He said that Guthmiller knew about the ditching in the Pacific before it happened. I forget the guy's name, and I really care too little to look it but. But it appears a guy staged a ditching of a Bo to get notoriety. There was communication between Guthmiller and the guy right before the ditching. The guy's gf was wearing a shorty wet suit under her jeans at the time of the ditching. Guthmiller had a full video ready to go within hours of the ditching, before most people even knew it happened. It looked like a setup to me.
No doubt. That global girl needs to be locked up.
That was discussed extensively here. Personally, I felt the "it was staged" theory was seriously lacking in plausibility. I didn't hear about the wet suit, though. How do you know this?
Gryder organized a fly in last summer. He invited people with aviation related youtube channels and gave awards for things like most views, most new subscribers, etc.
I saw info on it last year and I was nearby. Seemed interesting but poorly marketed giving the impression that’s its exclusive and not for us normies. So I skipped it. I’m also going to be in the same state this year, but it’s setting up to be just as exclusive.
FYI: the NTSB factual documents are usually allowed in court and in some situations it can matter.
If I understand the process properly, the investigator's 'Factual Report' is examined by the board itself, which decides on a Probable Cause. The typical docket will include the lab reports, photos, etc. I can see courts being willing to examine that data. In many cases the "Final" report differs from the "Factual" only in that a Probable Cause is included.
To the best of my knowledge, every NTSB case has a Prelim, Factual, and Final report regardless of the industry: aviation, rail, marine, etc. But you got it backwards. Final reports/probable causes (and witness statements, etc.) are not allowed because they are opinions, but factual reports or data is. There is plenty of legal guidance and history on this. And on every NTSB Final Report is the statement below which links you to the allowable factual report. While it's my understanding there are some unique cases that refused the use of factual reports, these were considered outliers only. But I've never seen or heard of a final report/probable cause allowed in court in my experience.
The courts are split in the issue, with many separating factual content from evaluation.
There was a long thread about him here:
You're half right. He liked to run to his lawyer and file lawsuits. Having money...no. Nice planes? Mooney for a while, Glasair for a short time, the Cirrus controversy (see the link Palmpilot posted). Some light homebuilts with unknown airworthiness.
How is disagreeing with him and sharing opinions equal to cancel culture? No one here is trying to cancel him. That’s silly.
Maybe a Skyhawk, but mine trimmed for takeoff will bleed speed quickly in the absence of power. Don't believe it? Do it. Get up to altitude, and then have the guy in the right seat pull the power. Speed will bleed fast.
It seems like he would need to know what type you're flying in order to replicate your results.
I fly a short body Mooney. Part of this is that the light aircraft used for trainers don't really rely on trim all that much. Heavier aircraft do, mine is especially trim happy. Trim for takeoff and loose the mill you're pushing hard. Take off in the landing configuration (as in a go around) and you're pushing really hard. If you aren't pushing you're risking a departure stall.
