Faked a Crash

[201er]

1 hour ago, EricJ said:

I think he's still flying pending appeal.   His ruling was a 60-day suspension, iirc.    I can't read this particular article because paywall, but these guys appear to be getting hit harder.   These guys ignored a letter from the FAA.

Trevor Jacob, revoked with minimum one year wait to reapply. Trent Palmer, 60 day suspension pending appeal. Red Bull plane swap revoked for both pilots according to the latest. FAA is making an example of social media stunt goofballs but unfortunately the penalties are very mild considering the kind of publicity they are trading for!

[EricJ]

Just now, 201er said:

Trevor Jacob, revoked with minimum one year wait to reapply. Trent Palmer, 60 day suspension pending appeal. Red Bull plane swap revoked for both pilots according to the latest. FAA is making an example of social media stunt goofballs but unfortunately the penalties are very mild considering the kind of publicity they are trading for!

D'oh, yes I was thinking of Trent.

 

[GeeBee]

It is not one year and get it back, it is one year and "re-apply". This means they are in "Martha Lunken" territory. Have to start from scratch as students and get all their experience then apply for a new certificate.

[thinwing]

On 5/13/2022 at 4:34 AM, GeeBee said:

It is not one year and get it back, it is one year and "re-apply". This means they are in "Martha Lunken" territory. Have to start from scratch as students and get all their experience then apply for a new certificate.

speaking of Martha...she is back to flying as a student pilot ...may have all ready got her PPL

[GeeBee]

Actually, I believe she passed her PPL check ride.

 

[A64Pilot]

For a helicopter pilot to get a fixed wing pilots cert  it was I believe 20 hours and demonstrate proficiency.

Would it be the same for someone who previously had a fixed wing certificate?

[Hank]

2 hours ago, A64Pilot said:

For a helicopter pilot to get a fixed wing pilots cert  it was I believe 20 hours and demonstrate proficiency.

Would it be the same for someone who previously had a fixed wing certificate?

Not if your license was revoked by the FAA!

Your PPL never expires, you just need a medical and a flight reviews (both current) and you can saddle up and fly all you want.

[A64Pilot]

On 5/25/2022 at 8:45 PM, Hank said:

Not if your license was revoked by the FAA!

Your PPL never expires, you just need a medical and a flight reviews (both current) and you can saddle up and fly all you want.

I understand, it’s actually a PPC not a PPL, may seem silly but according to one inspector that I talked to years ago the laws are different for a license than a certificate, so apparently it’s not just wording.

I just wondered what “start all over” really meant. But for example to get a Commercial you have to have x number of hours, these guys exceed that. I had a lot of the hour requirement shortened as I was already a Commercial Instrument pilot in another category for instance.

I was an unusual case, I’ve never been a Private Pilot and never had a third class medical, and before I got my FAA Commercial, I was outside of the FAA’s legal authority, the FAA only has legal authority if you hold some kind of FAA ticket. Army pilots have none.

You would think for something so stupid and endangering public safety etc the FAA would pull your Cert forever.

I wonder what it takes to lose it forever, I know running drugs doesn’t or used to not anyway, I know several that were busted for that back in the day, it’s how a lot of Southern crop dusters made a living in the off season

AOPA says flight time is still valid, apparently all you have to do is retest, I assume ALL tests?

https://www.aopa.org/news-and-media/all-news/2017/may/flight-training-magazine/career-pilot-revoked

Edited May 27, 2022 by A64Pilot

[Pinecone]

On 5/25/2022 at 6:43 PM, A64Pilot said:

For a helicopter pilot to get a fixed wing pilots cert  it was I believe 20 hours and demonstrate proficiency.

Would it be the same for someone who previously had a fixed wing certificate?

Going the other way, when I did it, I needed 15 hours dual and 15 hour solo in a helicopter.  Including X hours Night, X hours cross country and a certain length triangle XC.  At the time, you needed 20 hours to solo an R-22 due to insurance.  So by the time I soloed, I had done all the dual work, including an hour or two of test prep.  So did my RH PPL checkride at 37 hours.

It looks like the minimum fixed wing time is 22 hours.  The rest can be in other aircraft.

From Part 61:

(a) For an airplane single-engine rating. Except as provided in paragraph (k) of this section, a person who applies for a private pilot certificate with an airplane category and single-engine class rating must log at least 40 hours of flight time that includes at least 20 hours of flight training from an authorized instructor and 10 hours of solo flight training in the areas of operation listed in § 61.107(b)(1) of this part, and the training must include at least -

(1) 3 hours of cross-country flight training in a single-engine airplane;

(2) Except as provided in § 61.110 of this part, 3 hours of night flight training in a single-engine airplane that includes -

(i) One cross-country flight of over 100 nautical miles total distance; and

(ii) 10 takeoffs and 10 landings to a full stop (with each landing involving a flight in the traffic pattern) at an airport.

(3) 3 hours of flight training in a single-engine airplane on the control and maneuvering of an airplane solely by reference to instruments, including straight and level flight, constant airspeed climbs and descents, turns to a heading, recovery from unusual flight attitudes, radio communications, and the use of navigation systems/facilities and radar services appropriate to instrument flight;

(4) 3 hours of flight training with an authorized instructor in a single-engine airplane in preparation for the practical test, which must have been performed within the preceding 2 calendar months from the month of the test; and

(5) 10 hours of solo flight time in a single-engine airplane, consisting of at least -

(i) 5 hours of solo cross-country time;

(ii) One solo cross country flight of 150 nautical miles total distance, with full-stop landings at three points, and one segment of the flight consisting of a straight-line distance of more than 50 nautical miles between the takeoff and landing locations; and

(iii) Three takeoffs and three landings to a full stop (with each landing involving a flight in the traffic pattern) at an airport with an operating control tower.

 

[Hank]

3 hours ago, A64Pilot said:

I understand, it’s actually a PPC not a PPL, may seem silly but according to one inspector that I talked to years ago the laws are different for a license than a certificate, so apparently it’s not just wording.

I just wondered what “start all over” really meant. But for example to get a Commercial you have to have x number of hours, these guys exceed that. I had a lot of the hour requirement shortened as I was already a Commercial Instrument pilot in another category for instance.

I was an unusual case, I’ve never been a Private Pilot and never had a third class medical, and before I got my FAA Commercial, I was outside of the FAA’s legal authority, the FAA only has legal authority if you hold some kind of FAA ticket. Army pilots have none.

You would think for something so stupid and endangering public safety etc the FAA would pull your Cert forever.

I wonder what it takes to lose it forever, I know running drugs doesn’t or used to not anyway, I know several that were busted for that back in the day, it’s how a lot of Southern crop dusters made a living in the off season

AOPA says flight time is still valid, apparently all you have to do is retest, I assume ALL tests?

https://www.aopa.org/news-and-media/all-news/2017/may/flight-training-magazine/career-pilot-revoked

If the FAA pulls your license, you still have hours in your logbook but they no longer count towards a certificate. So you instruction in the basics before you can solo, and 40 hours minimum before you can take the practical exam for your PPL, with a recent knowledge test.

[201er]

1 hour ago, bluehighwayflyer said:

and since she flies a Cessna 180 I guess she also needs her high performance and tail wheel endorsements. That was my understanding, anyway, but thankfully this is not a subject with which I have any experience.  

Those are in the logbook, so I'm guessing they don't need to be re-tested for. Then again there may be a certificate number associated with the endorsement so maybe.

[A64Pilot]

From the AOPA link I posted above, cut -n-paste so no attachment

https://www.aopa.org/news-and-media/all-news/2017/may/flight-training-magazine/career-pilot-revoked

f there is any saving grace to this predicament, it is that all previous flight time remains valid. There is no need to acquire another 40 hours of flight time, for example, to retake the private pilot checkride. But, before taking the practical test for each of the certificates and ratings that have been lost, you are required to receive three hours of instruction from a CFI.

Edited May 29, 2022 by A64Pilot

[carusoam]

1) Somebody did something that the FAA doesn’t want to be seen done…

2) FAA decides how to keep it from spreading through the pilot population…

3) Most pilots think twice before openly breaking the rules…

4) even if the rule is physically goofy… like flying under a huge gigantic bridge….

5) So… the FAA throws a puzzle to the offending pilot…

6) Remove all certificates from record… because the FAA can do that…

7) The pilot, now has to go figure out how to get them all back… if desired.

8) The world is full of unlicensed pilots…. Probably uninsured to match…

9) Expect the FAA is unable to erase a person’s experience or the record of its experience…

10) the only way the FAA knows you still have your experience over time is through flight reviews and IPCs….

11) Sounds like a lot of reading to get ready for doing written exams, pass the written, then go on to the flight tests… then repeat….

12) if time is required to pass between getting one license before getting the next… this could add to the hassle…

13) Realistically….

The FAA has created a PIA, both physical and financial, for the offenders… to combat the desire for anyone else to want to duplicate the goofy behavior…

14) Few logical people will ever jump out of a perfectly good plane… without a pilot still at the controls…

15) Few pilots, logical or not… have the excess dough required to fly expendable planes into the ground…

16) Sort of a form of regulatory theater…

17) looks like it has been very effective theater… everyone is discussing it… few have the desire to repeat it… 

PP thoughts only, not an aviation attorney…

Best regards,

-a-

[A64Pilot]

I think the FAA is geared more towards professional pilots, one would assume if you are and your Certificate is revoked, so is your Career, you may get your Cert back, but who’s going to hire you?

I guess that’s when you start crop dusting? Farmer doesn’t care.

Now someone with a big trust fund may not care though, so the punishment isn’t equal in my book. Trust fund guy finds new hobbies for a year, then goes back to flying.

I think there ought to be a class or level of stupid that you don’t get your Cert back. I remember some idiot in California that the FAA had pulled his ticket, so he altered the N number on his helicopter and flew anyway, he was caught though. I don’t remember what they did.

‘The thing that Trevor idiot did that ticks me off is that there is one less T-cart now, it won’t be replaced

Edited May 30, 2022 by A64Pilot

[FlyingDude]

I wonder if all airports and FBOs could put him on the persona non grata list.  No instructor to fly him 3 hrs to endorse him for a check ride.  No DPE to examine him.  

Yeah, banish him from the community.  

Here, on facebook, anywhere, I have not seen anyone who actually cherished what he did.  Or the Red Bull guys with their in-flight plane exchange.  I haven't come across anyone who applauded either one of the dumb stunts.

Can idiots please go back to swallowing tide pods?  

[EricJ]

FWIW, the latest AOPA Pilot magazine has an article by an AOPA in-house attorney that, while it doesn't mention Trent Palmer's case, seems to hit examples that apply and suggest that there have been a number of precedential rulings that may inform the case a bit.   The article is "Is That Really Necessary?" and appears on p28 of the July, 2022 edition.

[tgardnerh]

FWIW, the latest AOPA Pilot magazine has an article by an AOPA in-house attorney that, while it doesn't mention Trent Palmer's case, seems to hit examples that apply and suggest that there have been a number of precedential rulings that may inform the case a bit.   The article is "Is That Really Necessary?" and appears on p28 of the July, 2022 edition.

https://www.aopa.org/news-and-media/all-news/2022/july/pilot/for-the-record-is-it-necessary

That was... illuminating. In that it illuminates just how murky the standard is.

My read from that article is that the standard is, in effect, whether you *could* land appropriately, whether or not you did?

It sounds like:
1. a simulated approach to an appropriate runway with no intention to land is kosher
2. a simulated approach to an inappropriate runway is not kosher
3. an actual landing at a site that is inappropriate is not kosher
4. an aborted but intended landing at a site that the pilot should have known was inappropriate is not kosher? (extrapolating to the Palmer case, the other 3 are from the article)

Is this how others are reading this article too?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[EricJ]

43 minutes ago, tgardnerh said:

https://www.aopa.org/news-and-media/all-news/2022/july/pilot/for-the-record-is-it-necessary

That was... illuminating. In that it illuminates just how murky the standard is.

My read from that article is that the standard is, in effect, whether you *could* land appropriately, whether or not you did?

It sounds like:
1. a simulated approach to an appropriate runway with no intention to land is kosher
2. a simulated approach to an inappropriate runway is not kosher
3. an actual landing at a site that is inappropriate is not kosher
4. an aborted but intended landing at a site that the pilot should have known was inappropriate is not kosher? (extrapolating to the Palmer case, the other 3 are from the article)

Is this how others are reading this article too?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

My take-away was similar, that if the landing site is inappropriate (due to whatever reason, specifically including the proximity of people to the site), then even an approach is not okay.  The implication for the back country guys might seem to be just assessing the proximity of people to the site, which still might require some clarification for certain cases, e.g., there's not a ton of room on a Sandbar, so how much clearance is sufficient if there are already people there?   I'm also thinking of places like Amboy, CA, or Fields Station, OR, where you may wind up much closer to people than at a typical airport.   So while the FAA side of the argument appears to be from some consistent precedents, it does seem like there's a lot of room for better guidance or clarification.   Maybe that'll come out of Palmer's case. 
 

Edited June 12, 2022 by EricJ

[MikeOH]

My cynical opinion: If the FAA decides they didn't like something you did, they are going to pull your certificate.  Despite the change in legislation giving some kind of appeal, they write the rules and, by and large, they STILL get to interpret them, AFTER the fact.

[jetdriven]

thats administrative law.

[MikeOH]

1 hour ago, jetdriven said:

thats administrative law.

I'm well aware of that.

What's your point?

[thinwing]

well the problem as i see it...a non avation savvy judge can ultimately deside if a potential site used as a landing area (not an airport)is an apropriate landing area.The judge in the Trent Palmer case sites "lack of a windsock"and runway markings as a basis of appropriate landing site,This is contrary to what is currently taught to pilots operating in non airport environments.

[jaylw314]

25 minutes ago, thinwing said:

well the problem as i see it...a non avation savvy judge can ultimately deside if a potential site used as a landing area (not an airport)is an apropriate landing area.The judge in the Trent Palmer case sites "lack of a windsock"and runway markings as a basis of appropriate landing site,This is contrary to what is currently taught to pilots operating in non airport environments.

IIRC he's appealing, which means it will be heard by an NTSB judge, right? Or is it some kind of NTSB administrative panel?

Edited June 16, 2022 by jaylw314

[thinwing]

On 6/16/2022 at 12:24 PM, jaylw314 said:

IIRC he's appealing, which means it will be heard by an NTSB judge, right? Or is it some kind of NTSB administrative panel?

correct...another administrative judge if I understand the appeal process correctly

[MikeOH]

On 6/17/2022 at 1:56 PM, thinwing said:

correct...another administrative judge if I understand the appeal process correctly

Vague memory that you CAN now, ultimately, appeal to a non-administrative court (i.e. 'regular' federal court).

Not 100% sure on this.  Hopefully, the experts will be along to confirm or deny!