At the end of March, an administrative law judge rejected Trent Palmer's appeal regarding a low-pass inspection of an off-airport landing site. Unfortunately, that landing site was in a residential area with large lots (5 acres or more) and neighbors complained. A 120 suspension of Trent's license may be the final result.

I have mixed feelings about this. Trent was following the FAA's own guidance regarding assessment of off-airport landing sites. From that perspective, it seems he should have a get-out-of-jail free card. On the other hand, selection of this particular off-airport site showed particularly bad judgement. I enjoy off airport operations and love the solitude that airplane camping on a remote alpine meadow or a dry lakebed offers. Those locations are miles away from any house or structure. Although the FAA regs allow busting the clearance limits from structures when landing, the intent of the regs seems to be focused on situations when landing at an airport with businesses on the field, or a residential airpark with homes along the runway. I doubt the FAA was thinking about pilots attempting to land in a residential neighborhood - even one with particularly large lots.

Although Trent seems to have met the letter of the law, it is clear the administrative law judge doesn't feel he met the intent of the law.. What I'm afraid of is the FAA tightening their regulations governing off-airport operations to become even more restrictive. I just hope Trent hasn't screwed the pooch for those of us with a more conservative approach to off-airport operations.

I suspect this will create a firestorm of posts strongly pro and strongly anti Trent. That was not my intent. I'm posting this because I hope all of us that enjoy off-airport operations seriously consider the impact those operations may have on the non-flying public. I'd hate to see my freedoms curtailed because of a few pilots that don't stop to think about how their flight ops may result in significant pushback by the public and additional regulations by the FAA. Heck, we have lots of complaints from local property owners about the noise generated from our county airport. We all know of airports that have been closed because of housing encroachment and noise complaints. It seems all pilots would want to minimize public complaints about our flight operations to preserve as many of our aviation freedoms as possible.

Here's the link to the story and the administrative law judge's ruling: https://www.avweb.com/flight-safety/faa-regs/ntsb-denies-trent-palmer-certificate-suspension-appeal/

Had this been a court of law, where the burden of proof is on the prosecution I doubt they even would have brought the charge against Trent

But it’s the FAA, the police, judge, prosecutor, and jury are all basically the same guy and you have to prove your innocence

Mean time the guy who crashed his plane intentionally for his YouTube is about to be able to legally fly again

Administrative law is very administrative. There are no checks and balances. When spray planes were ragged and cheap, we picked up the pieces and hauled them back to the airport with FAA blessing. At the same time we avoided confrontation with the non-farm public. Except where FAA grants were involved, they tended to try to please the public. 500' over or 2,000' lateral when practicable meant do a good job for the farmer but clean the other direction rather than pull up over any house. The public has little experience estimating height and distance. Generally however, the non-flying public can evaluate how careful we are trying to be. Some are going to call the FAA regardless. That is a chance we have to take when the mission dictates. Yes, we have to consider the justification of the mission in the public mind rather than our own. Farmers support Ag and that helps a lot. We need to think about who is likely to support us in the backcounty. Offence is not the best defence out there.

Flyhound wrote:I suspect this will create a firestorm of posts strongly pro and strongly anti Trent. That was not my intent. I'm posting this because I hope all of us that enjoy off-airport operations seriously consider the impact those operations may have on the non-flying public. I'd hate to see my freedoms curtailed because of a few pilots that don't stop to think about how their flight ops may result in significant pushback by the public and additional regulations by the FAA. Heck, we have lots of complaints from local property owners about the noise generated from our county airport. We all know of airports that have been closed because of housing encroachment and noise complaints. It seems all pilots would want to minimize public complaints about our flight operations to preserve as many of our aviation freedoms as possible. [/url]

Yes, without dwelling on the self-styled "Flying Cowboys" public image... (the name doesn't help conjure thoughts of responsible flying). I think you have nailed the important lesson here. It can happen to all of us.

I think a credible pre-landing landing inspection should be flown down the vector like a baulked landing - shallow approach, low level pass in a slow, controlled matter - with obvious intent to land - steady climb out without undue noise. I also believe they are best performed with consideration of the surroundings (fly neighbourly) - are there livestock, people, birds in the area. I do fly such inspection runs myself; the noise during go-around and 'shock value' of seeing a very low flying plane is always front of mind. It is easy to scare or annoy people.

It's hard to know what really happened. To my eyes, the video looked like a blatant "fly-by" or "beat-up" on a friend's house or airstrip which got caught on camera, but who can say? That's obviously what he's been judged on - his flying. We all have to fly so carefully these days, EVERYONE is carrying cameras, everything can potentially be captured on video.

I am sure the decision-makers have both sides of the story, something we are unlikely to be privy to. I tend to assume they made the best possible decision.

Hey ! Check me out , I’m on you tube. Putting yourself in the spotlight all the time will surely bite you in the ass eventually. Judge probably sat down and watched all the stuff he’s posted over the years , saw a bunch of stuff that was questionable and slammed him. He’s not really low key with his operations. This kind of stuff will just make the powers that be start making up new regs . It sucks but you cant really blame them .

low rider wrote:Hey ! Check me out , I’m on you tube. Putting yourself in the spotlight all the time will surely bite you in the ass eventually. Judge probably sat down and watched all the stuff he’s posted over the years , saw a bunch of stuff that was questionable and slammed him. He’s not really low key with his operations. This kind of stuff will just make the powers that be start making up new regs . It sucks but you cant really blame them .

Sure I can blame them, I saw nothing on his channel, that in my experience as a pilot with much more experience than the FAAs “experts” looked to put the public or the pilot or property in danger

If the kangaroo court “administrative law” judges FAA people don’t have better things to do then mess with that man’s life over what amounts to nothing, perhaps they are some of the fat we should cut off government.



Hard to bring new people and younger generations into aviation when you practically have to act like Anne Frank when it come to commuting the crime of aviating

I like his videos and seems like a good guy, but word on the street is that it was a flyby. I would have had the same defense if I were him though. Just didn’t work this time.

When I was young and boisterous there was Army aviation, a war, crop dusting, medevac. It helps to be young and have a mission.

Mean time the guy who crashed his plane intentionally for his YouTube is about to be able to legally fly again

Do you have a link to anything that states that ? Im looking. Would love to read about that

We had a guy locally who got busted for flying on 9/11, after the entire US airspace was closed.
Instead of admitting he fucked up & taking his slap on the wrist, he appealed & made a big fuss about it.
He ended up getting a one-year suspension, or maybe it was a revocation-- can't recall.
The moral of the story is that sometimes it's best just to fess up, take your lumps, and move on.

Perhaps this was not the first time at this place? Perhaps there were other complaints and this was the first one with video?
I used to watch a lot of YouTube videos. I don’t anymore. Sure looks like some of the content creators are trying to find more sensational stuff all the time. It’s become a business for some of them, it encourages scrutiny.

I am a big supporter of innocent until proven guilty, but this country got away from that a long time ago.

sierrasplitter wrote:

Mean time the guy who crashed his plane intentionally for his YouTube is about to be able to legally fly again

Do you have a link to anything that states that ? Im looking. Would love to read about that

“A YouTuber crashed his plane. The FAA says it was all for show.
Julian Mark
Trevor Jacob’s small airplane soared over California’s Los Padres National Forest in November when, all of a sudden, the propeller stopped spinning.

Jacob, who was filming himself in the cockpit, cursed repeatedly. “I’m over the mountains and I … have an engine out,” he said.

Seconds later, he jumped out of the plane, using a selfie stick to film his descent before deploying a parachute and landing in the wilderness. The episode was captured in a video Jacob later posted to YouTube titled “I Crashed My Plane,” which also shows the aircraft barreling into the mountainous landscape via cameras affixed to its body. The rest of the video, which has received more than 2.2 million views since being posted in December, features Jacob narrating his trek out of the forest and his eventual rescue.

“I’m just so happy to be alive,” Jacob said at one point in the video.

Now, following a Federal Aviation Administration probe, the agency has revoked his pilot’s license, concluding that Jacob crashed the plane as a stunt.

“On November 24, 2021, you demonstrated a lack of care, judgment, and responsibility by choosing to jump out of an aircraft solely so you could record the footage of the crash,” the agency said in an April 11 letter to Jacob.

In a YouTube video posted Saturday, Jacob stood by his December plane crash video. “I didn’t think that just posting a video of an adventure gone south would ruffle so many feathers,” he said.

Jacob also filmed himself mailing in his pilot’s license, wearing a shirt that stated in bold black letters: “ALWAYS WEAR YOUR PARACHUTE.” As Jacob traveled to the post office, he said: “The aviation community has been pretty tough on me, so I’m thinking about quitting altogether and giving up, just because I’m hated.”

Neither Jacob nor his lawyer responded to a request for comment from The Washington Post late Sunday.

Jacob is a former Olympic snowboarder who placed ninth in the men’s snowboard cross competition at the 2014 Winter Games. Since then, Jacob has posted videos to his YouTube channel of himself skydiving, performing snowboard stunts and flying propeller planes.

The FAA cited several pieces of evidence that Jacob intentionally crashed his plane in November, saying he did not call air traffic control, try to restart the engine or attempt to land the plane “even though there were multiple areas within gliding range in which you could have made a safe landing.”

Jacob also attached multiple cameras to the exterior of the plane, the FAA noted, and continued to record the plane’s descent into the mountains with his selfie stick as he fell from the sky. Moreover, the FAA said, Jacob disposed of the plane wreckage and recovered the cameras he had attached to it.

The agency called the crash “careless and reckless,” noting that Jacob could have hurt someone or damaged property. Los Padres National Forest stretches 220 miles and attracts visitors for hiking and camping.

Jacob may not reapply for his license for a year, according to the FAA’s letter.

John Nance, an aviation expert, told ABC’s “Good Morning America” that the FAA did the “right thing” but should have done it sooner. “This person does not ever belong in the skies,” he said, adding that Jacob’s actions were “brazen.”

Before the FAA made its determination, members of the aviation community were doubtful Jacob’s video was genuine, saying it was unusual that Jacob brought a parachute with him on a routine flight and that he didn’t try to land the plane. Parachutes are typically only used by aerobatic pilots or those who do flight tests, said Trent Palmer, a pilot with his own YouTube channel who criticized Jacob following the crash.

“It blows my mind that he would go out of his way to wreck an airplane like that for something as stupid as, like, YouTube views,” Palmer said.”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2 ... ane-crash/

Jacob may not reapply for his license for a year, according to the FAA’s letter.

so you are basing the statement He is about to get his license back on the above statement in the original article ?

That applies to anyone who get their license revoked. Did you read somewhere He is actually attempting it ?

sierrasplitter wrote:

Jacob may not reapply for his license for a year, according to the FAA’s letter.

so you are basing the statement He is about to get his license back on the above statement in the original article ?

That applies to anyone who get their license revoked. Did you read somewhere He is actually attempting it ?

Ahh, no I didn’t

But doesn’t matter, he deliberately crashes a aircraft into public lands and just can’t fly for a 365 days and would have to do another checkride? That should have been a lifetime ban from any FAA cert and felony jail time

Meanwhile the FAA tried to go after a guy for a low inspection pass, where no damage or injury was done, for 120 days, that’s 33% of the time as a guy who deliberately crashed a frickin’ plane

Government is clown world mode these days

Lets not forget Palmers prior waterski issue with the FAA. He got off with pretty easy once.........maybe more that we are not privy to?

Ahh, no I didn’t

But doesn’t matter,

It does to me. maybe Im the last guy in America that ask for actual proof of action instead of assumptions.

sierrasplitter wrote:

Ahh, no I didn’t

But doesn’t matter,

It does to me. maybe Im the last guy in America that ask for actual proof of action instead of assumptions.

You misunderstood what I said

My point is comparing the punishment

One was resulted in major danger to anyone on those public lands, destruction of a plane and the environment and change for a fire in a place that always catches on fire, etc

Palmer did a low pass and not even a ladybug was harmed

I have had numerous interaction's with the FAA on the medical and certification side of the house. In all of my experience the FAA has been fair and balanced their approach. It servers you well to answer the questions they ask with nothing but the truth. Many folks need to approach any interaction with the FAA from this aspect.

MW

185Midwest wrote:I have had numerous interaction's with the FAA on the medical and certification side of the house. In all of my experience the FAA has been fair and balanced their approach. It servers you well to answer the questions they ask with nothing but the truth. Many folks need to approach any interaction with the FAA from this aspect.

MW

I have not had the same experience with the FAA

My initial CFI at the FSDO was great, I thought all the people who said bad stuff about the FAA were curmudgeons, then I got more hours, had more experiences, and sadly the rest of my experiences ranged from incompetent to down right abusive

I have a aviation atty on my phones contacts, that’s how I would deal with any question from the feds

FAA could probably bust every one of us for something or another. Doesn’t really matter what us pilots think of someone laying down buzz jobs or whatever. Matters what the FAA thinks . Like it or not . I’m betting the FAA is getting quite sick of you tube pilots and when there is a call to action against one of them they might just have a more difficult time letting whatever they did slide . ……