Trenton Palmer, an experienced private pilot, flew his aircraft at an altitude of less than 100 feet above ground level and within 500 feet of people and structures near Reno, Nevada. The FAA investigated and charged Palmer with violating 14 C.F.R. § 91.119, which establishes minimum safe altitudes, and § 91.13(a), which prohibits careless or reckless operation. Palmer argued his low flight was necessary to inspect a potential landing site, which he claimed exempted him under the regulation's prefatory language. An administrative law judge found Palmer violated the regulations, rejecting his defense that the flight was necessary for landing because he had safer alternatives and the site was unsuitable. The NTSB affirmed the ALJ's decision and reinstated the FAA's original 120-day suspension, rejecting the ALJ's mitigation to 60 days. Palmer petitioned the D.C. Circuit, challenging the ALJ's evidentiary rulings, the sufficiency of the FAA's complaint, and the NTSB's deference to the FAA's sanction.
The court addressed three primary arguments. First, regarding the violation of minimum safe altitudes, the court clarified that the exception for flights 'necessary for takeoff or landing' is an affirmative defense, not an element of the violation. Citing Supreme Court precedent, the court explained that the government has no duty to negative an exception in its complaint. The ALJ and NTSB reasonably found that Palmer failed to prove his flight was necessary, as he had safer alternatives to inspect the landing site and did not follow FAA guidance recommending multiple passes at varying altitudes. Second, the court rejected Palmer's claim that the complaint was deficient for failing to allege the flight was unnecessary. The complaint provided a short and plain statement of the claim, satisfying federal pleading standards. Third, the court addressed the mishandling of video evidence. While the FAA was negligent in losing the original video, the court found that dismissal was not an appropriate remedy absent malfeasance, especially since the ALJ excluded the video and its derivative testimony, and other evidence supported the violation. Finally, the court addressed Palmer's request to overrule Pham v. NTSB regarding sanction deference. The court held that a three-judge panel cannot overrule a prior panel decision under the law-of-the-circuit doctrine. The court explained that the statutory scheme in aviation law creates a split enforcement regime where the NTSB defers to the FAA's sanction choice, distinguishing it from other regulatory schemes where the adjudicatory body has final authority.
The decision reinforces the binding nature of the Pham precedent, confirming that the NTSB must defer to the FAA's choice of sanction in aviation enforcement cases unless the sanction is unwarranted in law or fact. It clarifies that pilots bear the burden of proving the 'necessary for takeoff or landing' exception as an affirmative defense, and that complaints need not explicitly negate this exception. The ruling also sets a high bar for dismissing cases due to evidence mishandling, requiring a showing of malfeasance rather than mere negligence.
Podcast (federal-narrative-summaries): Play in new window | Download