Video and Discussion - Burley, ID accident. Was "Gryder"

[TrueCourse]

If the plant was operating, it's very likely there was some moisture-related obscuration below MDA as a result of that stack blowing steam all over that approach corridor. She struck that thing well below MDA.

That’s exactly what the witness states in the prelim, “observed the airplane to descend out of the clouds then immediately went into a steam cloud which was produced from a set of six smokestacks located on the same roof”.

 

[Salty]

For the life of me, I don’t understand what the problem is here. Don’t go below MDA until you can see that you can make the runway visually. If something changes, go missed.

 

[luvflyin]

The video guy covers the calculations and draws a diagram, I just can't bring myself to watch it again. I don't recall what he specifically says about following the correct v-path as depicted on the jepp chart, but he does say if you follow the g1000 depicted path it will fly you into the stack.

EDIT: So, I watched the diagram part again and he does say if you fly the (unpublished / G1000) path of 3.59 from the JAMID to RW20 you might actually hit the stack. He mentions 3.75 is not applicable due to the VASI being decommissioned years ago. However, does a published VDA really need working VASI to be valid? The VDA merely references the runway touchdown point, does it not?

The FAA's Chart User's Guide for the Profile View information reads:

"A VDA and TCH may be published on non-precision approaches....The VDA is strictly advisory and provides a means to establish a stabilized descent to the MDA. The presence of a VDA does not guarantee obstacle protection in the visual segment. If there are obstacles in the visual segment that could cause an aircraft to destabilize the approach between MDA and touchdown, the profile will not show a VDA and will instead show a note that states “Visual Segment-Obstacles”.
​

That last obstacle note is not on either the Jepp or FAA chart, maybe because if the 3.75 published is flown, it would not cause an aircraft to destabilize?

As someone else mentioned, this is only an LNAV approach, so it is either dive and drive or correctly apply the VDA if flying a constant descent. This VDA is published from the step down fix. The AC 120-108 the video guy quotes reads:

"However, in some cases, the VDA is calculated from the stepdown fix altitude to the TCH. In this situation, the VDA is published on the IAP following the associated stepdown fix (see Appendix 1, Figure 5, Instrument Approach Procedures with Controlling Stepdown Fix). In most cases, the descent angle between the FAF altitude and the stepdown fix altitude is slightly shallower than the published VDA for the segment between the stepdown fix and the runway. Operators should determine how they would like their pilots to fly the approach."​

So, other than the FAA not noting the start of the VDA as clearly as the Jepp chart does and both still reference a VGSI which is not functional, is there really anything "illegal" about this approach? Maybe the video guy should be more wound up about a) why Garmin allows the presented vertical path to change mid-approach as it does or b) why the airplane was flying the Garmin derived 3.59 degree path to the runway, if in fact that is what the pilot was actually doing.

Do you remember about how far into the video that starts?

 

[Tantalum]

NTSB final report on this one will be worth reading

..or maybe not. "Pilot's failure to maintain visual separation with obstruction" - the NTSB rarely gives anything beyond something than that when it comes to light accidents

 

[luvflyin]

..or maybe not. "Pilot's failure to maintain visual separation with obstruction" - the NTSB rarely gives anything beyond something than that when it comes to light accidents

That would just be the Probable Cause. There will be a whole more than that.

 

[Tantalum]

That would just be the Probable Cause. There will be a whole more than that.

Hopefully! I've come back to many accidents years after the fact and not found much value other than a redux of what happened and a one sentence probable cause with really not much in there that wasn't already immediately known within days of the event. This one is higher profile so maybe we'll get more. Fingers crossed

RE: Gryder
-if people don't like him simply don't watch him, don't start threads about him, and ignore the ones that exist. He's found a formula that works and gets people talking about him, watching his videos, and get the YT algorithm to promote the channel

His channel's existence demonstrates that there is a void in the aviation space for adequate accident coverage. "Wait until the NTSB" isn't enough for most people, and people generally want to know what caused accidents, or at least talk about and exchange ideas so hopefully they don't make the same mistake. Everything else in life gets plenty of uneducated opinion coverage from Ukraine, to the economy, to whether the Red Sox will win, etc. Aviation is one of the worst areas of this. At least DG knows a thing or two about flying and offers a perspective and story that's not there. You've also got Juan Brown if you appreciate a different approach

I'm not defending DG as a person, but can understand why the channel exists and has followers

 

[eman1200]

...I'm not defending DG as a person, but can understand why the channel exists and has followers

yeah, cause there's a sucker born every minute.

what I'm finding is the majority of aviation youtubers cater to the layperson, the people who aren't in the know and believe just about anything they see/hear/read about.

 

[luvflyin]

Hopefully! I've come back to many accidents years after the fact and not found much value other than a redux of what happened and a one sentence probable cause with really not much in there that wasn't already immediately known within days of the event. This one is higher profile so maybe we'll get more. Fingers crossed

RE: Gryder
-if people don't like him simply don't watch him, don't start threads about him, and ignore the ones that exist. He's found a formula that works and gets people talking about him, watching his videos, and get the YT algorithm to promote the channel

His channel's existence demonstrates that there is a void in the aviation space for adequate accident coverage. "Wait until the NTSB" isn't enough for most people, and people generally want to know what caused accidents, or at least talk about and exchange ideas so hopefully they don't make the same mistake. Everything else in life gets plenty of uneducated opinion coverage from Ukraine, to the economy, to whether the Red Sox will win, etc. Aviation is one of the worst areas of this. At least DG knows a thing or two about flying and offers a perspective and story that's not there. You've also got Juan Brown if you appreciate a different approach

I'm not defending DG as a person, but can understand why the channel exists and has followers

When the final comes out, find the Docket. That's where the details are.

 

[Piperonca]

Do you remember about how far into the video that starts?

19:00 approximately

 

[luvflyin]

19:00 approximately

Thanks. But I finally decided to just watch it. About 17:45 I think would be a good place to start to get the picture of what he was talking about with the Charting.

 

[Piperonca]

Thanks. But I finally decided to just watch it. About 17:45 I think would be a good place to start to get the picture of what he was talking about with the Charting.

Good. Now please give us the Cliffs Notes version of what he's saying. I got so annoyed I had to bail out of that stuff on the marker board.

 

[IK04]

The smokestack she hit was producing smoke or vapor, which could have obscured it in the immediate vicinity of the stack. She could have correctly thought she had legal criteria to land, and discounted the localized vapor as a wisp which did not invalidate her otherwise acceptable view of the runway environment. The marking light which could have shown through the mist and illuminated the stack was improper or inoperative. She had no ground-based GS information available to her. She was in a rough spot.

The prevailing wind at the time she flew the approach was nearly aligned with the runway. If you reference Juan Brown's video, it shows how the multiple stacks upwind of the one she hit make lots of steam and could have completely obscured the stack. She could have been following a visual approach from the MDA and been completely legal and only the hidden obstruction got her...

 

[Salty]

The prevailing wind at the time she flew the approach was nearly aligned with the runway. If you reference Juan Brown's video, it shows how the multiple stacks upwind of the one she hit make lots of steam and could have completely obscured the stack. She could have been following a visual approach from the MDA and been completely legal and only the hidden obstruction got her...

Are these sentient, mobile stacks getting up and walking in front of aircraft?

If you're flying an approach and you can't see the runway you shouldn't be below MDA. If you can see the runway, you shouldn't be below obstacles. If you stop being able to see the runway, you should go missed, and have no issue because you weren't below obstacles.

 

[luvflyin]

Good. Now please give us the Cliffs Notes version of what he's saying. I got so annoyed I had to bail out of that stuff on the marker board.

I'd have to go back and take notes which I'm not going to do now. I'll give this as a summary. The way the Charting is done on the Gov Chart and the way Garmin displays the VDA with an above/below 'needle'(yeah I know it isn't an actual needle) as if it was a Glideslope/Glidepath really test a pilots knowledge and force them to disregard what they see to stay in compliance with rules. It's worth a listen. He is off base when he implies that the VDA is actually a VGSI though.

 

[Piperonca]

Looks like I'm going to have to take ground school for new-fangled approaches. And a stupid question: what's wrong with dive and drive if you're not flying an airliner?

OBTW just found this while out chasing references: Flight Standards Interest in VGSI/VDA Coincidence Requirements. Clicking the link will download a pdf.

 

[Piperonca]

The prevailing wind at the time she flew the approach was nearly aligned with the runway. If you reference Juan Brown's video, it shows how the multiple stacks upwind of the one she hit make lots of steam and could have completely obscured the stack. She could have been following a visual approach from the MDA and been completely legal and only the hidden obstruction got her...

That seems to be the crux of the matter. 1) Did she, or 2) Did she not, hit an obstacle while following all the applicable rules?

 

[LesGawlik]

I'd have to go back and take notes which I'm not going to do now. I'll give this as a summary. The way the Charting is done on the Gov Chart and the way Garmin displays the VDA with an above/below 'needle'(yeah I know it isn't an actual needle) as if it was a Glideslope/Glidepath really test a pilots knowledge and force them to disregard what they see to stay in compliance with rules. It's worth a listen. He is off base when he implies that the VDA is actually a VGSI though.

I think his main point was that since the VASI was simply unplugged by the airport, the pilot did not have any guidance to follow below MDA. That enticed her to rely upon the advisory GS. I'm not saying that it is every right to rely upon an advisory GS, just that he suspects that's what happened.

 

[Salty]

The result of going down this road will be a regulation preventing the display of any sort of advisory vertical guidance.

 

[Turbo-Arrow-Driver]

I'm trying to learn more about how the FAA deals with these problems. At t ime code 32:08 in the Gryder video, he shows some sort of FAA obstacle review (attached below) which lists obstacles violating the "approach surface area" for the RNAV 20 approach. I cannot find this document anywhere on the Internet, and Gryder doesn't say where it came from either. Does anyone know where to find it?

AFAICT, the approach surface area is a 34:1 slope starting at the end of RWY 20, going out 10,000 feet along the approach, widening from runway width to 4,000 feet at the far end. Most of the stacks at the potato plant penetrate this surface.

I can find regulations where the FAA has authorithy to pull funding if the airport sponser doesn't deal with these issues, but what about adding NOTAMs on the approach, or disabling the approach via NOTAM until problems are fixed, or just deleting it? Seems like there's a disconnect here. Or am I missing something? Not sure I understand how this all works (or doesn't work)...

 

[luvflyin]

I think his main point was that since the VASI was simply unplugged by the airport, the pilot did not have any guidance to follow below MDA. That enticed her to rely upon the advisory GS. I'm not saying that it is every right to rely upon an advisory GS, just that he suspects that's what happened.

When he pointed at the VDA symbol, he said it was the VGSI. It is not. The angle may be the same. But VDA is VDA. And VGSI is VGSI. They have a relation to each other, but I think the distinction is important to note. There is a reason there are notes that say 'VGSI and descent angles not coincident.'

 

[LesGawlik]

I'm trying to learn more about how the FAA deals with these problems. At t ime code 32:08 in the Gryder video, he shows some sort of FAA obstacle review (attached below) which lists obstacles violating the "approach surface area" for the RNAV 20 approach. I cannot find this document anywhere on the Internet, and Gryder doesn't say where it came from either. Does anyone know where to find it?

AFAICT, the approach surface area is a 34:1 slope starting at the end of RWY 20, going out 10,000 feet along the approach, widening from runway width to 4,000 feet at the far end. Most of the stacks at the potato plant penetrate this surface.

I can find regulations where the FAA has authorithy to pull funding if the airport sponser doesn't deal with these issues, but what about adding NOTAMs on the approach, or disabling the approach via NOTAM until problems are fixed, or just deleting it? Seems like there's a disconnect here. Or am I missing something? Not sure I understand how this all works (or doesn't work)...

View attachment 106895

I don't know where to find it. I know there is a table of TERPS criteria for every procedure. That would be my guess.

What I think he said was that when the FAA told the airport about the penetrations, they said the options were to have the penetrations removed, or lose FAA funding for the airport. The municipality chose to give up funding. The municipality was then told that they couldn't have the VASI operative, and so they just unplugged it. There was then no approved way to get from MDA to the runway.

 

[Palmpilot]

...(ppsssttt…….STOP POSTING ABOUT GRYDER VIDEOS!!!!! Ignore him and maybe he’ll go away)

This has been an educational thread. I think it would be better for people who can't stand reading about the guy to just not click on theads about him.

 

[eman1200]

This has been an educational thread. I think it would be better for people who can't stand reading about the guy to just not click on theads about him.

nah, I think I'll keep reading the threads. it's not the threads I have an issue with, it's his videos, which I've stopped watching a long time ago.

 

[Piperonca]

Am I out of date or what? My last instrument approach was in the last century. None of that GPS or other silly stuff. Just meat and potatoes, VOR and ILS. Sometimes PAR or NDB but rarely. For a non-precision approach, I understood MDA to be Minimum Descent Altitude. You could cross the FAF, then mosey on down to MDA while watching the clock. At estimated time of arrival, you either see the runway and land, or if you don't, go around. You were supposed to have obstacle clearance at MDA all the way from FAF inbound. Now we're messing around with a Minimum Descent Angle? Nuts.


From:
Aeronautical Information Services, Aeronautical Chart Users’ Guide, Terminal Procedure Publications
Effective as of 24 March 2022, Federal Aviation Administration

Non-Precision Approaches
On non-precision approaches, the final segment begins at the Final Approach Fix (FAF) which is identified with the Maltese cross symbol . When no FAF is depicted, the final approach point is the point at which the aircraft is established inbound on the final approach course. Stepdown fixes may also be provided between the FAF and the airport for authorizing a lower minimum descent angle (MDA) and are depicted with the fix or facility name and a dashed line. Altitude restrictions at stepdown fixes on the final approach on procedures with both precision and non-precision minima are not applicable to precision (ILS, LPV, or LNAV/VNAV) use of the approach. On non-precision only approach procedures, the approach track descends to the MDA or VDP point, thence horizontally to the missed approach point.

 

[luvflyin]

The result of going down this road will be a regulation preventing the display of any sort of advisory vertical guidance.

I don’t think that’s likely to happen. They aren’t going to do away with Glideslopes and Glidepaths. But the way some GPS Navigators give you the needle for a VDA I think needs some serious discussion about. I think maybe they shouldn’t do it. Especially this one where it gives you the needle starting at the FAF when that is not where the VDA is calculated from. It’s calculated from the Stepdown fix. Now if they do it in a way that is consistent with how Jeppesen depicts it, see post #3 above, then yeah, maybe an argument can be made for it. But this thing the Garmin’s seem to be doing, giving you the needle way out there before the VDA even begins, and it’s based on the wrong angle between HIKLO and JAMID, needs some realignment of thinking by the box manufacturer.

 

[luvflyin]

nah, I think I'll keep reading the threads. it's not the threads I have an issue with, it's his videos, which I've stopped watching a long time ago.

I don’t watch him much either. But if you are an Instrument pilot, this one may be worth suffering through.

 

[Brad W]

All the hating on old Dan...

You may not like his style...his personality...whatever...
I did meet him briefly once, just for a minute or so....and he seems like he might be a fun guy to have a laugh or two with...
But...I'm no fan boy of him...he doesn't come off as an overly respectful, polite, or considerate person really...maybe not the type of person I'd be best friends with, not sure
That's just impression....I'm in no position to judge him

but the way I see it..
he's trying to do something good
trying to increase awareness, focus on safety, whatever....
I haven't watched a lot of his stuff...some of his more recent stuff but not a lot of it. Saw some of the collaborative stuff he did with other youtubers a while back about better recurrent training and an effort to reduce loss of control accidents
seems worthy of some respect to me!!
not really worthy of all the hate.

I used to do a lot of reading of accident reports. Subscribed to a magazine years ago...Aviation Safety I think it was. The idea being to learn from others' mistakes. What's wrong with that?
useful practice I think...mentally disturbing if focused on too much, but a noble thing to do none the less... to be more safe for those around you even if not for yourself....

And it seems to me that Dan is trying to address a whopping huge hole in that accident reporting bureaucracy that currently exists

 

[IK04]

Are these sentient, mobile stacks getting up and walking in front of aircraft?

If you're flying an approach and you can't see the runway you shouldn't be below MDA. If you can see the runway, you shouldn't be below obstacles. If you stop being able to see the runway, you should go missed, and have no issue because you weren't below obstacles.

Don't forget it was snowing. With the combination of steam obscuring the downwind stack, she most likely had good visual on the runway, but everything below her was white, including the ground.

 

[TrueCourse]

I used to do a lot of reading of accident reports. Subscribed to a magazine years ago...Aviation Safety I think it was. The idea being to learn from others' mistakes. What's wrong with that?
useful practice I think...mentally disturbing if focused on too much, but a noble thing to do none the less... to be more safe for those around you even if not for yourself....

Nothing wrong with studying accidents.

 

[Salty]

Don't forget it was snowing. With the combination of steam obscuring the downwind stack, she most likely had good visual on the runway, but everything below her was white, including the ground.

Ok, then sounds like you should go missed.

 

[IK04]

Ok, then sounds like you should go missed.

She did on the first try...

 

[Racerx]

She did on the first try...

And went lower for round 2. Below MDA both times. If you believe the ADSB data.

 

[nauga]

And went lower for round 2. Below MDA both times. If you believe the ADSB data.

ADS-B reports pressure altitude, doesn't it? What was the local altimeter setting?

Nauga,
tapelined

 

[Racerx]

All the hating on old Dan...

You may not like his style...his personality...whatever...
I did meet him briefly once, just for a minute or so....and he seems like he might be a fun guy to have a laugh or two with...
But...I'm no fan boy of him...he doesn't come off as an overly respectful, polite, or considerate person really...maybe not the type of person I'd be best friends with, not sure
That's just impression....I'm in no position to judge him

but the way I see it..
he's trying to do something good
trying to increase awareness, focus on safety, whatever....
I haven't watched a lot of his stuff...some of his more recent stuff but not a lot of it. Saw some of the collaborative stuff he did with other youtubers a while back about better recurrent training and an effort to reduce loss of control accidents
seems worthy of some respect to me!!
not really worthy of all the hate.

I used to do a lot of reading of accident reports. Subscribed to a magazine years ago...Aviation Safety I think it was. The idea being to learn from others' mistakes. What's wrong with that?
useful practice I think...mentally disturbing if focused on too much, but a noble thing to do none the less... to be more safe for those around you even if not for yourself....

And it seems to me that Dan is trying to address a whopping huge hole in that accident reporting bureaucracy that currently exists

Could care less about his personality. What drives me off the wall is how he uses his own speculation and tries to pawn it as fact. There's things he can't know and that's where he comes up with a narrative and pushes it.

 

[Piperonca]

Could care less about his personality. What drives me off the wall is how he uses his own speculation and tries to pawn it as fact. There's things he can't know and that's where he comes up with a narrative and pushes it.

Didn’t Gryder put out a video basically saying accident was clearly pilots fault, then withdraw it after he got some criticism from family? Pushing a different narrative now?

 

[Turbo-Arrow-Driver]

Could care less about his personality. What drives me off the wall is how he uses his own speculation and tries to pawn it as fact. There's things he can't know and that's where he comes up with a narrative and pushes it.

It's worse than that. He doesn't even read the documents he claims the FAA is violating. AC120-108 specifically describes (rare) cases where the visual descent angle (VDA) may be calculated from a step-down fix (e.g. JAMID) instead of the FAF (e.g. HIKLO), and that the descent angle will typically be less prior to the step-down fix. Gryder refers to this AC and accuses the FAA of violating it's own guidance, when the AC clearly states that this is okay.

 

[sarangan]

Not a fan of Gryder or his conjecture that the advisory glideslope is partially to blame, but an improperly lighted tower so close to the runway is a concern even in VFR conditions. At night, under VFR, it doesn't take much to see the runway but miss an antenna penetrating your path. At the very least there should have been a NOTAM. At my home field I get notams about unlit towers that are nowhere close to the final approach path. This one looks like it is smack in the middle of the short final path.

 

[Piperonca]

This is a sad tale, start to finish. Nothing good about it.

 

[Eldorado]

Bottom line, MDA is the MDA, regardless of all the fancy equipment, glide slope indications, angle of descent. I have nothing against Gryder,but when you ignore MDA, you’re on your own.

 

[Sluggo63]

Bottom line, MDA is the MDA, regardless of all the fancy equipment, glide slope indications, angle of descent. I have nothing against Gryder,but when you ignore MDA, you’re on your own.

That’s not necessarily true. Some people are authorized to use the MDA as a DA on certain non-precision approaches with VNAV glide path guidance.

Edit: clarify approaches