He did an "inspection pass" on a friend's property.  A neighbor sent a video to the FAA.

FAA pulled the same bullshit with me.  Contrary to their own words (in the form of an Advisory Circular) they prosecuted me anyway.   It's like trying to argue with a brick wall, you never get anywhere.

Is he getting any help from the likes of AOPA or EAA?

FAA:  We've published a off airport ops guide, follow it!

Also FAA:  That guide is bullshit and we're going go after your certificate for following it.

His biggest mistakes were not getting an attorney from the git-go and admitting anything without said attorney OK.

The FAA is basically the Air ATF at this point. They think they have jurisdiction if you jump high enough.

Thanks for making aviation unpossible for everyone but your big iron buddies, assholes.

I want to see the video. This reeks of someone who did something stupid, then tried to justify it later when caught.

Maybe he will fly under a bridge next time.

Sure sounds like he buzzed his friend’s house and got caught…


But ever since the FAA was caught trying to “get” Bob Hoover I say F’em. Everybody’s innocent by default.

Hasn't he skimmed the surface of a lake with his wheels? I'm surprised the FAA doesn't yank a lot of the licenses of these YouTubers who fly.

I don't see how landing is necessary, so I'm willing to go to court accusing you of planning to unnecessarily land. - Fed attorney.

Many years ago, I knew a pilot who referred to that as 'washing the tires'.  There's a video somewhere on youtube of a formation of AT-6s doing it.

It's also a bush pilot technique for landing in places where there isn't enough clear land - with the big 'Alaskan tires' there is enough surface area to use them as water skis and slow down below stall speed, then roll up onto a beach or gravel bar and cut the throttle.

As for going after youtubers who fly, back during 2020, the FAA was spending some time during the shutdown by reviewing youtube channels for any drone video, then checking to see if they had a commercial operator certificate (making money by flying their drone to get video that was later monetized on youtube) and if the video indicated they weren't following all the regs.  There were youtube videos discussing this sudden attention and the phone calls that some youtubers were getting from the FAA.

Not illegal.

That’s some bullshit, and sets a terrible precedent.

I'm sure that's the FAA's position.  It would be my first guess as well, but if his friend that owned the property backed up his story, the FAA should walk away, unless they can prove otherwise.  If it's your word against theirs, you shouldn't lose by default.

There is no "court" involved.

Administrative law judge?
Or did Trent misuse the word "judge"?

Civil hearing, like a traffic ticket or civil asset forfeiture?
Seems like you're guilty unless proven innocent in those, tie goes to the prosecution, and they get to say what's a tie.

I'm not sure.  I assumed that everyone in the room worked for the FAA.

https://www.ntsb.gov/legal/alj/Pages/default.aspx

It would never get the support of FAA legal to take it before a judge unless there was/is very clear and verifiable evidence to support the revocation.

He isn't denying what they said that he did.  He says he was scouting for a landing, per FAA guidance.  Do they have clear and verifiable evidence that he had no intention of landing?  I'm not disagreeing with you, just keeping it in perspective.  My guess is that he buzzed a house.  But if his story is actually viable, then without evidence to the contrary, he should get the benefit of doubt.  But to your point, I have no doubt that there is more to the story.

Gotcha Thanks

ETA: Actually the way I read that, they only do appeals.

It sounds more like this...

https://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/agc/practice_areas/adjudication

You have the right to a hearing with the FAA in which an administrative law judge from the NTSB presides (I believe there are 5-6 of them, only one was actually a pilot.)  If you win, the FAA will always appeal, then you go in front of the whole board of ALJ's in which case you will lose.  From there it goes to the US Court of Appeals, which is a very long and expensive endeavor.  Even if you win that, it's going to take over a year and several hundred thousand dollars.  You can then sue the feds to get your money back that you had to defend yourself; however, it's capped at whatever they spend on their attorneys or some low number (which is less than half of what a decent attorney costs.)  Finally, the AOPA insurance only covers the legal costs on the initial letters with the FAA, hearing, part of the NTSB appeal, and NONE of the US court of appeals.......so maybe 30% at most?  Either way, you're out a year+ which is more than if you just take the revocation and wait a year to reapply.

Also, there is a rule that won't let the FAA testify on your behalf.  So even if you're local FSDO likes you and shows up as character witnesses, they FAA's attorney will remind them they will lose their job if they do.

I witnessed this process 20 yrs ago with a guy I used to work for.  He spent 13 months and over $130K to prove the FAA used an improper procedure to bust him, and only got about $80K of that reimbursed by the FAA and AOPA.  Got his certs back and crashed another helicopter a few months later.

I didn't watch the whole video, but I remember reading an article about a guy that got busted for doing a low pass on a runway.  Biggest mistake, he announced it on the radio that he was doing a "low pass" and that's not for the purposes of landing and taking off.  Had he just said he was landing, and then did a go around, he would have been fine.

So a 'low pass' on a regular runway is a 'dont do it'?

Holy shit, what about looking for, scaring off, deer or other critters? Checking that the snow was plowed sufficiently, or the grass was mowed close enough?

This whole thing is just fucked.

And the FAA can just go fuck themselves.

Cattle getting through a fence and onto the runway, was an incident at one of the airports I have worked at.

Apparently, cattle are too stupid to pay any attention to a Cessna making a low pass over their heads (may have been conditioned by the time they spent in a pasture next to the airport).  They don't pay any attention to the plane until it is on the ground and headed toward them (I can't even imagine how messy the prop strike would have been, if they hadn't run when that pilot shooed them away from the runway by taxiing toward them).

The FAA does seem intent on promoting bad landings, in this matter.

You are commenting harshly on a matter for which you have zero facts.
I don't have those facts either.
I will say it again...for this to get as far as it did AND have the judge agree with the revocation, there had to be specific, clear, and overwhelming evidence that this was NOT an attempt to "verify the landing area" but a reckless maneuver.

Thanks for this.

Don't kill the messenger.  The FARs have and will always be interpreted the most literal way and in a context favorable to the FAA.  The common sense you speak of means nothing.  Simple CYA insurance policy is to announce you're landing, then go-around.

If you don't agree, go try it and see what you can get away with.  Just like the ATF, if the fed want to make an example out of you, has a chip on their shoulder, wants to advance their career, etc., they will always win by making your life a living hell (whether or not you "win" the legal process).

Moral of the story, stack the odds in your favor and don't poke the bear.

That is putting an awful lot of faith in fed government bureaucrats.

Because big.gov NEVER abuses its citizens.  Like they never spy on you.

And you can go to Beechtalk and read the letter the guy's lawyer posted. It was reposted on PoA, and I read it.  Worthwhile reading.

Quite the opposite actually because I'm aware of the amount of CYA that goes on. This MOST LIKELY kept moving up the chain due to the amount of solid evidence.

Again, I know nothing about the facts of this case, just what it usually takes to go as far as this one did.

Link?

I'd love to read it.

The neighbor that reported Trent is a neighborhood shit bag that is always causing pain and trouble from reports.  Apparently he is also trying to get delivery drivers fired also.  He seems to be one of those assholes that is only happy if he makes everyone around him miserable.

I read somewhere that the neighbors reply when asked why he hadnt brought the issue up to the property owner that Trent did the inspection pass first and resolve the issue in a neighborly way.

He said something to the effect of... I don't want to resolve it with you I want his ass nailed to the wall.  


The fact that the FAA said had the video of the pass and conveniently lost it when Trents lawyer said lets see that video is pretty telling.  


The info is out there if you take literally a minute to search on it.

Edited for a bit more clarity.  (I hope)

We had a neighbor like that, right off the end of our runway.  He called the FAA and the cops on us all the time.  They would come out and say they were sorry to bother us, have a nice day.  They had to come out every time, and repeatedly told him to suck it up.  It was legal to fly airplanes over his house.  Anyway, he died of covid.

Weeeeeelll, in the good ol days before we knew without a doubt that every 3 letter agency was assho, I would say if he was t guilty of this he was guilty of something else and they wanted to nail him on other things but had to settle for this. But nowadays, ya, screw em