Aviation Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for aircraft pilots, mechanics, and enthusiasts. It only takes a minute to sign up.
Sign up to join this community
To summarize, he made a low pass over a potential off-airport landing site to check whether or not it was suitable. He says that it was legal because it was necessary for the purpose of landing; the FAA disagrees. They are also charging him with careless or reckless operation.
What exactly did he supposedly do wrong? Wouldn't it be reckless to land on an unfamiliar site without making a low pass to assess the suitability of the landing site?
Specifically, the FAA alleges that Palmer:
operated at altitudes of less than 100 feet above ground level and, more specifically, operated within approximately 50 feet of a stable, shed, or propane tank; within approximately 100 to 150 feet of a residential home at 400 Desert Sun Lane; within 100 to 150 feet of an adult and child outside of the home; and within 300 feet of 2 adults and 2 children outside of the home and near the perimeter of the property.
The above is quoted from the NTSB order reaffirming the 120-day suspension.
The administrative law judge presiding over the case changed all of the distances to "within 500 feet," since there is inadequate evidence of the exact distances involved, but the evidence suggests that it was less than the 500 feet mentioned in 91.119(c).
The FAA maintains that low passes are not allowed to violate the altitude restrictions of 91.119. It further maintains that Palmer's intended landing spot was unsuitable for landing, and uses his own testimony and decision not to land as evidence. Also that Palmer was undertaking dangerous maneuvers at high bank angles that were unnecessary for landing.
Palmer admitted that there were alternative flight paths that could have kept him farther away from structures and still given him an appropriate viewing of the landing spot, and that he did not consider these alternatives.
The judge agreed that the spot Palmer chose was "unsuitable for landing" outside of an emergency, and that Palmer should have been able to determine that from seeing the nearby residences and structures from "any reasonable ground assessment, or a navigation map, or even a Google Earth view." Since the landing spot is unsuitable, nothing Palmer was doing could have been "necessary for landing," and so he is not excused from the requirements of 91.119.
In the FAA's opinion (and judgement!), his flight was contrary to CFR 91.119 specifically, flying within 500ft of a person, vehicle, ship or structure over a populated area.
In addition they say he operated outside of CFR 91.13 which covers reckless operation of an aircraft.
The judgement states:
The law judge ruled that the Administrator proved by a preponderance of the evidence that respondent operated a low altitude flight in violation of 14 C.F.R. §§ 91.119(a), (c) and 91.13(a) but identified mitigating factors justifying a reduced penalty
Palmer called it an "inspection pass" and not a "go-around".
A "go-around" is a very different thing in the eyes of aviators. There are two huge and opposing forces on go-arounds: foolish pilots trying to stick bad approaches plus tremendous pressure from "the company" to avoid the fuel cost and dispatching impact of a go-around. Versus, everyone who cares about safety, pushing back to protect pilots so they are free to choose go-arounds when warranted, without any fear of consequence or blowback.
Palmer should have argued that of relying on the friend's claims that the field was fit for service, and was intending to land. Then claimed to unexpectedly see something that made the field unfit, so went around and then diverted to an alternate field. At that point people would be getting on their feet to defend the call.
As things are, Palmer flat admitted this was not quite really an airport, hence warranting an off-airport-style inspection pass, and that could've been done from 500 feet. I don't know the particulars but I'd bet that the obstruction that caused Palmer to cancel the landing was readily visible from 500 feet.
So, this is a mess. Right now, it's doing the worst thing imaginable, which is to encourage pilots to head straight in and try to stick landings on marginal or defective sites that look worse and worse the closer they get. Because if they go around, well, then, that's an "inspection pass" and they're in the soup right next to Trent.
I think the fallout here is going to be, well, hopefully some refinement of the procedure for off airport landings.
The FAA had literature which advised pilots do arguably what Palmer did, so there's probably going to be an acquittal on appeal. The punishment here is not severe, so the case is entirely about "the principle of the thing" e.g. defining statutory, clear "lines in the sand" to guide future sport pilots. I completely support Trent's willingness to appeal, because I think "good law" (well, good regulation) will come out of it.
