Dan Gruyder At it again TBM Warbird Beaching

P

PaulS

Touchdown! Greaser!
Joined
May 29, 2007
Messages
14,036
Location
New England
Display Name
Display name:
PaulS
I find it hard to disagree with his points here. Seem like a lot of stupid going on with these warbirds. Would like to hear what others think, you need to watch to the end. I did watch the video of Rush hitting the water and it did look close, I thought it might be the camera angle, but apparently he did just miss some swimmers. Why?

 
I like this Dan guy.

Here he puts names and their failed responsibilities to the Swiss cheese risk model.

The air boss/smoke system exchange could have sent the Avenger back to land in one piece.

Luckily no fatalities, and a strong reminder that someone else might have missed something very critical, and you may be the last link to prevent an accident.
 
Last edited:
I think he's right about most of his opinions.
 
He took too long to start to make a point. I quit watching.
 
What does Dan Gryden’s incident with the ordinance inspectors have to do with an obviously unsafe aviator group? He’s calling out the knuckleheads.
 
YooperMooney said:
What does Dan Gryden’s incident with the ordinance inspectors have to do with an obviously unsafe aviator group? He’s calling out the knuckleheads.
Click to expand...

Dan's C-47 suffered a gear collapse because of a part that cracked and failed. I find it interesting that he didn't condemn himself or his own maintenance practices for that, but is happy to condemn lots of other folks.
 
I agree with most of his opinions, but I find the cornball humor to be forced and not amusing.
 
His message gets distorted by the fact that he is an ass hat. But he makes some valid points, aside from blaming the airboss. It is up to the PIC to decide if his airplane is airworthy or not, not the airboss or ATC.
 
Groundpounder said:
His message gets distorted by the fact that he is an ass hat. But he makes some valid points, aside from blaming the airboss. It is up to the PIC to decide if his airplane is airworthy or not, not the airboss or ATC.
Click to expand...
Seems like the air boss has responsibility for letting it get near spectators.
 
He makes a lot of promises on future content, usually a continuation or rest of the story on the subject of his video, then doesn't follow through. Also, schtick stuff really dumbs down the content, someone must be telling him it's funny, fortunately you can skip over it.

But as far as his videos go when he is on his game, he makes you think. The background stuff, like flying for 20 minutes with smoke coming out of the engine. That **** is just stupid, no other word for it, how can we as pilots be this stupid? Especially when doing an airshow over thousands of people? I don't get it.
 
PaulS said:
That **** is just stupid, no other word for it, how can we as pilots be this stupid? Especially when doing an airshow over thousands of people? I don't get it.
Click to expand...

Well, from where I sit, to call it stupidity is a bit reductionist. It's not lack of awareness imo. Second of all, it's not "we", no matter how much faux solidarity BS they peddle at OSH or similar other carnies.

BL, there is a culture of entitlement, and a trend of what I've coined self-congratulatory imprudence, reinforced by the very financial barriers that separates these niche operations from the rest of the recreational community. Turns out affluenza is a thing among a certain demo. That quickly gets smeared as envy, but that retort is par for the course in this hobby. I could go on, but the home-on-jam shots would quickly ensue and I'm not interested in getting into another online kerfuffle with the non-regulatory, self-appointed credential types.
 
Last edited:
hindsight2020 said:
Well, from where I sit, to call it stupidity is a bit reductionist. It's not lack of awareness imo. Second of all, it's not "we", no matter how much faux solidarity BS they peddle at OSH or similar other carnies.
Click to expand...

Of course it's not "we" in the literal sense. I didn't and I'm sure you didn't have anything to do with the decision to keep flying that airplane. But it certainly is indicative of the challenges "we" as a general aviation community or more directly as pilots all encounter and let's face it, looked at as a collective "we" can do a lot better.

It is however, stupidity, I would have more empathy for lack of awareness, at least that could be explained away, although lack of awareness to this degree would eventually circle back to stupidity.

The pilot was informed of the smoke after take off, he chose to keep going. He must have known the risk of a sub par engine, but for some reason he continued. I'm thinking it was either ego, or a financial consideration. Possibly if you don't perform you don't get paid? Not so much him personally, but the entity that owns the aircraft, no performance, no pay. I don't know, but lack of awareness isn't necessarily stupid in my opinion, sometimes you don't know what you don't know. I don't think that is the case here.

hindsight2020 said:
BL, there is a culture of entitlement, and a trend of what I've coined self-congratulatory imprudence, reinforced by the very financial barriers that separates these niche operations from the rest of the recreational community. Turns out affluenza is a thing among a certain demo. That quickly gets smeared as envy, but that retort is par for the course in this hobby. I could go on, but the home-on-jam shots would quickly ensue and I'm not interested in getting into another online kerfuffle with the non-regulatory, self-appointed credential types.
Click to expand...

I think you are on target here, it's unfortunate.

In an ideal world, people or entities with unlimited disposable funds would obtain these old birds, not cut corners on getting them back to flying condition, hire appropriately skilled pilots and crew to run them and share them with the world. Unfortunately that isn't reality, keeping these aircraft in flyable shape is expensive, corners get cut, and pilots who for whatever reason want to fly them, abandon common sense and fly them when they shouldn't.
 
It's going to sound like I'm just defending the opposite side, and I'm not, necessarily. But my husband was an Air Boss for several years. It's not an uncommon practice, it's allowed, it happens a fair amount, for members of a team to be briefed by having a representative there. Or to be briefed via phone call separately. Or to be briefed one-on-one earlier or later than the briefing. As long as the info is gotten to them, they don't have to show up in person at the briefing. All briefings say "if you don't show up you don't fly", and all briefings really mean "If you don't get the briefing info from the Air Boss or a representative from your group, you don't fly." So him not attending the briefing doesn't mean he didn't get the info or did anything wrong.

It's not the Air Boss's job to decide for the PIC whether or not they have a problem. He wondered, he asked, the pilot didn't request a deviation or call an emergency at that time, but continued on. Why? I don't know. I have a friend who spoke to the pilot at length, but he hasn't discussed yet what the pilot had to say about all of it. So as far as that point goes, I'd withhold until I heard his end of it.

If he really was flying around for 20 minutes smoking (a lot), I'd definitely like to hear what he was thinking, 'cause that's pretty hard to defend.
 
As a former air boss who has known Wayne Boggs for over 30 years...the post just above this one has it exactly right. I've probably conducted as many individual air show briefs on the hood of a car, or while seated in a golf cart, as I have in hotel conference rooms or hangars filled with people. "Getting the briefing" doesn't require that you get it at the same time as everybody else, and if VAC had a team rep at the main briefing, then as far as the air boss and his FAA overseers are concerned, the briefing requirement was probably met.

Such scattershot briefings, while not ideal, are necessary and routine, especially with shows like Cocoa Beach, where the performers are spread out geographically, as they launch from different airports. Then there are situations like I had several years ago: I worked a show at Prescott, AZ, that shared a bunch of performers with a same-day show in Las Vegas. The air boss of the Las Vegas show and I had to brief half our acts by phone, since the other half were in the other city. I simply emailed a copy of my Powerpoint briefing to the performers who couldn't attend the in-person briefing, and we went over it together by phone.

And, it should be noted that it's wasn't Wayne's job to decide if the TBM was airworthy at the time it entered the waivered airspace. It was his job to be sure that the pilot was aware of what Wayne apparently believed might be an "abnormal"-- which he did. Beyond that, Wayne's just like any other controller: few of us are qualified to tell pilots of an aircraft experiencing difficulty (especially one as rare as a TBM) what to do-- "say intentions" is just controller-speak for the now-popular phrase, "How can I help"? If the TBM had asked for help, Wayne would have moved heaven and earth to make it happen. Instead, the pilot (for reasons that still aren't clear) chose to conduct the flight as if everything were normal-- right up until it wasn't.
 
Mishaps are a chain of events, each link being fairly to probably unlikely in and of themselves.

break ANY link, no mishap.

I do believe the air boss has some responsibility here.

Gruyders analysis was right. That seems pretty obvious. Turns out, I’ve met him, we have a mutual friend that introduced us. I had no clue about the seeming controversy that surrounds him. I merely listened to the video and applied common sense, and it seems to pass the smell test.

I’m usually pretty skeptical about commenting knowing there’s always a bunch I don’t know. But going along KNOWING you’re smoking for EVER... pretty much paints you in the corner.

Landing, under control, amongst swimmers, there’s just no reason. To say he skillfully dodged them, no. Not buying it.

I’m not going politically correct, not overly risk adverse, just applying good common sense. So the next step is WHY smart capable people didn’t? THAT is the key to prevention.
 
Tools said:
I do believe the air boss has some responsibility here.
Click to expand...

I'm curious, what is it you think the air boss should have done, but didn't? Or did do, but shouldn't have?

Personally, I lay more of the blame on the pilot's VAC teammates that were up in the three other airplanes-- they know the pilot, they know the airplane, they know what's "normal". If anyone could convince the pilot he had a problem that deserved more attention than he was giving it, I'd think it would be those guys.
 
flibmeister said:
I'm curious, what is it you think the air boss should have done, but didn't? Or did do, but shouldn't have?

Personally, I lay more of the blame on the pilot's VAC teammates that were up in the three other airplanes-- they know the pilot, they know the airplane, they know what's "normal". If anyone could convince the pilot he had a problem that deserved more attention than he was giving it, I'd think it would be those guys.
Click to expand...

"Air boss", who is responsible for safety, should've been more assertive. It sounds like more of an airshow culture thing as to why he didn't stop the airplane from performing, but that should change. If the "air boss" suspects something isn't right he should question the suspect aircraft. If the answer is not appropriate, or the defect is obvious the air boss should boot the offending airplane out of the show until the issue is resolved.

The biggest issue though is the need for anyone to "convince" a pilot that smoke coming out of an engine that shouldn't have smoke is a problem. We don't need those pilots flying, never mind performing in an airshow.
 
We don't stop driving cars because of stupid people racing cars in Dallas. Deal with the individual, or an organization if there is a demonstrable safety culture issue. Stop winking and nodding to the NTSB and FAA to ground everyone. That's my biggest beef with this video.
 
RyanShort1 said:
We don't stop driving cars because of stupid people racing cars in Dallas. Deal with the individual, or an organization if there is a demonstrable safety culture issue. Stop winking and nodding to the NTSB and FAA to ground everyone. That's my biggest beef with this video.
Click to expand...

I didn't get that impression from this video. I think the rub is that the FAA is supposed to be providing oversight on these operations and this office is not doing that. The thing about bureaucracies is that this sort of nonsense happens, they don't do their job for years, then something spectacular happens and everything gets shut down. Whereas if the bureaucracy did it's job, jokers like this would eventually be weeded out.

This industry, the warbird industry, should organize a membership group that self audits each other. It could be a solution rather than relying on the FAA.
 
I still haven't made up my mind about Dan, and as a warbird pilot I almost always wince when the follow on comments start by people who don't fly them ("they should all be in a museum!"), for which I don't have a polite response.

In this case I was initially expecting to be defensive for the TBM pilot because in the videos I saw it looked like he was far enough away from swimmers. That can be difficult to assess without all the camera angles.

In this case I think Dan's video shows the TBM was operated by a less than meticulous organization, and the PIC continued to fly the plane when it was clearly suffering from oil loss. It's pretty glaring when people comment on your smoke system that you don't have.

In any fly-in or airshow event here in the upper left corner if you aren't at the pilot briefing (or even 1 minute late for the start) you are on static display. End of message. I know because I'm that guy, and I've never once been butt hurt over it.

I do belong to a group of self policing warbird pilots. They urge all of us to have a binder with all current paperwork showing the plane to be airworthy (copies of recent annual showing ADs complied with, insurance, AR(r)OW documents, etc) and the pilot (medical, flight review). Be ready for a ramp check, because it is coming. None of them would ever tolerate sketchy flying habits or remain silent while a plane flew in front of the public while clearly suffering from a maintenance issue.

That was a nice TBM with what was probably a $100 problem. I think Dan got this one right.
 
aftCG said:
I still haven't made up my mind about Dan, and as a warbird pilot I almost always wince when the follow on comments start by people who don't fly them ("they should all be in a museum!"), for which I don't have a polite response.

In this case I was initially expecting to be defensive for the TBM pilot because in the videos I saw it looked like he was far enough away from swimmers. That can be difficult to assess without all the camera angles.

In this case I think Dan's video shows the TBM was operated by a less than meticulous organization, and the PIC continued to fly the plane when it was clearly suffering from oil loss. It's pretty glaring when people comment on your smoke system that you don't have.

In any fly-in or airshow event here in the upper left corner if you aren't at the pilot briefing (or even 1 minute late for the start) you are on static display. End of message. I know because I'm that guy, and I've never once been butt hurt over it.

I do belong to a group of self policing warbird pilots. They urge all of us to have a binder with all current paperwork showing the plane to be airworthy (copies of recent annual showing ADs complied with, insurance, AR(r)OW documents, etc) and the pilot (medical, flight review). Be ready for a ramp check, because it is coming. None of them would ever tolerate sketchy flying habits or remain silent while a plane flew in front of the public while clearly suffering from a maintenance issue.

That was a nice TBM with what was probably a $100 problem. I think Dan got this one right.
Click to expand...

I totally agree. I’m surprised and a little concerned over the comments above where it’s ok to miss a briefing and have someone else there for you. How air show people think this should be a normal practice is concerning. Especially with modern technology there is no excuse for a pilot to miss a briefing. If people running air shows think this should be the norm, it needs to be re thought out.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
 
PaulS said:
"Air boss", who is responsible for safety, should've been more assertive. It sounds like more of an airshow culture thing as to why he didn't stop the airplane from performing, but that should change. If the "air boss" suspects something isn't right he should question the suspect aircraft. If the answer is not appropriate, or the defect is obvious the air boss should boot the offending airplane out of the show until the issue is resolved.
Click to expand...

Trust me, Wayne can be quite assertive when he needs to be. But, in this case, I doubt he thought he needed to be-- he pointed out the smoke, the pilot didn't appear to be concerned, and none of the other five VAC pilots made an issue of it, either. Smoke is common on air show airplanes, so not an automatic harbinger of "something's wrong", as it might be in a non-air show setting.

Plus, the PIC was aware of what he (apparently) thought was a minor maintenance issue-- and, for whatever reason, judged it to be of so little consequence that an immediate return to base was not required. That kind of analysis and decision-making is something the PIC is supposed to do, not the air boss sitting on the ground with little knowledge or experience in the type of aircraft involved (not to mention having a whole lot of other things to do).

I just don't think it's reasonable to assume that Wayne should have overridden the PIC's decision-making, based on what little information he had. Especially in light of the fact that the other pilots (who were far more qualified to judge than Wayne) didn't actively object to the continuation of the TBM's flight.
 
FlightofTwo said:
It's going to sound like I'm just defending the opposite side, and I'm not, necessarily. But my husband was an Air Boss for several years. It's not an uncommon practice, it's allowed, it happens a fair amount, for members of a team to be briefed by having a representative there. Or to be briefed via phone call separately. Or to be briefed one-on-one earlier or later than the briefing. As long as the info is gotten to them, they don't have to show up in person at the briefing.
Click to expand...

What's the emoji for "I'm completely unsurprised that yet again Dan has gotten foundational facts wrong and used that idiotic lack of knowledge to slander someone"?
 
Peter Anderson said:
I totally agree. I’m surprised and a little concerned over the comments above where it’s ok to miss a briefing and have someone else there for you. How air show people think this should be a normal practice is concerning. Especially with modern technology there is no excuse for a pilot to miss a briefing. If people running air shows think this should be the norm, it needs to be re thought out.
Click to expand...
I've flown in airshows and have gotten briefings with FAA people in the room. It's NOT all that uncommon, and I've actually been to a briefing where the pilot briefed by the airboss briefed the other pilot who couldn't make it for a legitimate reason.
Many times there are separate briefings for the various flights / acts, like the Airboss might tell Tora that they are flying at X time, they need to do this and that, there is this and that plan if something goes wrong, and they are then sent to do their own separate briefing. Every time I've seen one, there were papers with schedules, maps handed out, good notes taken, the plans were followed. The briefing isn't the issue here, IMO. It's the pilot's lack of some wisdom, maybe a bit of invulnerability attitude...
 
Peter Anderson said:
I totally agree. I’m surprised and a little concerned over the comments above where it’s ok to miss a briefing and have someone else there for you. How air show people think this should be a normal practice is concerning. Especially with modern technology there is no excuse for a pilot to miss a briefing. If people running air shows think this should be the norm, it needs to be re thought out.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
Click to expand...

If the pilot is not present in person for the mass brief, he can be briefed via phone, or by another member of his organization who was present. The key is that he receives the info.

You might want to express your concerns to the Nlue Angels and Thunderbirds, because I’ve never seen their whole team at a brief, only the narrator.
 
flibmeister said:
I just don't think it's reasonable to assume that Wayne should have overridden the PIC's decision-making, based on what little information he had. Especially in light of the fact that the other pilots (who were far more qualified to judge than Wayne) didn't actively object to the continuation of the TBM's flight.
Click to expand...
Even if you are extremely concerned, if you aren't at the controls, arguing with the pilot over the air may not be effective and ties up the frequency. At the end of the day, the PIC is the problem, here. It sounds like other pilots and the airboss correctly informed him he had an issue and he didn't take appropriate action.
 
I still feel that the air boss is responsible for the safety of the spectators, and he has the authority to not allow a plane he thinks is "abnormal" to enter their vicinity, even if the pilot doesn't agree. Who else would have that authority? I'm not sure what the point of having an air boss is, if not for this type of thing. But, I'm just a mere mortal. Many things make no sense to me.
 
Salty said:
I still feel that the air boss is responsible for the safety of the spectators, and he has the authority to not allow a plane he thinks is "abnormal" to enter their vicinity, even if the pilot doesn't agree. Who else would have that authority? I'm not sure what the point of having an air boss is, if not for this type of thing. But, I'm just a mere mortal. Many things make no sense to me.
Click to expand...
I don't think that's fair towards the airboss at all. The pilots and planes have shown their certificates to the FAA, the airboss' job is to keep the show on schedule, keep things orderly, call a "knock it off" if there's a problem, and generally direct the traffic. They don't fly the airplane. Keep in mind there is also usually an FAA representative next to the airboss, and the FAA guy also has the authority to tell the airboss to send someone out of the box.
 
ateamer said:
If the pilot is not present in person for the mass brief, he can be briefed via phone, or by another member of his organization who was present. The key is that he receives the info.

You might want to express your concerns to the Nlue Angels and Thunderbirds, because I’ve never seen their whole team at a brief, only the narrator.
Click to expand...
I've seen the pre and post briefs for the Blue Angels. Detailed and professional to say the least. Like I stated earlier, with modern tech, no reason a pilot in an air show should miss a brief. I've raced cars, quads, and jet skiis for years. If you missed the brief, you didn't race. Period. Hard to believe it would be any different with airplanes.
 
Peter Anderson said:
Like I stated earlier, with modern tech, no reason a pilot in an air show should miss a brief.
Click to expand...
Then you don't have sufficient imagination. Here's one - bad weather prevented a plane from arriving, they are inbound airborne, arriving before show start time. Formation leader attends briefing, pilot is briefed by formation leader on arrival. Pending FAA clearing of the pilot and aircraft logbooks, the flight is a go. It's not rocket science, and it works. The issue here is not the briefing, nothing here is showing a smoking gun that the pilot briefing was inadequate. The issue here is the pilot's apparently deliberate choice to ignore the alleged radio transmissions at least two concerned parties (at least one VAC pilot, and apparently the airboss asking if he had a smoke system) and choosing to continue.
 
RyanShort1 said:
The issue here is not the briefing, nothing here is showing a smoking gun that the pilot briefing was inadequate. The issue here is the pilot's apparently deliberate choice to ignore the alleged radio transmissions at least two concerned parties (at least one VAC pilot, and apparently the airboss asking if he had a smoke system) and choosing to continue.
Click to expand...

This we can certainly agree on...
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top