Go Back  Airline Pilot Central Forums > Pilot Lounge > Hangar Talk
We are the FAA.  We are here to help you... >

We are the FAA. We are here to help you...

Notices
Hangar Talk For non-aviation-related discussion and aviation threads that don't belong elsewhere

We are the FAA. We are here to help you...

Old 04-29-2022, 05:42 AM
  #1  
Gets Weekends Off
Thread Starter
 
Joined APC: Mar 2017
Posts: 128
Default We are the FAA. We are here to help you...

What an unbelievable display of *STUPIDITY*, *ABUSE* and *WASTE* of resources.
https://youtu.be/RpFDRoStcd4
But then again, if they went against Bob Hoover...
takingmessages is offline  
Old 04-29-2022, 06:38 AM
  #2  
Disinterested Third Party
 
Joined APC: Jun 2012
Posts: 5,923
Default

The person on the video ("trent") makes several falsehoods initially and starts out establishing a violation; he paints it as a perfectly innocent act that he believes is within the regulation. He was ill advised to start with, clearly doesn't/didn't understand or know the regulation, and didn't have a clue on how to handle the call from the FAA.

Step one when contacted by the FAA is to seek legal counsel. Not accept or make a recorded call. Not go to the FSDO for an informal meeting. Not submit a written statement or respond to a letter of investigation. Rule one: keep they trap shut. (to include making talking-head videos about it and posting them online).

Whereas the FAA has clearly determined in the past that three people gathered can constitute an urban area or a small cluster of buildings or homes or structures the same, attempting to conduct low passes and then land an RC field, not an airport or private landing field, especially without having inspected it previously, was a poor choice.

Mr. Palmer makes statements about precedent and case law here, stating incorrectly that this establishes future precedent. He is wrong. His enforcment action and the subsequent upholding of that enforcement action by an administrative law judge is not "case law."

There are three basic sources by which to understand the regulation and its interpretation: the first and foremost are the Federal Register preambles at such time the regulation was introduced in its final rule, explaining the purpose and intent of the regulation. The second are FAA Chief Legal Counsel Letters of Interpretation. The third, in order, is the regulation itself.

ALJ decisions regarding individual cases to not establish future precedent, nor application of the law; they are useful and of interest in seeing how the regulation was applied in the past, to a specific case (in this case, Trent Palmer's). The ALJ rendering, upholding FAA enforcement action against Mr. Palmer, does not imply or burden an aviator in a future case, and Mr. Palmer does NOT understand this. Further, he stipulates that the ALJ's upholding of his certificate suspension means that any time a pilot makes an inspection pass for a landing and doesn't land, the pilot is in violation. This is a straw man, wild stretch, and is untrue. I won't say a lie, because I don't believe that Mr. Palmer has any intent to lie; his errors and gross misunderstanding are just that: he doesn't know what he's talking about. The closest he could possibly come to being correct might be to say that a pilot attempting to land at the same location under similar circumstances, might do well to review Mr. Palmer's case. He would be wildly inaccurate to imply his case impacts an ag pilot landing at an ag strip or on a road to inspect a field (something I've done many times, in the course of employment), or one of hundreds of other cases of a pilot flying low, or attempting to land, or inspecting a potential landing site.

Had Mr. Palmer not put himself there (on paper, by admitting it and arguing in his defense), the FAA could never have upheld a case, because first they'd have had to show that it was him in the airplane, and they didn't have that until HE gave it to them. Had Mr. Palmer not attempted to land at his friend's place, this wouldn't be an issue at all, or course. HIs argument that an inspection pass is necessary prior to landing at an unknown location does hold some merit. However, that is NOT justification for landing anywhere. I could not, for example, stipulate that low passes through the Walmart parking lot were necessary, because I wanted to land in the parking lot. Unless I were having an emergency and making a forced landing, that argument would be idiotic and nearly indefensible. So, not every landing is necessary, nor is it necessary to land at every location, and this is where he runs afoul of the regulation. The ALJ asked what he was doing there is the first place; the ALJ didn't stipulate that inspection passes are unnecessary, but he did look at the totality of all elements; structures, persons, landing location, go-around when he admitted he had no way to correctly identify the landing site or landing point or "runway" centerline, etc. Not only could no one else assert that it was a proper landing site, but Mr. Palmer stated for the record (and by his described actions) that he couldn't, either.

By 13:00 into his video, his premise is so flawed that it invalidates anything further he might say on the subject.
JohnBurke is offline  
Old 05-02-2022, 06:10 PM
  #3  
Occasional box hauler
 
Joined APC: Jan 2018
Posts: 1,636
Default

Originally Posted by JohnBurke View Post
The person on the video ("trent") makes several falsehoods initially and starts out establishing a violation; he paints it as a perfectly innocent act that he believes is within the regulation. He was ill advised to start with, clearly doesn't/didn't understand or know the regulation, and didn't have a clue on how to handle the call from the FAA.

Step one when contacted by the FAA is to seek legal counsel. Not accept or make a recorded call. Not go to the FSDO for an informal meeting. Not submit a written statement or respond to a letter of investigation. Rule one: keep they trap shut. (to include making talking-head videos about it and posting them online).

Whereas the FAA has clearly determined in the past that three people gathered can constitute an urban area or a small cluster of buildings or homes or structures the same, attempting to conduct low passes and then land an RC field, not an airport or private landing field, especially without having inspected it previously, was a poor choice.

Mr. Palmer makes statements about precedent and case law here, stating incorrectly that this establishes future precedent. He is wrong. His enforcment action and the subsequent upholding of that enforcement action by an administrative law judge is not "case law."

There are three basic sources by which to understand the regulation and its interpretation: the first and foremost are the Federal Register preambles at such time the regulation was introduced in its final rule, explaining the purpose and intent of the regulation. The second are FAA Chief Legal Counsel Letters of Interpretation. The third, in order, is the regulation itself.

ALJ decisions regarding individual cases to not establish future precedent, nor application of the law; they are useful and of interest in seeing how the regulation was applied in the past, to a specific case (in this case, Trent Palmer's). The ALJ rendering, upholding FAA enforcement action against Mr. Palmer, does not imply or burden an aviator in a future case, and Mr. Palmer does NOT understand this. Further, he stipulates that the ALJ's upholding of his certificate suspension means that any time a pilot makes an inspection pass for a landing and doesn't land, the pilot is in violation. This is a straw man, wild stretch, and is untrue. I won't say a lie, because I don't believe that Mr. Palmer has any intent to lie; his errors and gross misunderstanding are just that: he doesn't know what he's talking about. The closest he could possibly come to being correct might be to say that a pilot attempting to land at the same location under similar circumstances, might do well to review Mr. Palmer's case. He would be wildly inaccurate to imply his case impacts an ag pilot landing at an ag strip or on a road to inspect a field (something I've done many times, in the course of employment), or one of hundreds of other cases of a pilot flying low, or attempting to land, or inspecting a potential landing site.

Had Mr. Palmer not put himself there (on paper, by admitting it and arguing in his defense), the FAA could never have upheld a case, because first they'd have had to show that it was him in the airplane, and they didn't have that until HE gave it to them. Had Mr. Palmer not attempted to land at his friend's place, this wouldn't be an issue at all, or course. HIs argument that an inspection pass is necessary prior to landing at an unknown location does hold some merit. However, that is NOT justification for landing anywhere. I could not, for example, stipulate that low passes through the Walmart parking lot were necessary, because I wanted to land in the parking lot. Unless I were having an emergency and making a forced landing, that argument would be idiotic and nearly indefensible. So, not every landing is necessary, nor is it necessary to land at every location, and this is where he runs afoul of the regulation. The ALJ asked what he was doing there is the first place; the ALJ didn't stipulate that inspection passes are unnecessary, but he did look at the totality of all elements; structures, persons, landing location, go-around when he admitted he had no way to correctly identify the landing site or landing point or "runway" centerline, etc. Not only could no one else assert that it was a proper landing site, but Mr. Palmer stated for the record (and by his described actions) that he couldn't, either.

By 13:00 into his video, his premise is so flawed that it invalidates anything further he might say on the subject.
AOPA seems to disagree with you.
tnkrdrvr is offline  
Old 05-02-2022, 06:56 PM
  #4  
Gets Weekends Off
 
RI830's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Mar 2011
Position: Left seat on a kite
Posts: 1,884
Default

Originally Posted by JohnBurke View Post
The person on the video ("trent") makes several falsehoods initially and starts out establishing a violation; he paints it as a perfectly innocent act that he believes is within the regulation. He was ill advised to start with, clearly doesn't/didn't understand or know the regulation, and didn't have a clue on how to handle the call from the FAA.

Step one when contacted by the FAA is to seek legal counsel. Not accept or make a recorded call. Not go to the FSDO for an informal meeting. Not submit a written statement or respond to a letter of investigation. Rule one: keep they trap shut. (to include making talking-head videos about it and posting them online).

Whereas the FAA has clearly determined in the past that three people gathered can constitute an urban area or a small cluster of buildings or homes or structures the same, attempting to conduct low passes and then land an RC field, not an airport or private landing field, especially without having inspected it previously, was a poor choice.

Mr. Palmer makes statements about precedent and case law here, stating incorrectly that this establishes future precedent. He is wrong. His enforcment action and the subsequent upholding of that enforcement action by an administrative law judge is not "case law."

There are three basic sources by which to understand the regulation and its interpretation: the first and foremost are the Federal Register preambles at such time the regulation was introduced in its final rule, explaining the purpose and intent of the regulation. The second are FAA Chief Legal Counsel Letters of Interpretation. The third, in order, is the regulation itself.

ALJ decisions regarding individual cases to not establish future precedent, nor application of the law; they are useful and of interest in seeing how the regulation was applied in the past, to a specific case (in this case, Trent Palmer's). The ALJ rendering, upholding FAA enforcement action against Mr. Palmer, does not imply or burden an aviator in a future case, and Mr. Palmer does NOT understand this. Further, he stipulates that the ALJ's upholding of his certificate suspension means that any time a pilot makes an inspection pass for a landing and doesn't land, the pilot is in violation. This is a straw man, wild stretch, and is untrue. I won't say a lie, because I don't believe that Mr. Palmer has any intent to lie; his errors and gross misunderstanding are just that: he doesn't know what he's talking about. The closest he could possibly come to being correct might be to say that a pilot attempting to land at the same location under similar circumstances, might do well to review Mr. Palmer's case. He would be wildly inaccurate to imply his case impacts an ag pilot landing at an ag strip or on a road to inspect a field (something I've done many times, in the course of employment), or one of hundreds of other cases of a pilot flying low, or attempting to land, or inspecting a potential landing site.

Had Mr. Palmer not put himself there (on paper, by admitting it and arguing in his defense), the FAA could never have upheld a case, because first they'd have had to show that it was him in the airplane, and they didn't have that until HE gave it to them. Had Mr. Palmer not attempted to land at his friend's place, this wouldn't be an issue at all, or course. HIs argument that an inspection pass is necessary prior to landing at an unknown location does hold some merit. However, that is NOT justification for landing anywhere. I could not, for example, stipulate that low passes through the Walmart parking lot were necessary, because I wanted to land in the parking lot. Unless I were having an emergency and making a forced landing, that argument would be idiotic and nearly indefensible. So, not every landing is necessary, nor is it necessary to land at every location, and this is where he runs afoul of the regulation. The ALJ asked what he was doing there is the first place; the ALJ didn't stipulate that inspection passes are unnecessary, but he did look at the totality of all elements; structures, persons, landing location, go-around when he admitted he had no way to correctly identify the landing site or landing point or "runway" centerline, etc. Not only could no one else assert that it was a proper landing site, but Mr. Palmer stated for the record (and by his described actions) that he couldn't, either.

By 13:00 into his video, his premise is so flawed that it invalidates anything further he might say on the subject.
Are you the FSDO Fred trying to violate this individual?
The FAA doesn’t have a great history with a multitude of rouge inspectors going on a mission to make themselves look good for the next promotion.

How many landings are made off field, in or out of urban areas?
Falcon just made a pretty cool video of them flying through Death Valleys Star Wars Canyon. Seems careless and wreck less!
Did they have a plan of action for every variable when flying below the top of the canyon? Doubt it

Willing to bet a burger and a beer that in Alaska, there are more off field landings than on field landings in any given day.
Should those pilots be subject to enforcement actions too?
RI830 is offline  
Old 05-02-2022, 07:14 PM
  #5  
Disinterested Third Party
 
Joined APC: Jun 2012
Posts: 5,923
Default

Originally Posted by tnkrdrvr View Post
AOPA seems to disagree with you.
I'm all broken up about that, because I spend much of my day worried about what AOPA agrees or disagrees with.

Crying shame, too.

The thing is, I don't speak for AOPA, but for myself, and AOPA doesn't speak for me. Go figure.
JohnBurke is offline  
Old 05-02-2022, 08:09 PM
  #6  
Prime Minister/Moderator
 
rickair7777's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Jan 2006
Position: Engines Turn Or People Swim
Posts: 39,097
Default

I suspect the guy buzzed the site with no intent to land, but don't know for certain.

I'm guessing he didn't familiarize himself with the Wx and winds before he did it, but I don't know that either.

Neither does the FSDO, but they are punishing him for something which they suspect was a violation but have no way of knowing or proving for sure. That's what's troubling, as usual.

IIRC there's no hard requirement to get a landing site inspected or approved by anyone else, and no requirement to get authorization to use it from anyone but the owner. Locals laws might limit airport sites but I don't recall the FARs doing that.


That's all based just on his side of the story.
rickair7777 is offline  
Old 05-03-2022, 05:44 AM
  #7  
Gets Weekends Off
 
RI830's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Mar 2011
Position: Left seat on a kite
Posts: 1,884
Default

All those bush pilots in Alaska…driving out to the frontier to inspect those sand bars and beaches for suitability for landing.

The FAA is using this case to make an example out of someone.

Rick….as you lean towards, the FAA is on a slippery slope with a penalizing certificate action based upon an assumption or a suspicion.
RI830 is offline  
Old 05-03-2022, 06:20 AM
  #8  
Disinterested Third Party
 
Joined APC: Jun 2012
Posts: 5,923
Default

Whether the off-field landing site is approved by others may be the crux of why this enforcement action took place. As a matter of regulatory procedure, you're correct: there's no regulation which stipulates a specific approval of an off-field landing site.

Consider the choices, and it's not a matter of Alaska as a free-for-all, and the remainder of the planet being tenuous and a risk. Land 500 miles from anywhere on a flat piece of land where no one sees, no one knows, and which has no environmental impacts, no significant political, historical, or other importance, no cameras, and one will pass through history as invisible. Legal? Sure.

Now put a crowd of boy scouts having a jamboree there. Land a mile from them. Not really a problem. Move the landing closer, still unlikely a problem. Now land between their tents. Problem. Where does it become careless and reckless? Where does it begin to violate proximity and regulatory standards? This becomes a sliding scale answered by several questions and also applicable to the specific case: what's a problem for one landing is not for another.

If no one reports the event, records the event, it may pass unnoticed. If the event is captured on cell phone videos, observed by FAA inspectors, put online by the pilot or the scouts, then the possibility of enforcement action increases. An inspector who feels a regulatory violation has taken place may initiate enforcement action, which then moves up the ladder from the FSDO to the regional office and becomes a legal question, in this case addressed with appeals and counter arguments before an Administrative Law Judge. This isn't a one-off snap-action by an overzealous inspector, and has been examined and reviewed by numerous persons, including a judge.

Can I land in a crowded walmart parking lot? Maybe; in an emergency many regulations are waived, so an engine-out situation with a forced landing might necessitate a small corner of the lot as my only choice. Can I land on a city street? That depends on the street, and the circumstances. A rural road? Again, it depends. A flat piece of highway miles from any obstacle or any person? Most likely not a problem, but specifics matter. Adjacent to various homes? Depends. Runway nearby? Purpose for landing? We dont get to call any point a landing point and thus excuse ourselves from the regulations. Otherwise we could drop into that crowded walmart parking lot on a whim. Simply stating that any place we choose is acceptable and a landing point, is a convenient excuse..."except when necessary for takeoff or landing"...but that isn't going to hold water if there is no valid reason to be landing at that site, or if the site is deemed unacceptable.

In the case of the talking head on the video, his own admission is that he couldn't land because he couldn't identify not only a place to touch down, but the centerline of the "runway," He couldn't identify it as a landing site and went around and chose not to land, ultimately. Who rejected it as a landing site? He did, and he flew elsewhere. He told this to the FAA, to the ALJ, and posted it online and on videos to broadcast his choice. He met with the FAA without counsel and told the inspectors about this.

"Except when necessary for takeoff or landing" is a valid reason, spelled out by regulation, by unspoken is the reason for the takeoff or landing, and it does matter. We can be excused from adherence to any rule or regulation when we take actions necessary to meet the demands of an emergency; this policy is at the core of what we do. Unspoken in this permissive core, however, is whether the emergency was one of our own making. Our engine fails, and we put the airplane down in that Walmart parking lot. No one is hurt, and we've saved the day. But the airplane ran out of fuel, because we failed to plan properly; we created the emergency. Now we're idiots who got lucky. Or we shut off the fuel to make a simulation more realistic for a student, and the fuel selector failed in the off position. We've caused the emergency. It's no longer an excuse for landing in that Walmart parking lot. The emergency is real enough; and we can bypass the regulations necessary to meet the demands of that emergency...so on it's face landing in that Walmart parking lot is a response to an engine-failure...but there's more to the story. That careless and reckless operation (91.13) aspect will revolve around the reason for the emergency.

Be careful of scars earned in battles in which we should never have fought, and of emergencies that we create. It's one thing to respond to the need of an emergency, but entirely another if we create the emergency.

Likewise, not all landings are necessary. A landing in the Walmart parking lot to deal with an emergency is generally a no-brainer (though would certainly be tempered in argument, as to whether other sites were available or better choices as well as the outcome of the landing, injuries, property damage, etc: the totality of the event will be considered). It's a no-brainer because of an emergency. Take away the emergency element, and the Walmart parking lot becomes a lot harder to justify as a landing site. It it isn't justifiable as a landing site (landing there isn't necessary), then it invalidates the argument that proximity to persons or objects is justified by takeoff or landing. Such relief from the regulation is not justified by an illigitimate landing site, any more than relief from the regulation is justified by an emergency we create, or by the perception of an emergency, which is not.

The subject pilot doesn't claim emergency authority here (which I cite for the purpose of illustration), but rather that his proximity to persons or objects was necessitated for the purpose of takeoff or landing. Whether the landing was necessary or not becomes an issue; not all landing sites are necessary, or viable. Therefore, we cannot claim any point on the ground is a legitimate landing site.

In the case of the rc airplane field at which the subject pilot attempted his landing, the pilot himself stated that the location wasn't viable. He rejected the choice and flew elsewhere.

We can't justify low altitude flight (in proximity to persons or property) as excepted from the regulation on the basis of necessary for takeoff or landing, anywhere on earth simply by stating that we intended to land at that point. Otherwise, we could buzz Walmart parking lots all day long, using that as our justification. It won't work. Not all points on the planet are justifiable landing sites. In this specific case, the pilot himself provides the most compelling case against his decision: he determined that it wasn't a viable landing site. The FAA doesn't need to reject it as a landing site. The ALJ doesn't need to make that decision, because the pilot did, and he made legal statements to the FAA in person (prior to retaining an attorney), and continued to make them, and now makes them with videos, and he argued it in front of a judge. The pilot states that the site wasn't acceptable; if it's not acceptable, then it invalidates using it as an excuse for low flight in proximity to persons or property.

He can argue grainy videos of videos as technicalities or semantics, but the admissions are his own, in person and on video, and he's taken time to broadcast it to the world.

I've spend most of my teen and adult life landing off field and flying low as an instructor and as a working pilot flying ag, fighting fires, and doing other such things. I've landed on mountainsides, fields, roads, water, and so forth, and flown under powerlines, bridges, between buidings, below rooftop level, and everywhere else one might imagine, in urban areas (even Disneyworld), and near structures, houses, people, cars, etc. I've routinely flown at low altitudes in close proximity to persons, often within a few feet, and have done it thousands of times in the course of my work. I understand the implications, the legality, and even the justifications (and necessities), and I'm very familiar with off-field landings, landing sites, and the choices and necessities involved. I get it.

I also understand the other side of the fence, and a private pilot talking head who made more than a few questionable choices, doesn't alter that fact, regardless of whether AOPA (et al) likes him. Among those questionable choices was his arrogance is talking to the FAA without representation or consultation (maybe he should have called AOPA legal, first), along with broadcasting himself online. That landing 500 miles from anywhere, with no one to see, has a greater chance of success because no one knows. Film it, put it online, and everyone knows. Make one's self a target, and someone might shoot at the target. Just give them a reason...like complaining neighbors, cameras, and one's own in-person and online confessions. As stated previously, it's very possible that no one could put this pilot in the airplane at the time of the alleged event...could have been anyone in that cockpit. In most cases of enforcement action, it's the pilot who puts himself in that cockpit by own words, written or spoken. The pilot who just can't keep his trap shut is his own worst enemy when it comes to enforcement action, and this guy (Trent) goes a step further; he can't keep his face off youtube. Look-at-me has it's drawbacks.

Who is watching, who is listening, and how much we say, has a great deal to do with the outcome. The event doesn't end when the propeller comes to a rest...what took moments to occur in real time may take months or years to settle in enforcement action, appeals, and judgements. Two years on, here we are; the talking head who couldn't keep his pie hole shut in the first place, still can't, and sympathy to his one-sided cause or "likes" by AOPA doesn't change the fact.
JohnBurke is offline  
Old 05-03-2022, 06:26 AM
  #9  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Feb 2022
Posts: 442
Default

Off field landings don’t have have to justified for “work”, JB. Just another example how we are weirdly wired for corporate nation state instead of we the people.
Round Luggage is offline  
Old 05-03-2022, 07:05 AM
  #10  
Disinterested Third Party
 
Joined APC: Jun 2012
Posts: 5,923
Default

Originally Posted by Round Luggage View Post
Off field landings don’t have have to justified for “work”, JB. Just another example how we are weirdly wired for corporate nation state instead of we the people.
I said nothing about "justifying for work." I said I have done thousands of them in the course of my work. I've also done them flying privately.

I made no statement that the subject pilot of this thread had any need to "justify" based on a commercial need. He's a private pilot. Such a "justification" is irrelevant and played no part in my comments. I mentioned my own experience with the subject, which is extensive, spanning several decades, and yes, much of that is commercial; I said absolutely nothing about a need to "justify" the subject pilot's landing, or landings in general, based on a commercial validation.

Read again.
JohnBurke is offline  
Related Topics
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
FA24
Southwest
0
11-12-2019 09:37 AM
westwind1
Aviation Law
85
12-25-2015 02:18 PM
SayAlt
Major
51
05-29-2015 06:57 AM
FEtrip7
Cargo
38
02-16-2012 02:25 PM
USMC3197
Regional
66
11-12-2009 06:54 PM

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Your Privacy Choices