jprax wrote: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.

Amen

Hi Joe,

You are a scholar and a gentleman, and I hope on our next visit I am not banned from your company as a result of my comments here. It is not my intention to pick on you, Trent, or any other posters, I am just trying to share a view point and really grasp that of some others, because frankly, I'm kind of lost on some of it...

93K, yep ... keep the gov't in check, agreed. Neither Trent nor the FAA are gov't, and being violated for infractions does not fall under over reaching, it's what we pay them to do... try again.

jprax wrote:but it is not unreasonable that we expect laws to be clear and easy to understand and therefor follow.

Joe, be careful what you wish for,

First of all, the only way I see for making laws and regulation ultra clear is to make more, and make them stringent. And second of all, as you alluded to, no one is following them to a T anyway, which is the problem here. As an example, a multitude of wilderness areas have a requested 2000' hard deck unless landing, and I can honestly say, I don't think I know a single pilot who doesn't frequently bomb on through enroute to their next back country fantasy (including federal employees)... Do you really want that language cleaned up? Because I'm guessing the results will be less than thrilling. How about MOA's? do you want the freedom of assessing your own risk, or do you just want a very clear 'do not enter'? The regulation Trent is being violated for is actually pretty clear. His argument of following the guidelines of 'dragging the strip' is a nasty smelly red herring... As are the comments regarding precedence. No one is going to be violated for an appropriate go around, no matter how the chips fall, and someone else will soon enough be violated for busting 14 CFR 91.119(a) and (c) as well as 14 CFR 91.13 again, Hopefully they are taking notes so as to expedite their process... That is the core problem here, after all, no one was chasing Trent down with a video camera. Had he not scared the crap out of non aviation family, this thread wouldn't have existed. Had he yielded and moved on, he may have had an opportunity afterwards to introduce himself and his craft to the complainants and shown them a new view of aviation, this exact path has made my life infinitely easier when dealing with people who are initially afraid of aerial applicators. Conversely, I see applicators who say, 'hey tough titties, I fly under a waiver and can do as I please' they get the microscope enima

I'm not sure what the parallels are to EXP vs Certified, and the medical system are here? BTW, I hate those terms.... they're all certified, just certified in different categories. Since you are an exp owner, I'm sure you are aware that virtually every aircraft 'certified' in modern history started as an 'experimental'. And once proven, it was awarded a type certificate. Soo... I guess what you're saying is the system actually works, you're just not interested in utilizing it, because it's too hard which is perfectly fine as well I actually own aircraft of even more types of type certificates, and I have yet to find a 'real' safety deficiency or advantage to any of them, when operated, and maintained as designed. So, ya... another red herring, because after all.. a '32 coupe is either pretty bad ass to own, or a complete death trap POS... just depends on how you want to wear it I guess? Yes, by nature of that design, experimental aircraft will always have the 'upper hand' on available technology, but it would be far from accurate to suggest that just because an experimental aircraft can be safer it by default is. As for the gentlemen who don't seek medical attention they need for fear of losing their flying privileges, I'd suggest they didn't quite catch the meaning of that last word.... and I'd also suggest that they have their priorities bass akwards. It's really a wonderful thing we get to do, and it's really not that hard to have fun mostly coloring inside the lines... Mostly

Terry, I'm in, and I'll pick up the next round

Take care, Rob

Over the years, I've found that in any encounter with law enforcement, or in this case fed rules enforcement, it's better to yes sir/no sir them than to challenge their authority. It sucks, but it usually works better than fighting back. If I was Trent, I'd be a lot more concerned about my own persoanl situation (and what it was costing me) than some vauge concept "helping to not let the FEDS set a precedent."

My guess is all the lawyering aside, the video tells the tale. An inspection pass prolly looks a certain way. Something else looks a different way.

Either way not sure landing in a neighborhood is the hill I’d pick to die on. Banging on about liberty aside, my flying sits on a thick thick bed of public acceptance. A bit of manners goes a long way.

Rob I enjoy good discussion, informed disagreement is always to be respected. I would adjust what I said to "Laws should be MINIMAL and clear to understand." If laws are onerous, arbitrary and left to the enforcers interpretation that leads to ignoring them and corruption. Two things that don't serve civilization well. People in general want to do the right thing but when that isn't clear or they inadvertently violate something or are told they did that creates resentment for the laws and government. Also not good. Perhaps Trent isn't the poster child for my point of view ( I honestly don't know him so no idea) but yes this is a concern. In my line of work I have seen similar things happen with gun laws and hunting laws. Upstanding people who were found in violation on really obscure things.

It is a bigger deal with certification and regulation. The high costs to meet requirements makes planes more costly and makes old ones more expensive to fix. The result is in the name of safety people fly planes that are old and not maintained as well as they could be. That has a cost.

I know may Zane take a dim view of these discussions, as is his prerogative as he is the host. I propose we continue sometime around a campfire with a root beer here or there.

Best!
Joe

jprax wrote:I know may Zane take a dim view of these discussions, as is his prerogative as he is the host. I propose we continue sometime around a campfire with a root beer here or there.

Best!
Joe

Agreed, and you're on!
Take care, Rob

Rob wrote: 93K, yep ... keep the gov't in check, agreed. Neither Trent nor the FAA are gov't, and being violated for infractions does not fall under over reaching, it's what we pay them to do... try again.

The FAA isn’t gov? Think the F is for federal

What reg did he bust, and how so?

And if the FAA thought he was just buzzing homes explain why didn’t they add on a 91.13?

Sooooooo, When this first came up I took a few hours to look up the site on Google earth ( Do a search you will find the spot) Once you do that now look at the altitude!!!!! then look at any safe landing area available!! Now remember we are not talking about engine failure! We are talking about a safe landing/takeoff with with no issues with bail out and overrun in a low HP aircraft!! Unless he landed out onto the road, I did not see one. If you fine that pleas feel free to post the pics and correct me. At that point no reason to buzz the house. He could have done a simple google pre flight and seen that or a 500 ft low speed over flight, but no that is not what the video shows. The reason the rules are in place is the same reason I don't want the 16 y/o punk drag racing down the street at 2AM!! I know several people in the FAA they are great especially the safety people many are pilots they understand flying. But when someone complains with a video of low level high speed bank next to the house, ya they have to take action!! I am pretty sure I bust a FAR on every flight but I make sure I do it in an area that no one cares. If Trent keep pushing this the FAA will be happy to make it 1,000 ft from any building/people just so everyone understands the rules. My take on the issue is he just needs to get a big bottle of SUCKITUP and get on with life, this is not the behavior or attitude that our community needs to support it is much more harm than good.
I had the opportunity to give my pilots license back to the FAA for an infraction so in case anyone thinks I am a angel they would be wrong. I broke the rules and paid the price. Drink milk grow a strong spine so you can suck it up. Not a popular attitude but that is the way I see it.
DENNY

There are just a few options concerning how we deal with FARs. First, read them. They are brief and not onerous. We can disregard them and mostly not have to deal with them until after the accident. We can shy away from conflict with other pilots and aircraft and generally comply with the rules. We can completely comply with both the rules and the common (pilot not FAA) interpretation of the rules. We can read, understand, and comply only with the rules which are much less onerous than common pilot interpretation.

Like Denny, I have surrendered my certificate for a number of days. None of the above will insure no grief with civil sanctions.

jprax wrote:
I know may Zane take a dim view of these discussions, as is his prerogative as he is the host. I propose we continue sometime around a campfire with a root beer here or there.

This is actually a great discussion that has made me think. As long as it doesn’t get into the melodramatic weeds of partisan politics it is okay. Everyone is mostly being cool, good show.

DENNY wrote:Sooooooo, When this first came up I took a few hours to look up the site on Google earth ( Do a search you will find the spot) Once you do that now look at the altitude!!!!! then look at any safe landing area available!! Now remember we are not talking about engine failure! We are talking about a safe landing/takeoff with with no issues with bail out and overrun in a low HP aircraft!! Unless he landed out onto the road, I did not see one. If you fine that pleas feel free to post the pics and correct me. At that point no reason to buzz the house. He could have done a simple google pre flight and seen that or a 500 ft low speed over flight, but no that is not what the video shows. The reason the rules are in place is the same reason I don't want the 16 y/o punk drag racing down the street at 2AM!! I know several people in the FAA they are great especially the safety people many are pilots they understand flying. But when someone complains with a video of low level high speed bank next to the house, ya they have to take action!! I am pretty sure I bust a FAR on every flight but I make sure I do it in an area that no one cares. If Trent keep pushing this the FAA will be happy to make it 1,000 ft from any building/people just so everyone understands the rules. My take on the issue is he just needs to get a big bottle of SUCKITUP and get on with life, this is not the behavior or attitude that our community needs to support it is much more harm than good.
I had the opportunity to give my pilots license back to the FAA for an infraction so in case anyone thinks I am a angel they would be wrong. I broke the rules and paid the price. Drink milk grow a strong spine so you can suck it up. Not a popular attitude but that is the way I see it.
DENNY

I don’t think the HP matters as much as the power to weight ratio, and my understanding, though I have little knowledge on the kitfox, is it’s a good performer, no?

There were also a few places that looked doable around that house on google maps for a little STOL plane like a kitfox or cub or something

But that’s why you do your survey, which he did

I think we are in a “3 felonies a day” society like someone mentioned, and if we want to be able to enjoy things like backcountry flying, shooting, etc in the future we need to remind the “authorities” of their place

The FAA Administrator is appointed by the President who is elected sorta by we the people (majority usually in a democracy) through the Electoral College. A far reach, which is why the experienced bureaucracy is a bit more useful than the politically appointed administrator in my opinion. One thing about being few in number (pilots) is that the administrator is not generally considered a big political plumb. I have always been a member of AOPA but, as a political science and history teacher, I don't expect a million and a half or so voters organization to have very much clout. Airline accidents have political clout because they get the attention of millions of voters. Trent's lawyer will not make a dent.

stretch wrote:Either way not sure landing in a neighborhood is the hill I’d pick to die on. Banging on about liberty aside, my flying sits on a thick thick bed of public acceptance. A bit of manners goes a long way.

This is essentially why I posted this to begin with. What our planes are capable of and what the letter of the law seems to allow should not be the only things we think about when considering an off-airport landing. Like a lot of you, I do my off airport stuff WAYYYYYYYY away from any eyes that might be offended. I do look at some of the perfect lawns at State Parks around me and I may land on one of those when I'm ready to give up flying, but in the meantime, I'm probably over conservative on where I choose to put my plane down. I don't like conflict, so I tend to avoid doing something that could generate conflicts unnecessarily.

From the addresses provided in the FAA's ruling, Trent was considering landing at 300 Desert Sun Lane, in Reno. The complaint was filed by the resident at 400 Desert Sun Lane. I created the picture below on Google Maps. Even if the homeowner had invited me to land on his property and even if I had the skills and the plane to do it safely, I would have turned him down. Despite the large lots, the other houses are just too close to make a landing, or an inspection pass without the likelihood of angering at least 1 neighbor. My experience is that folks that don't fly resent any aviation noise, whether it is created lawfully or not.

Regardless of how this ultimately turns out, (AOPA's video suggests this will be appealed) someone is going to be bummed by the result. There are so many places we can fly, land and camp without creating conflicts this just seems unnecessary. Heck, Trent's probably lucky the adjacent landowner didn't shoot at him given the events of last week with people pulling into the wrong driveway.

That’s not exactly down town NYC

Buying a house near other homes in bumfuck Egypt and having a Karen meltdown at a bush plane or a dirt bike or something, I’d say if that’s a big issue should have built away from other country life humans

Peace fellow pilot. Do they lock you in the cockpit when you haul all those crazy passengers?

NineThreeKilo wrote:

Rob wrote: 93K, yep ... keep the gov't in check, agreed. Neither Trent nor the FAA are gov't, and being violated for infractions does not fall under over reaching, it's what we pay them to do... try again.

The FAA isn’t gov? Think the F is for federal

Ya know..... I apologize, I just assumed when you said "keep the gov't in check" you meant the Federal Government of The United States.... you know? the three branches and all that good stuff we learned about in around the 7th grade. I guess I should have asked for clarity, I mean what gov't are we talking here? Federal? State? Local? A corporation? My bad (I think that's what you say here when you're cool and all...) Yes their moniker starts with the word 'Federal' because after all, they are the oversight administration for all states, and as a bonus point they even have a .gov on their web address!
But no, while the FAA (administration) was indeed appointed by the government to replace the FAA (agency) who replaced the CAA, I do not lump them in to my political mindset of the Federal Government of the United States. If you would like to visit usa.gov, you can view a list of all agencies and departments of the US government. That list is staggering and I commend you if you want to be the watch dog to keep them all in check. I will do my duty to vote and voice as I see fit, and leave the panic button for those that feel the need for it.

I will say, your suggestion that the word Federal made them gubbmint and all, gave me a chuckle... You see 2 of my Thrush are owned by a corporation named 'Federal Aerial Applicators' LLC, because after all, their pt.137 certificate (and subsequent use) is good nation wide. They (and I) will be pleased to know the power you've bestowed them The real reason for the name is beyond the scope of this thread, but you will be glad to know it gives fits to any over zealous members of your favorite there letter organization

NineThreeKilo wrote: What reg did he bust, and how so?
And if the FAA thought he was just buzzing homes explain why didn’t they add on a 91.13?

I thought that horse was beyond beat, and assumed (here we go again) that all who are posting here have read the Docket. I have the whole thing and can, well shoot, hold on a minute...




... there now we both have looked at the opening page again... woopsy daisy. Looks like we either agree, or we don't except if we don't, you don't know why

Anyways... Sorry to Joe, but Maverick said he was in on the conversation and 93K was looking for answers I didn't want to be rude and all...

What a great day to be in general aviation in America.

Carry on,
Rob

As a side note, I actually live out where one might term as 'BFE'. And I do so to enjoy riding right out of my stall be it on a bike, atv, equine, or wings. SO I get your sentiment. I just don't agree with your strategy. My neighbors love our animals, they all love off road vehicles, and they all love our planes, even the ones that didn't start that way, and even the ones that don't love 'other' planes. That's a better place for my mind to be.

Take care, Rob

Zzz wrote:

jprax wrote:
I know may Zane take a dim view of these discussions, as is his prerogative as he is the host. I propose we continue sometime around a campfire with a root beer here or there.

This is actually a great discussion that has made me think. As long as it doesn’t get into the melodramatic weeds of partisan politics it is okay. Everyone is mostly being cool, good show.

I originally expected this discussion to go "nuclear", more evidence of the civility that exists within the BCP community.

Flyhound wrote:

stretch wrote:Either way not sure landing in a neighborhood is the hill I’d pick to die on. Banging on about liberty aside, my flying sits on a thick thick bed of public acceptance. A bit of manners goes a long way.

This is essentially why I posted this to begin with. What our planes are capable of and what the letter of the law seems to allow should not be the only things we think about when considering an off-airport landing. Like a lot of you, I do my off airport stuff WAYYYYYYYY away from any eyes that might be offended. I do look at some of the perfect lawns at State Parks around me and I may land on one of those when I'm ready to give up flying, but in the meantime, I'm probably over conservative on where I choose to put my plane down. I don't like conflict, so I tend to avoid doing something that could generate conflicts unnecessarily.

From the addresses provided in the FAA's ruling, Trent was considering landing at 300 Desert Sun Lane, in Reno. The complaint was filed by the resident at 400 Desert Sun Lane. I created the picture below on Google Maps. Even if the homeowner had invited me to land on his property and even if I had the skills and the plane to do it safely, I would have turned him down. Despite the large lots, the other houses are just too close to make a landing, or an inspection pass without the likelihood of angering at least 1 neighbor. My experience is that folks that don't fly resent any aviation noise, whether it is created lawfully or not.

Regardless of how this ultimately turns out, (AOPA's video suggests this will be appealed) someone is going to be bummed by the result. There are so many places we can fly, land and camp without creating conflicts this just seems unnecessary. Heck, Trent's probably lucky the adjacent landowner didn't shoot at him given the events of last week with people pulling into the wrong driveway.

Oh, yeah… landing/approaching there is asking for trouble. He found it.

Never saw a pic until now.

How is he asking for trouble? I can only think of a few reasons I wouldn’t land on someone’s property and there is nothing in that photo that would make me think twice about it.
Seems legit to me, unless we are letting Karen decide. How could we ever play that game.
I’ve landed at several job sites that we have worked on, at least 2 were bordering city limits and I didn’t see any grey areas about doing it.
A buddy and I landed on the other side of some tall trees from a major highway and moments later a car came smoking in…..u guys ok? Thought you crashed, yep I crashed and my buddy crashed right behind me.
I guess my point is I don’t think we should others limit what we do if it’s legal. You can’t keep everyone happy all the time.
I do think he was probably buzzing a buddy’s house and should man up.
With AOPA’s lawyers involved he can’t quite now.
If he would have landed we most likely would have never heard about it and neighbor Karen would be pissing in the wind.
Cheers