Dan Gryder Arrested!

[jetpilote]

The Airport Commission and the petty city of Griffith have had Dan in their cross hairs for years now. Ever since the Carvair accident about 8 years ago they have been trying to get rid of the DC-3 and the associated training activities. Recently they erected concrete poles on the centerline at the approach end of the runway and Dan and AOPA made then remove them as they were illegal. Dan has been (harassed) ticketed for excessive noise (no mufflers on DC-3s), oil leakage on the ramp contaminating the water supply, improper oil storage (in the DC-3), cited for parking his airplane where he had specific approval from the airport manager prior to his departure (later proved).The local cop pulling him over for driving on the airport is just another example. Hopefully the good is the Airport Commission and the Mayor will all be looking for new jobs. Dan finished changing a cylinder and was preparing to fuel up to do a run-up. The credit card did not work at the self serve so he drove to the FBO to pay.
By the way, to the individual stating that he drives with the students on the airport demonstrating procedures and checklist usage, when a friend got his type rating this summer he did that but it was in the isolated area around his T hangar bank, not on taxi ways or runways. There is more to this than the media knows and like I said, I hope the city gets their house cleaned in the end. The only thing that he initially did that was in violation of FAR was not to provide a picture ID to the cop when requested. Whether or not she had authority to pull him over for driving on the airport in the first place will soon be seen. Yes he should have just taken the ticket and have it thrown out as has happened before. I'd also like to know how the cop could hear him talk from the cockpit with both engines running.

 

[ScottM]

BTW - I think everyone should grab a pen and a piece of paper and take the following sentence down:

"A criminal is only innocent until proven guilty in a court of LAW."

Can you come over to the SZ and write that into the current thread about trial, fairness, law, etc?

 

[ScottM]

Some reasonably priced legal services for Dan

 

[JeffDG]

BTW - I think everyone should grab a pen and a piece of paper and take the following sentence down:

"A criminal is only innocent until proven guilty in a court of LAW."

I'm not a lawyer or a juror at the moment (nor was I when Patty Wagstaff went joyriding after drinking too much), so I get to say such things like "Patty Wagstaff is guilty."

The origin of the statement was never intended to be used on individuals. The court of public opinion is not a real court.

Thank you for your time.

I think there's a distinction between "fact" and "law".

As a question of "fact" a person is guilty the moment the offense is committed. If I pull out a gun and shoot you in the back of the head, as a question of fact, I'm guilty of murder as of that moment.

As a question of law, however, I am not guilty until such time as a jury of my peers weighs the evidence and pronounces such. Then and only then can the law mete out punishment for my actions.

 

[flyersfan31]

Did I type that you pre-judged? Not only do I not remember that, I didn't do that.



You already added yourself to the list, no need of reminding folks.

We have a little misunderstanding here. I've deleted my posts. No need for me to get my knickers in a twist when I think we're on the same page.

Life's too short for bs.

 

[poadeleted20]

The Airport Commission and the petty city of Griffith have had Dan in their cross hairs for years now. Ever since the Carvair accident about 8 years ago they have been trying to get rid of the DC-3 and the associated training activities. Recently they erected concrete poles at the approach end of the runway and Dan and AOPA made then remove them as they were illegal. Dan has been (harassed) ticketed for excessive noise (no mufflers on DC-3s), oil leakage on the ramp contaminating the water supply, improper oil storage (in the onboard DC-3 oil tanks), cited for parking his airplane where he had specific approval from the airport manager prior to his departure (later proved) He's also got the court system there in a bind because the city violated state and federal law in trying to evict him from the airport, but the judge has been sitting on the ruling for over three years rather than rule against the local officials there in their little town.

That's quite a few accusations against the airport, mayor, the court, and other officials. Do you have any documentation for them?

 

[TMetzinger]

Well, it's at least another side of the story...

 

[Clark1961]

That's quite a few accusations against the airport, mayor, the court, and other officials. Do you have any documentation for them?

The story sounds quite likely. Isn't that enough to condemn the accused? Or do we have a double standard here?

 

[PittsDriver]

That's quite a few accusations against the airport, mayor, the court, and other officials. Do you have any documentation for them?

What kind of documentation are you looking for? Maybe the same type of documentation that the media used to print the crap they did without making note of any of Dan's side of the story?

I have family that have lived in Griffin for 20 years. As I've said previously, Griffin Ga is just about one step away from "the man with no eyes" type law enforcement and good ol' boy politics. I don't doubt the veracity of any of the shenanigans summarized by jetpilote and as I said from the beginning of this, there's gonna be another side to this story that makes it make more sense.

 

[t0r0nad0]

For the record, I said in my post that IF he is guilty of this, ONLY THEN should they throw the book at him. I wasn't running to grab my torch and pitchfork, and I haven't re-read through the entire thread, but I don't really remember anyone else doing the same. Yes, the reports are one-sided, which is understandable because they just get their information from the public record at this point. They couldn't tell Dan's side because he's still sitting in a jail cell and was therefore unlikely to be available for comment. Like I said, it will be interesting to see the other side of the story and what becomes of this.

 

[tdager]

What kind of documentation are you looking for? Maybe the same type of documentation that the media used to print the crap they did without making note of any of Dan's side of the story?

I have family that have lived in Griffin for 20 years. As I've said previously, Griffin Ga is just about one step away from "the man with no eyes" type law enforcement and good ol' boy politics. I don't doubt the veracity of any of the shenanigans summarized by jetpilote and as I said from the beginning of this, there's gonna be another side to this story that makes it make more sense.

When was the last time they were home? I live in Henry county, just north, and was in local law enforcement. While there was the occasional idiot, most in LEO's in the area try to be as professional as possible. Hell I can bet you most of those officers (if not all) involved did not know Dan from anyone else on the street.

While I agree that there IS another side to the story....there is NO excuse for Dan to act the way he did at the time. To castigate an entire community with your derogatory comments, and toss in the local police for dessert, is simply ignorant and indefensible.

 

[jetpilote]

Documentation? Let's start with the simple things by first reading the Griffin Airport Commission meeting minutes.

http://www.cityofgriffin.com/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=%2BQhkw0GuqaE%3D&tabid=380

With all due respects, you can fly low over a city when approaching to land, you are not required to land when making approaches to an airport and you can park where you have an agreement to park.

I am also quite familiar of the other citations of oil leaks in the parking area damaging the environment, oil storage in the airplane tanks, excessive noise.

Obstruction Removal:
AOPA magazine July 2009. Volunteer Spotlight page 22.

ASN volunteer Dan Gryder spoke with AOPA and the FAA to have 50 foot concrete poles removed after he said the poles (that were erected 100 feet from the end of the runway near the centerline) were an immediate safety hazard. The city removed them the next day with a bulldozer.


Cited for washing his aircraft because of watering restrictions#3

http://www.cityofgriffin.com/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=xokCvUBdFnQ%3D&tabid=380

The list goes on. This will be very interesting.

 

[PittsDriver]

I can't speak for Henry Co. but I have my own personal experiences combined with years of hearing the news from people whom I trust to back up my comments. I certainly wasn't "castigating an entire community." I can certainly believe that there are a great many fine and respectable people in law enforcement and politics there. But I also have personal experiences there in Spalding and Fayette counties that you can be treated in a manner precisely as I indicated.

 

[tdager]

Pitts...thanks for the further color. I too agree that there are certainly still problems in the area for sure, I was just a bit miffed at the overall tone that seemed to dismiss the entire area as "Deliverance II" which is far from the truth. Sorry for flying off the handle a bit.

I can also say that I once arrested the son of a reserve Deputy and WAS going to "let his dad deal with him" instead of the law, until the idiot kicked out my patrol car windows. He ended up with two felony destruction of government property charges in addition to underage drinking. So yeah...there is a bit of "take care of your own" but it is not as bad as some think.

Jetpilote...while I know that the city of Griffin cannot do much, do some research on "low approaches" and see the FAA's stance. It will be eye opening (hint...they do not like them at all). I do not know Dan beyond his aircraft, but I do know that in some places if you toss fuel on the ground it is a violation, if his DC3 leaks like the rest of them do, they do create an environmental hazard. Again...maybe Dan was treated very unfairly by the local airport authority, but as the advice always says "try your case in court, not on the roadside (or airport) with the cop". Dan simply should have signed for the silly ticket and moved on, even fought it if he wanted to, but should not have done what he did.

 

[poadeleted20]

Documentation? Let's start with the simple things by first reading the Griffin Airport Commission meeting minutes.

http://www.cityofgriffin.com/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=%2BQhkw0GuqaE%3D&tabid=380

...you can fly low over a city when approaching to land,

The document you linked refers to

low flying over the city in the early hours of a Sunday morning

...with nothing suggesting that low flight was "necessary for takeoff or landing" as 91.119 puts it.

you can park where you have an agreement to park.

The documents you linked say he had no such legal agreement with the airport after May 2007, yet his plane was still there in December, hogging the wash rack so no other airport users could use it.

As far as the records review of Mr. Gryder’s file and the AD’s investigation, it was determined that there is no valid Tie-Down Agreement with him that allows him to park his DC-3 on this airfield.

I am also quite familiar of the other citations of oil leaks in the parking area damaging the environment, oil storage in the airplane tanks,

I didn't see anything about "oil storage in the airplane tanks," just storing oil "inside the aircraft," which is not at all the same, and possibly a fire code violation.

Cited for washing his aircraft because of watering restrictions#3

http://www.cityofgriffin.com/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=xokCvUBdFnQ%3D&tabid=380

...in violation of water restrictions and after written notices that he was in violation.

During the past two months ... he was witnessed washing his aircraft in violation of City Drought & Water Restrictions, he was issued a written warning letter for each instance.

Seems like each thing you mention makes him look more like someone who doesn't care to follow rules.

And thanks for documenting that.

 

[poadeleted20]

I do not know Dan beyond his aircraft, but I do know that in some places if you toss fuel on the ground it is a violation,

It's a violation anywhere in the USA (check the Clean Water Act), but it isn't uniformly enforced by the states. FWIW, Florida is one place where it is enforced strictly, as ERAU discovered to the tune of a proposed fine of about $130K (worked down to a more reasonable figure in return for the community service of giving speeches to pilots all over the state and beyond about not dumping fuel samples on the ground -- which led me to invest in a GATS jar).

 

[SkyHog]

[/color]
The document you linked refers to...with nothing suggesting that low flight was "necessary for takeoff or landing" as 91.119 puts it.
The documents you linked say he had no such legal agreement with the airport after May 2007, yet his plane was still there in December, hogging the wash rack so no other airport users could use it.


I didn't see anything about "oil storage in the airplane tanks," just storing oil "inside the aircraft," which is not at all the same, and possibly a fire code violation.
...in violation of water restrictions and after written notices that he was in violation.
Seems like each thing you mention makes him look more like someone who doesn't care to follow rules.

And thanks for documenting that.

What he said.

This is definitely not a case FOR Dan Gryder.

 

[SkyHog]

It's a violation anywhere in the USA (check the Clean Water Act), but it isn't uniformly enforced by the states. FWIW, Florida is one place where it is enforced strictly, as ERAU discovered to the tune of a proposed fine of about $130K (worked down to a more reasonable figure in return for the community service of giving speeches to pilots all over the state and beyond about not dumping fuel samples on the ground -- which led me to invest in a GATS jar).

Yikes. My pet peeve. Can you show me somewhere in the Clean Water Act that this is prohibited? I did research on this once before and found that there is no such FEDERAL prohibition on the practice, and that only a handful of states had laws on the books that could show that to be illegal.

I'll try to find my previous research, too, but if you have some sort of citation, I could take being wrong about this.

 

[SkyHog]

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

 

[flyersfan31]

It's a violation anywhere in the USA (check the Clean Water Act), but it isn't uniformly enforced by the states. FWIW, Florida is one place where it is enforced strictly, as ERAU discovered to the tune of a proposed fine of about $130K (worked down to a more reasonable figure in return for the community service of giving speeches to pilots all over the state and beyond about not dumping fuel samples on the ground -- which led me to invest in a GATS jar).

When I was picking up my plane in Vero, it was made clear to me in no uncertain terms by several people that I had better not toss fuel on the ground. That's when I invested in a GATS jar too.

 

[vontresc]

I own a GATS jar as well. Not only are you not dumping gas on the ground, but you can take a reasonable fuel sample. Those tiny little cessna cups are a joke. I bet there may be times where that puny cessna cup sample might not sump enough to even drain any water.

 

[SkyHog]

I own a GATS jar as well. Not only are you not dumping gas on the ground, but you can take a reasonable fuel sample. Those tiny little cessna cups are a joke. I bet there may be times where that puny cessna cup sample might not sump enough to even drain any water.

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

 

[jetpilote]

OK "Cap'n" Ron,

If the airport after the fact tells him the original parking agreement became invalid after the AM left his position then maybe they should have mentioned it that day he left and had him sign a contract. That’s sounds like good business practice to me.

In flight training I do practice approaches many times with a G/As. When I was hired by Republic Airlines in 1980 we flew for five hours a night at 1:00 A.M doing instrument approaches with G/As in the Convair in various overnight cities. Southern did it in the Martins. That's just the way it is. I could put flaps at ten degrees and execute a MAP and it’s a go around. Some can call it a low approach but legally it will be tough to tell him he is violating FAR. He can also legally fly over any city he wants on Sunday in the early hours at 1000 feet above the highest obstacle for hours at a time. So what? Nothing illegal there either. That big airplane looks quite low to amateurs.

The AC attitude displayed in the minutes tells me they have an issue. And the issue got bigger when they had to remove the concrete posts on the runway. Now what kind of airport commission would to that in the first place? It will all be over when it's over and the DC-3 will still be there. By the way, there is a derelict ex American Airlines DC-3 on the airport that has not paid a dime of rent to the city in years but that's not perceived as an issue. Hmmm.

And by the way, I fly numerous round motor aircraft for the CAF and it is standard practice to carry extra oil on board because as a rule as oil usage is high in these engines and it makes excellent ballast.

Fire hazard? You sound like a city employee.

He will be vindicated again.

 

[SkyHog]

OK "Cap'n" Ron,

If the airport after the fact tells him the original parking agreement became invalid after the AM left his position then maybe they should have mentioned it that day he left and had him sign a contract. That’s sounds like good business practice to me.

In flight training I do practice approaches many times with a G/As. When I was hired by Republic Airlines in 1980 we flew for five hours a night at 1:00 A.M doing instrument approaches with G/As in the Convair in various overnight cities. Southern did it in the Martins. That's just the way it is. I could put flaps at ten degrees and execute a MAP and it’s a go around. Some can call it a low approach but legally it will be tough to tell him he is violating FAR. He can also legally fly over any city he wants on Sunday in the early hours at 1000 feet above the highest obstacle for hours at a time. So what? Nothing illegal there either. That big airplane looks quite low to amateurs.

The AC attitude displayed in the minutes tells me they have an issue. And the issue got bigger when they had to remove the concrete posts on the runway. Now what kind of airport commission would to that in the first place? It will all be over when it's over and the DC-3 will still be there. By the way, there is a derelict ex American Airlines DC-3 on the airport that has not paid a dime of rent to the city in years but that's not perceived as an issue. Hmmm.

And by the way, I fly numerous round motor aircraft for the CAF and it is standard practice to carry extra oil on board because as a rule as oil usage is high in these engines and it makes excellent ballast.

Fire hazard? You sound like a city employee.

He will be vindicated again.

LOL! Sounds like the same arguments Wagstaff's supporters made:

"Well, well, maybe, just maybe, she was drunk, and going to her car to take a nap, not drive, did you think of that, huh?"

Face it, if the facts are as they've been told, Gryder's toast.

 

[poadeleted20]

If the airport after the fact tells him the original parking agreement became invalid after the AM left his position then maybe they should have mentioned it that day he left and had him sign a contract. That’s sounds like good business practice to me.

It appears from the documents you provided that they considered that, but had no available place on the airport suitable to locate his aircraft. And he was still parked on the wash rack seven months after he was told in writing to vacate.

He can also legally fly over any city he wants on Sunday in the early hours at 1000 feet above the highest obstacle for hours at a time. So what? Nothing illegal there either. That big airplane looks quite low to amateurs.

I've seen nothing which said he was "1000 feet above the highest obstacle," just what was in the minutes to which you linked. Were you there to witness that event, or did you obtain that information from another source (such as a self-serving statement by Mr. Gryder)? Further, it appears from the minutes that the Airport Director (hardly an "amateur") and the police may have been witnesses, not just the townspeople.

And by the way, I fly numerous round motor aircraft for the CAF and it is standard practice to carry extra oil on board because as a rule as oil usage is high in these engines and it makes excellent ballast.

While that may be true, it may still constitute a fire code violation to store that oil in the plane when parked in a hangar at that airport. The fact that you personally don't see the hazard does not change the fact of the regulation's existence or legal enforceability.

 

[jetpilote]

Like I said, we flew for hours every night "buzzing" small cities while flight training and doing "low Passes" at the airports at 200 feet and it's still done every day and perfectly legal. It’s called a Go Around.

If the Apt. Commissioners desire to set a precedent, they should be equally enthusiastic about collecting years of tie down fees for the other DC-3 on the field that has been for sale on and off for just as long. Why doesn't the other DC-3 pay tie down fees? Maybe the owner knows someone?

You know as well as I do, no one (including a city pencil pusher) can prove what any aircraft altitude is or whether it‘s legal unless they were in the cockpit looking at the altimeter. Their “estimate” would not stand up in court.

If you consider thirty gallons of spare motor oil a fire hazard what would 800 gallons of 100 octane Avgas stored in the same spam can be considered, "Cap'n”?

If you agree with the AC and consider some dripping oil from an engine on a ramp environmental pollution and citable, what do you call it when all the aircraft at the airport and the others that fly in use the city provided wash rack to wash that same oil off on the ramp and into the sewer?

As I said, it ain't over till the fat lady sings.

 

[poadeleted20]

You know as well as I do, no one (including a city pencil pusher) can prove what any aircraft altitude is or whether it‘s legal unless they were in the cockpit looking at the altimeter. Their “estimate” would not stand up in court.

I think perhaps you lack understanding of the law on this point or the others you made. The FAA busts folks for 91.119 violations all the time, and they don't need someone "in the cockpit looking at the altimeter" to make it "stand up in court" (that "court" being either one presided over by an ALJ or before the NTSB ).

 

[jetpilote]

Cap'n to Captain.

Unless there is a digital recording from ATL approach control to prove they busted the minimum allowable altitude with a mode C readout over their precious little city he will not be busted by someones best estimate.

We agree that we disagree and that's OK.

 

[poadeleted20]

Cap'n to Captain.

Unless there is a digital recording from ATL approach control to prove they busted the minimum allowable altitude with a mode C readout over their precious little city he will not be busted by someones best estimate.

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.

 

[tdager]

BTW...I will say this as well, it is my understanding that the city WOULD love to shut down the airport, so I am not defending them in this simply because I side with them, but because I sincerely believe that Dan simply should have taken the ticket and moved on and not created such a raucous.

 

[jetpilote]

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.

 

[ScottM]

Face it, if the facts are as they've been told, Gryder's toast.

He definitely appears to not have handled being pulled over very well.

The airport board notes paint a picture from the perspective of the board itself. It is obvious from that input it appears they do have issues with him. It is still unclear what his side of the story is. The fact that they, the airport board, have shown that they are somewhat lax in their own procedures. This is obvious when you look at the "handshake" issue. They backed off of their own initial views when confronted with the former airport manager's support of Dan's versions of the events. This does at least lend credibility to Dan.

 

[flyersfan31]

Bicker bicker bicker!!!

Bicker bicker bicker!!!

 

[ScottM]

Bicker bicker bicker!!!

Bicker bicker bicker!!!

 

[poadeleted20]

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.”

Buying a type rating gives one credibility in your eyes but 2000 hours in tactical jet aircraft with MGW's up to 95,000 lb and speeds over Mach 2.5 doesn't? How about 1000 hours of Part 135 IFR 1-pilot captain experience? Too bad the FAA doesn't give type ratings for military aircraft with no civilian equivalent -- maybe that paper would impress you.

We just don't agree and that's OK.

Well, it's OK with me if you don't understand the rules on adjudicating flight violations, but you're the one who will suffer if you ever face an FAA enforcement action. Adios, muchacho.

 

[SkyHog]

Methinks Jetpilote either is Dan Gryder, or is good friends with him. His arguments don't make a lot of sense, and smack of a personally offended party.

BTW, JetPilote, I frequently have disagreements with Ron Levy, but honestly, I would never, and have never brought his qualifications to question....that would be a losing battle, so sayeth the US Navy, the FAA, his own logbooks, and umpteen certificated private pilots, instrument pilots, commercial pilots, and who knows who else who've learned under him.

 

[TMetzinger]

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.”

That's because you can't put F-XXX on a civilian pilot certificate. While many of us may wish Ron wasn't right as often as he is, he is. When it comes to regulations, and the FAA and NTSB enforcement of such, Ron is pretty much the Shaolin Master in this community.

Your comments (I note that you don't address Ron's actual POINT, which is that pilots get violated all the time for low altitude flying based on the testimony of laypersons) do your reputation no credit.

 

[Trapper John]

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.”

Buying a type rating gives one credibility in your eyes but 2000 hours in tactical jet aircraft with MGW's up to 95,000 lb and speeds over Mach 2.5 doesn't? How about 1000 hours of Part 135 IFR 1-pilot captain experience? Too bad the FAA doesn't give type ratings for military aircraft with no civilian equivalent -- maybe that paper would impress you.

And if you two were in the same room, you could see who had the bigger wristwatch and be done with it...


Trapper John

 

[poadeleted20]

And if you two were in the same room, you could see who had the bigger wristwatch and be done with it...

Well, I might not have the bigger watch, but I do know what time it is.

 

[tonycondon]

Well, I might not have the bigger watch, but I do know what time it is.

time for a bigger watch?