Menu Sign In Contact FAQ
Banner
Welcome to our forums

FAA Licence Suspension due to rejected landing over private field in sparsely populated land

@Ibra it’s important to mention that “this” guy in your reply is not this guy from the video.

Also, previous violations are not the basis of this ruling, which in itself if everything is as his mentions, I find dangerous.

ESME, ESMS

Yes it’s different case to Trent Palmer, I am just pointing that when NAA prosecute based on ‘futile case’ there is usually an iceberg behind…

Paris/Essex, France/UK, United Kingdom

There are 3 things counting against Trent Palmer here:

(1) he’s already on probation after the FAA went after him over waterskiing.
(2) he’s well known off YouTube in aviation circles, so just ripe to be “made an example of”
(3) he’s being judged by people who are likely of the opinion that operating off anything other than a hard surfaced runway with at least two turbine engines is a bit reckless.

I suspect if any one of these three things wasn’t true (especially (2)) the FAA wouldn’t have paid it much attention.

There have been people violated for the FAA for doing low passes along airport runways for the ‘500 foot rule’, although these cases have been obvious “buzz jobs” (e.g. landing gear up, down in ground effect, with the engine at full power then the zoom climb at the end). We don’t know whether Palmer’s low pass looked like. It would be interesting to see the text of the court case – this should be public record. But as Palmer routinely sticks his head over the parapet, I’m sure there are plenty of jobsworths at the FAA which are keenly looking to “teach him a lesson” especially in light of (1).

Last Edited by alioth at 10 May 16:23
Andreas IOM

Teaching X a lesson should not be used as an excuse to create a precedent that will also apply to pilots not needing to be taught a lesson.

ESME, ESMS

Indeed it shouldn’t.

However, it won’t be the first time that the FAA has done this!

Andreas IOM

I’m reluctant to comment on any particular case of an alleged rejected off-airport landing in the USA. They have their own rules and this forum is ostensibly about European GA.

Such a penalty (allegedly for low flying over a proposed landing site) could not be imposed in Europe, due to careful wording of SERA to accommodate established training and practice for the mountain rating.

This is an instance where the (mostly continental) European affinity for rules and formal training acts in favour of airmen operating off-airport. To get an EASA “MOU” rating we have to demonstrate the “correct” procedure which includes inspection of a landing site from approximately 1,000 and 500 ft AGL, followed by a low pass (the primary purpose of which is to check the wind conditions close to the ground and on the approach). The low pass also conveys the airman’s intention to any two- and four-footed creatures on the “runway”. We are encouraged during training and on the skills test to reject a landing which doesn’t pass all three “inspections”.

As for Mr Palmer having a “run in” with the FAA for putting NASA’s tax payer-funded research into practice (ref. Dreher, R.C and Horne, W B :”Phenomena of Pneumatic Tire Hydroplaning”, NASA TN D-2056, 1963), I really find that hard to believe. The UK CAA had a go at an airman for hydroplaning on Lake Ullswater a few years ago, and the regulator ended up paying him about eleven thousand quid. Still, what do they care? It’s not their money.

As an aside, there’s a depressing tendency among fellow airmen (and our regulators) to disparage or disapprove of any aviation activity of which we have no direct experience or which simply doesn’t “float our boat”.

Those of us who hardly ever land on airports can’t fully understand what pleasure others derive from airport operations despite (or perhaps because of) all the associated rules, regulations, NOTAMs and hand-holding by airport staff and ATC. Conversely, the “flat grass and tarmac only” crowd simply don’t understand the satisfaction to be found in preparation and procedure for landing an aeroplane where no other airman has.

It’s a an example of airmen preferring “government” or “self-government”, in which the Government (i.e. the NAA) predictably favours the former.

Glenswinton, SW Scotland, United Kingdom

Let me say it again – there must be more (perhaps much more) to this than meets the eye. I have dealt with the local FSDOs as former president and secretary of a flying club when some of our members f*cked up, some big time. I cannot go into details here, but let me say that, at least IME, the FAA is surprisingly forgiving when it comes to human error. Where they tend to come down hard on pilots is when said pilots display a certain level of braggadocio and publish their exploits. Which certainly is the case here.

There is another aspect to this particular case: if this was really the first (and only) time he did it, why did a neighbor have a surveillance camera set up and send the video to the FAA? This isn’t something you do if it’s a one-off. The average person wouldn’t even know who to send that video to.

As for off-airport landings. Here in the American West we are blessed with a myriad of off-airport sites you can land at, people do it every day and the FAA couldn’t care less.

“There have been people violated for the FAA for doing low passes along airport runways for the ‘500 foot rule’,”
I thought in the US, as in the UK, ( but not Eire) the 500’ referred to a person or structure. Presumably the runway is such a structure?

Maoraigh
EGPE, United Kingdom

§ 91.119 Minimum safe altitudes: General.
Except when necessary for takeoff or landing, no person may operate an aircraft below the following altitudes:

(c) Over other than congested areas. An altitude of 500 feet above the surface, except over open water or sparsely populated areas. In those cases, the aircraft may not be operated closer than 500 feet to any person, vessel, vehicle, or structure.

Biggin Hill

At a towered airport you can make low passes all day long with approval of TWR. At a non-towered airport you may run into the 500ft rule.

In general, the FAA doesn’t like showboating.

Sign in to add your message

Back to Top