Is the FAA going to Take YOUR Pilot License???
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 28 сен 2024
- This is about your #freedom to fly. What happened to @TrentonPalmer can happen to any of us who regularly enjoy the freedoms afforded to us by capable off-airport aircraft. This has happened before, and will happen again. While there is a lot of support for Trent to fight this and likely win, every other pilot out there that does not have 500k+ people following them on social media may be left fighting the #FAA on their own. Now would be a really good time to stand up collectively as a group and remind the representatives who work for US what WE want to see change with the administrator.
Welcome to 2022 and the uncontrollable spread of #cancelculture , brought to you by: the same people we elected who promised to protect our rights.
Trent's Original Video: • The FAA Suspended My P...
👉Take our online PILOT GROUND SCHOOL✈
fly8ma.com
🛩️Private Pilot:
-Everything you need to know start to finish
-How to choose an Instructor
-How to perform the maneuvers
-Airspace
-Landings
-Oral and Checkride prep (premium version)
-And so much more! Try it for free with the link below!
bit.ly/2I3evAd
🌦️Instrument Pilot Ground School:
-Learn all the abbreviations and IFR speak
-Approach Plates and Procedures
-Airspace
-Rules and Regulations
-Systems
-Real World Scenarios
-Accident case studies when things went wrong
-Written test prep
-Oral and Checkride Prep
-Etc, Click the link below to check out the course!
bit.ly/2I3hZTr
🛫Commercial Pilot Bootcamp:
-Learn about Holding Out
-Maintenance Requirements
-Systems
-Airspace
-Rules and Regulations
-See full oral exams and checkride videos
bit.ly/2I5W4eo
👉Check out our many other courses too!✈
-Tailwheel
-Crosswind Landings
-Weather
-Airspace
-Seaplane
-Sport Pilot
-Spin Awareness
-Accident Case Studies
-And more! Click below to see all courses:
bit.ly/2I4whDp
#fly8ma #flighttraining #aviation #bushplane
Your Support Makes our Videos possible! Thank You!
Support us at: / fly8ma
Check out our site at fly8MA.com
The FLY8MA.com Free Online Ground School for Sport and Private Pilots is available to everyone as a means to make flying more affordable and increase learning for everyone. We are funded with the help of our viewers and subscribers to our website: www.fly8ma.com and our Patreon page: / fly8ma
Every dollar helps us to grow our project into a comprehensive online ground school for Sport, Private, Instrument, and Commercial Pilots. We greatly appreciate all of your support and hope you will share us with your friends and family in #aviation.
FLY SAFE!
-Jon 
Авто/Мото
I have been a law enforcement officer for almost 13 years and we need to make sure that this " put a case on someone and let them fight their way out of it" mentality stops.
Thanks john, a lot of these pilots are scared to speak up, these are great points, we should make our voices heard.
Typically prosecutors I've interacted with at the state and federal levels are smart enough to be a good "check and balance" for the public and not take on BS cases, but it seems that failed here miserably
As an LEO myself I completely agree 💯
Amen to this comment!!!
Well, as an alleged law enforcement officer you might want to go review the law.
Here is the BIG SECRET… no pilot wants the public to know…
The Supreme Court has affirmed in a case against the US military… a property owner owns the airspace above his property to the heavens above.
You don’t have a right to fly… and… you don’t have a right to fly over anyones property at any altitude you wish… EVEN TO LAND.
Your airport can be shut down if it is shown to disturb the owners of the surrounding airspace.
That is why this case shouldn’t be pushed by Trent. He is an A$$ that buzzed someone’s home he knew was pissed from his RC and drone buzzing.
He should have taken his medicine and forgot about it.
Now, the public will be well informed of this airspace ownership… drones will not be able to fly, airports can be shut down over this…
And in the end, Trent still could have his certificate revoked, not just the lite suspension of only 2 months for a clearly deliberate act of buzzing an already pissed off neighbor using a full sized plane.
20 year cop. Make that three.
All that has to be done... Outlaw "Karens" within 500' of aircraft.
What a great Video! Last week on the TakingOff channel posted a comment and got crucified by other pilots . They said I was an idiot . My comment was that I believe we should contact our congressmen and have them change the FAA so we can be judged by our peers and not a FAA employee that’s not even a pilot .
I am trying to follow but you have lost me!, how can you reasonably say "judged by FAA employee" My understanding is a complaint was made, a complaint that was evidenced that is, resultantly the FAA investigated then passed the completed investigation to attorneys retained by the FAA to consider that there had been a serious breach of rules and to determine the likelihood of a successful conviction if the pilot was prosecuted, based on the attorney assessment the FAA decided to bring legal action in a court of law which they won, so how have you been lead to comment as you have?.. I fear you say this is a "great video" simply because it only deals with one side and makes many comparisons and observations which have no relevance here.
Great video John. The judge, in my opinion failed by arguing about a necessary landing. Clearly the language of the CFR is about what is necessary for the landing, not whether or not the landing is necessary. However, these government employees must be aware of this mistake, but don't seem to care. That said, the FAA does answer to congress so there is hope.
And can’t pilots appeal a ruling to the NTSB?
I agree. That’s a great point.
Yep, totally agree. The point should have been about the actions necessary to conduct a landing or takeoff, not whether a landing or takeoff itself was necessary. In this case, the maneuver Trent performed was necessary in order to perform the landing he was attempting. Similarly, the guy who kept buzzing the restaurant, his maneuvering wasn't necessary because, as you mentioned, he could have used more runway, etc.
Trent said that he is appealing. Everything can be appealed up to the Supreme Court or a law passed by congress.
We need a petition to have this decision against Trent overturned and have those rogue individuals removed from office.
Sure, convince the NTSB to whom you can appeal FAA decisions, that the FAA decision is wrongly decided. BTW, the NTSB board is run by someone with no pilot license, but she does have a Moped Operator endorsement on her car driver license.
Oh… don’t worry. He appealed and he had better hope these judges don’t spank him harder.
Yes, they can still order his certificate revoked.
@@tscottme that's how democracy works. we can petition the gov when the majority knows the gov is in error.
@@thatguy7085 YOU ARE the neighbor from hell, buzz off to a retirement facility
@@tscottme oh a Dan Gryder fan.
By yours and Dans logic, only people that have been in airplane crashes should be allowed to investigate airplane crashes because no one can be trained to to that job. Has to come from experience.
Once again, Very well said an I agree with everything you say. I’ve been a pilot for over 45 years and have takeoff and landed on private property with the land owners permission many times. I have even had my own 1,000 foot grass strip used by myself and other pilots. I have always been safe and never had a problem. However, there were at times some local landowner or neighbors complained to authorities and or FAA. Even had friends from the FAA come out and take a look and tell me they see no regulations broken, looks safe and would let the neighbor know just that. The moral of the story with some neighbors are, they are not happy unless your not happy. Commonly referred to as neighbors from hell. What the FAA is doing here with Trent is not right and loosing credibility with many pilots. To take the rules and twist them around the way they are doing is absurd. I really feel the FAA owes Trent an apology for the way they have handled this and frustrating times they have caused him. Hope I hear some change on the thinking of this one. 🙏
Well said! When my neighbors complain I always offer them fair market value for their property, when they decline I don't feel bad flying off of my land which, at least for now, is my RIGHT
Sad… after 45 years you don’t understand flying is in fact a privilege.
You have no right to fly… you have no right to fly over anyones property at any altitude.
That is right, you are using an easement of someone’s property every time you fly.
The FAA is just a mediator that attempts to keep the land owners happy.
This is affirmed in a US Supreme Court case against the military where they were actually landing… the land owner had a loss of use and or enjoyment of his property… property which extends from heaven above to Hell below.
Airspace use is like a side walk in someone’s front yard. It is an easement for a specific use. The land owner still owns the land the side walk is on, however, should the sidewalk become a nuisance the sidewalk can be removed from the owners land.
Again, the FAA can not lawfully decide how someone’s property can be used… just as they can not decide that instruction isn’t a commercial activity… they can not decide how high someone can fly over private property… even to land.
That is the bomb shell about to hit… because some A-hole buzzed a house of a neighbor he knew was already pissed off… and had reported the annoying RC and drone use on before.
There was serious bad blood going on here. And the FAA, the judge, and I are not fooled by this ‘I was going to land BS’…
He is about to open a can of worms… and should have had his certificates revoked.
@@thatguy7085 yeah
@@thatguy7085 Sounds like you are the neighbor in question here…? You seem to have been present at the hearings in FAA vs Trent Palmer, having first hand info regarding what’s said during these hearings?
@@erikherje3414 In Trent’s own videos he admits that he was cited before for landing on an RC field. He had property rights explained to him. He also admitted he had surveyed the alleged landing zone from the ground. This was a buzz job.
The neighbor had clearly complained before about the drone and RC planes to the FAA. The neighbors reaction also showed he knew exactly who Trent was… and I have no doubt Trent knew this neighbor was pissed before he used his big ‘toy’, that is his own description, to up the anti. I’m not fooled, neither was the FAA or judge.
The FAA is staffed by college grads and not from the industry these days. Plus, the FSDO in question is not willing to admit being wrong therefor resistance is futile, they are the FEDs.
That FAA Inspector obviously needs to be held accountable. Not everyone with authority deserves or needs that authority
The Canarsie approach to 13L at JFK puts you a lot lower than 500' over buildings in a congested area, in an airliner. And I certainly would not hesitate to go around there if needed, in fact I have. The FAA doesn't always get it right.
Yes, the FAA is not even permitted to let people fly at JFK if the property owners below say ‘hell no’.
Airspace use is not a right. Guess who owns the airspace… hint, it isn’t the government.
Why not? In the worst case, martyrs could be made to make sure the FAA knows they screwed up.
Plenty of airports around the US & world that have business or residences in close proximity to runways. KMDW is a classic.
@@fjohnson9749 Then couldn’t pilots simply boycott landing at them if they don’t want to make martyrs?
I've been a Private Pilot since 1988 and FAA air traffic controller since 1992. The FAA's decision to suspend Trent Palmer is 100% wrong.
I've been a professional pilot for 30 years, Naval Aviator, current testt pilot and I have a 190 that I take off airport here in Washington state (I work in Seattle if that tells you for who). I am a DPE. What trent palmer got he was lucky. 60 days is nothing for what he did.
@@robertoler3795 what did he do that we're not being told? It sounds like he used ADM and went around. As a DPE I would hope you would consider that a good thing because sometimes not going around kills pilots.
@@MaxRunia who knows what he was doing. he has told a few lines. but the key is you cannot in populated areas just bulldoze some land and call it an airstrip
I say that having a 3000 foot airstrip on my farm in TX and along with six other "pieces of land (each 20 acres) Having a strip on Whidbey island.
plus he was arrogant at the FSDO
I know its wonderful little guy agains the FAA...wow send him money :)
@@robertoler3795 Curious if you live in WA how you would know he was perceived as arrogant. And even if he was (he said the hearing lasted 5 days, personally I might be more than arrogant if I was in that situation), the decision should be based solely upon if he did or did not bust the regs.
@@robertoler3795 he certainly does not live in anything close to what anyone would call a “populated area“. You can legally land on certain roads or highways in Nevada so you certainly can land on your own damn property or a friends in the sparsely populated area
This is the best video I have seen for aviation in a while, you are spot on and I support everything you said! I will gladly sign any paperwork to support that the FAA is held accountable.
The old adage to never invite the man into your life, fits perfectly here. Avoid the FAA at every possible opportunity. There is zero upside and nothing but risk to your license, medical or career. As always, sufficient altitude helps keep the FAA away.
I've been stuck for two years after having my medical wrongly revoked/suspended (already had a class III and was applying for a class I and a condition that an AME said was a non-issue was used by the FAA to revoke both). My family and I spent thousands trying to follow the rules and getting the needed medical reviews to get my medical back and for months now the report has been sitting with the FAA with Oklahoma City refusing to review it. I've lost 2 years towards my degree in a part-141 university program because of this and it oftentimes feels like there's nothing I can do to get them to act on anything.
I understand what your saying about Oklahoma City, so in May 2019 I did my first ever FAA medical so I could get my student pilot certificate because I was going to college for an aviation program. At the time of my medical, it asks if you ever attempted suicide, which I had in 2007 when my soon-to-be ex-wife left me, I got better from the depression and moved on with my life. From 2007 to the time I went for my medical I had no attempts to take my life, no therapy, and I was good. I was a truck driver and I have had to do the TSA threat assessments and everything else, even have my hazmat. Yet the FAA in OK City still messed with me about getting my medical for flying. I also have sleep apnea which made things even worse. So, it ended up taking about a full year of BS, I even had to go see a Psychiatrists to have him sign off on me before the FAA finally allowed me to get my Class 3 medical. I understand keeping things safe by the amount of time it takes them to work and the bs they make people go through is nonsense. I hope they get it straight with you also and can get on with your schooling.
I'm going on 5 years I've done and passed everything they told me to do....my last denial said they didn't share the psychiatrist optimism even though he has worked with the FAA for 20 years and It was the doctor the FAA told me to go to and see with their personal recommendation.
@@loganb6286 I've never really understood why they are the way they are. They seem to ignore evidence from doctors that they themselves work with wasting the time of both the pilots and doctors.
your not alone in this
My mistake of using certain medications 15 years ago prevented me from getting a first class certificate. The FAA is really efficient when it comes to creating a pilot shortage.
Would you mind providing more information? I'm quite curious.
They should get rid of class 3 medical
If you haven’t, contact Dr. Bruce Chien, Senior HIMS AME. He’s helped write HIMS protocols.
@@KazKimura Don't forget to tell him he needs a fat wad of cash, too.
@@JoseMejia-hy7op Why? I mean, they have Basic Med which is a decent alternative, no?
Who would have thought that a government employee sucks at their job. Government motto..."We don't care because we don't have to"
The FAA is broken.
The government model is inherently broken. Nothing unique about the FAA.
Absolutely brilliant. Thankyou for highlighting this situation. I agree 100% there needs to be accountability to correct complete and utter stuff ups such as the Trent Palmer case
Link to Trent's video: ruclips.net/video/RpFDRoStcd4/видео.html
The FAA, AOPA and EAA have become advocates of the industry instead of for the people in cases like Palmer. I used to be a member of AOPA and EAA but not any longer because I felt I was wasting my money. What they did to Palmer is wrong! John, thanks for sticking out!
And this is where I run into an issue. I'm building the funds and time to start my private pilot certificate journey and I'm not trying to have to learn what's in FAR AND some random administrative judge's unwritten opinion that sidesteps the (poorly) established federal administrative rulemaking process and that I can run afoul of without having any way of knowing? I don't know if I'm ready to put my family's livelihood on the line for that. I'm an average Joe that already gets the stink eye from everybody for being a local LEO.
Not ready to be chastised for the news heading "Local LEO defies judges order by..."
Haha...be sure to forward the news article when you cross their path!!!
All good points, especially on authority to make aviation decisions.
Excellent commentary. Great points. The FAA has done more to erode and inhibit General Aviation than promote it and make it safe. Bureaucratic suits out of control and trying to justify their jobs. Thanks for the video.
Wonderful break down. Thank you for digging in. Government overreach is a huge issue, not only in aviation. Thanks for putting this together, you knowledge and insight is greatly appreciated.
I agree we must hold people in the FAA accountable that chose to freely to interpret the rules how the see it
Citizens have no power over the FAA. They aren't elected. Congress funds EVERYTHING by pretending there is an "emergency" every 6 months and passing a "fund everything at last year's level plus x% increase."
I was show boss at a dedication to a new runway opening. During the pilot brief, it came time to set the altitude for low passes for the flying show planes. I had two FAA representatives from the Houston FISDO office which was monitoring the event. To be legal, we had to have showlines established and a 500' line of tape, enforced, to establish a crowd line. The crowd line was set back not from the centerline of the runway but to the edge. One of the FAA reps insisted the minimum altitude to be 500' AGL. I debated stating in non congested areas, which this did qualify, that the FAR said nothing about altitude otherwise why establish a show line. The Senior representative agreed with me and I set the altitude to 50'. I basically owned that airspace for the period of published time of the event. The junior member was not happy that I dared to debate him publicly and provided the FAR evidence to show his misinterpretation of the law.
So many of the people who are sworn to uphold the law, including police and other agencies officials, do not know the law they have pledged to uphold.
thank you for speaking out
Thank you. Nailed it
You are right on bro !
Trent thought he was being helpful when he went in and spoke with them and admitted it was him flying. It seems the FAA needed the "Don't speak to cops" treatment and make them prove he was the one flying his plane. Supposedly all they had was a video of a video from a surveillance camera. Who knows, maybe someone took it for a joyride without him knowing...
Or who’s to say he didn’t land on the next attempt, and the recording of a recording didn’t show that, making the whole argument null and void… I’m kind of with you on this, exercise your 5th amendment right, your not required to help them investigate you and contact an attorney early on… personally i think they should be required to read you Miranda Rights if they have any intent to violate you, and anything shared prior to Miranda Rights should be not admissible in the charges against you. If anything came from this in legislation, that would likely be the most helpful to protect pilots rights.
Rule #1, admit to nothing. End of conversation.
After what they did to Bob Hoover, I would put nothing passed them.
@@johnmarks3412 yup, Better yet, show up with a lawyer and don’t talk.
You absolutely have to be kidding me! I am stunned beyond measure. More of our freedoms are being taken every day, and it feels like an unwinnable fight and it leaves us voiceless and unable to fight back. Flying is my passion and my life, and I love it more than anything else in this world, but it feels like a hopeless battle going up against principalities like this. (a sort of "David and Goliath" scenario," and I think issues like this are written by people who aren't pilots or are being paid a great deal to sway a vote like this. 😢 I'm sorry that this even happened to you, but know this, you're not alone in this fight, and we have your back. DO NOT ACQUIESCE... EVER!
We all know the motto of the FAA: We are not happy until you are not happy. Remember what they did to Bob Hoover
The Faa is a prime example of bureaucracy out of control. Huge salary, no critical review, no work load...
It says "necessary FOR takeoff or landing", not "for a necessary takeoff or landing"... so it does not matter if the landing is necessary or not. Why are people making and enforcing regulations when they can't even read them correctly, let alone the fact they have no flying experience???
Ah...the eternal question....
That’s how I read it too.
Honestly it makes me want to just forget about getting my license. I have completed all the training and just need to take the tests... these situations and the families that keep filing (and winning) lawsuits against engine and aircraft manufacturers because their loved one had water in the tank or forgot to put fuel in it and got in a stall spin, making it incredibly impossible to afford to fly, just why bother? People don't have common sense anymore.
As someone just now getting into pilot school, I can tell you my passengers and my safety will be and is number 1 on the list. So it's pretty messed up that the FAA would od something like this to cause even more panic and confusion during a potentially critical in-flight moment of decision for the pilot.
It looks like in this case a go-around is a violation but if you do a quick touch-and-go you are legal.
Great Job with your explanation, sighting sources and especially your call to organizations like the AOPA to develop a voice.
You summed up the problem better than anyone I’ve heard on this case. Like most pilots I go to absurd lengths to stay legal. If cases like this become the norm you will see a lot of GA pilots loose respect for FAA regulations and start to outlaw their flying which would be damaging for everyone. Thanks for making this video and shedding more light on this case.
Unfortunately, this is about big brother weeding out the non meek among us. If you think you have rights, they claim you only have privileges which they will revoke for anything you do or just to make an example out of you to intimidate others. The politics here is similar to the anecdote about slow cooking a frog in a pot of water. Our rights will evaporate if we aren't paying attention. The tactic is to keep us divided so as individuals we have no power and if we organize we will be seen as dangerous for seeking to collectively preserve our rights. We are on the receiving end of psychological warfare.
I was training a student pilot at a towered airport that operates in the SFRA around DC. The tower controller cleared us to land then added "Full stop only no go-around. " to the clearance. We landed taxied clear then I told him that his phraseology was incorrect. He could only request that we make a full stop landing. We went back and forth over the radio for a little bit. After my student and I shut down he sent an airport authority car to our airplane to tell me to call the tower. The tower supervisor tried to defend his controller saying that a government agency ordered all planes on the ground. I expressed that I understood why the clearance was given but that didn't make it right. I then brought up an accident at the same airport that happened with a student pilot a few months earlier. The student was unstable on approach and destroyed the airplane trying to land. I asked supervisor "Did you tell that pilot he had to land too?" I finished with "It is always a pilot's perogative to go-around.". He said he would talk to his controller about his phraseology.
How can the FAA promote a go around if it's not safe policy then fault a pilot for going around?
91.119 doesn’t make any evaluation on whether a landing or take off is itself necessary. The word “necessary” refers to the operation of the aircraft at a particular altitude or distance from structures. The FAA cannot even read their own regulations properly.
It really seems like the FAA would be much happier if no one could fly
I bet a neighbor complained and this was the FAA response. Call the government and bad things can happen but people call all the time for minor things.
Thanks for this video. I hope other prominent YT pilots speak up as well.
Outstanding commentary! Federal bureaucrats need to be held accountable for their actions and arbitrary and capricious interpretations of statutes. We see this time and time again in land management decisions by BLM and Forest Service. Not to mention every other “alphabet” agency that has granted themselves the ability to rule as they see fit. Thanks for putting this video out!
The go arounds before the landing are for a procedure called "A LASSO APPRAISAL". Length, Altitude, Sides, Slope, Obstructions. LASSO Appraisal. Retired Bush Pilot and aerobatics CFI
The FAA, we're not happy until you're not happy.
Well said. This MUST NOT stand!
What we need to do is get to the bottom of what REALLY went down in this case. This wreaks of favoritism, on both sides of the case. A FAA employee on site was the complainant, and Trent was the defendant. The employee pissed and moaned about a situation that he simply didn't like, and got a response from the FSDO and the FAA- he evidently had some kind of clout. Trent, on the other hand, was a spectacular target for the FAA- the perfect pilot to make an example of. This had nothing to do with safety- it was about catering to somebody with money or power, and slapping down a RUclips celebrity (which the FAA HATES). THIS NEEDS TO GO BEYOND the unjustness that Trent has been handed.
Trent was either buzzing an RC strip or attempting to land at one in a populated area. then no doubt he was arrogant in front of the inspector. this is a lot of populism drum banging
What is the basis for your claim that the neighbor who complained was an FAA employee?
@@andrewalexander9492 I would be curious to know that as well. We have been told that is not true.
No… this was a private citizen that complained numerous times about a make shift RC field put in next door…one Trent obviously used.
Then Trent upping the screw you with a full size toy buzzing.
Very stupid and he got off lite. I’m not fooled and neither was the FAA or judge.
@@thatguy7085 I suspect you are right on the money with that. well said
Well stated!
funny thing is, I know of a place where military aircraft routinely fly closer than 500 ft to people, structures, and vehicles with absolutely no intent on landing. And to top it off it is in a national park. Its one thing to do this type of flying on a military base, but to allow this in a national park is the height of hypocracy in our federal government when compared to this Trent Palmer story.
If it’s the same place I’m thinking about, where photographers camp out to get some canyon strafing photos, it is no longer allowed after that incident in 2019. Now it’s 1500’ agl through that area.
The FAA has no jurisdiction over the Military.
Bureaucracy at its finest. A group of people who aren't pilots telling pilots how to fly.
Unfortunately I think the mission is to eliminate general aviation and reserve flight for the military.
That admin judge needs to be removed … it shouldn’t be up to him to determine intentions or if landing is necessary
I like to think that not everyone in the faa is represented by those individuals involved in this judgement, I am glad you made a point of saying that. I will contact aopa first and then my congressman/congresswoman this needs to be address.
Vast majority are really good folks...I'd imagine that many who work for the FAA do see the damage to safety that has come of this prosecution.
I have tracked this IDIOCY back to the years of the Obama regime. It became ok in the mind of government bureaucrats at all levels to CREATE new INTERPRETATIONS of the rules to in order to do what they, the bureaucrat, thinks should be done. And they knew that since they were THE AUTHORITY, they could not be questioned and in most cases there is no simple recourse, except maybe one that would cost lots of money or time. "I may be wrong but do you have enough money and time to fight this?" In other words Obama didn't do much himself about anything, what he was though was an enabler.
while I can't say what president it started with, I do have to say the continuing increasing trend of "executive orders" and the like has setup a really bad situation in america. My career is trying to keep a company in compliance with such regulations (not FAA in this case, but another couple of agencies)... and the biggest thing I think people dont realize is the whole admin law process... literally the first several steps in experience with a regulator, all the balls are in their court... because you are not in a "judicial" court, instead you are in an "admin law" court, which is run by the administrative branch, the same that promulgated the rules (in theory in compliance with the actual law given by congress, but not always), and the same branch that sighted you for noncompliance. Even when you get beyond the admin court process, the judicial process favors the admin branch's view (see chevron deference). One basically has to show that the "rule" is somehow not in compliance with the actual "law" congress passed (which is hard, since almost all agencies have some charter rule like "in the protection of the public" etc). It is a horrible place to be. And people don't realize so much of what one can be fined / etc for is in the realm of admin law.
The insolence of office and the law's delay.
(It’s been awhile since I’ve reviewed this specifically but I’m pretty sure pilots can appeal an administrative law judge ruling to the NTSB. Right?)
I think we need to change the system in three ways:
First, being a pilot (or better yet at least a commercial pilot) should be one of the minimum requirements necessary for a person to be an administrative law judge. I think that alone would do a lot to squash rulings that are clearly and completely wrong and not in the spirit of safety.
Second, anyone who becomes an admin law judge should have extensive training on all aviation regulations (and the sprit of safety behind aviation regs) and a thorough knowledge of aviation accident history. I believe this would also cut down on incorrect rulings like this one in Trent’s case which could potentially have a negative impact on safety by discouraging pilots to perform go-arounds out of fear of prosecution.
And thirdly, a record should be kept of every ruling an admin law judge has had overturned and when 3 rulings have been overturned that person should lose the position of admin law judge and be forced to be retrained and retested on aviation regs and aviation accident history mentioned in point two.
You’d think the FAA would be smart enough to know that targeting people (especially highly visible ones) who try to follow the rules like Trent, who personally promotes safety in aviation to others via RUclips, does way more to damage the FAA’s mission of promoting and increasing safety and gaining compliance than it does to further the FAA’s mission of safety and compliance.
P.S. I’ve never understood people trying to buddy up to the FAA. Make no mistake they are never on your side and this nonsensical ruling just reiterates that fact.
Sounds pretty good to me!
Trent did appeal this case. I disagree with your ps though. I am one of those people and it has served me well. If something like this happens to me, they know who I am before they ever call me. Also, I have found them to be on my side several times. This one random case on the other side of the country does not negate that
And here you think the judge is wrong… you have listened to one side of an argument.
Bet you wouldn’t like that if I caused you of something you didn’t do… and no one heard your side of the story.
Better step back and pull the foot out of your mouth.
You have no right to fly. It is in fact a privilege. You have no right to fly over anyones property… even to land.
Trent is about to find this out… yes, he will likely be sued.
If the federal judge believes Trent is not telling the truth… we’ll, now we are talking about federal criminal charges.
This isn’t the FAA… or administrative judge.
Someone did something stupid, got spanked, and now is crying.
@@thatguy7085 can you site the law that states that you do not have the right to fly over anyones land? I've never seen anything of the sort. He did have permission to land, so that is a null point
@@chrisbowpiloto it has been common law from 1300 AD to the present. The airspace used above peoples property is like a side walk easement. The property owner still owns the land where the side walk is located, the government has designated airways (basically sidewalks in the air) pilots do not have a ‘right’ to use these anyway they wish. In fact if the people on the side walk disturb the owner of the property, the side walk (or in this case air space) can be shut down or removed for further use.
I have actually seen this done to airspace while working for the DOD and FAA.
He decided not to land. A neighbor called the FAA. He was doing a security fly over.
The FAA lives in a closed loop system. Oversight is managed by the FAA. Judgements made by FAA judges are written for them by airspace safety investigators. The FAA has regulations that they are supposed to be held to and you can find them under 8900.1. Good luck with that though because it’s like being in the Mafia , it’s a family affair and no one in FAA is held to any standard of accountability from within. Which brings me to this: until “absolute immunity” is taken away from the FAA it will remain a lawless, wreckless, self governing entity with absolute authority to rule every regulation as they see fit. Think about this for a moment and let it resonate. A sitting senator or even an ex-president can be subpoenaed or even charged civilly or criminally but not an FAA representative. Boeing and Southwest debacles were happening the same time the feds were chasing imaginary regulations to enforce. Makes you wonder if aviation safety is really all that important to the FAA or is it more about making themselves relevant…
The FAA needs to be rained in, they have gotten so far off of their mandate that congress set for them to promote aviation and aviation safety. With that judges ruling, I could see even getting violated during a check ride, when the dpe says to preform a go around… even at a airport with lights, runway markings, wind sock and an Awos. Why, because there was no intent to land.
Is that ALJ also a certificated pilot? If not, I suggest he isn't qualified to question an ADM decision.
The FAA made me wait 3 months before sending me a medical form for my doctor to fill out. What could they be doing that took so long? Did they run out of stamps? I had to sit around 3 months to bring my medical up-to-date! But from what some of my friends have told me I've had relatively good luck with the FAA.
Too late for me, they've already taken me medical!
What ever happened to high recon /low recon before landing to decide if safe to land??????
It’s according to what the definition of IS is!
The inspector, attorney and judge need to be fired and charged with FWA.
IT's True "The FAA Ain't Happy till You're UNHAPPY". Just a fact of life.
American Firearms enthusiasts be like "First Time?"
also, would love a video explaining where one can land off-site. i live in CA and often wondered if i can put it down in the desert..
Thanks dude, great video. Keep up the good work
The constitution states a jury of your peers. So, how about a panel of say twelve bush pilots to decide the case?
AMEN!!!
"What would a reasonable pilot do" A reasonable pilot would not be trying to play "Backcountry Pilot" in a developed subdivision. There are 12 houses within 1/4 mile of the spot in question. If this enforcement leads to a a precedent whcih makes like difficult for pilots involved in actual back country flying, then we have Trent's poor judgment in choosing to do this stunt in an inappropriate place to thank for this. If he had stuck to doing off airport landings in the actual back country, none of this would have started.
I guess you haven't visited Wasilla, alaska or any of the 100 plus airstrips in much more densely populated areas than this. I'd say at more than 50 of those strips it is impossible to land or takeoff with more than 50' clearance from homes or other vehicles.
There are literally so many strips the FAA chooses not to chart them do to chart congestion
I have a feeling, that up to Trents Video, only the people involved in the case properly knew about it.
But a number of FAA people that watch aviation Videos got a suprise and, probably hinted other FAA people that something is going awray.
I would not be surprised, that at some level in the FAA now is some chaos and looking into the case.
Only question is, if they will correct, or if they try to stick to a decition
I feel like we don’t have enough of the story to be making these decisions/videos. Something about Trent’s story just seems off to me. I find it suspicious he gave his story and that’s it. No evidence to prove his side of the story. Nothing about the runway other than a very brief mention of it being an RC runway. I think he did something unsafe and is trying to use his influence to sell his story and get views on his RUclips
Minority rule sucks even for elites, so sad .
This is spot on!
So if ATL tower goes ATC Zero due to an event, does Atlanta Departure give every Delta flight that goes missed a telephone number to call individually or do they just send a letter to Delta Ops a month after the event?
All takeoffs are optional, all landings are mandatory.
Well said brother !!!!
This was absolutely perfectly stated!
Spot on in some many ways.
Buzzing People and Places is great fun for pilots.
YOU make a lot of assumptions about an enforcement case with only ONE side of the story "Trent's". You have no clue what the FAA side of the story is (except what Trent told you in his video). The FAA can not release their side of the story due to privacy issues. Obviously, the law judge didn't believe Trent's side of the story (remember, the judge doesn't work for the FAA, they work for the NTSB that doesn't have the best relationship with the FAA ). The judge doesn't have to be an aeronautical expert, they have to be a good judge of the law and people's character to determine if someone is lying to them. You even said you know people who use the "I was trying to land" excuse to cover a buzz job.
The simple answer is when making an "off airport" landing "DON'T GET WITHIN 500 FEET " of people, houses etc. If the landing site in question had been registered as a private airport IAW 14 CFR 157.3, then chances are the ALJ would have sided with Trent because there would have been a determination issued IAW 157.7.
0:04 hahaha 😂 great intro lol
Man, I like your content. But I think you are way off base on this one. Definitely, challenge the FAA when they are wrong and hold them accountable….YES, PLEASE DO THAT. However, I don’t think his the hill to die on.
#1. 100% of what you spoke to is strictly what Trent and his attorneys have chosen to make public
#2. This ALJ’s decision DOES NOT set legal precedence. If he loses his appeal at the NTSB hearing, it may very well set a legal precedence in that case it would be very bad for us pilots.
#3. This is not a criminal trial…you don’t have the right to a trial by your peers. That would be ridiculous and really clog the courts with BS.
#4. Flying into a neighborhood to see if you can land on a “RC strip” is not the same as evaluating an off-airport landing site. I live in a spread out neighborhood, but I probably wouldn’t try to land in my yard even though I have more than enough room to do it.
I challenge you to think critically about this before getting all spooled up. Could the judge have meant: A small strip used by RC aircraft in a NEiGHBORHOOD is not a viable landing site. However, if the strip had things like: a windsock, markings, lights, the judge could have sided with Trent. Trent knows the property owner and could have evaluated before he ever flew over it. Even going with the FAA’s off airport guide (not rules, its a guide) and intermediate pass problem would have told him that this was not a place to land before he ever got low enough to potentially violate 91.119(c).
By the way 91.119(c) is where we all hang our hats because of the term sparsely populated.
The FAR’s a written with some ambiguity to allow for all sorts of operations. By making a huge deal with something like Trent getting a 60 day suspension, you could certainly end up with more rulemaking….further restricting MY FREEDOM. Be careful what you wish for.
As far as you getting into trouble with Bend, OR Police…what was the outcome? Did you go to jail? Did you pay a fine? How did it ruin your life? Otherwise it comes off to me like whining.
If we police ourselves and err on the side of caution and use judgement
A reasonable pilot would probably not try and land in a neighborhood, that is bad decision making.
On, last thing….We need to consider people’s FREEDOM to live secure in their homes and not have airplanes trying land off-airport in their neighbor’s yard.
I still love your content and will always remain a fan. I just have a different opinion.
Totally agree with you I posted something similar
I’m a pilot for 50 years to me this was not a good decision by Trent
I always appreciate alternate opinions...given that I haven't flown over the strip I would try to speculate myself if it is "safe" landing area, but just because I evaluate a landing area and decide it is not right for me or my plane does not preclude other Pilots from safely landing.
While the general public is certainly entitled to safety and privacy in the homes and on their land, I do feel the way the rules are written are sufficient to ensure that. The bigger "deal" here isn't what is "considered" smart, polite, or whether someone "feels" landing in a neighborhood is unsafe or unnecessary. The bigger deal is that the rules as they are written do not seem to restrict what Trent was doing in any way. I respect the opinions of all Pilots and landowners that we fly over, I simply do not respect opinions of government officials. I feel that to live in a civilized society government officials must follow the laws and rules as they are written, not as the think they should be or as others think they should be. When they is a "gray" area, I belive the citizen should be favored over a regulation that regulators have difficulty understanding or applying.
Agreed. I posted something similar on Trent’s video. You can’t just go around landing in people’s backyards and buzzing houses of their neighbors. This whole argument against the FAA is a major stretch, overly dramatic. No one is getting their license suspended doing a go around at a legit airport. If I was that neighbor, I would be pissed off too.
1) I agree
2) True, it would be bad but sitting down and letting people punish you for incorrectly reading rules should be stopped
3) I agree and I think remedial training would solve this
4) How is it not the same? An RC strip could very well be an off-airport landing site. And without seeing the landing site for ourselves it would be very hard to argue whether houses are too close together to attempt a safe landing per 91.119 (which doesn't state distance requirements for landing an aircraft in the first place, it very explicitly states _except when necessary for takeoff or landing_ )
5) The whole point is that the judge does not have the authority to determine if the RC strip is a viable landing site. Because his license is being suspended for flying too low with the argument that he never had the intent to land. Thinking on it I actually don't know if there is a reg that talks about whether a landing site is too dangerous or not, I don't believe there is. I still believe it should be the pilot's choice as to whether a landing site carries too much risk but I do see the reason for your fear.
6) That we do, if he was within 500 feet of the neighbor's house then I do see a case there because people shouldn't have to worry about aircraft flying so closely to their homes. But if this is an issue then either a new reg is needed, Trent clearly did something that carried a large amount of unnecessary risk, or he failed to comply with some noise abatement program.
7) Also how is that whining? He's sharing a relatable example of what he believes is a similar situation where people, who clearly didn't know the rules, enforced rules on him. Specifically to emphasize just how important it is for the FAA to properly edjucate the people who enforce said rules on pilots so that a just culture is maintained rather than a regulatory one. It just so happened that he had a perfect example that he himself experienced. I just don't comprehend where the whining is.
General) I would argue that failing to inspect the landing sight before arriving is a bit much, I don't think it's a bad idea just seems like it doesn't really matter because you won't know what it actually looks like until you're trying to fly into it. You could measure distances etc... but even if those measurements all check out you still need to be comfortable with the approach. And it's not required to inspect an off airport landing site from the ground before attempting to land there, and it shouldn't be required. My guess is that from overflying it the strip seemed to be something Trent thought he could land on and then he made an attempt to land on it, didn't like what he saw realizing it wouldn't be possible to land there, and went around. It would be nice to hear the other side of the story but all we have is Trent's case of it.
I do think that more regs suck but we can't have situations where pilots are losing their license by flying per the regs while the FAA is enforcing something different from what is being stated. IF 91.119 said something about off-airport ops along the lines of _Any aircraft landing off-airport may not be within 500 feet of any person, vessel, vehicle, or structure_ then sure. And maybe it's a necessary add-on to the rules.
Thanks for pointing out the ridiculousness of it all. We should all be safe, but nobody should feel like they are walking on eggshells with their career on the line. By this standard, you could say a practice missed approach at minimums in instrument training would be a violation, how stupid.
This is called progressively losing your rights..
I really enjoy your channel.
Plus Trent and others in his situation need to have ALL of their legal fees and other expenses totally reimbursed to the penny by those authoritarians consumed with their own presumed "power" and who do harm to not just flight safety overall, but also to the individuals they persecute.
That line doesn't even say "necessary landing" it says "necessary for landing" there is a big difference.
The FAA, like all alphabet agencies, needs a total overhaul. The goal of the current Federal agencies seems to be overreach and limiting rights.
Oversight is no longer a part of the alphabet system. It needs to be!
From where I'm sitting, compliance is futile. A lot of people can't afford to buy their rights back from "due process."
FAA needs to be put in check for sure
I have been in GA and commercial most of my life and find your take on such a hot subject interesting!!. Is it heavy handed by the FAA and the judiciary sure!, I should say so but is there any merit at all on the part of the FAA?. Lets explore that a little, and to do so we need the full story warts and all. This was as a result of the FAA receiving a complaint backed with evidence that the complainants property was overflown at very low altitude, well below the mandated 500ft, acting on this they investigated the matter during which they interviewed Trent and concluded to refer the matter to the legal department that sough enforcement of the FAA rules and regulations through the judiciary, so what do we have, well we have a property owner, the FAA enforcement agent, the FAA legal department and an appointed judge all deciding that Trent had violated the rules and requirements as detailed by the FAA,. The difficulty when involved in aviation or any thing else for that matter is seeing the other side, and there is clearly another side here. The public are entitled to peaceable enjoyment and safety of their property and lets face it many of them are not particular friends to aviation especially GA. It is not useful to compare what happened here with airports given that the area in question most certainly is not an airport so no meaningful inference can reasonably be drawn, neither is it helpful to compare to go arounds or decisions based on fancy to emergency decisions because there was no emergency at all here. Once you are minded of all these facts and then when you overlay the FAA rules pertaining here, it is not too difficult to see why the court ruled as it did. Would the FAA been able to pursue this matter without a complaint and evidence?, the answer is clearly no, was the complainant entitled to make a complaint for consideration, yes! and that justification can be seen in the FAA decisions and the decision of the court. What is needed here is a rewriting of the rules as I fear the rules as they currently stand will see Trent coming off second best at appeal. In hindsight any attempted landing off airport for no other reason than because you can and or want too which causes you to be in violation of the FAA rules by overflying another's property structures, or person, below the mandated height is going to be an issue and with good reason, I wonder when it goes wrong, which it does from time to time where the insurance company would sit with this, given that they have a lawful expectation that all insured pilots operate within the FAA rules and regulations. Surely the smart thing would have been to check that the neighbouring property owner was onboard with what was being planned, had that have been the case then this would have never been an issue, clearly the neighbour was overlooked in the considerations which no doubt was viewed by the neighbour as an aggravating factor.
When safety in the NAS becomes a pain in the ass . I don't know but is the FAA now partly funded by these fines ? . In over words do they have to make so many fines a year like a quota . Maybe it is just new people that don't know their job ? . I'm not a pilot but .....forcing a pilot to land when they think its unsafe to escape a fine isn't a safe move I would say .
Spot on!!!!!!
They can’t. It’s impossible. Because in the USA there is no such thing as a pilot license. It’s a pilot certificate.
I have a pilot certificate from the FAA. When did they start issuing licences? Get it right.
Oh, they revoked all of our certificates a long time ago...no all we have are licenses ;)
Im a big fan of you USA GA pilots and how you have advanced all things aeronautical over the last century but can see how your going to suffer if this case is allowed to set 'that' precedent. The PiC must be allowed to go around, to penalize a flyer who doesnt land because he deems it unsafe to do so is ridiculous. The intent to land here is or was questioned & isnt this point anymore now. The point of this whole facade is that, one FAAs persons opinion is being forced on every American Pilot or his intent to force it on all future off airport landings that you attempt in your/the future. You must have this decision ( overturned). GP. Ex Air force Ex Police Officer. Uk.
I was flying home from a short flight in my Velocity to L00. L00 is a private airport open to the public. At one end of the airport there is an annex that is outside the airports property but within the gates of the airport. Somehow a couple of FAA representatives decided to drive into the gated "private" airport and then follow me into the annex (private property separate of the airport) and ramp check me. The FAA representatives let themselves in a closed and chained (unlocked) gate. This is not allowed because the FAA did not have permission to be on the private property. I did not know that so I complied. The ramp check went well overall. I ended up telling a part owner of the airport of my experience and he flipped out and went to the FSDO and chewed them a new one. Needless to say I have never seen the FAA back at L00. I believe the government is overstepping it laws to gain power and it is happening everywhere. Now they are using ADSB data to enforce regulations even though they said it will not be used for that purpose. Originally ADSB was sold to us under the name of safety and that there would be no repercussions if mistakes were made! Well that is false and I know of a few instances where licenses were revoked using ADSB data. Oh ya and if equipped you cant legally turn it off!
Nice story, but you still can't buzz people and places.
I’m so tired of our gov! I quit flying. I have thousands of hours. Cya aviation
See you in the air
Something to consider: Some FSDOs are reporting an inability to hire individuals despite having the necessary budget. The general reason given is no one wants to work for the FAA. Perhaps it's time that good aviators step up and fill the ranks of the agency and be the change they demand from the sidelines. At the end of the day the FAA has to hire *someone* to do the work. If they can't get any good aviators to do it, they'll choose bad ones next, and then finally people who aren't even aviators at all to fill the void. At that point we're being regulated by individuals who do not understand the industry at all. Good people have to be willing to actively and directly contribute to our government or the government will become the lowest common denominator in our society. The same is true of all law enforcement and regulatory bodies.
Why does the FAA employ aviation attorneys that are clueless about aviation?