As a pilot who soled in 1968 and got his CFI in 1972 and became a licensed attorney at law in four states and is on the AOPA board of attorneys, I'd like to put in my two cents. As I see it, the first question is: (1) Did Trent Palmer have the right to land at an off-airport area? (2). If so, did he have a right to make a go-around during a legal approach to landing? As I see it, all approved airports have "obstructions" less than 500 feet from the landing area. If Palmer was given permission to land at an off landing-place by the property owner, that place became a valid place to land, despite whether there were obstacles or obstructions nearby. The fact that he had a right to land automatically gave him the right to reject the landing if he felt it unsafe. The FAA is trying to say that Trent was "buzzing" his friend's home. But since there was permission to land given by the homeowner at a designated place, that "designated place" became a viable and permissible place to land. The fact that Trent decided not to land for safety purposes should not be used against him. The AOPA and other aviation groups need to join in his challenge against the FAA. Remember the U.S. senator who changed our aviation laws because he was charged with "buzzing" when he landed on a closed runway with construction workers at the end of the runway? The FAA went after him. But being a Senator, he amended the laws to give us the Pilot's bill of rights. Those rights include many things that you did not seem to recognize including a jury trial. I highly recommend that Trent Palmer contact Michael Yodice, Esq. and his sister, Katherine, some of the most knowledgeable aviation attorneys in the USA. His father was once the official AOPA attorney and had monthly legal articles in FAA regulations. Trent, call Michael Yodice or his sister Katherine Yodice at 301-695-2300. Give them my email address. They know me very well.

I've worked for the FAA 29 1/2 years, including towers at busy airports and remote Alaska airports. I fly my own personal plane to work during summer. I'm 100% with Trent Palmer on this. Making a safe inspection pass is REQUIRED prior to a first possible landing in a new location. The FAA's Las Vegas FSDO has a history of punitive actions in their work culture.

Hi Trent, just thought I'd point out a couple of things related to your initial contact with the FAA and how that might have gone differently. As a long-time professional pilot, now 40+ years, probably the best advice I've ever heard is don't talk to the FAA until you're ready. This case seems to have some elements within it that relate to this. Before I start, let me state for the record that I'm on your side for sure. I totally get the pickle you're in. Any one of us could have easily stepped on this landmine. It just happened to be you on that day and I truly wish the best outcome for you on this. So I offer my input here primarily for the benefit of the larger audience to learn about how the FAA works and how one might have acted differently in terms of self protection. Factually, your "intention to land" is a condition that exists within your own mind as you make your approach. The person filming the approach didn't know what you were thinking and neither did the FAA - until you told them. The only reason any of this is even in question is because you told them you were making an inspection pass. The Off Airport Ops Guide doesn't supersede or obviate the FARs. It talks about the value of inspection passes and how to conduct them but it doesn't give you the authority to ignore FAR 91.119 or any other reg. Notice also that it is published by the friendly FAA folks up in the great state of Alaska. The assumption the guide is making is that you are operating out in the boonies. It conveniently doesn't address your situation directly, and of course FAR 91.119 doesn't say "Except when necessary for takeoff or landing or inspection passes on unimproved airstrips..." . Even if you were to successfully show a conflict between FAA advisory publications and 14 CFR 91, you'd still lose because Federal law will always take precedence in any such conflict. Unfortunately, that's what sucks about being a pilot. When you're the PIC, it's all you, bro. My take on this is that you did nothing actionable until you told the FAA you were making an inspection pass. I think had you immediately consulted an attorney upon being contacted by the FAA, you likely would have been stopped from making this statement. All you had to say was that you intended to land but were unsatisfied with the landing surface as you approached and conducted a go around. Then, despite any posturing on the part of the FAA, they wouldn't have any legal basis to pursue you since you had permission to land from the property owner and were therefore not committing a trespass. And this brings me to the two points I'd like to make: 1) As pilots, everyone should assume from this point forward that everything they do, wherever they do it, is being recorded on HD video from the best and most incriminating angle, and 2) THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A FRIENDLY, INFORMAL CHAT WITH THE FAA. So don't talk to them until you have to, and even then don't do it until you're ready. That means until you have a lawyer. Everything you say can and will be used against you, so resist the urge to cooperate and rely upon the good and benevolent and understanding nature of the government in response to you explaining the particulars of what you were doing and why. This case proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that doesn't work! Consider enrolling in AOPA's pilot protection services (no, I don't work for AOPA, I'm just a member). It costs only $60 per year above the basic AOPA membership and gives you access to AOPA lawyers who can help you avoid problems like this from the outset. Okay, I'll make one last point..... 3) Try to find out what the FAA wants to talk about when they contact you, even though you have no intention of meeting them anytime soon. If they won't tell you until you go in, then you have a choice to make - go in alone, go in with an attorney, or don't go in. Personally, I'd probably go in just to find out what the issue was with the firm resolution that I'm not making any statements or answering any questions. As soon as you find out what the problem is, tell them you don't want to talk about it without counsel present and leave. This gives you the opportunity to give your lawyer your story about the incident in advance, and it allows you to fill out a NASA safety report and receive the ID strip by return mail before you engage any further with the FAA. The NASA report filing gives you certificate protection as follows, quoting the ASRS program literature: "....although a finding of violation may be made, neither a civil penalty nor certificate suspension will be imposed if: 1. The violation was inadvertent and not deliberate; 2. The violation did not involve a criminal offense, accident, or action under 49 U.S.C. § 44709, which discloses a lack of qualification or competency, which is wholly excluded from this policy; 3. The person has not been found in any prior FAA enforcement action to have committed a violation of 49 U.S.C. subtitle VII, or any regulation promulgated there for a period of 5 years prior to the date of occurrence; and 4. The person proves that, within 10 days after the violation, or date when the person became aware or should have been aware of the violation, he or she completed and delivered or mailed a written report of the incident or occurrence to NASA." The NASA report would have actually protected you in this case even after you told the FAA you were just making an inspection pass, because you could state that you believed you were in compliance with all FARs and that during your approach you estimated all property was at least 500 feet away from your aircraft at all times. They would then have to prove that it wasn't, and even if they were able to do that, your statement would make your violation unintentional and therefore out of reach of certificate action had you filed the NASA report within 10 days of being notified by the FAA of the alleged violation. The worst they could've done then would've been to put a warning letter in your file. (And warning letters go away after a bit of time if you commit no further violations.) Anyway, food for thought. Wish you the best!

This is quite literally the definition of miscarriage of justice. If fees have been assessed (civil penalties), Jarkesy v. SEC potentially could show that the FAA ALJ may have violated Trent's 7th amendment right to a jury trial.

I took my private pilot training in 1975. Many years later, the rural airport I learned at was closing. It was now abandoned except for one derelict airplane due for scrapping. I walked out to the old plane with my dog. The gate had the “restricted to authorized personnel” sign on it. A car pulled up and the man walked out to me. He identified himself as a FAA investigator, showed me his credentials and started chatting. He said he lived locally but worked for a FAA office in a neighboring state. He was headed (that day) to a regional airport. He hadn’t logged a ramp check in a long while, and asked if I would be willing? I went from unguarded to suspicious instantly. Reluctantly, I asked if this was legal. He assured me it was, pulled out a tablet and began the interview. Hmmm . . . A closed airport. Nobody around. Just an broken down airplane, a old pilot and his dog. He asked, what was I doing there? Could I prove I held an airman’s certificate? Had I read the warning on the gate? I told him the reason for my visit,to reminisce and exercise my dog. I showed him my pilot license. He asked, how did I know if the airport was closed? I asked him if he saw any airplanes or signs of life? The friendliness had gone out of his voice as he wrote on his tablet. Do you know the meaning of the sign in the gate? Yes sir. I was eligible as a certificate holder to be there. “Your dog is not,” he replied in frustration. He closed up his tablet. Thanked me for my time and informed me that I would be informed by letter if anything more was to be considered. My take away is that the FAA is not a pilot’s friend. Always be careful even talking to ATC. Anything may and can be used against you. The agent who interviewed me was not a pilot. He was a bureaucrat. Your aviation passion means nothing to somebody looking to score points at their FSDO. Be a member of a flying organization that offers legal access. Don’t ignore a letter from the FAA. Don’t do it on your own. It only gets worse. Get assistance and keep flying.

FAA- “we have a publication on how to land off airport” Judge- “still needs a wind sock, lights, markings, gas.”

Sounds like your friends neighbor had a problem long before you showed up. Hoping the issue gets resolved/dropped soon. Thanks for sharing bro!

The FAA needs some reform. This is disappointing

I'm a flight instructor and an airline pilot. The precedent set here is concerning and goes against everything I have ever taught and what was taught to me at the airlines. For all our sakes I hope you win this! It sounds like a bunch of non-pilots trying to tell pilots how to fly

Very well presented Trent! This is a terrible precedent set by the FAA and NTSB and I'm confident this ruling will be overturned on appeal. This strikes me as a 'high profile' celebrity gotcha case from the local FSDO similar to what happened to Bob Hoover some years ago. Stby for an update...Jb.

I’m pretty sure the neighbour was previously disgruntled that there were RC planes flying in his backyard interrupting his “serenity”, there was probably some history or tension between the two property owners. This was the “last straw” for the neighbour who did the report.

Thanks Trent! It takes courage to stand against ego's in a big system and to do what's right.

That Judge just created an undue safety hazard to Pilots and Passengers and should be ashamed of their actions, resign, or be fired effective immediately. The NTSB, or whomever has the power to reverse the decision, should rule in your favor. Hopefully you’re talking with AOPA, Flight Safety, the Patey crew, Gryder, and Blancolerio to help get the word out about this Judges’ poor decision making skills. I’m fired up! We should all be making a call to our Senators and Representatives to make sure this decision is reversed and the Judge is removed from their position. What do any of the FAA rules mean if the ones who write them cannot follow them?

So the FAA wants pilots to land in unsafe areas in order to justify inspection passes?! How do these people get into the positions of authority?

WhistlinDiesel: Hey FAA! Can I drop a Hilux from a helicopter at 10,000 feet? FAA: Sure. We have no problem with this. Trent Palmer: Hey FAA! Can I do an inspection pass of a runway to make sure I'm comfortable with landing safely at the location? FAA: WHAT?!? F**K NO!!! That's reckless and irresponsible behavior!!!

I've heard some stupid bureaucratic crap in my life but, THIS is in the top 5!!! Fight this miscarriage of justice, Sir! As you said this fight is for all pilots. I pray you will win for all American aviators! 🇺🇸 🙏

When the FAA asked for a "sit down" at their office, that was the time to engage an Attorney and have THEM do the talking. How doing an Inspection Pass or deciding not to land (for whatever reason) is a violation is ridiculous.

Has anybody started a petition for this? As a flight instructor, this scares the heck out of me for everything I’ve been teaching my students. A go around is ALWAYS the right answer. Having the mentality of “I HAVE to put this airplane down” (unless an emergency is present) is flat out dangerous and could absolutely put the public in danger on the ground. Hang in there Trent, we’re on your side.

Holy crap, that's ridiculous! It's just so stupid. Sorry this happened to you bro

This is the FAA inching toward removing private pilots. As a Part 107 RPIC, there is no doubt in my mind removal of non-commercial aircraft is their ultimate goal.

Dang.... things like this make me even more concerned about sharing video from my training.

As an attorney it embarrasses me when the legal system fails to recognize common sense. Without knowing the regulations at their micro level, it seems you win on appeal. The tragedy is that it ever became necessary for you to respond to the nonsense. Thank you for doing so on our behalf. We are with you brother.

But this literally is against the off airport ops guide you showed, which is from the FAA itself, no? It says something along the lines of "Do inspection passes and if you get less comfortable with each pass, then seek a more suitable landing site", but the ruling states that if you do inspection passes, you *have* to land. I might've got something mixed up, but that's hoe I understand this

Thanks for fighting the good fight! As someone aspiring to someday own property with a landing strip I appreciate you doing this.

as a ag pilot this would make everything I do illegal. There's no way I could operate. Flying from airports just isn't feasible with some of the windows I've got. Not to mention the costs for the farmers😮

"... it's now down to 60 days, which is better." And that's how they get you. Threaten with something ridiculous, so you feel relieved when you're only abused "a little."

As I continued listening to this, I'm appalled at the FAA's reasonings. I'm even more incensed as to why a neighbor in a rural area decided to do this. Hateful and vindictive?

Best of luck man. I feel for you and completely understand your worry. Makes me sick, with something that seems so obviously straight forward, that they would rule this way. Especially when the FAA literally write an official procedure for what you did. Again man, good luck, really hope things get corrected.

I am an attorney, pilot and follower of this channel and this makes me extremely mad.

Friendly reminder that Harrison Ford has never had his license suspended after: Crashing his plane into a golf course, landing on a taxiway (and nearly crashing into a 737), and crossing an active runway without permission while another plane was taking off.

My Dad was a senior Capt for Continental back in the 80’s. He did some time in the training Dept and he hated the FAA. They’d pass guy that my dad would not and they’d argue with him. He kicked them off his aircraft.

So every evening, after a long day of skydiving, when the pilots come down and do a "Gear Inspection" flying about 5 feet over the runway at top speed before doing a go around and landing, they are breaking the FAA laws?

This is a great example of some "legal team" flexing its muscle saying 'We control whatever we want, and you have no recourse'. Typical bureaucracy at its worst. Good luck in fighting this travesty of justice. The dangers that this precedence will cause are immeasurable. Thanks for sharing.

Trent - I’m sure you know how to do this and your attorney has advised you of this - file a FOIA if you haven’t done so already. Freedom of Information Act. It will make the FSDO release all public records.

1-The neighbour is connected. 2- The neighbour is fed up with the noise of the RC planes buzzing his property.

Wow I feel for you, I wish you all the best and hope sense prevails

As a CFI I always get nervous doing manuevers around like any houses(especially ground reference) because the FAA does not give a fuck about pilots. It never has. Just look at their engine out recommendations for night flight where they want you to land in unlighted areas(I always tell students to screw that rule land on an empty road. Or their ancient mental health laws that I’m still working through to this day. They didn’t suspend you because you brome a rule, they suspended you because someone got scared and thought it MIGHT be illegal. The FAA cares about the image of aviation, the rules are just an extension of that.

I'm not an aviation law expert, but this sounds exactly opposite to everything I've learned in flight training about landing anywhere. A strict interpretation of this rule might also apply to any missed approach anywhere. Does this mean that when performing an Instrument approach to a runway and you get down to minimums (200ft for a standard ILS) and you don't see the runway so you go around. You are 200 feet above a structure (the approach lighting aids) and because you didn't land, your descent wasn't for the purpose of takeoff or landing? This is backwards to the training every pilot has ever received, yet seems to be the logic being applied here.

This ruling essentially nullified the FAA's OWN book on off-site landing procedures. FAA: "Here's how to do it" [does it exactly like that] FAA: "No not like that!"

I'm not a lawyer, but my job deals with regulatory compliance. My understanding is that decisions of Administrative Law Judges are binding on the parties in the particular matter but DO NOT have precedential value. They should not be cited or relied on as precedent in any proceeding. So I think your concern about precedent is unwarranted.

Well explained Trent. I’m sorry you are going through this. I haven’t seen every single video of yours but ALL of the ones I’ve seen do nothing but show you as a responsible and safe pilot who cares greatly about general aviation and works hard to inspire others and show what’s possible with our amazing freedom to fly. Seems like you should be the last person to have that freedom restricted. I hope the ruling is overturned to prevent the dangerous precedent you mentioned. I think a lot of pilots already feel the external pressure of fear of violation or fear of investigative process during many phases of flight that lead to less safe decisions…such as not declaring an emergency when doing so would be the safest thing to do.

“Requires a wind sock, lights, centerline”?!?? Tell me the FAA Lawyer and Judge have never flown in Alaska without telling me🤣🤣

Here's a low-level inspection pass. FAA: Wait, that's illegal. Here's your guide saying you allow it. FAA: Wait, that's illegal.

No matter where you go there's always a karen lurking in the bushes somewhere

The FAA seems to be expending a lot of energy on this. Makes me wonder who the "concerned" neighbor was 🤔.

Youre a good man for taking this on Trent. You could "easily" walk away and take the 60 days, not caring about the future. There needs to be more good men like yourself in the world today.

You did an excellent job articulating this legal case! Please let us know the outcome of the appeal. We love you and we appreciate all that you do!

fake your plane having problems? Bail out when there is no need to do so? Destroy a perfectly good airplane into the side of a mountain? Follow this BONEHEAD and expect the same results he's experiencing! Your choice: do things smart or do things the Trent Palmer way and reap the whirlwind. Don't forget to have a nice day too!

As a flight instructor, this is terrifying. How many short *paved* strips have persons/vehicles/structures that you need to pass over below 500 feet in order to land properly? I can think of three within 25 miles of me. The end result of this precedent is going to be that a go-around at many airports, not just off-field, during a normal approach, becomes illegal. This is fundamentally undermining the golden rule of landings that the FAA and instructors alike have been teaching for years, which is that "you can always go around". Are we really about to enter an age of aviation where I would have to recommend to my students "If you pass within 500 feet of a building you have to land or the FAA is coming for your license."? There needs to be a much bigger fuss about this. I sincerely recommend that people contact their respective congress members and ask them to pressure the FAA for for some sensibility. This is about to severely damage aviation safety and undermine 40 years of ADM principles.

Trent I’ll say this, having dealt with ALJ’s from other Federal Government agencies, as a lawyer based upon what you’re telling us, this Judge screwed up so badly that the ruling will never stand. I wish you all the best!!

It is always important to check out any possible emergency landing spots in the even of weather changes. We worked in remote areas in summer and winter and scouted out all possible safe locations to land. We has a piston Beaver and not always had radio contact in the early years. It sounds like your friend has a grouchy neighbour and has not yet asked for an emergency lift for medical help.

FAA: if you’re having fun, you’re doing something illegal

Please tell me you're not going this alone.. definitely something that AOPA, EAA, and all the other advocate groups should be rallying behind. I can't imagine this judge has ever stepped foot in a bush plane.

"There wasn't a windsock, runway lights or markers so it isn't an acceptable place to land" well I guess every bush pilot and seaplane pilot are now breaking the law when they fly. If these regulations are also applied to heli pilots (I'm a UK based pilot, and not a heli pilot, so I'm unfamiliar with heli + FAA rules) then they're also breaking the law now. Oh and inspection passes and go arounds are also now illegal. What a ridiculous statement and precedent.

i live about 1 mile from the ranch where the 'Yellowstone" series is filmed. which is only 1/2 mile from town. I have to put up with all the celebrity helicopters flying in low and slow far less than 500 AGL. It's a constant problem and there are other approaches to the ranch far less populated than right over town.

Keep up the good fight. If logic in the courts prevails which it still may then hopefully this whole case gets tossed out. Best of luck, thanks for sharing

The number one lesson from this should be, never talk to “law enforcement” without contacting an attorney. My opinion in this case is the FAA is wrong and is setting a dangerous precedent. As stated in the video above, pilots are now effectively required to make a dangerous landing to avoid losing their license if they inadvertently do something the FAA will otherwise suspend their license for.

You need a better attorney. This case never should have even made it to a hearing. You are correct, we cannot afford to lose the appeal. I hope AOPA and EAA step up to help. Good luck.

Well done. Thanks for making the video. Your pursuit of justice for other pilots is admirable, honorable and worth the cause for all pilots. As a West Point graduate who understands the value of honor with our Honor Code your journey and time & money for justice is beyond reproach. I hope someone truly understands the value and error of the past FAA ruling made in your case. Isn’t that why we have Go-arounds? (Passed Army helicopter pilot and fixed wing pilot.) You are a first class pilot in my books!

No human living on planet earth can tell with the naked eye how far a object is from them in the sky…any RC pilot can tell you that

Using the FAA’s logic here, it would seem that missed approaches and go-arounds could violate the law if you chose to not actually land at that airport. Bet the airline industry will just love that!!

"Necessary Landing Procedure" Sounds to me like someone is willfully misrepresenting the law itself. I'm not a pilot.... not even close... but I know the difference between a "Necessary Landing" and a "Necessary Procedure" for landing.... which would, of course be a "Necessary Landing Procedure." It's not the landing that's necessary, it's the procedure. I just got off a jury, and you wouldn't believe the convolutions of language and reason I had to deal with..... At this point, it's beginning to sound like the system itself is becoming more of a threat to the general public than the "bad guys" we're all trying to get rid of! 😡

Keep up the good fight! That is absolutely absurd.

Sounds like that FAA lawyer just wanted a bureaucratic notch in her belt.

I live in rural western NC, and if this ruling sticks flight instructors could loose thier ticket for just pulling the power on a student doing practice power out landings!!! This is insane!!!

This is what we in the land down under would call a “cluster f_ck” is circumstances, egos, jealously, a vindictive neighbour, etc. The system is failing you Trent! Please don’t do this alone as per another comment. And yes Squarespace is awesome and I use it for my business in Melbourne Australia. Good luck with the appeal.

As a nonpilot with a fear of heights, I have no idea why this is even in my recommendations or why I'm typing this. Have a good night everybody!!

Govt and their default charges. I dealt with that on an SF 86... Even the DOD lawyer told me it was a default charge should anything come up...

Just another case of the FAA overstepping their authority! Fight the good fight Trent!

That judge needs to be investigated. For him to ignore the FAA’s own rules and make a false conviction is a crime. The FAA lawyer needs to be disbarred as well.

13:00... you put it clearly enough. I'm a commercial pilot and CFI. I understand your argument about case law precedent and agree with the problem your case creates.

Great logic that "You'd have to land even if thought to be unsafe after an inspection pass." I think you'll win.

Trent isn't worried about his verdict he's worried what this could do to back country flying if it's upheld. He's basically worried how this could effect others and their love for aviation.

During every checkride I’ve been through, I was tested on my aeronautical decision-making to perform a go around or missed approach if you, as the pilot, do not feel comfortable with continuing the approach. It’s crazy how their ruling contradicts what they preach.

Well, that organisation even had the nerve to grill Sully on his miraculous landing. Ah, and they also approved MAX...

Although a pilots license doesn't "expire", I turned 79 today and have no intention of being PIC again (comm/instr/SEL). For many years I was the Unit Commander for a Sheriffs Office search and rescue squadron. We were regularly requested to search for downed aircraft and lost people/vehicles. At the time I was a reserve sworn Lt. in the department and we spent countless hours below 500 feet AGL with a low probability of a landing that would not violate a set of the FAA rules. Searching for downed aircraft over steep mountainous terrain even more so. At no time was I, or any member of the 30 or so pilots in the squadron, admonished opr appraised about the way our searches were accomplished. In fact it was county and state orders that resulted in us beginning the searches. From 500 feet AGL, with a horizontal speed of around 100 mph, it would have been impossible to have found the injured folks we found in heavily wooded or mountainous terrain. Good Luck Trent, wishing you prevail in your appeal.

so basically dont do an inspection pass just land no matter the risk. got it, good job guys

As both a Lawyer and Airline Pilot, I can say that there is a lot here to "chew" on. An Appeal usually can only be made upon the grounds of either a "mistake" in law or in "fact" or a combination of mistake in "law and fact". Certain findings by the presiding arbiter/Judge may be difficult to put aside. Trent, I would be happy to review the Judgment to see what evidentiary issues and appealable grounds there may be and to review what findings in fact the Judge has established. I agree that there is a "slippery slope" precedent argument and the rules to "stare decisis" look to the level from where that decision is made in combination with applicability of the facts to the case. The question as to the "chilling effect" on the flying community because of this decision has yet to be established. I am inclined to ask the question as to whether the Judge deliberately wanted to induce an Appeal to settle this area in law once and for all????? I suspect that many people have had cases similar to your case. I think your concern for the flying community at large is both honourable and worthy of support from that same community. I think an online petition would be valuable and sensible in your case. I think the vast majority of the flying community are behind you as we collectively see the potential of falling prey to the same unfortunate circumstances. Good luck and keep your chin up:-)

Having Dealt with the FAA and been contacted by them, I know the feeling. Working Maintenance Control for an Airline. A Supervisor that I did not work under had illegal work done on a plane to get a Flight Attendant seat back in service due to a full flight. He also did not like me, and wanted to get me fired so he setup it up to be signed off while not being fixed. Luckily when I got back on my Monday I found what had happened and printed off everything. On my way to my new job the FAA Called me and threatened my license over this. We had a good chat and I told him... I have info that will help explain and find the real culprit... I faxed him the info and he called me back and had a good discussion... Bottom line, the Supervisor lost his license permanently and the Mechanic who did the signoff got his license suspended for 30 days... You have to watch your back and all I can say is.... "Document, Document, Document" because you never know who is going to stab you in the back.

Keep fighting Trent. It sounds like you were doing everything correct to land on an off airport landing

As a seaplane pilot I’d hate to have this precedent used against me. There’s no runway markers, lights, or windsocks in the middle of the water. And there’s no way I’m landing in a new body of water without multiple inspection passes. And of course I don’t want to be forced to land anytime I do a low inspection pass and conclude I’m not comfortable.

Seems you need to make that runway legal, put a windsock up etc then land and take off regularly just make sure the neighbour gets the message.

What about a small lake, pond or my yard? I have a lot of windsocks to install. FAA is a dinosaur.

LESSON: NEVER DISCLOSE ANY INFO TO AUTHORITIES! THEY'RE NOT YOUR FRIENDS..., THEY ARE LOOKING TO PROSECUTE YOU!!!!!

My take: You’re a victim of your friend’s neighbor who obviously has a beef with your friend, yourself or aviation in general. I’m surprised the FAA even took it this far. Best wishes. Do what you can and keep broadcasting your journey through life & aviation. You’re a great pilot. PS: The not landing after an inspection pass is idiocy. A legal oxymoron.

90% of my flying is low altitude aerial photography, so your event is a real call for concern for others like myself. Thanks for sharing your story.

That is a sad state of affairs. You can’t even get a reasonable hearing.

I have always been told that the FAA toughest part of any enforcement action is to put the offending pilot in the offending plane. In other words when you get the call say "this sounds serious, please send me a formal letter and I will have my counsel respond to it" and nothing more. And while you are waiting for the letter go file a NASA report so if you get down to an enforcement action you can exercise your get out of jail free card. Never think that they are hear to help or we can clear this up easily. Remember if you said "my plane was were and doing what and I have no knowledge of that and if you find out who flew my plane without my knowledge or permission please let me know so I can peruse legal action. They would have been dead in the water. The FAA is not your friend!

Reminds me of the FAA's treatment of air show pilot and aviation great Bob Hoover. The FAA said he wasn't fit to fly. Other countries, medical and aviation experts disagreed. Bob won his case after 3 years, and said the following: “What happened was wrong… and what happened to me is still happening, every day, to aviators everywhere who did not have the expert help I had.”

That's an insane ruling. As someone with an aviation law minor I find this incredibly concerning.

That looks like my airplane, but if you can't read the tail number, that wasn't me! 😝

This lawyer for the FAA was trying to make a name for themselves on your back.

Trent. This ruling is getting a lot of attention at higher levels as we speak. From Backcountry associations to pilots unions, this ruling is ridiculous and clearly the opposite of how the FAA has always said they would like things to evolve. At a meeting two years ago, the topic was “how can we encourage more pilots to do a go around?”. I can’t believe this judges ruling. Is he even a pilot?

On the one side FAA publish instructions for outlanding, on the other they punishes you for following them... Strange. Thanks Trent for all your work for us.

This stinks like some sort of corruption where the angry neighbor was friends with someone at the FAA or someone in govt and they 'called in a favor'. I hope your lawyer had a look into that to see if there's any conflicts of interest involved with that neighbor.

Terrible when you get busted for not landing when sudden wind turbulence makes it unsafe to land ! Pilot in command must take corrective actions to operate aircraft safely

That’s extraordinary. As a taxpayer and former pilot, I would like to see individuals in that legal department fired and the judge suspended for retraining.

The FAA seems once they "Invest" Man hours into a case follow the original notion that was had. They are utilizing this to set an example, since they know that you are a knowledgeable bush pilot on KZfaq. And THANK YOU for appealing, not only did you not do anything wrong per FAA's instructional manuals on Off airport landing you are standing up and making sure this isn't an inherent loss of flying privilege's. You are right, if this is the case, that inspection passes are illegal, if you deem it unsafe and don't land, then that creates an inherently more dangerous airspace, due to pilots feeling that they are legally obligated to land or face penalties, fines, and suspension on flying....

Good luck.

Can’t tell you how many back county “airstrips” here in Idaho don’t have any of those things the judge went off of. On top of it planes are constantly within 500’ of hills and homes in a canyon which is also a necessity in the back country…