I don’t think the future farmers of America (ffa) care

Maybe AT pilots. Farmers and fliers. 🚜 ✈️

​@@3_Klos1122🤣 I catch my cousin saying the same thing all the time 😅 he was in 4-h so it just rolls out of his mouth and he doesn't realize it lol

Are they state senators because those aren't our federal senator's?

YES! BECAUSE ITS SO IMPORTANT HAHA. BUT YOU KNOW YOU WONT ADVOCATE TOWARDS HOMELESS VETS OR ANYTHING WILL YA?

The FAA's action here is unconstitutional.

@@lHlEIDLEBAUGHwhat is your point, exactly? You seem lost.

@@lHlEIDLEBAUGH as a vet. Shut up bruh

The problem is, the FAA proved their case. He is now appealing it. Have you been the subject of an FAA investigation? While they don’t need proof “beyond a reasonable doubt”, the just need to prove it by “preponderance of evidence”. A much easier burden….but it’s still their burden. Don’t be so quick to hop on the pity party here.

I hope the FAA takes your opinion and others like Mike and Mark, who have a great deal of experience with inspection passes, into account. The FAA bad ruling on this issue will make flying less safe and that is not in anyone's best interest.

I have flown within a few hundred feet of boats, buildings, and people without landing many times! I fly an amphibian and if I see too much seaweed, waves too high, excessive crosswind, floating obstructions, etc, on inspection pass, I don't land. So sue me.

@ChandraSlyFoxPatey Are u Mike Patey’s clan👆🏼?

@@3_Klos1122 Yep, I’m his wife.

@@reason6835 What is your point?

So what's your favorite flavor of boot polish? @@reason6835

And it's your property, not your neighbor who hates you

@@reason6835but your point goes both ways. One is it could add to buzzing. Which these guys don’t do…so a moot point. Or it could add to more hardships for a pilot that does an inspection pass and determines not to land. So you seem to have a one sided opinion. Obviously you don’t fly backcountry and certainly are a by the rulebook tricycle pilot that wouldn’t be able to land there if you wanted to. So you should stay away from that for sure. But maybe you armchair typed your comment not understanding how naive your comment was. And I’m a Tailwheel pilot as well. How about you gain some knowledge of the potential precedent as your outcome of thinking everyone will just buzz…is so generic. Not many pilots would do such a thing. If you are a pilot…you should focus more on your own skillset

So you feel you know with 100% certainty what he was thinking and planning to do? You are the clairvoyant guy that knows what everyone thinks and actually…know why everyone does what they do? Well of course. Obviously there are registered airports we fly over to land at where we’re right at and often below that 500 foot mark and within the grey area of the infractions that get under your sensibilities. Can we not go around there too or say…I’m going somewhere else? My point is about intent. Who do you believe can say what someone else’s intent is? Well besides you as you seem to have such a self proclaimed skill. We wrongfully imprison people every day. Do you truly trust government courts and agencies that much? You frighten me with your blinders

@@reason6835you have to have permission to land at a strip is my understanding. So if they were deliberately directly overhead a house there would be still recourse.

@@reason6835thing is he was actually intending on landing, all these negative comments about “buzzing Houses” makes you sound like the neighbour of the place he was intent on landing at

@@RetreadPhoto beacause it was unsafe.. 🙄 duh

@@RetreadPhoto have you no idea what a bush plane is or is capable of?

@@RetreadPhoto that’s generally what an inspection pass is for.. to decide if it’s right or not. You can go to a field and it be perfectly fine then fly there and wind could change, you might see other obstacles you can’t see from the ground Inspection passes are necessary without the pressure to have to land there.

I just wrote to Senators Manchin and Capito myself asking them to please consider supporting Senator Budd's legislation.

There is nothing new in that - the adversarial law system in the "major western countries" is structured that way ie: You have a prosecutor (in this case the government and more usually the Police) and a defender. It is not the prosecutor job to prove you innocent they uphold the law by building a case with enough evidence, getting you off is the defender's job. Incompetence of the prosecution is another issue entirely. Two sides to every story that's why we have courts to make the decision.

@@zorbakaput8537 Hey buttercup. The prosecutor investigates cases to see if there is enough evidence to see if they can get a conviction and they purposefully ignore evidence that proves innocence. That's WRONG! A lot of people who can't afford a decent attorney are basically shafted into pleading when they are in fact innocent. Not one thing the OP said is wrong and what you assert doesn't make anything ok either. ITs WRONG! Also has nothing to do with 2 sides to every story. There are no stories here. Obviously in trents case he is innocent and the FAA doesn't care, they just want to win. Seeing how you hate trent so much you should find another channel to watch....

Free Trevor Jaccob

@@viagra5207 I don't think so.

I hate to say it but he brought this on himself, this isn't the first time he's had a run in with the FAA for doing something dangerous or potentially dangerous.

Just FYI no actual governor , congressman, senator etc actually reads any emails from the public. There are not receivers now that take your keywords and group your email into a larger group of emails where your email contained the same type verbiage keywords as others where after so many hundreds if not thousands they will THEN be read here and there and if not appears the public have an issue with something a memo to that legislature MAY be notified of what their office has been contacted over. I give you my word no one will actually read your email. You’ll receive an automated response by bot that will make you think someone’s read it by the response the computer will give you. Trust me whatever you’ve done has already fell on deaf ears.

The democrats are the cause of this problem, James. How do you not see that?

I DO see that, but I did not want to make this a partisan attack, hoping logic might for once prevail. I know, a forlorn hope!@@BigDickMark

No hope at all... He's a Demorat.

Probably right - he's never yet been a help in anything. Not even as good as a busted clock, which is right twice a day, momentarily! You see with what I have to work!@@dh-flies

I'm not an aviator of any sort but have followed Trent's difficulties in this regard. I too have contacted my NE senators to support the amendment.

He lost his license and I think if not in jail, heading there shortly

@@russellsmith3825he only lost it for a month… he’s back flying and only a minimal sentence… month in jail??? Or suspended sentence…. Nothing really

@@russellsmith3825he was flying again before sentencing

As a gun owner. First time? Lol. But seriously welcome to the fight.

@@aaronsuever2414 ya no joke on the owning a gun front, i'm with you there friend, its rediculus.

I was going to say. Where are all the GA pilots when drone rights were getting raped? Now it's Trent's turn. The real answer is that not many in higher up government wants to take away the power from the government to screw any citizen they don't like. Nothing is going to change.

You’re not a pilot. We don’t care what your “FAA license” says.

@@dudeinalaska it’s ok Friend you’ll get over what ever you have…eventually

How dare you shame the NTSB.😋 The head of the NTSB has a license to ride a moped.🤭 She doesn't have a commercial pilots license or a private pilots license or much training in aviation in general and yet she was appointed to be the head of the NTSB. Go figure.😜 It's the government and it's just how we do things in this country.🤠Yahoo and Giteeup! Not to mention the FAA and how they've let Boeing get away with murder by letting them police THEMSELVES!😟

Also, continuing on with your logic, you touch ground when you land at an airport, so you should be able to touch ground anywhere. You could crash anywhere, so you should be able to land anywhere.

If that is the FAA's reason for existing, then they are truly and entirely derelict in that duty these days.

Excellent. While you're at it, can you have them look into those ridiculous 2,000 feet NOAA altitude restrictions over the northern part of the Washington coast? They have similar NOAA restrictions in California but they are only 1,000 feet. Why is Washington being treated differently?

Reagan got it wrong. Love the SSA and Medicare. BTW- Reagan was from the government……

I totally agree medicals are a total MESS. Professional pilots don’t take care of their health out of fear and if you have any little discrepancy, even from stupid doctors in childhood/childhood specific issues, you can’t even fly yourself around solo. And the waiting is unheard of. Years and years, just to be denied? I personally don’t believe I’ll ever hold a medical ever again. I do have some significant illnesses but even if I were to find myself in a pretty healthy place in the future, there’s no way they’d ever have changed policies enough for there to be any hope.

@@DaveTube775 I don't know enough about that to be honest?

I do not think I would have mentioned it!

@@donanders2110 ya if it ever came up someone how and i didn’t disclose it im sure it would be worse