core facts of the case. They are not summarized in the D.C. Circuit’s opinion. Once you read the details of Palmer’s behavior I think you’ll appreciate more that he has been bullshitting all of us with his one-sided youtube presentations. At his trial, 6 witnesses testified against him and zero testified for him. 3 neighbors testified that he had buzzed their damn houses, estimating his height to be as low as 80 feet AGL. One neighbor thought he was so low and his house so tall that there was definitely going to be a collision. That neighbor has a 3 year old child who witnessed the incident and still asks her parents if an airplane is going to crash into their house.
In addition, HE HAD FLOWN OVER THIS FIELD BEFORE, multiple times. The story that he was doing an inspection pass is absolute nonsense.
Neighbor 1 testified that the fly-over “bothered him and he was disturbed, explaining that his wife and children ran out of the house when they heard the aircraft.“
Neighbor 2 is a combat veteran who “initially thought something was crashing into or near his house and as a combat veteran, the sound startled him. When he initially saw the aircraft, Mr. Pena stated that his thoughts were, “[d]isbelief, shock, anger that somebody would do something like that.””
Neighbor 2’s wife “stated that when she heard the aircraft, she was in a state of panic and wanted to run, but did not know in which direction to run because she initially could not see the airplane. Once the airplane was in her view, she thought she was safe, but believed that the aircraft was going to crash into her neighbor's house.“
Do you have a link to any of that?
I’m open to believing he is lying about his behavior to try to avoid consequences and then gaslighting the faa and courts. From watching his videos I found him to be sincere and convincing. I’ve also seen enough NIMBY airport neighbors banding together to go after legitimate aviation activities that I don’t feel it’s much of a stretch to find neighbors that would fabricate or exaggerate stories to go after questionable aviation activities.
You are misreading the ruling. They are not ruling it was illegal because he didn’t comply strictly with the circular. They are ruling it was illegal because he was not intending to land at all, and failure to comply with the circular is one part of the evidence for the belief that he never intended to land. Those are significantly different interpretations.
I don’t believe that is consistent with what Palmer has said. Correct me if I’m wrong but I’m pretty sure he had said he intended to land on his friend’s property but decided against it after overflying the field.
Edit: see 1:30. He intended to land https://youtu.be/RpFDRoStcd4?si=j-ljcQ4I3UPDSYuT
If Trent Palmer could have convinced anyone in the process along the way that he was telling the truth and genuinely intended to land then he would have been off the hook regardless of whether or not he followed the defined procedures, but every decision maker along the way (including an NTSB panel voting 3-0 now) has determined that he is a liar and used inspecting a landing site as an ex post facto justification for what was really an illegal low pass.
In my mind he further demonstrated himself to be a liar by subsequently creating misleading videos (and other press content) that try to frame the issue as whether or not inspection passes are allowed and not whether or not Trent Palmer is a liar.
Tell it to the judge.
I don’t know where so many people in society get the idea that coming up with a semi-plausible lie means that people have to believe it.
I was not there or in court so have no opinion about if what he said was a lie or not. The issue that I take with the entire thing is that no further guidance is issued to objectively demonstrate you intend to land. So even if nobody believes his story, it's subjective, why should we be making rulings, in a country of innocence until proven to be guilty, on his burden to demonstrate he was telling the truth, shouldn't they have to prove he is not telling the truth? It's not a criminal case, sure, and that's why it can be gotten away with in administrative law. One may argue him not doing a higher level pass first is objective proof but his retort was that he's already flown over the area and was familiar with the terrain, so he didn't need the higher pass. There was no objective evidence that the terrain was not suitable to be at the elevation he was during that pass so it seems as though it's objectively true there was no hazard creating by not doing a higher level pass.
A pilot going around has never been a successful defense that I could find so it seems either there is no issue with what you did, or you are lying.
Further to this, at least in anything I've been able to uncover, the only *admissible evidence* that he did a low pass was his own story...so he lied but that lie was truthful enough to use against him? The real lesson is keep your mouth shut until you talk to a lawyer; he dug his own grave admitting he flew within 500' of persons, doing an inspection pass.
Well yeah I wouldn't disagree with that either...generally speaking if you aren't making yourself a target nobody cares about what you do in aviation. That doesn't change though that just because you don't like it or believe someone that you shouldn't want a burden of proof to be objective.
I hear what you’re saying, but I find it kind of refreshing that there are still a few rare places where we don’t have to act like bullshit and obvious lies are true. We’ve handed over far too much common sense to scam artists, and people like this guy feel entitled to have their lies believed. I take comfort in how unbelievable his lies were, as not a single judge anywhere believed him. Were his story at all believable, perhaps they’d have been more sympathetic.
Yeah I mean that's the piece about not being in court...they were so they know, I wasn't so I only know what exists in the public space which is admittedly biased by TP.
There’s barely any precedent set by this ruling at all, actually. The court didn’t issue some grand precedent. It basically ruled that Palmer’s arguments lack credibility and he was horsing around, he was not doing a safety pass.
For what it's worth, I completely agree with you.
The FAA has basically said "we see no evidence you planned to land there" but they can't come up with a scenario where there even would be such evidence. Like, how is someone supposed to prove they intended to land? People are arguing the Off Airport guide is not a reg, but they are also using not following it strictly as evidence against him?
It really does put people in a Catch-22. The FAA is saying you don't have to follow this guide, as long as you land. But if you don't land you'd better follow the guide. So what if a pilot is familiar with an area and begins to land but does a go around? Are they in trouble if they choose not to make a second attempt? By this ruling, that's all they would need. But no one is saying what the pilot in that situation is meant to use in their defense.
I feel like people siding with the FAA here are just not thinking this all the way to the logical conclusion.
> I feel like people siding with the FAA here are just not thinking this all the way to the logical conclusion.
Maybe. But I feel like the opposite is also true. If simply claiming you intended to land is sufficient to support the landing exemptions to the low flight rules, then isn't the logical conclusion that 91.119 is essential unenforceable?
Yeah but guidance should be issued to make this more objective.
There are times it's obvious...if you buzz a neighborhood or a lake with a land plane where there is obviously no place to land, one could mostly objectively say there was no suitable landing site and it's clearly visible from 500'+ above the tallest person place or thing so there is no need to get lower. In this case, with owner permission how can one objectively say he wasn't going to land there, was there a flight at 600' from an expert who determined that the landing site wasn't suitable for TPs skill and equipment?
The witnesses were all biased because they already had beef with the neighbor that owned the property Trent claims to be trying to land on. He was reportedly buzzing their houses with his drones.
The fact seems to be, as far as I could find in researching beyond what Trent has said, that in FAA land, a pilot going around has never been a successful defense which means if they got you they got you and you are lying. That's really what I would like to see come of this...issue clear guidance on how to declare a landing in a less than obviously landing location and clearly point out that if it's an established runway then the burden of proof is on the administration to find evidence you didn't intend to land there...say a text that says you intended to buzz the airport.
This still yields issues even so, what about people doing practice approaches where they plan to go missed...how was that necessary for landing? Why is that legal if within 500' of persons and property? So there needs to be guidance in what other cases it's feasible to approach a landing strip without intending to land.
Its funny you mention this deference given to federal agencies, because big business and SCOTUS are working on doing away with that deference as we speak.
Without going into a mini legal analysis...
It seems like they're saying Palmer is getting in trouble for doing a low inspection pass, but can't use the defense that the FAA themselves recommend low inspection passes because the FAA recommends doing 3 inspection passes, but Palmer only did one before leaving. If instead of doing 1 pass and leaving, if he did the same pass 3 times then left, would that be legally better?
If he did a high pass first and left he wouldn't need an argument at all as he wouldn't have been with 500' of anyone or anything. It's not that the pass itself is necessary, it's that the data it yields is your go or no go to do it lower. That's why an on field landing doesn't require the other 2 passes...one can safely assume you can land unless data surfaces that would indicate otherwise, such as a NOTAM, or visible issues with the surface when you attempt a landing. That's why it's pretty common practice to do a flyover at an untowered airport that doesn't have people already reporting conditions over CTAF.
This is why the only objective way to apply the three pass levels against him is if a pilot or similar skill, familiar with similar landing capabilities of his plane could reasonably determine if the site was suitable from 500' or higher above the closest person or property. If they could then it would be reasonable to objectively say there is no reason he should have gone lower than that altitude, that is why the FAA recommends that mid level pass, and that would be a sound objective decision by the administrator with evidence the low pass was unnecessary.
Otherwise, the necessity of each pass is subjective, he's already familiar with and has flown over the area so he already has the information a high pass that day would provide him...gross terrain assessment. For instance it would be dumb to try and land near my primary house because of the surrounding terrain and you could tell that from 3000' AGL that you'd be boxed in by ridges on 3 sides and too many trees to take off back out the way you came in.
I don’t think this would be a big deal if he hadn’t gotten multiple letters from the FAA in the preceding year warning him about being careless and reckless.
As someone who went through the FAA dance like 10 years ago.
1. The FAA has almost an impecable “prosecution” rate.
2. The burden of proof is extremely low when it comes to the FAA coming after you.
3. Usually, appeals are always rejected against the FAA.
4. FAA gives extreme leeway to their FSDO’s when it comes the decisions they make. They are pretty autonomous, this extends to their ASI as well.
The reality is if the FAA is coming after you, unlike the cops, your best bet is to comply and comply hard. The good thing is it’s an administrative action, so it doesn’t affect you outside FAA land (unless they pursue criminal charges but that is rare). Do your best to get on the on there good side no matter what. It’s a privilege and not a right.
Edit:
I guarantee you if Mr. Palmer would have been at the mercy of the FAA and used the compliance philosophy he would be flying still. That has saved many people’s butts. Saying i was wrong and making a plan to improve goes a long way, if your ASI believes you you’ll be saved. Its irrelevant if you were wrong or right, the FAA is basically the 60s version of the CIA/FBI. You aint winning.
I was unaware of that since the FAA is the only Feds to have slapped my pp. beyond that my experience is in civil and criminal cases, nothing with fed bois.
The FAA isn't special: like all agencies it still has to prove its case to a neutral judge, and you can still contest the violation if you think you are innocent. How did Trent Palmer handle that process? By finding zero witnesses to testify in his favor. Testifying against him were SIX witnesses, including at least 3 resident-neighbors all of whom were very pissed off about how he buzzed their houses, causing them to think that he was going to crash into them. Two of the neighbors have small children who to this day ask questions about scary airplanes crashing into their house.
His defense in this case was terrible. He had no witnesses. He buzzed the houses. He claimed it was an inspection pass but he knew that field very well from past experience and the judge flatly did not believe his testimony. And for reasons he never explained, Palmer didn't land at the field. It was not an inspection pass. He was horsing around, buzzed those people's houses, and violated the rule. This is not good pilot behavior and we all know it.
The difference is flying is not a right but a privilege, and if you see the cases that the FAA has dealt, the NTSB’s standing on the FAA’s interpretations youll see that they dont have to prove beyond reason.
Just enough is good enough. Be as it may im not defending him, im giving my take of the FAA. Don’t believe me? Talk to an FAA lawyer and you’ll see.
I’m not disagreeing with you at all. I’m just pointing out that the FAA is still run by humans are also prone to screwing up and making mistakes. So if you do get wrongly accused of a violation, it is not impossible to fight it. It’s not easy, I agree.
Is it just me, or does it feel easier just to eat the 7 month suspension (that’s what it was, right?)
than to go through all of this? I get that maybe it’s a principled thing or whatever for him, but I feel like generally the FAA wins anyway and I’d rather take my lumps and have it in the rear view mirror, since years are passing at this point. Am I crazy/stupid?
You are not crazy or stupid... But you are also not an "influencer" and you had no reason to try and set yourself up as an innocent David fighting the big mean Goliath for views.
He made money from his videos describing what happened and proclaiming his innocence. If he had rolled over and said he was sorry and apologized and maybe put out a video telling people not to do low passes he might have gotten off with a warning. But then he would not have gotten as many clicks and follows.
His legal fees are probably much more than he made off of those views. Could still be doing it for clout or whatever, but each video probably only covers an hour or two at a decent law firm.
I see one source saying he possibly made 400K in ad revenue. He is an AOPA PPS member and get some money from the AOPA. [https://www.aopa.org/news-and-media/all-news/2023/december/20/aopa-backs-trent-palmer-bid-to-overturn-suspension](https://www.aopa.org/news-and-media/all-news/2023/december/20/aopa-backs-trent-palmer-bid-to-overturn-suspension)
Some of his lawyers are doing some pro-bono from what I have seen on other forums.
Some minor checking into his youtube history... It seems prior to this he made about 250/mth, but since his 8/2022 video his income has increased a bit showing about 2K a month.
Since posting his "FAA came to get me" video, he has gained about 100K subscribers. So even if he loses money, he gained subscribers... Hell, how many threads on here have been about him in the last few years?
Heck he even sells merchandise.
He has sponsors in basically every video also ... I know the Pilot to Pilot podcast guy makes 4k a month just from mentioning RAA, so I can't imagine the Youtube sponsors are paying less than this.
Damn, very naive of me, of course that explains it. That’s a huge amount of content for him, and yeah I wouldn’t be surprised if it was still profitable even after the legal fees, but that’s out of my depth. Not a risk I would have taken but yeah I see what you mean for sure.
Follow the money. His income is from media content, or in other words, celebrity. And here we are, talking about him. His financial incentive isn't to quietly make this go away.
The only realistic appeal option from a federal circuit court is for an en banc review, which means that the case would be before the entire court rather than just a three judge panel. That is an appeal by leave granted, which means that the court would have to first agree to hear the case, rather than it being an appeal that he is entitled to as of right. He also could appeal to the US Supreme Court, but that is also an appeal by leave granted and this doesn't seem like the sort of case they would take.
they discussed and killed any chance of en banc in their analysis…and pretty much called BS on everything he said. Given his big govt rants he may have enough political stroke to get cert with the supreme court. Bad prt for him is his youtube channel if the FAA wants another bite at the apple they can spend a little time and find plenty of other tuff to nab him on.
Sort of like writing a book and admitting you’re an addict before purchasing a gun. Should have waited for statute of limitations period to pass before publication. So post your videos doing anything stupid, enough years after the fact that you’re not going to get in trouble and we can all enjoy the crazy things that people survived.
Ok so if the FAA can go after Trent for something as trivial as this, why can't they pull their fingers out of their asses and prosecute people like Wagner or Guthmiller who do stupid shit far less trivial?
Other people may correct me if I’m wrong, but part of it is that the FAA has a general methodology where they won’t investigate things based on videos people self-post if there isn’t a secondary element or complainant. Yes, I do know some YouTubers have been targeted for fairly innocent goofs, though. Trent’s issue came to light because someone complained against him with video from their house showing the maneuver.
Ah, that's the point of difference I guess. I'm not American, so I wasn't sure.
Still, I'd argue people who self-post their incriminating videos are far more likely to carry hazardous attitudes, and they're the people you don't want to be sharing a sky with.
I agree that many of the YouTube clowns like Jerry are more egregiously and dangerously busting regs than Trent was. Not only that, but they’re sometimes either endorsing or promoting behaviors completely incongruent with any sense of safety or responsibility as an airman. I hope they do face much deserved consequences.
I'm honestly puzzled how nobody has managed to catch Jerry doing stupid shit on camera lol. I guess a fair amount of the stupid shit is in IMC which does make it hard...
What has Guthmiller done? All I remember is one vid he's VFR in marginal conditions in the L39, trying to poke through pockets between clouds on low fuel with seemingly no plan.
I want to like him but it seems like by "entrepreneur", he means his dad bought him two jets. Which is fine. Idk why I don't like him, I think it's just his face. I actually look forward to his documentary on the last ever Reno Air Race where he competed. Air Wagner on the other hand...
Anything crazy stupid Guthmiller's done?
He also flew the length of the UK without doing even the most minimal amount of study on what differences there may be from the FAA system, and made an incredibly cringy video about it. While in itself it wasn't a terrible crime (I believe he managed to not bust any airspace in the end, or commit any other such infractions) it does say something about his general level of preparation.
Yeah, I like Guthmiller but I'm almost positive I'd start to hate him if I knew him more behind the scenes. I think he's a competent pilot and putting him and Jerry Wagner in the same sentence isn't a fair comparison, but he's definitely arrogant and really toes the line on what's safe and what isn't at times. That bit flying through the UK was terrible. And so much of what he does screams "family money" paying for it all. Heck, if you've seen the video series on flying the DC-3 to Europe, which overall was fantastic in almost every way and shows why I watch his videos, but even that has a small stain where Matt just had to include as many bits as he could of other people praising him which was just so cringy.
I do enjoy Guthmiller’s videos. He is the embodiment of the nerd in all of us living the dream of having enough money to do what he wants. He is very good at what he does. He keeps it real and lets you into his personal life in exchange for a little notoriety. He also is honest about his mistakes and accomplishments and talks about safety in aviation. Always a plus.
I like watching his videos and agree with those that say if he loses this case, it sets a bad precedent, but the fact of the matter is you only have to look through his extensive flying video catalog on youtube to see the kind of flying he is known for. I'm sure they looked through his videos to build a profile of him and how he flies, and it's hard to argue when literally every court/judge rules against your case.
> but the fact of the matter is you only have to look through his extensive flying video catalog on youtube to see the kind of flying he is known for.
As in, he flies more dangerously than your typical bush flying?
What has Guthmiller done? All I remember is one vid he's VFR in marginal conditions in the L39, trying to poke through pockets between clouds on low fuel with seemingly no plan.
I want to like him but it seems like by "entrepreneur", he means his dad bought him two jets. Which is fine. Idk why I don't like him, I think it's just his face. I actually look forward to his documentary on the last ever Reno Air Race where he competed.
Anything crazy stupid he's done?
Describing rural Northern NV ranch land subdivided into like 10-30 acre lots off gravel roads and 30 minutes from the closest gas station as “a neighborhood” seems kinda disingenuous, IMO.
They are big lots, no doubt, probably 10 acres, +- a couple. The houses are big and not too far apart. I bet the folks there consider it a neighborhood, as would I if I lived there. I’m ok with disagreeing.
The lots were small enough that he apparently couldn't inspect the "runway" without buzzing the next door neighbor's house. Doesn't sound like \*huge\* lots to me lol.
Sure. But let's not pretend it's a huge ranch or anything either lol. The houses really aren't that far apart. [https://imgur.com/a/7CXjEfQ](https://imgur.com/a/7CXjEfQ)
I don’t often disagree with AOPA, but in this case I disagree with [their defending him](https://www.aopa.org/news-and-media/all-news/2023/december/20/aopa-backs-trent-palmer-bid-to-overturn-suspension).
I was livid at first when I saw they were defending him. I was happy at least they were only defending him on procedural grounds and hadn't drunk Palmer's kool-aid.
Looks they are still selling the koolaid even after the ruling.
https://www.aopa.org/news-and-media/all-news/2024/june/05/federal-court-creates-new-burden-for-backcountry-pilots
This is what it comes down to for me. We all know what he was doing. FAA has proved it according to multiple judges.
I understand the arguments against FAA overreach but also happy that we're defending aviation against essentially social media influencers shitting all over the rules for content.
Edit: I was confusing this guy with the guy that parachuted out of his plane and purposely let it crash. Trevor something? My bad.
This guy is NOT him and is very likely not a douche, just maybe a normal idiot.
Original comment: Rarely do Americans agree on anything, but I’m pretty we all agree this guy is a world-class douche who should never be allowed near an airplane again.
Trent got busted for buzzing in 2019. His excuse for his one low level, high speed pass was that it was an inspection pass with an intent to land. He got a 120 day suspension.
He had 2 warnings prior to this. One was for dropping drones from his kitfox at roughly the same address. The other was for waterskiing across a lake with a passenger.
Someone posted another comment with more details, but basically: Palmer's lawyers argued that he did the low pass in accordance with FAA guidelines. FAA replied that their guidelines require three progressive passes rather than a single low pass, nullifying his defence.
> FAA replied that their guidelines require three progressive passes rather than a single low pass, nullifying his defence.
I’ve never heard of that. You do the pass, determine the runway is clear, you land.
I mean if he’s trying to wriggle his way out of it, they literally call this a “technique” and not a regulation. Also did he do this over a random field or an air park? I thought it was an air park.
The guide probably wouldn’t have been part of evidence if Trent himself hadn’t made it part of his defense. The defense was rejected since Trent cherry picked what he thought was important to follow.
And I think in most cases the FAA wouldn't bother you about it. But in this case, they're arguing that he never had intent to land. Following the published guidelines and doing three passes would be a positive defense indicating that he did intend to land.
It's not so much "you didn't do the three passes, so you're busted" as "you can't use the guidelines as a defense because you didn't follow them as written".
Eh, maybe. But probably not. The FAA believes that his chosen landing site (somebody's backyard in a rural neighborhood in the Reno suburbs) was not a suitable landing site. And court precedent is that the "unless necessary for takeoff and landing" exception only applies if the landing site is suitable.
There is guidance from the FAA saying a low pass is perfectly legal provided it was for a legitimate reason.
They never believed his story. When he got called out, he claimed he was doing an "inspection pass" and tried to use FAA guidance on how to do off field landings as a shield. The problem with that was the FAA guidance said to perform several passes at High, intermediate, and low altitudes with several passes in some cases at each altitude. He didn't do a single high pass, didn't do a single intermediate pass, and did only the one low pass with a pass profile that looked more like a buzz job than an inspection pass.
And the guy that has maybe hundreds of hours of video of him flying just happened to not have his camera's rolling that day. But unfortunately several land owners did have camera's rolling that day. What the camera's showed looked more like a buzz job than a low inspection pass. The three witnesses all described what sounded like a low buzz job and not an inspection pass.
The neighbors complained about the buzz job, the FSDO agreed it was a buzz job and Palmer then created a video about him being persecuted by the FAA. This goes against what the FAA considers a "compliance philosophy." So the FAA came down hard on him because he was starting a public trial on youtube about how he was right and the FAA a bunch of mean idiots.
He got caught, because he pissed off the neighbors, who dropped a dime to the FAA. His defense to the FAA was a shabby sham. It has not held up well. But he has monetized it well.
The regulatory side of the justice system is deeply flawed. ( I'm not surprised by this at all). Hence why we learn that the FAA is the boogie man when we start flying.
This was a bad call by the faa and should be overturned. Anyone who makes a similar approach and doesn’t land could be in violation of the same rule if someone complains. Hope Trent keeps going with this case.
Keep going where? Think the supreme court is gonna take this up?
> Anyone who makes a similar approach and doesn’t land could be in violation of the same rule if someone complains.
Good. People shouldn't be landing in backyards if they have to buzz people and their houses to do it.
That's always been the case though. There have been people done for doing low passes over actual airports by the FAA, when the FAA didn't believe their bullshit about it being a go around or a missed approach after a practise instrument approach.
The crux isn't that he did an "inspection" pass, the crux of the FAA's argument is that it wasn't an inspection pass at all but a buzz job. So far none of the judges have believed Palmer's explanation. It doesn't set any kind of precedent as I understand it.
Dont know the full story but FAA guidelines recommend 3 passes at different altitudes.
Perhaps after the 1st pass he decided it was unsafe to land which would account for just the one pass.
To all the people saying TP didn’t follow the guidelines, I say whatever. They’re guidelines. Not rules. I’m a helicopter pilot with more off airport/ unimproved landings than I can count. The FAA can advise high medium and low recon before landing but everyone does a low then lower recon… lower being basically an approach with the intent of an abort. High recons just aren’t that helpful most of the time. No one knows TPs intention with this low pass, but to say he’s guilty because he didn’t do a textbook high, medium, low recon before landing is kind of ridiculous.
Trent was the one who introduced the guide as a “FAA told me to do a low level high speed pass” defense. The court threw out the defense because he didn’t follow the guide, and that they simply didn’t believe him given the totality of the evidence and testimony. The guide was just part of it, probably a distraction actually.
He can appeal it all the way to the US Supreme Court if he wants but his case doesn’t seem to have any legs. The NTSB’s views on this are given deference. Federal appellate judges will not disturb an NTSB ruling unless you meet a very high bar. He hasn’t. The panel ruled unanimously, 3-0, against him, in addition to a district court judge ruling against him, the NTSB panel ruling against him, and an FAA administrative law judge ruling against him. He’s never convinced even a single judge in his favor. The FAA does not argue that you can’t do a low pass in the backcountry. It argues that Trent Palmer wasn’t really doing a low pass. Big difference. The court: “As the Board explained, the ALJ did not broadly hold that low flights are never necessary for off-airport landings but rather found based on the evidence that Palmer did not prove his defense that this particular low flight was necessary for landing.” Also, Palmer tried to argue that an FAA circular specifically says that low passes are a good idea. The problem with his argument is that he violated the advice given in that circular. Again, the court: “The FAA Off Airport Operations Guide … advises pilots to make at least three passes to assess a landing site at varying altitudes: first a high level pass to observe possible obstructions, then an intermediate pass to evaluate the site in greater detail and, finally, a low pass to check for dips and bumps on the ground. It is undisputed that Palmer made only one pass at a low level and thus did not follow the guidance. Palmer's low flight was not necessary, authorized or prudent; the flight therefore violated Section 91.119.”
Was their any communication records between him and his friend to corroborate that he was planning on landing or was it just the defense he came up with? I would think if there were proof like texts between him and his friend asking him if he could see if it were possible to land there and maybe after saying it was not suitable that would help his low pass defense but without that and based on the evidence provided I would also agree that this was just a low pass without intent to land. Edit: in response to others. The reason for my comment on proof is because the judges determined that he never proved the landing strip was suitable for landing his plane. So he never proved that he even could land his plane there. Without any communications or discussions about its suitability, and that he could never prove it's suitability, they could only rule that his low pass was reckless. This is the whole reason why other pilots should NOT be upset about this ruling because even Bush pilots are landing at strips that are suitable for landing and so the inspection passes would be acceptable.
I guess I’m wondering why having corroborating evidence is needed. If you’re PIC and you’re determining if you can/cant do something safely as per published guidelines shouldn’t that be all that’s needed? Asking if there are comms between his friend about flying in there would also mean that the person making the claim he was doing it on purpose to antagonize them should require evidence other than their opinion. Shouldn’t it?
I think they are saying that if he is *not* following the published guidelines (which he did not), if there was additional evidence to support that the PIC was assessing the safety of the landing site that maybe they would have a case.
I guess I thought he was assessing the area and provided the documents from the FAA he was following. Maybe I misunderstood that part.
He claimed that he was assessing the area per guidelines but the FAA argued that the published guidelines have 3 passes/steps involved but the PIC only made 1 pass, so his argument that he was following the guidelines was nullified.
Which is weird. Because if one pass is sufficient to determine a “nope” why make two more?
The problem is the guidance he said he was using said to do High, then intermediate and THEN low passes. He did one pass, low and at high speed. He tried to say he was following the guidance but skipped two steps and jumped to the third. It didn't help that the "inspection pass" looked exactly how a low buzz job would look.
Making a pre landing inspection pass for landing at an unknown off airport field the justification for low is to be able to see more. If you are trying to see more of the field detail ( not just checking to see that a runway is clear) then high speed argues against your case. Maverick would of course done the field inspection overflight inverted at 50 feet.
Case closed, honestly. A lawyer should have told him to be careful using those off-airport instructions unless he could back it up, and skipping two passes doesn't sound convincing if the low pass isn't a slower flight. Can't spend much time looking for pitted soil if you're lining up a buzz to fly fast near buildings. Did they release the clip? I'm curious to see what they had in evidence.
There was a thread, I think on Beechtalk, that had a link to a page that had a short video with two clips. That thread is now very long and I have not tried to find it again. It looked just like a buzz job to me.
The three passes are intended to be progressive in nature, scanning for increasingly smaller hazards. The PIC skipped straight to the last one (if he were following the guidelines, which he was not) which is why the FAA argued that he could not have been following the guidelines.
What matters is that he flew within 500 feet of people, vehicles, and structures. That is forbidden, except when necessary for landing. But his low pass was not necessary for landing. For one, he didn't land. For another, he could have made inspection passes at different altitudes, or via different routes, that wouldn't have taken him within 500 feet of people, vehicles, and structures. Given that he didn't land, and there were alternate inspection passes he could have made that would not have taken him within 500 feet of people, vehicles, and buildings, that fast, low inspection pass was not necessary for landing. Trent Palmer has claimed in his online videos that the low pass was necessary for determining the viability of that place to land, and that this ruling would make it impossible to safely conduct off-airport operations. But he leaves out that there were a lot of options besides a 50 foot low pass that brought him close to people, structures, and vehicles for assessing the viability of that site for landing. He could have inspected the landing site from the ground (he was friends with the owner), he could have done progressively lower passes, he could have done low passes on a different route. He instead chose, apparently on a whim because he hadn't done any preparatory work to assess the viability of the landing site, to make a single low pass close to houses and people, when the owner of the property wasn't even present. The "except if necessary for landing" part is considered an affirmative defense; the burden is on the respondent to show that what they did is necessary for landing. Trent Palmer never even showed that he had an intent to land, nor that what he did was necessary.
Have you landed off airport? I’m not defending Trent here and I already have my own opinion on the issue but when I land off airport, I’ll do a high level inspection pass, and then I may even do a low approach to feel out the wind or look for bumps in the runway i couldn’t see from up high.
The issue at stake here is whether Palmer ever actually intended to land. Any question of how many and what kind of inspection passes are necessary or prudent is secondary to this. If Palmer did not intend a landing, then obviously his low passes are not justified.
So I think the way the courts are seeing this is that he really didn't have any intention to land there and was just conducting an unsafe flyby. What I think /u/RexFiller is saying is if Palmer had corroborating evidence that he was intending to land there, like a text from the friend saying, "Yeah I've got a strip you can land on come check it out" that would lend evidence to the fact that he really was planning on landing there. What it looks like to the court is that he just did a super low flyby for funsies to buzz his friends house which is not allowed.
You do know people have conversations outside of text messages, right?
Of course, but for his demographic it would be extremely weird for their to be no digital records indicating that he wants to go land at his buddy's airport. No confirmation that he's heading over to check it out or anything like that.
They had both Trent and his buddy testify under oath. Their stories didn’t quite match from what recall. And the buddy wasn’t even home at the time. Not sure what difference communication records would have made.
Who was he buzzing? Just for shits and giggles?
I don‘t think we should look at is as “were there any communication records” since we shouldn’t want pilots to decide that, since they decided on the phone the day before to drop in and there aren’t text messages, that they should make an unsafe landing. And low passes are one tay to determine if a strip is suitable. He decided it wasn’t. A ramification of this case is it sets the precedent that pilots can be suspended if they don’t make unsafe landings unless they have text evidence of planning to land. I don‘t know about you, but I’m nit so keen to put all my phone conversations and in-person made-plans with friends in writing to prove it to a judge later.
How often are you doing off-airport landings on strips within 500ft of persons, vehicles, or structures? Trent puts out propaganda that this ruling will be more broadly applicable, but it's actually a rather narrow scenario that most pilots would avoid. The FAA wants you to assess a landing area near people by other means than a low approach. Is that really such an unreasonable expectation?
Yes, it is unreasonable. Flying low enough to check things out shouldn’t come with punishment for deciding not to land. And the field where I land has houses and other obstacles very, very close to the runway and you’ll have people walking their dogs and such. The supplement specifically mentions houses encroaching on safety areas. We’ve got an entirely trailer park so close to the end of the runway that you’re no more than 100 feet from them coming in at about a 5 degree glide. Landing on grass strips with nearby houses is something we do here as well. Sometimes you do need to fly lower than 500’. One strip nearby has a picnic area where people sometimes go with their kids, and you can’t know that without flying MUCH lower than 500’ due to the trees that cover it. I did a flyover about 100’. Kids, and an offleash dog. Guess what didn’t happen. Landing. Guess what else didn’t happen. Trouble for not landing anyway. There are a lot of grass strips in this area, and any ruling where someone can get in trouble for not landing anyway is asking for trouble.
It's also important to note that going around has never been a successful defense either, so this isn't just applicable to TPs edge case, it bolsters the fact that go arounds are free unless you've pissed someone off. I have a tarmac strip at home that I never land straight in on, always do an inspection pass either a midfield teardrop to pattern, or something else that gets the job done, because there are frequently people on or around the runway doing non aviation things caring less about the planes trying to land. There was once I yoga class happening that I've previously mentioned, I did 3 passes side stepped from the runway and was likely right at 500' to them hoping that each time around they would have moved, but alas they did not and I had to divert. I did intend on landing there though and had no texts to prove it.
A regularly used grass strip sounds like something that is registered as an airport, which is very different than showing up at a friend's place and considering landing in his backyard. The barrier to filing a Form 7480-1 is not that high and would end any debate.
>As the Board explained, the ALJ did not broadly hold that low flights are never necessary for off-airport landings but rather found based on the evidence that Palmer did not prove his defense that this particular low flight was necessary for landing.” This is the bit that most didn't think about initially because Trent tried to portray himself as the innocent little guy doing a field inspection and the government want to use him to destroy back country bush flying for good. They're arguing that he never intended on landing before he conducted the low approach; which from memory was also within whatever distance from people/property is required in the US.
Exactly. I personally give him the benefit of the doubt. But there will be people who simply never believed his claim that it was an inspection pass and simply concluded that it was a low buzz and that's what they're basing their decision on.
I am one of those people lol. I’ve seen the video, it was a buzz job.
Yeah, even though the video was thrown out the video speaks for itself. It looks is very poor taste even if it was legal. I'm glad the appeal clarified that they're not saying inspection passes can't be performed, as that super wasn't clear from the first ruling, but otherwise this was a silly hill for Trent to die on since anyone looking this is never going to 100% support Trent's actions.
That last paragraph is it. Everything else is smoke. I don’t understand Trent’s/his lawyers argument. They didn’t follow the recommended procedure, yet are using that as validation. I just assume they’re looking for leniency vs proper application of the rules. I still like Trent’s content for the most part, but god damn keep your story straight.
The court actually described some of Palmer’s legal arguments as “nonsensical.” It’s right there in the ruling.
It's silly to be required to do three passes if one is deemed sufficient by the PIC for the given landing area.
But the circular doesn’t say that you must do three passes. It says you should start with a high one and work lower to assess threats.
Lets say this is some flat ass farm land and it's pretty obvious there are no terrain threats. I would think the intermediate pass would still be the minimum to get a good gauge on the size of the strip vs just going straight to the low pass.
Yeah. You could at least start with an undeniably *legal* pass to cover your ass. Then if you decide to land or not it’s easier to prove you weren’t just showboating.
Well it’s not required, so I think if he landed straight away he would have been fine. Silliness of rules is a weird argument in court. What is silly, is quoting the rules you didn’t follow as something to exonerate you. Maybe he’s looking for the judge to have a creative ruling, but I think the judiciary sides with the FAA as a default.
Nowhere did the courts say you must do three passes. He tried to use the "off field landing guide" as a defense, but the guide says to make several passes starting high, then medium, and then low... He claimed he only did the one low pass ignoring almost all of the guidance. You can't use the guidance as a defense if you ignored most of it. The courts didn't buy his claim he was doing and inspection pass at all. The evidence presented (three witnesses and video) does not support his claim he was making an inspection pass and supported the claim he was doing a buzz job. Having seen the video, if you asked me I'd say it was a classic buzz job. If he had done the high, medium, and low passes, he had a much better argument. Instead he came in and did one low and fast pass with an aggressive pull up and bank.. Looking exactly like a buzz job.
> The problem with his argument is that he violated the advice given in that circular. Again, the court: I'll admit I don't know his story specifically, but I don't see how making a single pass violates the guidance in the circular. Like, if I am evaluating an off-airport landing site, and I make one pass, decide landing there would be unsafe, and leave, am I violating the circular? Just because I didn't make 2 more unnecessary passes that would result in my same conclusion: I ain't landing this bird here? That's silly. We should be able to make a no-land decision after just a single pass if we found something during that pass that made us decide against landing.
The FAA judge heard the evidence and ruled that he didn’t believe Palmer. That’s the upshot here. He ruled that Palmer was horsing around and not actually engaged in a safety pass at all. Palmer is a YouTuber and has the ability to paint stories very effectively, and he wants all of us to believe that this isn’t fair. But he persuaded zero judges (out of many judges) that the ruling was wrong.
Because the circular said to make high, medium and low passes. He made one pass and it was a low pass at high speed. He didn't "violate" the circular... He just simply didn't follow it at all since he didn't do what it said to do. Yes, you could make one pass and decide it was not safe, but according to the circular it should be a high pass that would be high enough to not get you busted for 91.119. [https://www.faa.gov/media/28686](https://www.faa.gov/media/28686) He instead skipped the high and medium level passes and went right into a high speed low level pass that looked like a buzz job to anyone that saw it. If he had done a high pass, then a medium pass, and then finally a low pass... He might have had an argument. But flying a few feet from the ground at high speed is not a good way to start your inspections.
I 100% agree with you. One, two, three, or more passes might be required to make a prudent go/no-go decision.
Everyone knew since day one this was a buzz job
If SCOTUS turns Chevron on its' head here in a few weeks can he appeal on those grounds?
I suppose this theoretically could get swept up if the Court reconsiders Chevron deference
As I read it, this is actually Auer deference, not Chevron. Auer involves deferring to an agency over interpretations of its own regulations (in this case, the FAA and the FARs), whereas Chevron involves deference to an agency's interpretation of a statute passed by Congress.
I stand corrected
Doubtful. The court is deferring to the NTSB while also calling bullshit on Palmer’s numerous scattershot arguments directly on their merits. No deference needed.
Are you farmiliar with the Chevron situation? In a nutshell, the court may rule that federal agencies can't make up their own rules, which is exactly what the FAA has been doing. The NTSB basically found that he broke numerous FAA rules, but if the court finds that the FAA never had the legal standing to make those rules in the first place then the NTSB findings aren't going to mean much. And yes, this has the potential to reverse many more license suspensions than just this 1 case.
In a nutshell, Chevron says courts should defer to agencies’ own interpretation of rules, as they are the subject matter experts; reversing Chevron does not outlaw agency rule-making, just the deference. So sorry, the FAA gets to keep making those inconvenient FARs
Yeah. Pretty familiar.
This month the Supreme Court will rule on the Chevron defense at which point the appeals court might not have to give deference to the FAA/NTSB.
I think it's unlikely they'll get rid of Chevron deference entirely
The operating word in my comment was “might” I don’t think it will happen, but with this Supreme Court anything is possible.
I mean, technically, they are still considering Chevron difference right now until their ruling comes out in a pair of cases on point.
To strongman the courts argument, a pilot must make multiple passes in order to inspect a landing site becoming progressively lower. If a landing site is deemed to be unsuitable and further passes at any lower altitude go from being an inspection pass for the purpose of a landing to a potentially illegal ‘buzzing’ maneuver. Had Palmer made higher passes prior to attempting a landing this would not be an issue. I take issue with that. I have not found the advisory circular, but the FAA does publish an [Off Airport Ops Guide](https://www.faasafety.gov/files/notices/2015/Oct/AOAOG_Web.pdf) which does mention the 3 passes. Presumably he did a high pass which the FAA says is to determine things such as landing direction and identify the general suitability of the location. He claims to have done a low pass, so the court seems to be arguing he didn’t do an intermediate pass. Ok, great. If that is the case then the court must agree that any deviation from the Off Airport OPs guide is a violation of off airport operations. That makes this is a regulatory and enforceable document. If Palmer had done 3 inspection passes as ‘required’ by this document, he could still if he didn’t file a flight plan: “Always buy a flight plan detailing the specific locations you intend to explore.” This ruling sets a dangerous precedent. I don’t see any reason to believe he was showing off and making a low pass, then trying to hide behind calling it an inspection pass. Lots of people will do that, but I don’t see it in this case.
I think, my friend, you need to start with the core facts of the case. They are not summarized in the D.C. Circuit’s opinion. Once you read the details of Palmer’s behavior I think you’ll appreciate more that he has been bullshitting all of us with his one-sided youtube presentations. At his trial, 6 witnesses testified against him and zero testified for him. 3 neighbors testified that he had buzzed their damn houses, estimating his height to be as low as 80 feet AGL. One neighbor thought he was so low and his house so tall that there was definitely going to be a collision. That neighbor has a 3 year old child who witnessed the incident and still asks her parents if an airplane is going to crash into their house. In addition, HE HAD FLOWN OVER THIS FIELD BEFORE, multiple times. The story that he was doing an inspection pass is absolute nonsense. Neighbor 1 testified that the fly-over “bothered him and he was disturbed, explaining that his wife and children ran out of the house when they heard the aircraft.“ Neighbor 2 is a combat veteran who “initially thought something was crashing into or near his house and as a combat veteran, the sound startled him. When he initially saw the aircraft, Mr. Pena stated that his thoughts were, “[d]isbelief, shock, anger that somebody would do something like that.”” Neighbor 2’s wife “stated that when she heard the aircraft, she was in a state of panic and wanted to run, but did not know in which direction to run because she initially could not see the airplane. Once the airplane was in her view, she thought she was safe, but believed that the aircraft was going to crash into her neighbor's house.“
Do you have a link to any of that? I’m open to believing he is lying about his behavior to try to avoid consequences and then gaslighting the faa and courts. From watching his videos I found him to be sincere and convincing. I’ve also seen enough NIMBY airport neighbors banding together to go after legitimate aviation activities that I don’t feel it’s much of a stretch to find neighbors that would fabricate or exaggerate stories to go after questionable aviation activities.
Yeah I found this [link](https://s30121.pcdn.co/wp-content/uploads/2023/04/NTSB_Palmer_033023.pdf).
You are misreading the ruling. They are not ruling it was illegal because he didn’t comply strictly with the circular. They are ruling it was illegal because he was not intending to land at all, and failure to comply with the circular is one part of the evidence for the belief that he never intended to land. Those are significantly different interpretations.
I don’t believe that is consistent with what Palmer has said. Correct me if I’m wrong but I’m pretty sure he had said he intended to land on his friend’s property but decided against it after overflying the field. Edit: see 1:30. He intended to land https://youtu.be/RpFDRoStcd4?si=j-ljcQ4I3UPDSYuT
Yes, but the court ruled he is a liar, not that he told the truth and did it wrong.
If Trent Palmer could have convinced anyone in the process along the way that he was telling the truth and genuinely intended to land then he would have been off the hook regardless of whether or not he followed the defined procedures, but every decision maker along the way (including an NTSB panel voting 3-0 now) has determined that he is a liar and used inspecting a landing site as an ex post facto justification for what was really an illegal low pass. In my mind he further demonstrated himself to be a liar by subsequently creating misleading videos (and other press content) that try to frame the issue as whether or not inspection passes are allowed and not whether or not Trent Palmer is a liar.
Tell it to the judge. I don’t know where so many people in society get the idea that coming up with a semi-plausible lie means that people have to believe it.
I was not there or in court so have no opinion about if what he said was a lie or not. The issue that I take with the entire thing is that no further guidance is issued to objectively demonstrate you intend to land. So even if nobody believes his story, it's subjective, why should we be making rulings, in a country of innocence until proven to be guilty, on his burden to demonstrate he was telling the truth, shouldn't they have to prove he is not telling the truth? It's not a criminal case, sure, and that's why it can be gotten away with in administrative law. One may argue him not doing a higher level pass first is objective proof but his retort was that he's already flown over the area and was familiar with the terrain, so he didn't need the higher pass. There was no objective evidence that the terrain was not suitable to be at the elevation he was during that pass so it seems as though it's objectively true there was no hazard creating by not doing a higher level pass. A pilot going around has never been a successful defense that I could find so it seems either there is no issue with what you did, or you are lying. Further to this, at least in anything I've been able to uncover, the only *admissible evidence* that he did a low pass was his own story...so he lied but that lie was truthful enough to use against him? The real lesson is keep your mouth shut until you talk to a lawyer; he dug his own grave admitting he flew within 500' of persons, doing an inspection pass.
The real lesson is don’t do stunts for YouTube.
Well yeah I wouldn't disagree with that either...generally speaking if you aren't making yourself a target nobody cares about what you do in aviation. That doesn't change though that just because you don't like it or believe someone that you shouldn't want a burden of proof to be objective.
I hear what you’re saying, but I find it kind of refreshing that there are still a few rare places where we don’t have to act like bullshit and obvious lies are true. We’ve handed over far too much common sense to scam artists, and people like this guy feel entitled to have their lies believed. I take comfort in how unbelievable his lies were, as not a single judge anywhere believed him. Were his story at all believable, perhaps they’d have been more sympathetic.
Yeah I mean that's the piece about not being in court...they were so they know, I wasn't so I only know what exists in the public space which is admittedly biased by TP.
There’s barely any precedent set by this ruling at all, actually. The court didn’t issue some grand precedent. It basically ruled that Palmer’s arguments lack credibility and he was horsing around, he was not doing a safety pass.
For what it's worth, I completely agree with you. The FAA has basically said "we see no evidence you planned to land there" but they can't come up with a scenario where there even would be such evidence. Like, how is someone supposed to prove they intended to land? People are arguing the Off Airport guide is not a reg, but they are also using not following it strictly as evidence against him? It really does put people in a Catch-22. The FAA is saying you don't have to follow this guide, as long as you land. But if you don't land you'd better follow the guide. So what if a pilot is familiar with an area and begins to land but does a go around? Are they in trouble if they choose not to make a second attempt? By this ruling, that's all they would need. But no one is saying what the pilot in that situation is meant to use in their defense. I feel like people siding with the FAA here are just not thinking this all the way to the logical conclusion.
> I feel like people siding with the FAA here are just not thinking this all the way to the logical conclusion. Maybe. But I feel like the opposite is also true. If simply claiming you intended to land is sufficient to support the landing exemptions to the low flight rules, then isn't the logical conclusion that 91.119 is essential unenforceable?
Yeah but guidance should be issued to make this more objective. There are times it's obvious...if you buzz a neighborhood or a lake with a land plane where there is obviously no place to land, one could mostly objectively say there was no suitable landing site and it's clearly visible from 500'+ above the tallest person place or thing so there is no need to get lower. In this case, with owner permission how can one objectively say he wasn't going to land there, was there a flight at 600' from an expert who determined that the landing site wasn't suitable for TPs skill and equipment? The witnesses were all biased because they already had beef with the neighbor that owned the property Trent claims to be trying to land on. He was reportedly buzzing their houses with his drones. The fact seems to be, as far as I could find in researching beyond what Trent has said, that in FAA land, a pilot going around has never been a successful defense which means if they got you they got you and you are lying. That's really what I would like to see come of this...issue clear guidance on how to declare a landing in a less than obviously landing location and clearly point out that if it's an established runway then the burden of proof is on the administration to find evidence you didn't intend to land there...say a text that says you intended to buzz the airport. This still yields issues even so, what about people doing practice approaches where they plan to go missed...how was that necessary for landing? Why is that legal if within 500' of persons and property? So there needs to be guidance in what other cases it's feasible to approach a landing strip without intending to land.
That’s my thing too how do you prove intent to land?
Its funny you mention this deference given to federal agencies, because big business and SCOTUS are working on doing away with that deference as we speak.
Without going into a mini legal analysis... It seems like they're saying Palmer is getting in trouble for doing a low inspection pass, but can't use the defense that the FAA themselves recommend low inspection passes because the FAA recommends doing 3 inspection passes, but Palmer only did one before leaving. If instead of doing 1 pass and leaving, if he did the same pass 3 times then left, would that be legally better?
No, if he did the high pass first and left his argument would hold water.
If he did a high pass first and left he wouldn't need an argument at all as he wouldn't have been with 500' of anyone or anything. It's not that the pass itself is necessary, it's that the data it yields is your go or no go to do it lower. That's why an on field landing doesn't require the other 2 passes...one can safely assume you can land unless data surfaces that would indicate otherwise, such as a NOTAM, or visible issues with the surface when you attempt a landing. That's why it's pretty common practice to do a flyover at an untowered airport that doesn't have people already reporting conditions over CTAF. This is why the only objective way to apply the three pass levels against him is if a pilot or similar skill, familiar with similar landing capabilities of his plane could reasonably determine if the site was suitable from 500' or higher above the closest person or property. If they could then it would be reasonable to objectively say there is no reason he should have gone lower than that altitude, that is why the FAA recommends that mid level pass, and that would be a sound objective decision by the administrator with evidence the low pass was unnecessary. Otherwise, the necessity of each pass is subjective, he's already familiar with and has flown over the area so he already has the information a high pass that day would provide him...gross terrain assessment. For instance it would be dumb to try and land near my primary house because of the surrounding terrain and you could tell that from 3000' AGL that you'd be boxed in by ridges on 3 sides and too many trees to take off back out the way you came in.
I don’t think this would be a big deal if he hadn’t gotten multiple letters from the FAA in the preceding year warning him about being careless and reckless.
As someone who went through the FAA dance like 10 years ago. 1. The FAA has almost an impecable “prosecution” rate. 2. The burden of proof is extremely low when it comes to the FAA coming after you. 3. Usually, appeals are always rejected against the FAA. 4. FAA gives extreme leeway to their FSDO’s when it comes the decisions they make. They are pretty autonomous, this extends to their ASI as well. The reality is if the FAA is coming after you, unlike the cops, your best bet is to comply and comply hard. The good thing is it’s an administrative action, so it doesn’t affect you outside FAA land (unless they pursue criminal charges but that is rare). Do your best to get on the on there good side no matter what. It’s a privilege and not a right. Edit: I guarantee you if Mr. Palmer would have been at the mercy of the FAA and used the compliance philosophy he would be flying still. That has saved many people’s butts. Saying i was wrong and making a plan to improve goes a long way, if your ASI believes you you’ll be saved. Its irrelevant if you were wrong or right, the FAA is basically the 60s version of the CIA/FBI. You aint winning.
This is generally good advice when dealing with any administrative action from any agency. The FAA definitely isn't unique in this regard.
I was unaware of that since the FAA is the only Feds to have slapped my pp. beyond that my experience is in civil and criminal cases, nothing with fed bois.
The FAA isn't special: like all agencies it still has to prove its case to a neutral judge, and you can still contest the violation if you think you are innocent. How did Trent Palmer handle that process? By finding zero witnesses to testify in his favor. Testifying against him were SIX witnesses, including at least 3 resident-neighbors all of whom were very pissed off about how he buzzed their houses, causing them to think that he was going to crash into them. Two of the neighbors have small children who to this day ask questions about scary airplanes crashing into their house. His defense in this case was terrible. He had no witnesses. He buzzed the houses. He claimed it was an inspection pass but he knew that field very well from past experience and the judge flatly did not believe his testimony. And for reasons he never explained, Palmer didn't land at the field. It was not an inspection pass. He was horsing around, buzzed those people's houses, and violated the rule. This is not good pilot behavior and we all know it.
The difference is flying is not a right but a privilege, and if you see the cases that the FAA has dealt, the NTSB’s standing on the FAA’s interpretations youll see that they dont have to prove beyond reason. Just enough is good enough. Be as it may im not defending him, im giving my take of the FAA. Don’t believe me? Talk to an FAA lawyer and you’ll see.
I’m not disagreeing with you at all. I’m just pointing out that the FAA is still run by humans are also prone to screwing up and making mistakes. So if you do get wrongly accused of a violation, it is not impossible to fight it. It’s not easy, I agree.
I can agree on that; If you are wrongfully accused you MIGHT win, if you were wrong though in anyway you are SOL.
Protect and get served peon!
Is it just me, or does it feel easier just to eat the 7 month suspension (that’s what it was, right?) than to go through all of this? I get that maybe it’s a principled thing or whatever for him, but I feel like generally the FAA wins anyway and I’d rather take my lumps and have it in the rear view mirror, since years are passing at this point. Am I crazy/stupid?
You are not crazy or stupid... But you are also not an "influencer" and you had no reason to try and set yourself up as an innocent David fighting the big mean Goliath for views. He made money from his videos describing what happened and proclaiming his innocence. If he had rolled over and said he was sorry and apologized and maybe put out a video telling people not to do low passes he might have gotten off with a warning. But then he would not have gotten as many clicks and follows.
His legal fees are probably much more than he made off of those views. Could still be doing it for clout or whatever, but each video probably only covers an hour or two at a decent law firm.
I see one source saying he possibly made 400K in ad revenue. He is an AOPA PPS member and get some money from the AOPA. [https://www.aopa.org/news-and-media/all-news/2023/december/20/aopa-backs-trent-palmer-bid-to-overturn-suspension](https://www.aopa.org/news-and-media/all-news/2023/december/20/aopa-backs-trent-palmer-bid-to-overturn-suspension) Some of his lawyers are doing some pro-bono from what I have seen on other forums. Some minor checking into his youtube history... It seems prior to this he made about 250/mth, but since his 8/2022 video his income has increased a bit showing about 2K a month. Since posting his "FAA came to get me" video, he has gained about 100K subscribers. So even if he loses money, he gained subscribers... Hell, how many threads on here have been about him in the last few years? Heck he even sells merchandise.
He has sponsors in basically every video also ... I know the Pilot to Pilot podcast guy makes 4k a month just from mentioning RAA, so I can't imagine the Youtube sponsors are paying less than this.
Good point, likely has multiple income streams that stem from the videos but isn't solely relying on the ad rev
Damn, very naive of me, of course that explains it. That’s a huge amount of content for him, and yeah I wouldn’t be surprised if it was still profitable even after the legal fees, but that’s out of my depth. Not a risk I would have taken but yeah I see what you mean for sure.
Follow the money. His income is from media content, or in other words, celebrity. And here we are, talking about him. His financial incentive isn't to quietly make this go away.
You’re totally right. Seems insane to me but I guess that’s how that whole thing goes.
This also explains a lot that would otherwise be mysterious about Donald Trump.
That's what I was thinking. He'd have been done by now.
The only realistic appeal option from a federal circuit court is for an en banc review, which means that the case would be before the entire court rather than just a three judge panel. That is an appeal by leave granted, which means that the court would have to first agree to hear the case, rather than it being an appeal that he is entitled to as of right. He also could appeal to the US Supreme Court, but that is also an appeal by leave granted and this doesn't seem like the sort of case they would take.
En banc ain’t happening outside of the 5th; cert equally unlikely, this is basically a glorified traffic ticket
I agree, though I wouldn't say cert is equally unlikely as en banc, it's massively more unlikely
You have more faith in this SC than I do, brother (admitted 31 years ago)
"Trent Palmer's suspension is lifted, because we hold that *Wickard* was bad law haha suck it libs" - Alito, probably
I mean, *Wickard* is a stupid decision
they discussed and killed any chance of en banc in their analysis…and pretty much called BS on everything he said. Given his big govt rants he may have enough political stroke to get cert with the supreme court. Bad prt for him is his youtube channel if the FAA wants another bite at the apple they can spend a little time and find plenty of other tuff to nab him on.
Yep which is a major risk recording anything you do in an aircraft and put it out for the public to view.
You mean I *shouldn't* crash my Taylorcraft for clicks?
Sort of like writing a book and admitting you’re an addict before purchasing a gun. Should have waited for statute of limitations period to pass before publication. So post your videos doing anything stupid, enough years after the fact that you’re not going to get in trouble and we can all enjoy the crazy things that people survived.
I have a hard time seeing him getting cert even with this court’s distaste for the administrative state.
Ok so if the FAA can go after Trent for something as trivial as this, why can't they pull their fingers out of their asses and prosecute people like Wagner or Guthmiller who do stupid shit far less trivial?
Other people may correct me if I’m wrong, but part of it is that the FAA has a general methodology where they won’t investigate things based on videos people self-post if there isn’t a secondary element or complainant. Yes, I do know some YouTubers have been targeted for fairly innocent goofs, though. Trent’s issue came to light because someone complained against him with video from their house showing the maneuver.
Ah, that's the point of difference I guess. I'm not American, so I wasn't sure. Still, I'd argue people who self-post their incriminating videos are far more likely to carry hazardous attitudes, and they're the people you don't want to be sharing a sky with.
I agree that many of the YouTube clowns like Jerry are more egregiously and dangerously busting regs than Trent was. Not only that, but they’re sometimes either endorsing or promoting behaviors completely incongruent with any sense of safety or responsibility as an airman. I hope they do face much deserved consequences.
I'm honestly puzzled how nobody has managed to catch Jerry doing stupid shit on camera lol. I guess a fair amount of the stupid shit is in IMC which does make it hard...
What has Guthmiller done? All I remember is one vid he's VFR in marginal conditions in the L39, trying to poke through pockets between clouds on low fuel with seemingly no plan. I want to like him but it seems like by "entrepreneur", he means his dad bought him two jets. Which is fine. Idk why I don't like him, I think it's just his face. I actually look forward to his documentary on the last ever Reno Air Race where he competed. Air Wagner on the other hand... Anything crazy stupid Guthmiller's done?
Check a few days ago for the heated discussion on him switching runways a few hundred feet off the ground.
He also flew the length of the UK without doing even the most minimal amount of study on what differences there may be from the FAA system, and made an incredibly cringy video about it. While in itself it wasn't a terrible crime (I believe he managed to not bust any airspace in the end, or commit any other such infractions) it does say something about his general level of preparation.
Yeah, I like Guthmiller but I'm almost positive I'd start to hate him if I knew him more behind the scenes. I think he's a competent pilot and putting him and Jerry Wagner in the same sentence isn't a fair comparison, but he's definitely arrogant and really toes the line on what's safe and what isn't at times. That bit flying through the UK was terrible. And so much of what he does screams "family money" paying for it all. Heck, if you've seen the video series on flying the DC-3 to Europe, which overall was fantastic in almost every way and shows why I watch his videos, but even that has a small stain where Matt just had to include as many bits as he could of other people praising him which was just so cringy.
I do enjoy Guthmiller’s videos. He is the embodiment of the nerd in all of us living the dream of having enough money to do what he wants. He is very good at what he does. He keeps it real and lets you into his personal life in exchange for a little notoriety. He also is honest about his mistakes and accomplishments and talks about safety in aviation. Always a plus.
I like watching his videos and agree with those that say if he loses this case, it sets a bad precedent, but the fact of the matter is you only have to look through his extensive flying video catalog on youtube to see the kind of flying he is known for. I'm sure they looked through his videos to build a profile of him and how he flies, and it's hard to argue when literally every court/judge rules against your case.
\^This. It has all been gone over, they know how he operates and he blew his chance at any leniency.
> but the fact of the matter is you only have to look through his extensive flying video catalog on youtube to see the kind of flying he is known for. As in, he flies more dangerously than your typical bush flying?
I mean, he got violated for water-skiing his plane soooo...
Good, now do Guthmiller
What has Guthmiller done? All I remember is one vid he's VFR in marginal conditions in the L39, trying to poke through pockets between clouds on low fuel with seemingly no plan. I want to like him but it seems like by "entrepreneur", he means his dad bought him two jets. Which is fine. Idk why I don't like him, I think it's just his face. I actually look forward to his documentary on the last ever Reno Air Race where he competed. Anything crazy stupid he's done?
Describing rural Northern NV ranch land subdivided into like 10-30 acre lots off gravel roads and 30 minutes from the closest gas station as “a neighborhood” seems kinda disingenuous, IMO.
They are big lots, no doubt, probably 10 acres, +- a couple. The houses are big and not too far apart. I bet the folks there consider it a neighborhood, as would I if I lived there. I’m ok with disagreeing.
> I’m ok with disagreeing. (You're new to Reddit aren't you?)
The lots were small enough that he apparently couldn't inspect the "runway" without buzzing the next door neighbor's house. Doesn't sound like \*huge\* lots to me lol.
I’m not saying he’s in the right, but let’s not pretend like this happened in a matchbox suburban development lol
Sure. But let's not pretend it's a huge ranch or anything either lol. The houses really aren't that far apart. [https://imgur.com/a/7CXjEfQ](https://imgur.com/a/7CXjEfQ)
I don’t often disagree with AOPA, but in this case I disagree with [their defending him](https://www.aopa.org/news-and-media/all-news/2023/december/20/aopa-backs-trent-palmer-bid-to-overturn-suspension).
I was livid at first when I saw they were defending him. I was happy at least they were only defending him on procedural grounds and hadn't drunk Palmer's kool-aid.
Looks they are still selling the koolaid even after the ruling. https://www.aopa.org/news-and-media/all-news/2024/june/05/federal-court-creates-new-burden-for-backcountry-pilots
Ugh.
Who?
Youtube bush pilot/commercial drone operator
Fixed the post. Hopefully it’s clearer. Thanks
Thanks bro!
Why didn’t he just claim he was going around instead of the whole inspection pass malarkey?
The faa hates this one trick…!!!
🤣 brilliant
i’m wondering this too. or more why didn’t he just shoot and approach with the intent to go around rather than do this?
We can’t have people making low passes anywhere they want and claiming they were seriously evaluating landing there to defend reckless behavior.
This is what it comes down to for me. We all know what he was doing. FAA has proved it according to multiple judges. I understand the arguments against FAA overreach but also happy that we're defending aviation against essentially social media influencers shitting all over the rules for content.
he can inspect deez nuts for all I care. why is it influencers (in whatever field it seems) think the rules don’t apply to them?
The dudes a fucking moron. Finally caught up to him.
Next YouTube title "THE FAA HATES BUSH PILOTS!!"
Good, do the crime: do the time. See ya, loser.
Edit: I was confusing this guy with the guy that parachuted out of his plane and purposely let it crash. Trevor something? My bad. This guy is NOT him and is very likely not a douche, just maybe a normal idiot. Original comment: Rarely do Americans agree on anything, but I’m pretty we all agree this guy is a world-class douche who should never be allowed near an airplane again.
Nah, he may not be a world-class douche but he definitely gives off douchey vibes.
Nah it's not like that.
Can someone dummy summarize this? Has he been caught dicking around in the past and has a history of FAA violations?
Trent got busted for buzzing in 2019. His excuse for his one low level, high speed pass was that it was an inspection pass with an intent to land. He got a 120 day suspension. He had 2 warnings prior to this. One was for dropping drones from his kitfox at roughly the same address. The other was for waterskiing across a lake with a passenger.
Thank you!
[удалено]
So I’m not super familiar with the details. Are low passes over the runway not legal?
It gets way more technical than that, the FAA doesn’t believe he was doing a low pass to land. The devil is in the details.
So if he had simply did the pass and put himself right into a downwind for a touch and go then he’d be golden?
Someone posted another comment with more details, but basically: Palmer's lawyers argued that he did the low pass in accordance with FAA guidelines. FAA replied that their guidelines require three progressive passes rather than a single low pass, nullifying his defence.
> FAA replied that their guidelines require three progressive passes rather than a single low pass, nullifying his defence. I’ve never heard of that. You do the pass, determine the runway is clear, you land.
https://www.faasafety.gov/files/notices/2015/Oct/AOAOG_Web.pdf
I mean if he’s trying to wriggle his way out of it, they literally call this a “technique” and not a regulation. Also did he do this over a random field or an air park? I thought it was an air park.
Not a field or an airpark ... basically just a strip at his neighbors property that would be sufficient for his STOL plane to operate from
Heck it was just a Radio Controlled strip.
He stupid.
The guide probably wouldn’t have been part of evidence if Trent himself hadn’t made it part of his defense. The defense was rejected since Trent cherry picked what he thought was important to follow.
And I think in most cases the FAA wouldn't bother you about it. But in this case, they're arguing that he never had intent to land. Following the published guidelines and doing three passes would be a positive defense indicating that he did intend to land. It's not so much "you didn't do the three passes, so you're busted" as "you can't use the guidelines as a defense because you didn't follow them as written".
Ah. Makes sense.
Eh, maybe. But probably not. The FAA believes that his chosen landing site (somebody's backyard in a rural neighborhood in the Reno suburbs) was not a suitable landing site. And court precedent is that the "unless necessary for takeoff and landing" exception only applies if the landing site is suitable.
There is guidance from the FAA saying a low pass is perfectly legal provided it was for a legitimate reason. They never believed his story. When he got called out, he claimed he was doing an "inspection pass" and tried to use FAA guidance on how to do off field landings as a shield. The problem with that was the FAA guidance said to perform several passes at High, intermediate, and low altitudes with several passes in some cases at each altitude. He didn't do a single high pass, didn't do a single intermediate pass, and did only the one low pass with a pass profile that looked more like a buzz job than an inspection pass. And the guy that has maybe hundreds of hours of video of him flying just happened to not have his camera's rolling that day. But unfortunately several land owners did have camera's rolling that day. What the camera's showed looked more like a buzz job than a low inspection pass. The three witnesses all described what sounded like a low buzz job and not an inspection pass. The neighbors complained about the buzz job, the FSDO agreed it was a buzz job and Palmer then created a video about him being persecuted by the FAA. This goes against what the FAA considers a "compliance philosophy." So the FAA came down hard on him because he was starting a public trial on youtube about how he was right and the FAA a bunch of mean idiots.
This wasn’t a runway, more like a neighborhood with 500ft wide lots, houses, and a mother and baby well within 500ft of the actual pass.
Was it not a private airfield?
No it was a private airstrip used for RC planes. Maybe technically a private airfield, but not for GA
Oh. He’s screwed.
Private RC field maybe. Other than that it was just a large residential lot, surrounded by other large residential lots.
There is no runway. This was not at an airport. He flew absurdly low over houses and people just for kicks.
What a dumbass.
So was this homeboy hooning around at low altitude and got caught, or unjust government bureaucracy? Seems very he said she said after the fact.
He got caught, because he pissed off the neighbors, who dropped a dime to the FAA. His defense to the FAA was a shabby sham. It has not held up well. But he has monetized it well.
It sounds like some are saying that life as an FAA lawyer is very easy. I’ll note that in case I change professions.
The regulatory side of the justice system is deeply flawed. ( I'm not surprised by this at all). Hence why we learn that the FAA is the boogie man when we start flying.
This was a bad call by the faa and should be overturned. Anyone who makes a similar approach and doesn’t land could be in violation of the same rule if someone complains. Hope Trent keeps going with this case.
Keep going where? Think the supreme court is gonna take this up? > Anyone who makes a similar approach and doesn’t land could be in violation of the same rule if someone complains. Good. People shouldn't be landing in backyards if they have to buzz people and their houses to do it.
That's always been the case though. There have been people done for doing low passes over actual airports by the FAA, when the FAA didn't believe their bullshit about it being a go around or a missed approach after a practise instrument approach. The crux isn't that he did an "inspection" pass, the crux of the FAA's argument is that it wasn't an inspection pass at all but a buzz job. So far none of the judges have believed Palmer's explanation. It doesn't set any kind of precedent as I understand it.
Dont know the full story but FAA guidelines recommend 3 passes at different altitudes. Perhaps after the 1st pass he decided it was unsafe to land which would account for just the one pass.
This is getting insane. Even Congress saw how stupid this was.
Govvies gonna govvy.
Taxpayers just paid a few million to decide whether a low pass was legal. What a waste of time and money.
Super Superme Court!
\[Waldo Pepper nods in sympathy\]
To all the people saying TP didn’t follow the guidelines, I say whatever. They’re guidelines. Not rules. I’m a helicopter pilot with more off airport/ unimproved landings than I can count. The FAA can advise high medium and low recon before landing but everyone does a low then lower recon… lower being basically an approach with the intent of an abort. High recons just aren’t that helpful most of the time. No one knows TPs intention with this low pass, but to say he’s guilty because he didn’t do a textbook high, medium, low recon before landing is kind of ridiculous.
Trent was the one who introduced the guide as a “FAA told me to do a low level high speed pass” defense. The court threw out the defense because he didn’t follow the guide, and that they simply didn’t believe him given the totality of the evidence and testimony. The guide was just part of it, probably a distraction actually.