I just happened to watch this video today that says you do own the airspace over your property. Therefore a low flying stunt where they went in low over a neighbours property and low over yours as well, yes that can be a legal can of worms so to speak and could be considered misdemeanor criminal trespassing. Aircraft flying at a regulated altitude is considered public easement, but you still own the airspace

 

Edited May 3, 20224 yr by Matthew Kane

When I took my FAA check ride for my commercial we were just about done and I were heading back to Sky Ranch.  Suddenly the examiner asked me where I would go if I had an emergency.  I told home Buckley Air Base.  He said why not Denver Stapleton, it's almost as close and if I landed at a military base I could lose my license.  I told him Buckey's still closer and I trust the Air Force crash crews more than I trust the Denver Fore Department crash crews.  He didn't say anything else and after we landed he passed me.

Noel

Hopefully this gets appealed and is successful. 

Can't they get a judge with a tiny bit more knowledge of the FAA's regs?   A judge stating that a field lacking runway lighting cannot be landed on...that is really moronic and demonstrates a complete lack of knowledge of the FAA's regulations.

That said, it sounds like something is/was going on between those neighbors.  It's a little off-putting to realize your buddy flew by the neighbor with a megaphone on Christmas morning swearing at people to wake up.  That is asking for trouble.

What FAA decision-makers need to bear in mind, is the message this sends in regards to promoting not only themselves, their credibility and fairness, but more importantly, their remit of promoting responsible behaviour in pilots. Trent is an engaging and enthusiastic youtube personality, but more than this, his consistently responsible and indeed educational behaviour on his flight videos, is a credit to private pilots everywhere. This is clearly evidenced by his careful analysis during the flight which is being called into question here. Not for him the cavalier 'get there itis' notion of landing at his friend's airstrip regardless; instead, rather a laudable and sensible appraisal of the safety of the potential landing (and this according to the FAA's own published guide on this procedure) and having done this, a pragmatic decision to not go ahead with landing even though it would disappoint his friend, with this being cited as the complete opposite of what it actually was - i.e. a very prudent thing to do - possibly exacerbated by some kind of feud/spitefulness from a neighbour.

In recent months we've seen completely contrasting behaviour from a number of pilots who have not displayed any of this personal level of a professional and safe attitude Trent displayed, most notably from Trevor Jacob with his ridiculous, dangerous and selfish staged crash. That both these pilots should find themselves under investigation despite being poles apart in terms of their levels of responsibility and the promotion of their respective attitudes, should seriously have the FAA taking a long hard look at themselves and recognising that they are not only ignoring their own published guidelines on this, but also in danger of becoming complicit in what looks very much like the actions of a neighbour's point-scoring, and this at the expense of a pilot who has consistently been a great presence on youtube with regard to flying responsibly. Hopefully they will recognise this and make a suitable amendment to their decision about Trent.

The FAA has a job to do of course, but as we know, rules are for the obedience of fools and guidance of wise men, so they need to decide which of these two they are, and apply their rulings accordingly. I don't think anyone doubts the wisdom of their decision with regard to Trevor Jacob, and one might even suggest it was fairly lenient under the circumstances, but to similarly wave the ban bat at Trent, who displayed the epitome of good judgement and the following of rules on this occasion, sends a very bad message with regard to the FAA and its related case judge's credibility.

Edited May 4, 20224 yr by Chock

@Chock that is an excellent observation that I didn't catch - that both Jacob & Trent find themselves skewered but with the former totally deserving of it. Poles apart is right.

>>>>>>

Like so many things in life its a roll of the dice when it comes to the feds. The report could have landed on a fed who would have seen that this was actionable by talking to the neighbor and Trent and leaving it at that.

Instead it lands on the desk of someone who seems hell bent on dragging Trent through the grinder.

Heres hoping the appeal works, is AOPA making a noise I wonder? Will go see.

Bureaucrats are only happy when they get a new regulation to enforce or when they can rake someone over the coals for what they think is a violation based on flimsiest evidence.

Noel

Edited May 4, 20224 yr by birdguy

I think there are some important facts missing, as is often the case when only one side in a dispute tells their story.  A square 10-acre lot is only 208 ft on a side...I'd like to see the neighborhood plot to see just what this guy claims he intended to land on--could well be that the FAA guys looked at it and concluded that it wasn't at all reasonable or safe to attempt a landing on a rural residential lot in that neighborhood.  The fact that it went to a hearing means it was reviewed by more than just the one FAA examiner, so odds are high that there's more to this story. 

It wouldn't be the first time a guy got caught red-handed buzzing someone's property and claimed "I was gonna land" or "I had carb icing".

2 hours ago, Bob Scott said:

A square 10-acre lot is only 208 ft on a side.

I think that is a 1 acre lot. A 10 acre lot would be 660ft on a side. I could be wrong, though. There's always a first time.

2 hours ago, Bob Scott said:

I think there are some important facts missing, as is often the case when only one side in a dispute tells their story.  A square 10-acre lot is only 208 ft on a side...

@dmwalker Dugald is correct...208 ft x 208 ft is 1 acre.  Assuming this is a square it would be 660 ft x 660 ft but it could have been an irregular shape.

42 minutes ago, Mace said:

Assuming this is a square it would be 660 ft x 660 ft but it could have been an irregular shape.

And it wasn't square then one dimension would have had to be more than 660 feet.  And even if it were square the corner to corner dimension (hypotenuse) would have been 933 feet.

Noel

 

Yeah, I left a zero out when I converted acres to square feet.  But the point remains the same...a rural residential lot being used as a landing strip could present all kinds of potential safety issues, depending on where buildings and other obstructions are, how close the flight path would come to other people's homes and property etc.

Still, before we rush to judgement, canonize the attention-seeking youtube pilot and demean the FAA guys involved as mindless beaurocrats, it might be good to know "the rest of the story", as the late Paul Harvey used to say.

He says the case is going to go before an administrative law judge (so-called Art I court) at NTSB, so at least in theory FAA does not have a direct say in the outcome.

 

scott s.

.