T/O w/FSII
Well-Known Member
Don’t be such a fanboy. It was a hell of a doorbell video. Palmer knows what he was doing. He was buzzing a friends house and got caught with his pants down.
Air Wagner
- Thread starter NovemberEcho
- Start date
Don’t be such a fanboy. It was a hell of a doorbell video. Palmer knows what he was doing. He was buzzing a friends house and got caught with his pants down.
Murdoughnut
Well sized member
This.
Wardogg
Meat Popsicle
Was it posted somehwere?
CFI A&P
Exploring the world one toilet at a time.
He’s an influencer, everything gets posted. I don’t have a link to it, but it is out there.
TUCKnTRUCK
That guy
No doubt, however, his defense and lack of separation between what he was doing, and legitimate back country/off airport is concerning- as the basis for determining a suitable landing place may now be the presence of a wind sock, markings etc.
Would be far cleaner if they had simply gone careless and reckless because there never was intent to land..
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
BobDDuck
Island Bus Driver
I'd agree. He's a really good case of a really bad precedent the FAA seems to have now set.
MidlifeFlyer
Well-Known Member
The
The appropriateness of a location for landing to begin with has legal precedent going back to at least 1977. It was a US Court of Appeals case.
TUCKnTRUCK
That guy
I am not a lawyer- but is his case consistent with the precedent?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
T/O w/FSII
Well-Known Member
Ironically no, he has never released the footage.
CFI A&P
Exploring the world one toilet at a time.
Well, yes, he may not have released the footage of the low pass, but it is out there somewhere as I know I have seen it. It must've been released by another party involved.
T/O w/FSII
Well-Known Member
It was caught by a doorbell camera of a neighbors house.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
CFI A&P
Exploring the world one toilet at a time.
Oh, I'm aware and have seen it. My point is that someone shared it, just like a customer at the mall posting a video from when they saw a Kardashian at XYZ department store. "Here's the video of Trent Palmer doing what the FAA doesn't want you to see. Smash that like, follow, or share button below and donations through Patreon are always appreciated which help keep this page going."
MidlifeFlyer
Well-Known Member
The incident in the case took place at an airport. Yes, at an airport. The low pass was over a taxiway which brought the airplane within the regulatory 500'. Basically, at an airport with available runways, a low pass over a taxiway is not necessary for takeoff and landing. I think it's consistent. If anything what Palmer did was worse.
I didn't include it earlier because I was on the road. But here it is. It's not very long and not a lot of legalese. Decide for yourself.
Theres also one involving a helicopter and a city street, a Santa Claus drop yet.
Last edited:
TUCKnTRUCK
That guy
Interesting-
Twist on the thread- how would they View an instructional flight when the CFI intends for the student to execute a go around- as there was never intent to land and that would violate the 500ft rules…
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
MidlifeFlyer
Well-Known Member
No problem at all. Despite the lousy writing in the NTSB's Palmer decision, I don't think it has anything to do with go-arounds, low passes, or runway inspection at an appropriate location, like a runway.
This is from the Chief Counsel's 2009 Anderson Interpretation. It's about the meaning of "congested area," but it includes this, with citations to prior interpretations and decisions.
The FAA has determined that" § 91.119 does generally not apply to aircraft operations within airport traffic patterns," and that "aircraft operating within a traffic pattern are excepted from the regulation for a considerable portion of each pattern, i.e., during climb to pattern altitude following each takeoff, and during descent from pattern altitude prior to each landing." Legal Interpretation to Frank J. Deighan, from Donald Byrne, Assistant Chief Counsel (Oct. 30, 1997).
With respect to touch and go landings, the interpretation noted that the takeoff and landing exception to § 91.119 "applies equally to all practice approaches, including repeated 'touch and go,' 'stop and go,' and 'low approach' operations ..." Id. We would like to emphasize that the NTSB has also applied the § 91.119 takeoff or landing exception to touch and go landings and other practice maneuvers. See Administrator v. McCollough, NTSB Order No. EA-4020 (Nov. 4, 1993) (stating that simulated landings fall under the section 91.119 exception); Administrator v. Johnson, NTSB Order No. EA-739 (Jul. 31, 1975) ("[T]hese practice maneuvers come within the takeoff or landing exemption to the [section 91.119] restrictions because their purpose is to improve a pilot's capabilities in those operations."). Therefore, if the operation is not within the traffic pattern, or involves the approaches noted above, the pilot must operate in accordance with §91.119. (my emphasis)
Richman
JC’s Resident Curmudgeon
Bad NTSB decisions are the bane of a pilot's existence, but they are usually generated by bad pilot decisions.
The "IFR in uncontrolled airspace" is a good example. Guy can't get an IFR release because, ooops, traffic inbound. So he decides to YOLO it and departs. Controller flags it, and he gets clipped by the Feds. He claims that he was operating in uncontrolled airspace, and didn't need a flight plan or a clearance. Feds said "ah, yea, no, you KNEW that there was traffic inbound" and so no soup for you. This generated an NTSB decision that some hold up to ban IFR in uncontrolled airspace. That's not really what the NTSB said, but you know how that goes.
Is IFR in uncontrolled airspace automatically careless and reckless? Depending on the circumstances, no, and while it is a left over from years gone past, at the time (1986), there were probably still situations where it was perfectly fine, and in others probably the only solution to a problem. There were great swaths of uncontrolled airspace that ran up to the base of the continental control area (errr, 14,500?), and if you worked out your terrain clearance and had a way to navigate, then who cared if you were going IFR from East Nowhere, Wyoming to Toadstool, Montana without talking to someone.
But someone tried to apply what was probably a common sense reg to try to get out of situation they caused, and that is what happens.
FWIW, the feds have quietly been removing all uncontrolled airspace above 1200 feet over the past 10 years, so the this particular issue is moot.
The "IFR in uncontrolled airspace" is a good example. Guy can't get an IFR release because, ooops, traffic inbound. So he decides to YOLO it and departs. Controller flags it, and he gets clipped by the Feds. He claims that he was operating in uncontrolled airspace, and didn't need a flight plan or a clearance. Feds said "ah, yea, no, you KNEW that there was traffic inbound" and so no soup for you. This generated an NTSB decision that some hold up to ban IFR in uncontrolled airspace. That's not really what the NTSB said, but you know how that goes.
Is IFR in uncontrolled airspace automatically careless and reckless? Depending on the circumstances, no, and while it is a left over from years gone past, at the time (1986), there were probably still situations where it was perfectly fine, and in others probably the only solution to a problem. There were great swaths of uncontrolled airspace that ran up to the base of the continental control area (errr, 14,500?), and if you worked out your terrain clearance and had a way to navigate, then who cared if you were going IFR from East Nowhere, Wyoming to Toadstool, Montana without talking to someone.
But someone tried to apply what was probably a common sense reg to try to get out of situation they caused, and that is what happens.
FWIW, the feds have quietly been removing all uncontrolled airspace above 1200 feet over the past 10 years, so the this particular issue is moot.
mightynimbus
Well-Known Member
I hope Jerry does something stupid soon, and gets this thread back on track
arkflyr
Well-Known Member
Back in my dirtbag 135 freight dog days I worked for an operator that had the ops spec for enroute class g to do exactly this in a Chieftain.
Similar threads
