Air Wagner..... He’s baaaaackk.

3gu53h.jpg

MY TURN! MY TURN! PICK ON ME!!!!!!!!!!
https://www.youtube.com/user/GeoffreyThorpe123

It doesn't matter why you watch, as long as you watch!!!!!!!!!!! :)
 
I can't confirm which one it was, but there was one where he broke out in at least a 45 degree bank, and thought that was the one he busted minimums. If he's the pilot you say he is, there's no way he should be breaking out like that. As far as the idea, I saw the video. I've flown long enough that I know what REALLY bad approach looks like.

I can't agree with your description. He (as well as his ATP co-conspirator) clearly lost situational awareness on this approach trying to get lower than the published altitude necessary for separation from terrain. I think that's an issue. They also completely fumbled the departure procedure. That could have easily resulted in a loss of separation. That's an issue, too.

They maintained the altitude on the approach, they just felt it was steep. I didn't see the departure. Maybe you should ask them?

Understand that you can't argue with someone who thinks this is a good way to break out on an ILS and shows good airmanship.
View attachment 79849

I didn't see that one. That's not good.

I offered this on another message board, but no one has cashed in yet. If you get a selfie with yourself and Jerry W I will send you $100.

I've met him. Nice guy. Plane is beautiful.
 
It's one of those he removed. I captured that before it was remote.


That was the death spiral video, I don't think he realized what had happened until it was pointed out to him, he fixed it as soon as he popped out, but I'm not sure he would have fixed it in time in if he were still in the crud.
 
They maintained the altitude on the approach, they just felt it was steep.

No, that's not what I am talking about. The approach plate had an assigned altitude of 7700 for the closest feeder route to CISBI due to a large mountain peak (6596). The approach controller assigned them 8000-- I presume that is because they weren't on the feeder route, and 8000 was the minimum vectoring altitude due to that large peak you can see on the approach plate. They mistakenly thought the approach plate said they could descend to cross CISBI 6000. They asked the controller for lower based on that misunderstanding. The controller didn't clarify which altitude they needed to fly to be safe. Instead, they were cleared for the approach, which gives them the clearance to descend to the altitude on the plate. If they are thinking that the plate tells them that it is okay to cross CISBI at 6000 rather than their assigned 8000 until CISBI, being given the instruction "cleared for RNAV 03 approach" could have resulted in disaster.

Fortunately, they were so screwed up that they ended up not descending when they should, which is what resulted in their not being able to get down to land without having to go around. But at least they didn't hit the mountain.
 
Last edited:
No, that's not what I am talking about. The approach plate had an assigned altitude of 7700 for the closest feeder route to CISBI due to a large mountain peak (6596). The approach controller assigned them 8000-- I presume that is because they weren't on the feeder route, and 8000 was the minimum vectoring altitude due to that large peak you can see on the approach plate. They mistakenly thought the approach plate said they could descend to cross CISBI 6000. They asked the controller for lower based on that misunderstanding. The controller didn't clarify which altitude they needed to fly to be safe. Instead, they were cleared for the approach, which gives them the clearance to descend to the altitude on the plate. If they are thinking that the plate tells them that it is okay to cross CISBI at 6000 rather than their assigned 8000 until CISBI, being given the instruction "cleared for RNAV 03 approach" could have resulted in disaster.

Fortunately, they were so screwed up that they ended up not descending when they should, which is what resulted in their not being able to get down to land without having to go around. But at least they didn't hit the mountain.
The answer to "too steep" is simpler than that. It was an LPV approach with a very normal 3 degree glidepath. Cross CISBI AT 8000 as instructed. Descend to 6000 after crossing CISBI, pick up the glidepath and follow it in. It's a very simple approach.

that's really the point. Both the SID and the approach were simple.

the other thing they did was switch to VTF. That would have removed the CISBI WULFIE leg from their course guidance.
 
Last edited:
It was an LPV approach with a very normal 3 degree glidepath. Cross CISBI AT 8000 as instructed. Descend to 6000 after crossing CISBI, pick up the glidepath and follow it in. It's a very simple approach.
Agreed. That's how it should have been done, and it should have been simple. However, my point was that he misread what the minimum safe altitude was until CISBI and accordingly attempted to get lower based on that misunderstanding. That could have caused him to hit the rocks.
 
Agreed. That's how it should have been done, and it should have been simple. However, my point was that he misread what the minimum safe altitude was until CISBI and accordingly attempted to get lower based on that misunderstanding. That could have caused him to hit the rocks.

I must have not been paying close enough attention because I thought he said the crossing and decent to altitudes correctly.
 
I hope the commentary on this video prompted them to take another look at the chart and recognize their misunderstanding. Hopefully that’s why it was taken down.
 
I must have not been paying close enough attention because I thought he said the crossing and decent to altitudes correctly.

At 26:42 he says “The controller gave us 8000 to CISBI; 6000 is the crossing. Was she keeping us higher for traffic, terrain, or is that a new procedure? Just curious.”
 
At 26:42 he says “The controller gave us 8000 to CISBI; 6000 is the crossing. Was she keeping us higher for traffic, terrain, or is that a new procedure? Just curious.”

So, they made a mistake on reading the plate. I'm pretty sure the airplane would have altered them to the low altitude if they'd somehow been in lost comms, and IMC, and initiated the approach that way.

Sometimes I just think people are looking to go after people they don't like.
 
So, they made a mistake on reading the plate. I'm pretty sure the airplane would have altered them to the low altitude if they'd somehow been in lost comms, and IMC, and initiated the approach that way.

Sometimes I just think people are looking to go after people they don't like.
You said he’s a nice guy. I’m assuming that means you know him. If he’s your friend you should talk to him before he’s your dead friend.

I think most of the comments here are motivated by a strong urge felt by most pilots to make it clear to everyone that didn’t notice that what he’s doing is not ok and extremely dangerous

mistakes reading plates are a big deal. It can kill you very quickly.
 
So, they made a mistake on reading the plate. I'm pretty sure the airplane would have altered them to the low altitude if they'd somehow been in lost comms, and IMC, and initiated the approach that way.

Sometimes I just think people are looking to go after people they don't like.
Two plates. Easy ones. And it's not as if it were the first time.

See, the problem isn't mistakes. Jerry is hardly the only YouTuber who makes them and leaves them in. The difference between Jerry and most others which I think causes most of the negativity, is that Jerry makes the same ones over and over and rarely if ever owns them.

A good example is the misreading of this approach chart. Constant banter and distraction in a critical phase of flight. Two pilots misread a dirt simple approach plate. Their assessment? The controller "screwed up." So they cancel IFR, and, incorrectly believing they are too high, do a completely unnecessary steep spiral on a perfectly normal approach. (As an aside, note the excellent lesson in the domino effect of a series of mistakes.)

Pointed out in milder comments, Jerry's response is not, "oops yes, we messed that up." It's an insistence that the controller should have read the chart to him (yes, really).

Problem is, it's nothing new. I mentioned my favorite Fullerton SID episode earlier. In one of his dive-bombing ILS into OAK (which he knows like the back of his hand) he gets thrown because he gets vectored to the final approach course instead of direct GROVE!

I actually like Jerry. And yes, there are one ir two cases in which comments have led to positive procedural changes. But, overall, it is the consistency of this kind of behavior and the insistence that his mistakes are not his fault that I think leads to most of the hateful comments.
 
Last edited:
And ample evidence of exactly why there will never ever be cameras of any stripe in any aircraft being piloted by yours truly. Less evidence made means less to burn.
 
Last edited:
I don’t care for him and I don’t feel sorry for him in the least. He’s displayed arrogance instead of owning up to his mistakes. His flying boarders on pure stupidity at times. Clear FAR violations and when presented with evidence of such, he promptly removes the vids from YT.

To me, there are far better examples on the internet for learning on instrument training. There are better examples on how to fly a light twin as well. @Radar Contact being one of them. You won’t see Kevin making gross mental errors like this and you won’t see him buzzing subdivisions at 100 ft either.

No one is perfect and we all make mistakes but not to this degree and we don’t post them on the internet for all to see. What’s scary is, I wonder what things he’s done and not posted them. Like a DUI question in the medical forum. You know they’ve done it many times, they’ve just only been caught once.
 
Two pilots misread a dirt simple approach plate. Their assessment? The controller "screwed up." So they cancel IFR, and, incorrectly believing they are too high, do a completely unnecessary steep spiral on a perfectly normal approach. (As an aside, note the excellent lesson in the domino effect of a series of mistakes.)
I'm glad you pointed that out. One thing we can all do to reduce risk is adopt an attitude where anytime somebody surprises us in a way like this controller did - no matter how firmly we believe we are right and they are confused - is to use that surprise as a trigger to take a step back, assess the big picture, retrace our steps, and question how we could have made a mistake that could have led to that statement. I've caught myself that way countless times. It can be simple things like a wrong altimeter setting. It can be more severe things like missing a fix in my flight plan or misreading an altitude constraint.

So: Instead of dismissing the surprise with a "he's wrong", ask yourself: "why would he think that?" What you find out might save your life one day.

- Martin
 
Thanks for the video repost. I'm not instrument rated, but it sounds like they botched the departure *and* approach! At 3:40, the guy-on-the-left (there really is no PIC) puts the airplane in a big right turn because he thinks the DP calls for it. At 6:10, Jerry gets chatty with ATC and essentially asks them to explain the DP to him. At 8:10, in between actual important radio calls, ATC explains that the right turn they made was for lost comms only. At 8:36, they realize their mistake and yuk it up. Nice flying, guys. Are either of them instrument rated?

 
Last edited:
This last video, uploaded yesterday, he calls left downwind at an untowered field and proceeds to enter right downwind. When called out by a commenter he said that another pilot in the pattern was "clearly a lowtime pilot or student".

The other one I remember was when he almost turned an OEI demonstration into a VMC roll demonstration.

One thing I can't take away from the guy, he's got a bigger bank account than I do. That's a nice flipping airplane.

And for God's sake, how does Steve-O get a 709 ride and this guy doesn't?
 
Thanks for the video repost. I'm not instrument rated, but it sounds like they botched the departure *and* approach! At 3:40, the guy-on-the-left (there really is no PIC) puts the airplane in a big right turn because he thinks the DP calls for it. At 6:10, Jerry gets chatty with ATC and essentially asks them to explain the DP to him. At 8:10, in between actual important radio calls, ATC explains that the right turn they made was for lost comms only. At 8:36, they realize their mistake and yuk it up. Nice flying, guys. Are either of them instrument rated?
Actually, it's not the lost com procedure either. My guess is the controller had no idea what was going through their minds, although it's pretty clear what they thought when you watch that segment with the chart.
 
So, they made a mistake on reading the plate. I'm pretty sure the airplane would have altered them to the low altitude if they'd somehow been in lost comms, and IMC, and initiated the approach that way.

Sometimes I just think people are looking to go after people they don't like.
Dude, there is a group of pilots here talking about this guy because WE ALL share the airspace with him... or we are underneath him. I don't care if hes nice, or not... he is putting himself, his pax and people on the ground at risk. This generates discussion on a forum about flying. He is putting himself out there. I am sure there are people who don't like other aviation Vloggers, however if they are flying safely they don't open themselves up to such criticism. As mentioned, if I knew this guy and liked him, I would be letting him know I am concerned. And for the record, I have watched his videos for a while.
 
I assume standards are higher for professionals like SteveO.


Tom
My understanding was that it touched on the 135 side of things (empty leg maybe? I don't remember the details) and that's why the FSDO made a mountain out of that particular molehill. To be fair, FSDO makes mountains out of molehills for a living and I digress....
 
Yeah, you're right, there's definitely nothing in his videos that would make me not want to fly with him.

I'd much rather fly with him than Malibu Flyer.

You said he’s a nice guy. I’m assuming that means you know him. If he’s your friend you should talk to him before he’s your dead friend.

I think most of the comments here are motivated by a strong urge felt by most pilots to make it clear to everyone that didn’t notice that what he’s doing is not ok and extremely dangerous

mistakes reading plates are a big deal. It can kill you very quickly.

He's an acquaintance. He's based at the airport where I have my plane annualed and we have mutual friends. He's exceptionally kind and good to talk to, and values safety. He also knows the aircraft he operates exceptionally and takes criticism to heart. I think the biggest problem is people going on the extremist offensive, especially when it is crying wolf (like with the ILS that people thought was below mins and really wasn't).

Two plates. Easy ones. And it's not as if it were the first time.

See, the problem isn't mistakes. Jerry is hardly the only YouTuber who makes them and leaves them in. The difference between Jerry and most others which I think causes most of the negativity, is that Jerry makes the same ones over and over and rarely if ever owns them.

A good example is the misreading of this approach chart. Constant banter and distraction in a critical phase of flight. Two pilots misread a dirt simple approach plate. Their assessment? The controller "screwed up." So they cancel IFR, and, incorrectly believing they are too high, do a completely unnecessary steep spiral on a perfectly normal approach. (As an aside, note the excellent lesson in the domino effect of a series of mistakes.)

Pointed out in milder comments, Jerry's response is not, "oops yes, we messed that up." It's an insistence that the controller should have read the chart to him (yes, really).

Problem is, it's nothing new. I mentioned my favorite Fullerton SID episode earlier. In one of his dive-bombing ILS into OAK (which he knows like the back of his hand) he gets thrown because he gets vectored to the final approach course instead of direct GROVE!

I actually like Jerry. And yes, there are one ir two cases in which comments have led to positive procedural changes. But, overall, it is the consistency of this kind of behavior and the insistence that his mistakes are not his fault that I think leads to most of the hateful comments.

Changes to known procedures can throw a lot of people. The one time I didn't get "fly heading 120 after OCN" heading home threw me, and I asked a question. The controller even seemed annoyed, which was silly, given that he should have known what I was expecting.

I don't disagree that he's done certain problematic things, but is that on most of his flight?

Really??? It's no big deal because "the airplane would have alerted them"?

double-face-palm-when-the-fail-is-so-strong-one-218551051.png

Yeah, that's not what I'm saying.

I'm glad you pointed that out. One thing we can all do to reduce risk is adopt an attitude where anytime somebody surprises us in a way like this controller did - no matter how firmly we believe we are right and they are confused - is to use that surprise as a trigger to take a step back, assess the big picture, retrace our steps, and question how we could have made a mistake that could have led to that statement. I've caught myself that way countless times. It can be simple things like a wrong altimeter setting. It can be more severe things like missing a fix in my flight plan or misreading an altitude constraint.

So: Instead of dismissing the surprise with a "he's wrong", ask yourself: "why would he think that?" What you find out might save your life one day.

- Martin

I'm not surprised you're the one saying something reasonable here, because that's how you always are. It's why I always enjoy you perspective.

Why did both of them miss that on the instruction? Was it how they were reading the chart? How the controller was delivering the vector? Their excessive chatter? They had plates on iPads, the 750s and the G600s, so you'd think they'd have spotted it. Both are experience IFR pilots, regardless of our opinions of them. Why would they miss this? Could we miss this?

This last video, uploaded yesterday, he calls left downwind at an untowered field and proceeds to enter right downwind. When called out by a commenter he said that another pilot in the pattern was "clearly a lowtime pilot or student".

The other one I remember was when he almost turned an OEI demonstration into a VMC roll demonstration.

One thing I can't take away from the guy, he's got a bigger bank account than I do. That's a nice flipping airplane.

And for God's sake, how does Steve-O get a 709 ride and this guy doesn't?

I don't think Steve got a 709 ride. I think they

Dude, there is a group of pilots here talking about this guy because WE ALL share the airspace with him... or we are underneath him. I don't care if hes nice, or not... he is putting himself, his pax and people on the ground at risk. This generates discussion on a forum about flying. He is putting himself out there. I am sure there are people who don't like other aviation Vloggers, however if they are flying safely they don't open themselves up to such criticism. As mentioned, if I knew this guy and liked him, I would be letting him know I am concerned. And for the record, I have watched his videos for a while.

Yeah, and pilots like to act like sewing circles, gossiping about who can do what better. You also presume folks don't say something when it needs to be said.

I assume standards are higher for professionals like SteveO.


Tom

Steve is exercising commercial pilot privileges. Jerry is flying Part 91 personal and maybe business flights. There is a difference to the FSDO.

My understanding was that it touched on the 135 side of things (empty leg maybe? I don't remember the details) and that's why the FSDO made a mountain out of that particular molehill. To be fair, FSDO makes mountains out of molehills for a living and I digress....

Does he even do 135 work with the TBM? I thought those were all 91 business flights?
 
I'd much rather fly with him than Malibu Flyer.
Interesting. I'd go up with Malibu Flyer any time.

BTW I agree partially with you on the "below minimums" approach because I know cameras and eyes do not see the same things. He might have had 1/2 mile viz and he might not.
 
Interesting. I'd go up with Malibu Flyer any time.

I've seen far too much reliance on automation, leading to botched approaches and some really poorly done landings on his channel. Seems like a nice enough guy, but with major issues with skill and proficiency flying a whole lot of airplane. Those are things I would not worry about with Jerry.
 
I've seen far too much reliance on automation, leading to botched approaches and some really poorly done landings on his channel. Seems like a nice enough guy, but with major issues with skill and proficiency flying a whole lot of airplane. Those are things I would not worry about with Jerry.
I see the opposite. Looking only at the YouTube personas (since I know neither personally), with Malibu I see a pilot who makes mistakes, but recognizes them, admits them, owns them, accepts criticism gracefully, and works to correct them. With Jerry, I see something very different.

I would absolutely love to see a comment from Jerry along the lines of, "boy, we really messed up misreading two charts in the same flight! I've done that before. Guess it's time to check my procedures and see if I can do better." Instead, even after the two chart screwups we got insistence it was ATCs fault, not his and Mike's.

That's not to say Jerry is immune from learning. I watched the threads which led to his mounted approach checklists to workaround the GTN-autopilot GPS glidepath capture incompatibility issue. But that's a rarity for the Air Wagner persona.
 
Interesting. I'd go up with Malibu Flyer any time.

BTW I agree partially with you on the "below minimums" approach because I know cameras and eyes do not see the same things. He might have had 1/2 mile viz and he might not.

In this vid, even though he mentions he’s got 1/2 mile flight vis, there’s no way he’s got it. OAK was reporting 1200 RVR which went to 1000 during the approach. You can see in the nose cam at the end, when he tries to say “got the runway” he’s just prior to the 3 light approach light and passing over Airport Drive. That’s less than 1/4 mile off the runway or about the 1000-1200 RVR that tower is reporting.

 
Why did both of them miss that on the instruction? Was it how they were reading the chart? How the controller was delivering the vector? Their excessive chatter? They had plates on iPads, the 750s and the G600s, so you'd think they'd have spotted it.

Both are experience IFR pilots, regardless of our opinions of them. Why would they miss this? Could we miss this?

- lack of a pre departure briefing
- lack of a approach briefing
-- unfamiliarity with 2-pilot cockpit operations
- distraction by conversations not immediately related to the safe conduct of the flight
- distraction by personal electronic devices in the cockpit.
 
In this vid, even though he mentions he’s got 1/2 mile flight vis, there’s no way he’s got it. OAK was reporting 1200 RVR which went to 1000 during the approach. You can see in the nose cam at the end, when he tries to say “got the runway” he’s just prior to the 3 light approach light and passing over Airport Drive. That’s less than 1/4 mile off the runway or about the 1000-1200 RVR that tower is reporting.

The prize he won for "being the first one in today" is not being dead.
 
In this vid, even though he mentions he’s got 1/2 mile flight vis, there’s no way he’s got it. OAK was reporting 1200 RVR which went to 1000 during the approach. You can see in the nose cam at the end, when he tries to say “got the runway” he’s just prior to the 3 light approach light and passing over Airport Drive. That’s less than 1/4 mile off the runway or about the 1000-1200 RVR that tower is reporting.

I've seen it - both versions and I agree with what the camera shows. But my point is "the nose cam" means nothing. Neither does the reported RVR. It's all about what the pilot, not a camera sees when he looks up.

I agree with @N1120A on this point: you watch Jerry enough and you develop an implicit bias to view everything he does in the worst possible light. I have it too but I recognize it and try (usually unsuccessfully) to combat it.
 
- lack of a pre departure briefing
- lack of a approach briefing
-- unfamiliarity with 2-pilot cockpit operations
- distraction by conversations not immediately related to the safe conduct of the flight
- distraction by personal electronic devices in the cockpit.
If you want to use Jerry as an educational jumping point, you can. There are a lot more you can add to the list, as well as some specific strategies for handling them.

An interesting one, perhaps strangely enough, under-reliance on the electronics. If between all the avionics which could do it, one had the flight plan page open, the 7700' published crossing altitude for CISBI would have been staring them in the face and the 8,000 off-route instruction made absolute sense.

I have a slight issue with the first two. We also never actually saw them brief the (departure or) approach, but that doesn't mean they didn't. Could simply be editing. After all Jerry says they looked at the crossing altitude four times.
 
I don't think Steve got a 709 ride. I think they

Does he even do 135 work with the TBM? I thought those were all 91 business flights?

SteveO does part 135 in Caravans, and he got a 709 ride.
 
The prize he won for "being the first one in today" is not being dead.

Exactly. There’s a reason why he’s the first on in. Because everyone else isn’t going to shoot an approach with 1200 RVR.
 
Back
Top