Dan Gryder Arrested!

jetpilote said:
It's pretty obvious you have a hard on for Dan. The NTSB reports you provided talk of aircraft flying "twice the height of light poles and 200 feet above crowded stadiums." That's far from flying a legal 1000 feet over a city. And you as a CFI should realize a DC-3 at 1000 feet AGL will look quite large and will be quite noisy. At least I would hope you would. And besides, that is not why he was arrested. There are no charges of low altitude flying now or in his past, only accusations.

I see you have no type ratings on you pilot certificate. Dan would probably be very happy to fly with you. Become informed, buy a type rating training program from his company then come back and tell us about your experience instead of providing us with your uninformed babbling “Cap’n.”

We just don't agree and that's OK.
Click to expand...

When it comes to aviation law, and especially the FAR's, I've yet to see Ron be anything but correct.

Sigh.
 
TMetzinger said:
...When it comes to regulations, and the FAA and NTSB enforcement of such, Ron is pretty much the Shaolin Master in this community.

....
Click to expand...

I'd trust anything Ron says about aviation law over anything I might say, and I have licenses in a few states and a few classes in aviation law taught by the people who are the real movers/shakers in the field (and who actually decide what the rules mean).

Not liking the rules doesn't change the rules. Them's the...err...rules.
 
Cap'n Ron puts on a good presentation about the future hiring pool of airline pilots too. But Bo there is not a pilot out there flying today or alive and no longer flying that has not violated an FAR or AIM operating procedure once or more in his or her lifetime. Not a one. Cap'n is about 60 years old now and if he’s been flying a good amount of that time he knows that is true. I don't care if it's exceeding a speed limit or flying too close to a cloud while operating under VFR flight rules, or making a left turn out of a RH traffic pattern, every pilot is guilty so people need not throw stones. And if anyone here says they are perfect they are a liar and a hypocrite. The “Cap’n” included.

 
jetpilote said:
Cap'n Ron puts on a good presentation about the future hiring pool of airline pilots too. But Bo there is not a pilot out there flying today or alive and no longer flying that has not violated an FAR or AIM operating procedure once or more in his or her lifetime. Not a one. Cap'n is about 60 years old now and if he’s been flying a good amount of that time he knows that is true. I don't care if it's exceeding a speed limit or flying too close to a cloud while operating under VFR flight rules, or making a left turn out of a RH traffic pattern, every pilot is guilty so people need not throw stones. And if anyone here says they are perfect they are a liar and a hypocrite. The “Cap’n” included.
Click to expand...

Nobody's said otherwise.

What everyone's saying is that, over the course of your now seven posts, you've spouted a bunch of baloney in a less than civil manner.

But, keep at it. There are plenty more South Park scenes that can be posted, much to our collective amusement.
 
Last edited:
Keep on Dude. Your mouth has already written a check your ass can't cash.

jetpilote said:
Cap'n Ron puts on a good presentation about the future hiring pool of airline pilots too. But Bo there is not a pilot out there flying today or alive and no longer flying that has not violated an FAR or AIM operating procedure once or more in his or her lifetime. Not a one. Cap'n is about 60 years old now and if he’s been flying a good amount of that time he knows that is true. I don't care if it's exceeding a speed limit or flying too close to a cloud while operating under VFR flight rules, or making a left turn out of a RH traffic pattern, every pilot is guilty so people need not throw stones. And if anyone here says they are perfect they are a liar and a hypocrite. The “Cap’n” included.
Click to expand...
 
"I've done this many times and haven't broken a single rule."

I was referring to the pilots that turn out on the upwind leg immediately after departure not after already established on the crosswind leg Dan.

AIM Traffic Pattern Operations.

When departing the traffic pattern, continue straight out, or exit with a 45 degree turn (to the left when in a left hand trafffic pattern; to the right when in a right hand traffic pattern beyond the departure end of the runway when reaching pattern altitude.
 
jetpilote said:
"I've done this many times and haven't broken a single rule."

I was referring to the pilots that turn out on the upwind leg immediately after departure not after already established on the crosswind leg Dan.

AIM Traffic Pattern Operations.

When departing the traffic pattern, continue straight out, or exit with a 45 degree turn (to the left when in a left hand trafffic pattern; to the right when in a right hand traffic pattern beyond the departure end of the runway when reaching pattern altitude.
Click to expand...
I was not aware that was a regulation -- which section of Part 91 covers that? Also, you seem to suggest you must become established on the crosswind leg before departing the pattern -- which conflicts with the recommendations of AIM Section 4-3-3:
4. Continue straight ahead until beyond departure end of runway.

5. If remaining in the traffic pattern, commence turn to crosswind leg beyond the departure end of the runway within 300 feet of pattern altitude.

6. If departing the traffic pattern, continue straight out, or exit with a 45 degree turn (to the left when in a left-hand traffic pattern; to the right when in a right-hand traffic pattern) beyond the departure end of the runway, after reaching pattern altitude.
Click to expand...
Also, how do you resolve that "rule" with the procedures in section 5-2-8 for IFR departures which, in the absence of an ODP or SID, call for maintaining runway heading until beyond and 400 above the departure end of the runway, and then turning on course?
 
Cap'n, you must r-e-a-d before you reply.

The statement was "has not violated an FAR or AIM operating procedure"

I did not state this was a regulation so your awareness of it not being one is correct but surely you must know there has been enforcement action against pilots for not following the good operating practices specified in the AIM.

The above mentioned section is in the AIM section for VFR operations at uncontrolled airports.

If you would like to resolve the "rule" for class D airport traffic patterns or IFR operations, flip back one page in the AIM and read up.
 
Sez you!

Sez me? Sez you!!!

Oh yeah?

Yeah!

Oh yeah?

Yeah!
 
flyersfan31 said:
Sez you!

Sez me? Sez you!!!

Oh yeah?

Yeah!

Oh yeah?

Yeah!
Click to expand...

ralphnose.jpg
 
Jetpilote reminds me of someone else.. it'll come to me. Ah well, I haven't added anyone to the ignore list for a while, but it's time. It's clear that since his only posts have been Ron-bashing (and fer crissakes, not even GOOD Ron-bashing!), I won't miss anything by adding him to it.
 
TMetzinger said:
Jetpilote reminds me of someone else.. it'll come to me. Ah well, I haven't added anyone to the ignore list for a while, but it's time. It's clear that since his only posts have been Ron-bashing (and fer crissakes, not even GOOD Ron-bashing!), I won't miss anything by adding him to it.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately with Ignore, you can't TOTALLY ignore them. :frown3:
 
Finis.

You guys that have probably never set foot in Griffin Georgia and aren't at all interested in what's going on there can circle your wagons and hold hands by the campfire. It's no wonder there are splinter blogs mentioned on the first page.

Bo now will have time to rejuvenate his brain cells watching South Park reruns.

Cap'n, I don't "seem to suggest" anything when departing the pattern. I simply quoted the AIM word for word.

Bashing Cap'n? Read the thread from the beginning. Cap'n has an issue with all who believe different.

I'm going flying.

I'll be back when it's over.
 
Last edited:
But they keep promising . . . and maybe he left on his own. I was going to offer to kick his ass if he would meet me at the ABQ airport. Just gonna tell him my name is Nick and I'll be looking for you . . .

Greg Bockelman said:
Unfortunately with Ignore, you can't TOTALLY ignore them. :frown3:
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
wabower said:
But they keep promising . . . and maybe he left on his own. I was going to offer to kick his ass if he would meet me at the ABQ airport. Just gonna tell him my name is Nick and I'll be looking for you . . .
Click to expand...


:rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:
 
wabower said:
But they keep promising . . . and maybe he left on his own. I was going to offer to kick his ass if he would meet me at the ABQ airport. Just gonna tell him my name is Nick and I'll be looking for you . . .
Click to expand...

But it'd be obvious its not me! KABQ is the Albuquerque Sunport not airport :D

But anytime you need someone to be whooped, send 'em my way, I did bounce at a gay bar once.
 
TMetzinger said:
Jetpilote reminds me of someone else.. it'll come to me. Ah well, I haven't added anyone to the ignore list for a while, but it's time. It's clear that since his only posts have been Ron-bashing (and fer crissakes, not even GOOD Ron-bashing!), I won't miss anything by adding him to it.
Click to expand...

Well, it did seem POA was pretty quick to throw Dan Gryder under the bus, and when the other side of the story came along - pretty quick to discount that.

I don't know any of the parties involved, but have seen enough of small town politics to be able to keep an open mind about what another point of view might hold.

And yes - Ron always does know the letter of the law.

Tim
 
Troska said:
Well, it did seem POA was pretty quick to throw Dan Gryder under the bus, and when the other side of the story came along - pretty quick to discount that.
Click to expand...
At least for me, the reasons for discounting "the other side of the story" included:
  1. the "evidence" provided by the person who presented it appeared to contradict rather than support his own position, and
  2. his position was in part based on an incorrect statement about FAA enforcement action case law.
But I'm willing to consider any other unbiased evidence someone provides to show that Mr. Gryder did not do what an independent media source says several witnesses say he did (with no "other side" saying otherwise), in apparent violation of Geogia criminal law and the FAR's.
 
Anybody who has been around aviation for a while should know there's one side to a story.

Troska said:
Well, it did seem POA was pretty quick to throw Dan Gryder under the bus, and when the other side of the story came along - pretty quick to discount that.

I don't know any of the parties involved, but have seen enough of small town politics to be able to keep an open mind about what another point of view might hold.

And yes - Ron always does know the letter of the law.

Tim
Click to expand...
 
SkyHog said:
True, but it makes for a lot less fuel to throw on the ramp when I'm done sampling it....which is a good thing. I might not care much about the environment, but I do care a little :D
Click to expand...

With a GATS jar, you don't dump it on the ramp. The jar has a special screen on the top that lets you put the fuel back in your tanks while stopping any sediment or water.
 
TangoWhiskey said:
With a GATS jar, you don't dump it on the ramp. The jar has a special screen on the top that lets you put the fuel back in your tanks while stopping any sediment or water.
Click to expand...

No, with a GATS jar, you don't dump it on the ramp :D

I, on the other hand, do not return contaminated fuel to my tanks, even if it has been filtered through a piece of finely holed cloth.
 
SkyHog said:
No, with a GATS jar, you don't dump it on the ramp :D

I, on the other hand, do not return contaminated fuel to my tanks, even if it has been filtered through a piece of finely holed cloth.
Click to expand...

The fuel being returned to the tank from a GATS jar is no more contaminated than the fuel already in the tank. The gas is already saturated with water- that's why we can drain it out- it "fell out" of solution. The "cloth" is a mesh of some plastic that is non-wetting to water, so it prevents the water from passing through the mesh and getting into the tank.

I got my GATS jar courtesy of work- we were experimenting with it to see if we could use that mesh as a means to make chemists more efficient, but it wouldn't stand up to all the solvents we use. Some of the solvents are similar in polarity to Av gas and we wash the reaction mixture with water to remove water soluble by-products. We hoped the mesh in a GATS jar could be used to work around emulsions. I got the jar we didn't use. That mesh did a great job separating the water from the organic solvent...until we tried a couple of common lab solvents that dissolved the mesh.
 
Last edited:
I think one should note in the interest of accuracy that "GATTS" with two T's is a flight training outfit in Kansas; the "GATS" jar has only one T, and is not made by GATTS.
 
Ron Levy said:
I think one should note in the interest of accuracy that "GATTS" with two T's is a flight training outfit in Kansas; the "GATS" jar has only one T, and is not made by GATTS.
Click to expand...

Were you a first born or only child Ron?
 
Troska said:
Well, it did seem POA was pretty quick to throw Dan Gryder under the bus, and when the other side of the story came along - pretty quick to discount that.
Click to expand...

+1. With the way the media portrays aviation and pilots, I'm quite sure that things aren't as bad as they state.
 
I know Dan personally and was told what really happened. Everything reported on the news was completely blown out of proportion. If you knew how backwards the law enforcement in Griffin is, then you would realize that this was the most exciting thing that happened all year for them. 2 female code enforcement officials wanted to make it sound so exciting. No one was ever in any danger.
 
Holy necropost Batman. He's probably been out of the joint for three or four years by now.
 
Sac Arrow said:
Holy necropost Batman. He's probably been out of the joint for three or four years by now.
Click to expand...
Not only is he out of the joint, but to give you an idea of how the news blew the story out of proportion....Dan has since been upgraded to Captain at DAL (he was a Delta FO when the incident happened).
 
SkyHog said:
Here's my findings:

http://www.pilotsofamerica.com/forum/showpost.php?p=89052&postcount=9

The full Clear Water Act of 1972:
http://www.epa.gov/lawsregs/laws/cwa.html
Click to expand...

I have to admit, there was something rewarding, back, in the day, about flipping the tube in the air and watching it fly. The smell of fresh 100 LL in the air on a crisp morning... Now, I think I'll just pour it in a cotainer, take it home, and use it to start my fire pit. That way I can savor the reward.
 
bem411s said:
I have to admit, there was something rewarding, back, in the day, about flipping the tube in the air and watching it fly. The smell of fresh 100 LL in the air on a crisp morning... Now, I think I'll just pour it in a cotainer, take it home, and use it to start my fire pit. That way I can savor the reward.
Click to expand...

Can somebody, in 20 words or less, explain what the clean water act has to do with this thread? I know it's buried in there, but...
 
Ron Levy said:
That's just not true. Check the NTSB files on FAA enforcement cases and search on violations of 91.119:

http://www.ntsb.gov/alj/alj/O_n_O/docs/aviation/3962.PDF
http://www.ntsb.gov/alj/alj/O_n_O/docs/aviation/4037.PDF
http://www.ntsb.gov/alj/alj/O_n_O/docs/aviation/4188.PDF
http://www.ntsb.gov/alj/alj/O_n_O/docs/aviation/4225.PDF

...and that's just the 1993-94 cases which were appealed all the way to the NTSB. There's another 15 years of cases available from then to now, and who knows how many which were not appealed that far.

So, no, I'll not just "agree to disagree" on this one, since the facts are available to prove the point.
Click to expand...

extra alj's in the links I think. not to be a 'court recorder.' interesting reads though, I have to admit. And the links may have changed over time too. Nice insight though.
http://www.ntsb.gov/alj/O_n_O/docs/aviation/4037.PDF
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top