FAA suspends Trent Palmer's License - Career Pilot Reacts 

I appreciate the support and very nice breakdown. I too wish the neighbor had come to me, I reached out through my friend asking if I could go over to apologize for upsetting them (after the neighbor had already reported me to the FAA and called local law enforcement on me, which they obviously didn't even follow up on), the neighbor replied with "we don't want to talk to him, we want to bury him for this." This particular neighbor has made a habit of calling on others, he even tried to get our FedEx driver for the neighborhood fired for pulling off his driveway by a few feet... Regardless they are arguing that it was a blatant buzz job, they have no evidence to prove it and are unwilling to hear anything otherwise. The comment below with the notes from my lawyer are from him, it was quite a circus act of a case. Also, due to covid the FAA isn't doing hearings in person, this was all done though a zoom meeting. Again, I appreciate the support, I will do my best to keep everyone up to date and keep myself out of trouble moving forward...

I've personally met Trent at Oshkosh one year and he's every bit the stand-up individual in person as he is on camera. IMHO this is a pretty big witch hunt on the FAA's part.

Here's a comment from Trent's attorney online. The case details are insane. There's no "other side to this story." It's a pure and simple railroad attempt of a high profile pilot. Read below: I am Trent's attorney. What happened in his case was so appalling, I do not know where to begin. But to call his trial a circus demeans the circus. Nicolae and Elena Ceaușescu got a fairer trial than Trent did. Here are but a few examples: - The center piece of the FAA case was a video that caught a glimpse of Trent's airplane during his low inspection pass. The FAA destroyed/deleted that video before trial, but every FAA witness was permitted to testify (over my continuous objection) about what the video allegedly showed even thought we could not see it. - FAA Counsel during the course of the proceedings objected to a question that I ask their "expert" relative to the flap system Trent's aircraft used. Her objection? She did not understand the question. When the judge asked her source of confusion, she asked "what's a flap?" This attorney has been with the FAA for 22 years. Remember that the justification for all administrative agencies is that they are repositories of subject matter "expertise." Spare me. - Their "expert pilot" had an unremarkable flying career who never made any more than 50K as a pilot and doubled his salary when he jumped to the FAA 18 years ago. He was the individual who the FAA put up to second guess Trent about his off-airport operations. He had not touched an aircraft in 18 years. He knew nothing about Trent's plane, could not tell you its performance characteristics, what type it was, its engine, etc. He conducted no investigation and read no materials which would have informed him in that regard. He too knew nothing of Trent's flying experience. He had never observed Trent flying and made no efforts or requests to do so. I asked him whether or not it was a fair statement that the "appropriateness" of a landing site is a function of both the aircraft performance and pilot experience? He agreed that was a fair statement. He too agreed that a low inspection pass was "necessary" to conduct an off-airport landing. Still, he offered all manner of testimony about what would have happened had its engined had failed (and BTW, its a KitFox V. I have seen helicopters take more distance to land) and the (in)appropriateness of Trent's chosen landing site (over my objection, of course). Oh, and according to this "pilot expert," when you are doing a low inspection pass for an off airport landing, you still must stay at least 500 feet away from "vehicles, vessels, structures and persons" on the ground. Riddle me this batman, how the F do you inspect a runway surface from 500 feet away?" The FAA "pilot expert" too boasted in his resume (which I secured in discovery) that when he does a good job for the FAA, he gets - and I quote verbatim - "accolades, time-of, and cash awards." Part of his job is to hang pilots in enforcement actions. I asked him on cross, "if this case goes the FAA's way, will you get "accolades, time-off or a cash award." Objection. Sustained. If I had brought this "expert" to court, I would have been laughed out of the door. At the FAA, this is business as usual. I have NEVER seen such institutional bias in my life. This is hardly an independent expert who bring his wealth of experience to bear upon a set of facts to reach an informed opinion. He is whore, and an indentured one at that. The FAA keeps food in his belly and a roof over his head. What do you think he is going to say in these proceedings? From a few cubicles away .... "hey Bob, what are you doing today?" "Nothing why?" "We got this enforcement case and need you to testify against a pilot." "Sure. Be right there." Apparently, if you hold a pilots certificate and work for the FAA, you are an "expert" about all things piloting. Your actual experience matters not. Oh, I did ask him on cross in all the times he has testified for the FAA, how many times did he testify that the pilot did nothing wrong. Wait for it .... 0. I will post his resume later so you can see it with your own eyes. And folks, I am just scratching the surface here. If I sound like I am disgusted, it is because I am. Oh, and let me too add that this is not the only matter I have going now where the a pilot has been violated for doing EXACTLY what the FAA advised him to do. It's getting old folks. Trent is a very nice and earnest young man who has a passion for aviation who is VERY good at what he does and is by any reasonable measure, an excellent pilot, especially when it comes to off-airport operations. He simply does not deserve this.

Assuming Trent's story is accurate, this sets terrible and dangerous case precedent. This is almost as bad as last year when the FAA told pilots that they're not allowed to legally get training in their experimental airplanes. Are we seeing a trend that the FAA is causing safety issues for the aviation community?

Moral to this story…. When a government official wants to “talk,” don’t! Remain silent and demand strict proof of the allegations asserted.

You're so spot on with this! I met Trent in 2019 at Oshkosh. There was a panel of RU-vidrs speaking about how posted videos of what they do could be used by the FAA for enforcement, up to and including monetary gains for pilots who do not possess a commercial rating, even if no flight violations occurred. But the bigger point I'd like to make, which applies here, is virtually EVERYTHING we do as aviators is probably on video...posted or not. And all we have to do is anger somebody, who knows nothing about flying or how the rules apply, to get caught in an expensive web defending ourselves.

“Emphasissing the wrong sylable” - brilliantly captures this farcical tragedy in a nutshell! Kudos Steve, for throwing your esteemed reputation and experience behind Trent in his hour of need.

I think all bush pilots should drop a portable windsock at their next landing sight before landing. That way there is a windsock present, thus making it an official landing sight. (Sarcasm being employed)

My suspicion is that the neighbor has an axe to grind with his neighbor (Trent’s friend), has connections and is driving the complaint hard.

Lawyer here. For perspective, judges in general aren't the brightest bulbs in the box. And Administrative Law Judges aren't the brightest of judges.

My assumption is that the FAA is arguing that Trent never considered landing, but was just buzzing his friends house. Their argument would be that when confronted due to the Karen neighbor (who I'd guess hates the RC airstrip and the activity associated with it) Trent claimed that he was properly scouting a potential landing spot, just as an excuse. The danger here is that the ALJ is making an assumption (I assume there is no evidence) as to the intent of the pilot, and that's a VERY slippery slope. To second guess the motivation of a pilot, unless there is evidence, is contrary to the foundational concept of ADM.

I had my licenses revoked (ATP,CFI, CFII, Type Ratings) due to a clerical error when I was renewing my CFI license. I renewed it based on my student pass rate, but it was discovered that one student did not. The MKE FSDO POI, Rexford Darrow White, pointed this out to me, and I returned my temporary CFI certificate. I subsequently reinstated my CFI (it had expired by then) by passing a CFI checkride with a DPE. The FAA, led by Inspector White, issued an Emergency Order of Revocation basically turning me from an airline captain to a student pilot. The FAA is not a just culture. Despite soliciting help from my Senators and Representatives, I was never able to get any records of my violation. The FAA covers for their employee mistakes up to the highest level. I dealt with the Assistant Administrator in Washington DC through my Senator, and all I could recover was 60 pages of redacted (blacked out) text. They hide behind their own "blue wall of silence". The FAA does not judge people equally. A coworker landed his 737 at the wrong airport with a load of revenue passengers and did not lose his tickets (nor would I want him to!). And yet, I stood to lose my livelihood. The FAA gave me the "opportunity" to earn my licenses again if I did not appeal. It only cost me $87,000 to earn them all back, after having paid for them the first time. The $87K was the cost of all the licenses and type ratings. This includes the lost income from not working during this period. There are some real professionals in the FAA, especially the ATC and Safety Team, which are the best in the world. Just none of them are in the MKE FSDO or the Great Lakes District. Good work, Captain! It's good to see airline guys giving back to GA. Thank you for your service, too!

This is why you should never talk to any government disciplinary or regulatory agency without a lawyer. Had Trent done so his lawyers would have been able to determine whether or not he should have admitted to even being the pilot as it would have been difficult, if not impossible, to identify him as the pilot considering that the video evidence and all testimony based on the video was inadmissible. Without being able to prove he was the pilot in question the rest of the government's case is irrelevant and the whole case against him fails.

It would be interesting to see a satellite image of the area with an overlay of Trent’s flight path and altitude.

Year ago I took a course in aviation law taught by a very knowledgeable lawyer. The most important thing I learned is that a certificate holder has the same rights to defend against FAA civil action as does a person accused of a crime. I later learned from personal experience that even some instructors at the FAA Academy are unable to understand or express the clear meaning of the FARs as written. Since the regulations are generally written clearly in unmistakable language, I found this situation to be a clear warning to aviators: never talk to the FAA without the counsel of an aviation lawyer. You must display your license upon request, but you are not required to answer any questions. If it comes down to a court case, a good lawyer should be able to prove that the FAA personnel involved made mistakes in the enforcement action, because it is more than likely that they did.

That was great that you gave some background to your career and your experience navigating bureaucracy in the military. Totally relevant and much appreciated. Great review

Although i'm not a "bush pilot," I have done many off-airport landings, especially in Washington state and Oregon. If we have the "entire" truth of this story from Trent, then the FAA is definitely overstepping its bounds. And in light of the evidentiary video not being allowed into the proceedings, then this is a no-brainer. The FAA is responsible for fostering an aviation culture steeped in safety, and this action is contradictory to that end for all aviators.

It shouldn't have to go to an appeal if the judge was doing his job correctly and honestly. Frankly, the judge and FAA lawyer seem to me in this case, need some type of "compliance re-training"!! It almost seems to me this IS a "out to get ya" situation, that has a little Trevor Jacob carryover. I don't see where he busted any FAR's at any time!!! If he did actually bust a single FAR here, then most flying in Alaska would have to be shut down today!!! The judge and lawyer in Trents case would have to bust just about every single pilot in Alaska, and we all know that is total BS. I'm very serious here, and getting a little angry the more I think about it. Just more government overreach as far as I'm concerned!!

Speaking from professional experience, having “friends” at the FAA will get them to quickly overlook and approve a shoddy writeup, while having no “friends” at the FAA will get even a pristine, well presented, documented, and created waiver request denied.

If I were Trents friend with the airstrip I would host a fly in every weekend just to show the neighbor some love.

If Trent's position is accurate I wonder if the rules should be amended to be more similar to Australia's part 91, in our "91.267 Minimum height rules-other areas", an exemption listed is "a missed approach" and "go-around" along with takeoff/landing. At least an advisory circular should be published to provide greater clarity for pilots.

Where in the regs do the FAA see it saying a windsock was required (when listening to Trent's comments)? We sure as heck do not need to second guess the safety protocol of flying over an area to see if it is a safe place to make an off-airport landing (NOT only in an emergency). Don't we all have the intention to land and sometimes have to go-around because the approach is not stabilized, an animal is on the runway, etc.? Trent had permission to land at this property. If he did not, then he could only land there in an emergency. I think Trent's only misstep in this situation was NOT getting lawyer when the FSDO contacted him and asked him to come into their office as they wanted to ask him some questions... you are NOT admitting ANY guilt to have legal representation. If he had a lawyer at that meeting, the lawyer would have challenged the video on the spot, Trent would have been advised not to say a damn word. Trent is such a great advocate for aviation. I hope common sense prevails here. But, like Steve says, we do not have all of the evidence. Just because you CAN throw the book at someone, doesn't mean you HAVE to. I think the intent is critical. I think they would need to prove recklessness first. Hope everyone involved can have more grace. We will all learn from this. On another note, is "waterskiing" an airplane reckless - regardless of if it is within 500 feet of people or not? If so, there would be a lot of pilots with revoked licenses if that were the case. Where does the line get drawn here? Slippery slope.

Good take on this. I appreciate the dispassion and transparency. Those are often missed when considering these types of situations. Having been trained as a AF SB Pres, those rank right up there with the facts.

If I were Trent my first knee jerk reaction would be to get a buddy like you, find an F-15, and fly that approach again. Sorry, I have no use for airport Karens. My father had to deal with a few. I admire your and Trent's calm reasoning. Not sure I could do it.

When I was training out of Embry-Riddle in FL, the school, local law enforcement, and ATC would get calls from people all the time complaining about reckless or low flying airplanes. Thank God radar coverage is good and refutes nearly all of these claims. But it just goes to show how many people are out there just trying to cause drama.

I did my homework by watching your vid (again) then watching Trent's. I am a private pilot (granted with less than 200 hours). I did my training in a small city in northern Alberta, Canada. I got quite a bit of instruction regarding off airport landings...and even performed a few. Rule number one is: ALWAYS do at least one inspection pass and do more if you feel the need. I was taught that with ANY landing (on or off airport) if it doesn't feel right...go around. I mean...how many people have been turned into corpses by NOT going around? The FAA's own rules say that and if he would have hit some hidden something and busted up his plane...for sure...100%...Trent would have been hauled in for not doing a proper inspection pass. I agree that there are details we don't know...but from everything I have seen and heard so far...it sure feels like another Bob Hoover type FAA pissing battle where a middle manager bureaucrat is out to show the world that he's the law in these here parts and he ain't gonna be trifled with. Trent has earned a lot of good will from a lot of folks and the FAA has dropped a lot of balls over the years. I'm on team Trent all the way...but with consequences going only one way most of the time in battles between citizens and government...no matter who wins...we all lose. You are being properly diplomatic, Steve. I appreciate that...and your aviation and investigatory expertise. I tend to be less diplomatic...and I think this whole thing stinks. It looks to me like some power mad monkey wanted to look like a tough guy by taking down a youtube bigshot, screwed the pooch...and the bureaucracy backed their guy because letting a citizen win...makes them look bad. Them dropping the punishment down to a relatively meaningless 60 day suspension, is nothing more than a ploy to get Trent to admit guilt and give them a win to save their brused egos. What it also would do is set a terrible precident that could harmfully affect aviation for years. Any good will the FAA earned over the past few years of being relatively reasonable...has been flushed. In my opinion (at least in this case) the FAA really does want to violate a pilot out of spite. One ruling like this is orders of magnitude worse than any number of dumb asses jumping out of their planes for clicks.

Excellent Thank you for this, thank you for your service as well. Calmer and sensible minds will prevail.

How refreshing to hear the opinion, and admission of partial knowledge, of a person with experience in the area. Kudos on your video. Also rooting for Trent.

I think the neighbor was disgruntled before this incident. Trent says his friends fly radio control planes there. Some RC planes can be annoying to some homeowners and they were already heated over the RC planes and then Trent did the inspection flyover and was caught on video. I haven't seen Trent do anything remotely reckless.

There are also many judges who get reprimanded on their decisions. For Trent, the initial handing down was 210 days of suspension; now it's 60 days. Two possibilities of speculation here: was Trent issued the penalty because of something he did which was illegal, or was it an FAA face-saving opportunity that the judge issued? I wish I could see the actual court documents stating the precise point of illegality, because that is something we could go by.

Thank you this, Excellent job! I’m wanting to see this overturned as well and I have a great respect for Trent and what he has done to Realize the importance of this decision and how it could be used against us as we go forward.

Awesome break down of Trents video and the issue. Safe travels @Cleared Direct. I eventually would like to get my private pilots license but hearing about this kind of stuff makes me a little leery to do it. Again thanks for the amazing break down of information.

Good video, I’m with you hoping calmer heads win out and this is overturned.

Thank you Steve for posting this video.. I appreciate your perspective from a professional and civilian standpoint and I believe Trent is a good guy with good intentions that is getting the wrong end of the stick here.. I would stand behind Trent 100% on this issue..

Please keep us all posted on this. Thanks 😊

SUBSCRIBED! i love knowledgeable content by knowledgeable people. Can't get any more knowledgeable than an airforce top gun😉. Also. Thank you for your service

I was glad to see on a post elsewhere that AOPA is looking into this. Making a low pass over an off field landing spot seems prudent. I also understand that the NTSB judges tend to rule on the government’s side.

The lack of standards starts at most FSDO’s. In my experience, the FAA is the most “non-standardized” entity in the aviation industry. I worked with some extremely qualified inspectors in the 121 world, but many GA inspectors have little to no GA experience. Most think that any off field landing is reckless.

Good points. I’m interested to see where this goes

Thanks for clearing up the "necessary" clause. I've noticed a lot of people getting this wrong.

Very well spoken and thought out. I’m pulling for Trent as well. This could have implications on future bush flying and future Trent Palmer videos which I love so much. Not mentioned that I’ve seen, Trent’s a commercial drone operator which requires a PPL. Hopefully that doesn’t affect his livelihood.

Steve @Cleared Direct , first and foremost, a huge Thank You to you for your service sir. I know this case is getting a lot of attention and honestly it should. The freedom of flight that we have in this country is absolutely being threatened every single year. I wasn’t aware that the FAA had their own governance that they can control like the military…. Forget the fact that what Trent did is basically outlined in the FAA’s off airport guide but the fact that they had no admissible evidence on this case and had so called experts that basically is making up “facts”. If this is true and that their expert hasn’t flown in 18 years…. Oh boy, we are all in trouble. Might as well stop following rules and guidelines now because it seems like it doesn’t matter if someone decided to go after you. I’m not going to say “ I know Trent because I met him once at OSH” because that doesn’t matter, the only thing that matters is that the FAA has no admissible evidence, that’s it, case over. . . Should have been dismissed.

Oh! I’ve watched your breakdown with Scott Perdue. Very helpful to a student pilot. Thank you.

Great professional comments!! Thanks

I enjoy Trent's content. This is my first time watching your channel and I like your message here. This should serve as a big reminder to everyone, not just pilots that "You just don't talk to the cops"! It's too late for Trent in this situation, I hope he beats the rap and wins his appeal. Often times we want to be a good guy and be forthcoming with information but it can bite you very quickly as in this very case. There is a reason attorney's offer the guidance "do not speak to law enforcement", just offer them you attorney's contact info, stay quiet and respectful...

How do crop dusters bypass this 500 ft rule, they must get close to roads, power lines and possibly houses near the fields?

I am a relatively new pilot, my concern is what does this do to emergency landing training. If the emergency landing training is a simulated landing targeting an opportunistic spot is every land owner with a field near a training airfield going to be calling and getting pilots suspending for going low enough that the successful outcome could be reasonably demonstrated. I think the agency has really stepped in it here. They have a lot of clarifying to do. Is it now against regulations to be below 500 and within 500ft of objects on the ground during emergency procedure training? DPEs, how do you folks feel about this?

Excellent summary.

Interesting video. Myself as a FAA DPE (38 yrs/x-military as well) and Expertwintess (30 yrs), in which I have helped pilots actually have the FAA case dismissed; what happen to Remedial Training. I am a Remedial Training DPE. I never heard that mention at all in Palmer’s case? That was very unique that did not come up? So, I think the whole story is not being discussed. Good luck, fly safe and always remember, everyone has a camera! CD keep up the good work!

Hell, the FAA has begun to highly regulate MODEL aircraft. They are one of the most over-reaching government agencies, along with the ATF, that we have ever had. Of course we need rules, but things like this are ridiculous

and we thank you for your experience, and content as well.

My uncle is "SOUP" Campbell.. flew 15s and 16s at Aviano and was base commander at Tyndall. He inspired my love for aviation!

I am also guessing that there was bad blood with the neighbors previous to this event possibly because of the RC airplanes that he mentioned that his friend had been flying. That's why there was a landing strip on the friends property.

We sometimes choose not to land/touchdown at public airports when the conditions are unsafe and we make the call on final.... especially along the Columbia River when those winds pick up. Judge is ignorant, FAA is reckless.

Just came across your channel. Really excellent video and also wow at your flight experience. You flew the Eagle even. This to me sounds like a case of a Mr. Grumpy who has for YEARS been looking for a way to stick it to Trents friend. He jumped on this (very necessary and legal) low pass to check the strip as a way to do this. I wish Trent all the best and also have my like and sub to your channel Cleared Direct!

Thanks for sharing. I’m hoping and praying Trent comes out on top.

Trent has already been on the FAA's radar over the years. Back when he first started posting videos (before his channel grew tremendously), he filmed and posted a video of him landing on the Reno Radio Control Airplane Club's runway...... he got in hot water with that one because he didn't have permission to land on their RC airplane runway. The club turned him in after seeing the video. Trent tried justifying it because "I was a former member and still knew people in the club, so i thought it was ok." If I remember right, the local FSDO was involved with that one too...... that could be playing into what's going on here as "multiple occurrences" and the FAA may be after him as a result to send a message......

For the record I am not a pilot. So please take what I am about to say with all the value it merits. What I have noticed over the last several years across the FED are varying levels of egregious overreach by government authorities. The major issue being judges that are wholly unqualified to make an educated, sound, and reasoned decision based upon actual facts, observed evidence, and established agency policy/guidance. You guys are not alone and I am pulling for you all. Until then… clear skies and safe landing.

Would you consider what Trent did of the assessment of the field a precautionary approach? We are taught here in Canada, that for any precautionary approach we gotta stay above 500 AGL.

Great video, thank you.

meanwhile tour helicopters fly between and next to buildings in Florida....crazy world...all my best for Trent

The burden of proof in an administrative law case is the preponderance of the evidence. The FAA booklet will have to be withdrawn, if the ALJ’s decision is affirmed. It seems very arbitrary and capricious for the ALJ to ignore the FAA booklet. ALJ’s often decide cases for the “home team.” This case would set an unfortunate precedent.

The incident happened in 2019, well before the Trevor Jacob stunt. The first thing that comes to mind is, has the FAA declared war on privately-owned airstrips? It seems obvious to me that if you're planning to land on the dirt road on your friend's farm and you've never been there before, the first thing you're going to do is descend to 100 feet and inspect the surface for potholes, huge rocks, weird dropoffs, cattle who like to sleep on it, and anything else that could possibly destroy your aircraft. The "you didn't land so your inspection pass was not a necessary landing maneuver" excuse rings hollow when "I'm doing this so I don't have to buy another airplane tomorrow" seems very "necessary" to me. Question for Trent: how many times has your friend's neighbor-from-hell called the cops on him for his routine landings? I suspect it's quite a few.

Great analysis. Thank-you for your military service.

"The more laws, the less justice" - Cicero

Thanks for supporting Trent. Based upon his own video, the original video capture is in admissible to court ( it was a copy of a video). Without the video as evidence, the neighbor is now relegated to personal recollection. With that outlook, impeaching the neighbors ability to recall and ability to judge distances will settle the claim. Sad such petty neighborhood individuals exist. Also, sad that the FAA devoted resources and effort to bring this to court. Think the loser should pay all court and legal fees upon verdict.

New subscriber here. Thanks for the video. I like Trent also and it will be interesting how this plays out. I must say I am not confident in what I have heard seems to be a ruling based on assumption. I have been a licensed pilot since 1975 only with GA. Anyway, great video based on facts we know. Have a great week! All the best.

Do we have a path to finding out the information/arguments of the other side made?

To further your comment about the neighbors having issues, Trent said that he was scoping out a landing site that his friends fly their REMOTE CONTROL PLANES and he was looking to use that runway if possible. Remote control planes produce quite a bit of noise, they can easily be flown above the neighbors property etc. So the neighbors could simply be upset and use ANY excuse to cause an issue! !! !!!

Your right, if what Trent has said is true, the judge emphasized the necessity of landing in 91.119 I think that is a major error. Also, found 14 CFR 13.223, Standard of proof which is preponderance of evidence. That means they only have to prove it is 50.1% to win. Not like criminal court where beyond a reasonable doubt is the burden of proof.

Well done video, thank you.

Q. What is the License for ?

Was Trent's friend also a pilot? Had Trent ever visited his friends property? If so they would already have known if the intended area is land-able, if not they could have discussed obstacles, grass condition, etc. The neighbor might have a point.. "I'm just going to pretend i had intentions to land", "don't buzz my house the neighbor is an atomic asshole" may have been said also....

I agree this is hard for us to comment on the intricacies of this case. The fact that the off airport guide, which is an FAA document, and used by many many off airport operators, was referenced and used as evidence for Trent's actions, but ultimately was dismissed is disturbing to me. We all use FAA publications to help us navigate the rules. The off airport guide is not an FAR but it is an FAA document and should be used both by pilots and the FAA when looking at such a case. I'm pulling for Trent and hope to see him overturn this ruling at his appeal.

Great synopsis! Given your admittedly biased opinions and analysis you very clearly stated the regulations and known facts. Truly appreciated! You have earned my ' subscription '. Hopefully clearer heads will prevail! Thanks again and Blue skies for Trent!

Do we know what the experience level of the judge is in off airport flying?

btw - nice commentary on the situation.

In cases like these, it is always important to find out what the complainant's connections are to people with power to influence governmental officials.

What AGL was he at for the clearing pass? 25ft agl is significantly different than 200ft....

I spent 18years of my career working for a government agency. it was ALWAYS stressed that conflicts should be worked out at the lowest level... if that is NOT possible then go up the ladder . " Cleared Direct" totally understands this was NOT done. Big thanks for clarifying.

Trent was invited to land on private property. Check! Trent approached said landing site to evaluate it's viability, as recommended by all aviation safety standards. Check! Trent elected to abort the landing due to a safety concern. Check! Somehow the FAA has determined that this is illegal because he didn't land?! WTF!

I wonder what would have happened if Palmer had remained silent (as lawyers always advise, and is a right men have died for) in his initial meeting.

I have a question if the judge is a pilot, and has any experience with bush planes or off airport landings. His ruling has a chilling effect on an entire segment of the aircraft world.

Lov Trent's vids. Thank you Sir.

I am bothered by the appearance of the FAA in persecuting Trent for Persecution's sake. Trent's low pass to evaluate a potential landing site is made to sound like it happened in Central Park. Granted, regulations exist for a reason, but I am taken aback by Trent being punished because "a landing" did not occur. Rather, he created an "unsafe condition" by avoiding what he felt was an unsafe landing? So, what kind of message does that send to pilots if this ruling is upheld? And what of new pilots? Is the FAA going to scrap the Off-Field Landing Guide and update the new pilot curriculum that it's better to lawn dart your airplane, because if you bail, you're guilty? That sounds like hyperbole, as if hyperbole has not been Trent's life the past two years. And, at the risk of sounding even more hyperbolic, learning of this has seriously soured my dream of flying. I don't know whether this is some kind of witch hunt against Trent or simple unadulterated brain dead barbarism on the part of an FAA official, who may well have never handled the controls of an aircraft and carried that responsibility himself, but I don't think I want my name anywhere in proximity to the FAA as an agency, in the face of this injustice. And that's exactly what it is. I've been following Trent for years and he has a long record of being safety conscious in his videos. This is an anomaly being driven by something. And--serious question--if an aircraft is not to be operated within 500 feet of any person or structure unless committed to a landing (that HAS to occur, now), how does crop dusting / spraying work? Is there an entire cadre of air tractor pilots that should be following this?

I think we’re deviating from the intent of Trent’s video on this. My take away was that it’s a slippery slope for current and future aviators to set this precedent. Clearly he feels there’s a misinterpretation or misunderstanding on the part of the FAA. But he never spoke ill of them and said he would respect their final decision. Again, he’s concerned about the future implications if this is set as a precedent. It would then carry the weight of law.

Awesome video!

Being an R/C pilot since the mid 80's you all have over-looked a very important possible reason for the neighbors actions. R/C air strip! Lots of people hate grown-up boys playing with toy airplanes. I would bet there have been words between neighbors about the "noise" the R/C plane makes upsetting the tranquil setting and Trent was/is the pay-back. Trust me, there are those that hate boys with toys but will run their leaf blowers all day because they are to lazy to rack.

So let me understand this. Trent did a fly by to access the landing strip for his aircraft by FAA Rules and Regulations clearly states that he can do that . He followed FAA Regulations and now they have found he was not in compliance with FAA regulations and suspended his license for 60 days. It sounds like a power trip to me and we can do what ever we want because we are the Government and nobody is going to challenge us! Sounds like somebody is trying to make a name for himself because Trent is a well know RU-vidr so lets nail his ass to the wall and make an example out of him. FAA agents with egos and power tripping . Plain and simple, I would fight this tooth and nail .

Absolutely right! The regulation is not at all about whether the takeoff or landing is necessary, but about whether the deviation from minimum altitudes is necessary FOR takeoff or landing. I just can't fathom why the FAA pursued this or why the judge agreed that the landing was "not necessary". That's NOT THE POINT and I'll bet that a majority of people, whether pilots or not, would understand the meaning of that sentence in this rule. If they want a new rule making it illegal to make off-airport takeoffs and landings near other people and property, then they'll have to write and approve such a rule through their normal process; you cannot simply take this rule and redefine the word "necessary" as an adjective to takeoff/landing. It says "necessary *FOR* takeoff or landing."

I am a Brit but this sort of thing has happened over here when a guy tried to land at a Farm strip but decided to abort due to wind conditions et al . He was reported by a retired RAF Wing Commander and our CAA fined the Pilot and stopped him from flying for a period of time. Now I noticed that the FAA actually issue a booklet in which they tell pilots to do exactly what Trent did. Huh! How can this be that they tell pilots what to do and then censure them for so doing? Looks like this issue should be taken up by your Congress. Regards, Jim in NI UK

Welcome to Boston btw! Hope you got to enjoy the city on your layover.

Another case of non pilots trying to interpret pilot making decisions and yes I mean the FAA and NTSB. On the other hand the uptick in FAA investigations started back when Trent and other “Flying Cowboys” started posting RU-vid content. Hopefully this works itself out for the better of all pilots.

This is definitely an FAA knee-jerk reaction to the Trevor ‘bonehead’ Jacobs’ fiasco. The argument is whether a missed approach is part of a landing attempt. The answer is obvious, and IMHO Trent made the right decision in discontinuing the landing when he felt it was unsafe to do so. Great discussion, I’m pulling for Trent as well.👍

I like your analysis you’re very articulate and succinct however yes here comes the bad part it’s always been my pet peeve when anybody keeps talking of pilots licenses, There is no such thing there is pilot ratings but there are no pilot licenses. On an additional note I enjoy your channel this is actually the first time I’m watching I’ll be a new subscriber thank you for your service to our country and God bless you and your family

I've been a pilot since 1987. I know the area in question in Reno/ Sparks. I currently live in the Seattle area and work in the Capital Hill area. I see actions by pilots on a daily basis in Seattle, particularly Helicopters, that could be construed to be in violation of everything discussed in Trent's Case. (Not Buzzing, but low altitude operations) I'm trying to figure out what the take away from this is, for the average pilot.

In my opinion, Trent is an "Ambassador of Aviation". His passion for aviation, and his ability to communicate that with all of us, is remarkable. EAA, APOA, and pretty much everyone else should be coming out with one very loud voice to support Trent. All it takes is one bad administrator and one judge that does not understand the subject area, to mess up things for lots of people. I'm pretty shocked that this even made it to court. How did the FAA get this so wrong? If Trent messed up he should fess up. If not the FAA needs to be held accountable.

I'm beginning to believe that some FSDOs are being run by little dictators. They're starting to remind me of South Parks Cartman, "respect ma authoritah."

I need to know, is that tv actually green?

so if he goes and lands there now! would that change things?