low rider wrote:So did he actually land after the alleged travesty?

No, he did not. Did he buzz his buddies place an get caught in the act by Karen?
His story is that he intended to land and chose not to. He claimed he acted per the FAA off airport handbook.
If I had to guess the FAA called bullshit, then he “fought the law”.
They don’t like that….

sierrasplitter wrote:

And many pilots are getting quite sick of un American “administrative law”

I grew up in south Texas. Born in 62. I vividly remember all the bumper stickers displayed on every work truck and old car in the neighborhood.

they read

America - Love it or Leave it

I remember those. Thanks for that Ray …..

Zzz wrote:

pburns wrote:

Zzz wrote:

low rider wrote:Your basically arguing with yourself at this point

He an argue bot. That's what he does.

No he’s not…..

User pburns has been added to the argue bot group.

Funniest thing I've seen all year. Thanks.

Life was better before camera phones, social media and internet

Utah-Jay wrote:Life was better before camera phones, social media and internet

I agree

Zzz wrote:
pburns wrote:
Zzz wrote:
low rider wrote:
Your basically arguing with yourself at this point


He an argue bot. That's what he does.


No he’s not…..


User pburns has been added to the argue bot group.


Funniest thing I've seen all year. Thanks.

Agreed. Now I need to clean the coffee spew off my computer

Utah-Jay wrote:Life was better before camera phones, social media and internet

I just made a comment to my wife yesterday in regard to social media and the internet. “It feels like Jesus is coming”.

You misunderstood what I said

This is where you lost me on any subject you stand for. Im pretty cut and dry. I was sure you couldnt produce anything showing that Trevor Jacob was attempting to get another license. And you could not because your statement was untrue. Then you tried to reframe it as I had misunderstood.
Nothing to misunderstand other that a re-direct. If you are going to debate, stick to facts. Not assumptions.

sierrasplitter wrote:

You misunderstood what I said

This is where you lost me on any subject you stand for. Im pretty cut and dry. I was sure you couldnt produce anything showing that Trevor Jacob was attempting to get another license. And you could not because your statement was untrue. Then you tried to reframe it as I had misunderstood.
Nothing to misunderstand other that a re-direct. If you are going to debate, stick to facts. Not assumptions.

I hate to add to this silliness but if I recall, the punishment was revocation with a 1 year waiting period before re-application. April 2022 + 1 year = right around now. An assumption. I'd hate to be that guy trying to participate in aviation circles.

Utah-Jay wrote:Life was better before camera phones, social media and internet

FTFY. I loving having a camera and the internet on me at all times. But social media has really warped the world, for the most part.

FWIW, BCP is not social media.

AOPA
https://youtu.be/Dqo4j9v0iR8

See the above video for and explanation by Trent's attorney.

By the way, Trent is spending significant amount of his net worth to fight this in hope of preventing a bad precedent from being set.

Most of us here should also recall what the FAA did to Bob Hoover.

Damn.... where does the time go. Dude was but a shred of grass clinging to a under dogged tailwheel just a yesterday or so ago... now he's not only the TOP GUN, but the Grey bearded Maverick to boot

The problem with this whole Palmer story is that it's just a whole bunch of bullshit on everyones part, with everyone swinging their dick like they're the biggest dog in the pen.... It's all horseshit. on every end. The FAA's end is obvious crap, but they get to make the rules because we get to give them that authority, and I agree with all that say just imagine it like every other nation in the world, and you'll realize why we have to have some compromise, and need to be able to deal with some horseshit now and then for the greater good. We don't have to love them, but with as much aviation as we have in this country, we darned sure need someone at the helm. That compromise is simply trying to follow regulation, while keeping in mind that all regulation is subject to interpretation. If you don't understand how or why this works, I have nothing for you, good luck on your GED....

For Trent's part, I have no idea what part of his bullshit to start with. How 'bout the obvious. You simply can't say "a kit fox could have landed there 2-3 times before reaching the end" and then say, my conclusion was it was not safe to land... you flipping moron, that may be what you said, but what you really meant was "I buzzed my buddy, and am trying to use your rules to save my ass, instead of 'manning up' and admitting I screwed the pooch with the neighbor"... IMHO this is why the FIC (fed in charge) stood fast and is out to make an example. I think I had somewhere in the neighborhood of 18,000 landings at my last place of employment, and I could probably count the go arounds on one hand, and the need of those moments would have been incredibly easy to substantiate to anyone.

I suspect no one on this forum has gone without screwing the pooch somewhere, I seem to have that sucker plumb wore out, but might give it another go tomorrow, yet in my grayer age I seem to find that humility always works better with a 'badge' than puffing my chest out. As a matter of fact, the same approach applied to my flying seems to keep me out of the negative limelight, and safer at the same time. Some might call it 'accountability' and it really is.

I'd like to say something kool and trendy like " I wish Mr. Palmer well" but I really don't give a hoot if they fry him, not that I wish that on him either. I'd just like this type of 'news' to be the least of my worries. I think he (and the rest of us) would have been better served had he just sucked it up, swallowed his pride, and took the high road. He is mistaken if he thinks his petite plight is saving a bad precedence for his brethren. All he is doing is dragging the negative limelight on, and that is a limelight that common folk associate with each and every one of us. His is far from the first penis the FAA has ever stepped on, and somehow GA has lived on (no, thrived). I don't have to think too hard to think of several pilots who have been through complete revocation, and moved on from it, better in the end. I believe with as many advocates as there are for STOL, Back country, GA, etc, letting this ride and pouring more effort in directions that end on positive notes would have more than offset any 'perceived' backlash from this.

But what do I know most pilot types would love my job, and most of the rest of the community are convinced I'm up to no good.

Take care, Rob

Rob wrote:Damn.... where does the time go. Dude was but a shred of grass clinging to a under dogged tailwheel just a yesterday or so ago... now he's not only the TOP GUN, but the Grey bearded Maverick to boot

The problem with this whole Palmer story is that it's just a whole bunch of bullshit on everyones part, with everyone swinging their dick like they're the biggest dog in the pen.... It's all horseshit. on every end. The FAA's end is obvious crap, but they get to make the rules because we get to give them that authority, and I agree with all that say just imagine it like every other nation in the world, and you'll realize why we have to have some compromise, and need to be able to deal with some horseshit now and then for the greater good. We don't have to love them, but with as much aviation as we have in this country, we darned sure need someone at the helm. That compromise is simply trying to follow regulation, while keeping in mind that all regulation is subject to interpretation. If you don't understand how or why this works, I have nothing for you, good luck on your GED....

For Trent's part, I have no idea what part of his bullshit to start with. How 'bout the obvious. You simply can't say "a kit fox could have landed there 2-3 times before reaching the end" and then say, my conclusion was it was not safe to land... you flipping moron, that may be what you said, but what you really meant was "I buzzed my buddy, and am trying to use your rules to save my ass, instead of 'manning up' and admitting I screwed the pooch with the neighbor"... IMHO this is why the FIC (fed in charge) stood fast and is out to make an example. I think I had somewhere in the neighborhood of 18,000 landings at my last place of employment, and I could probably count the go arounds on one hand, and the need of those moments would have been incredibly easy to substantiate to anyone.

I suspect no one on this forum has gone without screwing the pooch somewhere, I seem to have that sucker plumb wore out, but might give it another go tomorrow, yet in my grayer age I seem to find that humility always works better with a 'badge' than puffing my chest out. As a matter of fact, the same approach applied to my flying seems to keep me out of the negative limelight, and safer at the same time. Some might call it 'accountability' and it really is.

I'd like to say something kool and trendy like " I wish Mr. Palmer well" but I really don't give a hoot if they fry him, not that I wish that on him either. I'd just like this type of 'news' to be the least of my worries. I think he (and the rest of us) would have been better served had he just sucked it up, swallowed his pride, and took the high road. He is mistaken if he thinks his petite plight is saving a bad precedence for his brethren. All he is doing is dragging the negative limelight on, and that is a limelight that common folk associate with each and every one of us. His is far from the first penis the FAA has ever stepped on, and somehow GA has lived on (no, thrived). I don't have to think too hard to think of several pilots who have been through complete revocation, and moved on from it, better in the end. I believe with as many advocates as there are for STOL, Back country, GA, etc, letting this ride and pouring more effort in directions that end on positive notes would have more than offset any 'perceived' backlash from this.

But what do I know most pilot types would love my job, and most of the rest of the community are convinced I'm up to no good.

Take care, Rob

That just about covers it…..

I agree Rob, but we are old. The lawyer either doesn't have experience with the FAA or is just looking for support from pilots talking about precedent. There is no precedent with FAA decisions. They are administrative not judicial. In each case they do what pleases them. My AOPA lawyer was a pilot, understood that Cessna fuel gauges didn't work well anyway, and demonstrated that I was not so good with constant speed fuel control in a plane I seldom flew. We said I did it and explained why? I actually posted on one of Trent's videos and advised Trent to say he did it and explain why. They start with a 60 day suspension the first time. I lost some and won some.

Individuals do not influence bureaucracy so much. Best to look for some kind of work around if compliance is too great a burden.

After a career in aviation a colleague once summed it up best. “The only thing worse than the FAA would be no FAA”

Good point Mantoga. We have the fairest and most democratic government in the world, but we still complain. Complaining is human I think. God's chosen people went down that road many times in Exodus.

Rob, if our paths ever cross I’m buying.

contactflying wrote:Good point Mantoga. We have the fairest and most democratic government in the world, but we still complain. Complaining is human I think. God's chosen people went down that road many times in Exodus.

If the people don’t check the state when it oversteps, we won’t have the fairest government anymore

I don't doubt that Palmer may have made a target for himself a bit here and we have to have some rules of course but it is not unreasonable that we expect laws to be clear and easy to understand and therefor follow. Third world countries write rules so onerous and vague that it give officials wide latitude to interpret right and wrong. We have grown to accept that is aviation. Certification and modification rules have gone well past protecting people to now making aviation more dangerous by making it harder to maintain and improve your airplane. We all know there are many technologies that are far superior to those you are able to use on a certified airplane. Those rules cost lives. We also see aviation medical requirements so needlessly stringent that people will not seek help for treatable issues because it may affect their medical for flying. That isn't good for anyone and certainly not more safe. We need "rules of the road" but they should be clear and hopefully make some practical sense. That is called civic order not bureaucratic chaos and yes it does need to be checked. The FAA is slowly moving in the right direction in some areas but the problem is still immense.

There is a great book called "Three Felonies a Day." The premise is on average a professional commits three felonies a day unknowingly just in the conduct of business. Perhaps we have gone a bit too far (or a lot) in the wrong direction.

"Show me the person, and I will show you the criminal," that could apply to pilots too. Being wary of that is not unreasonable.