The way the FAA changes rules (this happens very seldom) is by publishing a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking. There is a public comment period. It is far, far more conservative than progressive. I think our average age here is well up there and thus fairly conservative (not a political party as in UK) and somewhat not too worried about rules changes. Zane will properly correct me if I err in this evaluation of the situation.

Rob wrote:Karen;

She's every bit as beautiful as my Karen was. Thank you, Rob.

contactflying wrote:The way the FAA changes rules (this happens very seldom) is by publishing a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking. There is a public comment period. It is far, far more conservative than progressive. I think our average age here is well up there and thus fairly conservative (not a political party as in UK) and somewhat not too worried about rules changes. Zane will properly correct me if I err in this evaluation of the situation.

The public comment period, instead of having a submit button it should just say “send to trash”

They only have that because they have to and to give the illusion of caring what the public think, they don’t

FAA, ATF, etc

hotrod180 wrote:

Rob wrote:

So the original 120 day suspension was knocked down to 60 days?
I think I would have taken that as a win and just quit while I was ahead.
BTW thanks for posting this Rob.

I got sued by the EPA years ago, for $13,000,000,00. We ended up settling for $350.00, and my attorney friend said we could get it to zero in a another month or so, but I had already written the check out. I'd have taken the 60 days as fast.

Just to add on to the thread a bit, here is a link that shows the neighbors security camera footage of the "low pass" in question. Based on the video, id say this was an obvious fly by and not in any way an attempt to land. The pass appears to have around 60 degrees bank, high speed, and a slightly aggressive pull up at the end. Trent claimed he had a copy of the video and that he did nothing wrong, however at no point was he willing to share the video to prove his innocence. If i were in that position and I had a video showing I did nothing wrong, I'd show it to everyone I could find... Just my opinion, its worth exactly what you paid for it!

Video is around a third of the way down the page...

https://www.flyingmag.com/does-trent-pa ... uspension/

jlacharite wrote:Just to add on to the thread a bit, here is a link that shows the neighbors security camera footage of the "low pass" in question. Based on the video, id say this was an obvious fly by and not in any way an attempt to land. The pass appears to have around 60 degrees bank, high speed, and a slightly aggressive pull up at the end. Trent claimed he had a copy of the video and that he did nothing wrong, however at no point was he willing to share the video to prove his innocence. If i were in that position and I had a video showing I did nothing wrong, I'd show it to everyone I could find... Just my opinion, its worth exactly what you paid for it!

Video is around a third of the way down the page...

https://www.flyingmag.com/does-trent-pa ... uspension/

That looks like it was filmed on a potato lol

But despite the plastic lens’s doorbell camera type footage of a distant object, I still don’t see it

He did a bank to the pilot side, I do that when checking stuff out on the ground

He had some speed in the bank, yeah I hope so, lift and stall speed and all

He pulled up, yeah I hope so x2, I mean how many degrees a second am I allowed to pull up in the FAR? Because I can’t find it



Sadly lots of pilots:
“Regulate me harder daddy!”

Pretty sure nobody said that but you

Sadly lots of pilots:
“Regulate me harder daddy!”

Pretty easy to figure you out. Getting tired of Americans like you. Im sure so are those around you

sierrasplitter wrote:

Sadly lots of pilots:
“Regulate me harder daddy!”

Pretty easy to figure you out. Getting tired of Americans like you. Im sure so are those around you

Don’t be nasty

I’ve met more people who’s are getting sick of the over bearing state than me, but I don’t hang out with lots of statists


Legit, do you not see where this type of ruling going unchallenged leads? Or do you approve of where it leads?

NineThreeKilo wrote:

sierrasplitter wrote:

Sadly lots of pilots:
“Regulate me harder daddy!”

Pretty easy to figure you out. Getting tired of Americans like you. Im sure so are those around you

Don’t be nasty

I’ve met more people who’s are getting sick of the over bearing state than me, but I don’t hang out with lots of statists


Legit, do you not see where this type of ruling going unchallenged leads? Or do you approve of where it leads?

After watching that video it is pretty hard to make an argument that that was a low speed inspection.
For me it’s not about what leaving this ruling unchallenged leads, it’s where does the lack of discipline and respect shown by the pilot lead? Stupidity like this is what will get our freedom to fly and land damn near anywhere we want taken away log before not challenging a ruling will.

A1Skinner wrote:

NineThreeKilo wrote:

sierrasplitter wrote:

Sadly lots of pilots:
“Regulate me harder daddy!”

Pretty easy to figure you out. Getting tired of Americans like you. Im sure so are those around you

Don’t be nasty

I’ve met more people who’s are getting sick of the over bearing state than me, but I don’t hang out with lots of statists


Legit, do you not see where this type of ruling going unchallenged leads? Or do you approve of where it leads?

After watching that video it is pretty hard to make an argument that that was a low speed inspection.
For me it’s not about what leaving this ruling unchallenged leads, it’s where does the lack of discipline and respect shown by the pilot lead? Stupidity like this is what will get our freedom to fly and land damn near anywhere we want taken away log before not challenging a ruling will.

If I understand the jest of A1's words I agree.

I don't see Mr. Palmer's hunt as one the BCP community has a dog in. Any protracted challenges or arguments he brings forward to justify his actions may only increasing accessibility challenges for the larger community. The BCP community on a whole enjoys this accessibility responsibly and continually demonstrates responsible behavior through this vary site.

A1Skinner wrote:

NineThreeKilo wrote:

sierrasplitter wrote:

Sadly lots of pilots:
“Regulate me harder daddy!”

Pretty easy to figure you out. Getting tired of Americans like you. Im sure so are those around you

Don’t be nasty

I’ve met more people who’s are getting sick of the over bearing state than me, but I don’t hang out with lots of statists


Legit, do you not see where this type of ruling going unchallenged leads? Or do you approve of where it leads?

After watching that video it is pretty hard to make an argument that that was a low speed inspection.
For me it’s not about what leaving this ruling unchallenged leads, it’s where does the lack of discipline and respect shown by the pilot lead? Stupidity like this is what will get our freedom to fly and land damn near anywhere we want taken away log before not challenging a ruling will.

Taken away?

I’m not a child and they are not my parent

I don’t think the FAA should have that much power, frankly if someone doing a inspection pass a little faster than some would like, if that could give the FAA power to “take away” MY/YOUR ability to fly, in that case the issue is with the FAA level of discretion and we need to rein them in

I also don’t think administrative “law” has any place in American society, if their charges against airmen, many of which revenue airmen, can’t withstand a prosecutions burden of proof to a jury of the airman’s peers, we’ll you probably didn’t have a valid case to start with

Mapleflt wrote:If I understand the jest of A1's words I agree.

I don't see Mr. Palmer's hunt as one the BCP community has a dog in. Any protracted challenges or arguments he brings forward to justify his actions may only increasing accessibility challenges for the larger community. The BCP community on a whole enjoys this accessibility responsibly and continually demonstrates responsible behavior through this vary site.

Do you do low level surveys before you land new places? If so you have a major dog in this fight

And 90% of those who want to close PUBLIC areas off from aviation/off roading/etc, they’ll want to ban us REGARDLESS of any of this trial, regardless of anything olive branch you try to extend, regardless of any limits we subject ourselves to, don’t give a inch when they won’t give a millimeter or often even the time of day for our cause

NineThreeKilo wrote:

Mapleflt wrote:If I understand the jest of A1's words I agree.

I don't see Mr. Palmer's hunt as one the BCP community has a dog in. Any protracted challenges or arguments he brings forward to justify his actions may only increasing accessibility challenges for the larger community. The BCP community on a whole enjoys this accessibility responsibly and continually demonstrates responsible behavior through this vary site.

Do you do low level surveys before you land new places? If so you have a major dog in this fight

And 90% of those who want to close PUBLIC areas off from aviation/off roading/etc, they’ll want to ban us REGARDLESS of any of this trial, regardless of anything olive branch you try to extend, regardless of any limits we subject ourselves to, don’t give a inch when they won’t give a millimeter or often even the time of day for our cause

I fly Ag, like Rob, and we land all over the place. But there is fields we don’t spray and yards we don’t fly over because it’s not worth the fight afterwards, even though we and the farmer 100% have the right to be there. Respect goes both ways, someone has to be willing to take the first step. I’ve found that a lot of people aren’t as bad as they seem, especially if you take the time to explain the situation and what is going on. So I’ll stick to my conviction that flying in a way that makes people feel scared or upset isn’t worth it for aviation as a whole, like it or not.

NineThreeKilo wrote:

Mapleflt wrote:If I understand the jest of A1's words I agree.

I don't see Mr. Palmer's hunt as one the BCP community has a dog in. Any protracted challenges or arguments he brings forward to justify his actions may only increasing accessibility challenges for the larger community. The BCP community on a whole enjoys this accessibility responsibly and continually demonstrates responsible behavior through this vary site.

Do you do low level surveys before you land new places? If so you have a major dog in this fight

And 90% of those who want to close PUBLIC areas off from aviation/off roading/etc, they’ll want to ban us REGARDLESS of any of this trial, regardless of anything olive branch you try to extend, regardless of any limits we subject ourselves to, don’t give a inch when they won’t give a millimeter or often even the time of day for our cause

I have done plenty of "low & slow" inspections fully configured so its clear to all my eventual intentions. That said and as I mentioned earlier It would appear Mr. Palmer was acquainted with the land owner of the intended landing location. I would have used the this access as an opportunity to "walk" the intended landing area. I would have chatted with the surrounding homeowner, if I'd sensed any pushback all plans would have come to a full stop. I've also landing my sailplane plenty of time without the opportunity of an "low & slow" inspection and in all case the very first course of action was to seek out the landowner, thank them for "safe haven" and secure permission to recover the sailplane by the least intrusive route possible.

Nothing I'm seeing in Mr. Palmer's actions would indicate any of the above describe efforts.

Mapleflt wrote:

NineThreeKilo wrote:

Mapleflt wrote:If I understand the jest of A1's words I agree.

I don't see Mr. Palmer's hunt as one the BCP community has a dog in. Any protracted challenges or arguments he brings forward to justify his actions may only increasing accessibility challenges for the larger community. The BCP community on a whole enjoys this accessibility responsibly and continually demonstrates responsible behavior through this vary site.

Do you do low level surveys before you land new places? If so you have a major dog in this fight

And 90% of those who want to close PUBLIC areas off from aviation/off roading/etc, they’ll want to ban us REGARDLESS of any of this trial, regardless of anything olive branch you try to extend, regardless of any limits we subject ourselves to, don’t give a inch when they won’t give a millimeter or often even the time of day for our cause

I have done plenty of "low & slow" inspections fully configured so its clear to all my eventual intentions. That said and as I mentioned earlier It would appear Mr. Palmer was acquainted with the land owner of the intended landing location. I would have used the this access as an opportunity to "walk" the intended landing area. I would have chatted with the surrounding homeowner, if I'd sensed any pushback all plans would have come to a full stop. I've also landing my sailplane plenty of time without the opportunity of an "low & slow" inspection and in all case the very first course of action was to seek out the landowner, thank them for "safe haven" and secure permission to recover the sailplane by the least intrusive route possible.

Nothing I'm seeing in Mr. Palmer's actions would indicate any of the above describe efforts.

If you did one of your low and slow surveys over that same chunk of land, do you not think that busy body neighbor wouldn’t have tried to ruin your life with the FAA just the same?

And if you had a following like Palmer, did your low and slow pass do you think the FAA wouldn’t have gone after you too if you waived off for whatever reason just the same?


Do you think this charge would have held, or even seen a court room, if the FAA had to prove beyond a reasonable doubt Palmer did wrong?

How about if the leadership of the FAA was a term limited elected position?

A1Skinner wrote:

NineThreeKilo wrote:

Mapleflt wrote:If I understand the jest of A1's words I agree.

I don't see Mr. Palmer's hunt as one the BCP community has a dog in. Any protracted challenges or arguments he brings forward to justify his actions may only increasing accessibility challenges for the larger community. The BCP community on a whole enjoys this accessibility responsibly and continually demonstrates responsible behavior through this vary site.

Do you do low level surveys before you land new places? If so you have a major dog in this fight

And 90% of those who want to close PUBLIC areas off from aviation/off roading/etc, they’ll want to ban us REGARDLESS of any of this trial, regardless of anything olive branch you try to extend, regardless of any limits we subject ourselves to, don’t give a inch when they won’t give a millimeter or often even the time of day for our cause

I fly Ag, like Rob, and we land all over the place. But there is fields we don’t spray and yards we don’t fly over because it’s not worth the fight afterwards, even though we and the farmer 100% have the right to be there. Respect goes both ways, someone has to be willing to take the first step. I’ve found that a lot of people aren’t as bad as they seem, especially if you take the time to explain the situation and what is going on. So I’ll stick to my conviction that flying in a way that makes people feel scared or upset isn’t worth it for aviation as a whole, like it or not.

I fly helicopters and floats and land all over, though I do fly jets as well

Yeah it’s nice to be nice, but people like that busy body neighbor, I get the feeling she is the type who will never be appeased, and those types needs to be treated like petulant children


I hope Palmer wins, I hope after he wins he goes after that woman for legal expenses like Mile High skydiving did

Being a busy body rat should be expensive

“ In an order filed Tuesday, a Boulder District Court judge is requiring the plaintiffs in the Citizens for Quiet Skies v. Mile-Hi Skydiving lawsuit to pay nearly $48,000 in attorney’s fees to the Longmont company.

The attorney’s fees judgment comes in addition to $67,791 in damages Judge Judith LaBuda awarded to Mile-Hi earlier this month. Citizens for Quiet Skies, along with Longmont and Boulder County residents unsuccessfully sued Mile-Hi in 2013, alleging the company’s skydiving plane noise was grounds for damages relating to physical and mental injuries, trespass, unjust enrichment, violation of the county’s noise ordinance, nuisance, negligence per se and negligence.”

https://www.timescall.com/2015/07/29/ju ... neys-fees/


This needs to be the default reaction

It's not "what he did" its "how he did it" in my opinion.

In this instance; in this location I feel if he had taken some time, introduced him to the adjoining parties and had their "buy in" all would or could have played out much differently. If nothing else with their buy in, consent has been essentially given and they wouldn't have been able to pursue the course of action taken.

I'm not trying to convince you or anyone else, this just an opinion and how I would have acted.

Peace out, I'm done.

Mapleflt wrote:It's not "what he did" its "how he did it" in my opinion.

In this instance; in this location I feel if he had taken some time, introduced him to the adjoining parties and had their "buy in" all would or could have played out much differently. If nothing else with their buy in, consent has been essentially given and they wouldn't have been able to pursue the course of action taken.

I'm not trying to convince you or anyone else, this just an opinion and how I would have acted.

Peace out, I'm done.

But that’s not how the law is sposed to work, maybe “administrative law” but not real law

I mean if smoozing people changes the outcome of legal proceedings, might as well move to Mexico

Us vs. them makes sports more interesting I guess, the Japanese and Navajos don't think so. However, we all go out for pizza together after the game. Us vs. them is a part of war, but it is not therefore fun or a blessing. There are places where administrative law makes us all safer and even happier. The Uniform Code of Military Justice and Air Traffic Control come to mind. The legalese of Flight Service District Office administrative law is less easy to define for all than ATC, but since constitutional rights are not involved we can't demand a court of pilots. I would rather face an agent of the Administrator rather than a court of pilots. They would see through my excuses sooner.

Anyway, the system is unlikely to change significantly because of a general aviation incident or even because of a group of pilots like AOPA. We don't like it but it is understandable why they don't push too hard. Personally NineThreeKilo, I fear for your medical safety. You have come up with constructive criticism, which I like, from time to time. But an attack on anybody, but especially someone you don't know, is not good for your health. If you fly passengers, that could become a bigger concern than Trent's suspension. We all care about you and we care about your passengers. I am an old man who has no working concept of snarkiness, so please don't take this the wrong way. I though Zane had sold this site to Boeing for gosh sakes.