Badland Part 103 Pilots and Builders Forum

After watching Trent Palmer's YouTube video concerning his run-in with the FAA I'm completely convinced this is not a witch hunt based on the recent Red Bull and the Trevor Jacob incident. This is because Trent's issue started several years ago. So what does that make this issue - justified or malice? I believe this is total malice. Malice being the desire to cause pain, injury, or distress to another without legal justification or excuse. From what Trent provided as evidence for his actions, in my opinion Trent did everything properly and more important, safely. Most of us know that Trent has been in the movie industry for a very long time using his drones to do video for that industry, and being very successful at it. During that time he's bound to have learned a great deal about camera lens effects both on his drones and most likely as well from fixed cameras used in the making of videos from professional cameramen. If you're a viewer of Trent's videos on YouTube you would also know that he's one of the best examples of flight safety procedures, erroring on the side of caution far more than most while showing still how to have fun in flying. Trent provided the FAA's own documentation showing that he did follow procedure for off field landings, which covers the issues the FAA have raised on Trent. Watch the video for more detail. Two parts of the video bother me, not on Trent's part, but on the part of the FAA. The first is that after explaining his actions to the FAA legal counsel, the counsel didn't seem to understand or maybe she ignored the FAA's on documentation and proceeded to push the prosecution. The second part is that it appears that the judge ruling isn't a pilot. The judge either didn't understand that off field landings mean landing in any area, not just air fields that have lights, wind indicators, and markings. Then it gets worse as Trent states, the judge seems to believe that a pilot must land if they inspect through a fly by that the area chosen to land in isn't suitable for landing to remain legal under FAA rules. This makes no sense at all, otherwise why would the FAA's off field landing recommend low level fly-by's to determine if an area is suitable to land in? Trent made a statement that if he loses his appeal, this could set a case president or case law for all pilots, and a very bad one. However, this is not a court of law, it is a ruling body for the FAA. Trent's point in the video that this would be case law is still challengeable in a regular court of law. The problem is that after a flawed ruling like this is that it would still require a lengthy processes that could drag on for years and hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal feels. This I'm sure Trent's attorney has told him is a further option if he chooses to continue to fight this ruling if it goes bad. I'm up for helping to fund him to continue the fight if needed. I hope that this does not happen, but we as pilots need to help fight this ruling if it is not overturned.

Here's the video - check it out for yourself.


Thoughts?

TC

Reason #37 to fly under 14 CFR 103: Just carry a copy of your certified empty weight and the worksheets from App 1 and 2 of AC 103-7.

"Liiicence? We donn need no steenkin' liiicence..."

(I am not advocating flouting the law. I am stating that an exemption from having to defend one's actions in an unconstitutional administrative law forum has legitimate benefits. From what I have read the pilot articulated a reasonable explanation for his actions that was in line with the FAA's oft stated interest in safety. It is not the place of bureaucrats who were not on site to second, third, or fourth guess the actions of the pilot-- whose actions did not create an unsafe situation.)

--Antoinette Weinum