Dan Gryder Lockheed Electra Crash

Status
Not open for further replies.
moparrob66 said:
I wouldnt say I'm a fan of Alex Jones nor Dan Gryder. Theyre both trying to make money by presenting their analysis of current events. Sometimes they exaggerate, sometimes even defame, like many talking heads in all sorts of media. They raise questions I cant immediately answer or never pondered, so I learn more about the topic theyre discussing. I spent enough time as a Cop to know that just because a government agency put it into a report, it isnt necessarily true or factual without an agenda driving it. Does that make me a conspiracy theorist?

I've found that folks fond of applying that label get unduly upset with anyone who questions something they agree with. Its usually a term of mudslingers or yellow journalists, so I avoid using it.
Click to expand...
But Gryder and Jones have nothing to back up what they speculate. So that makes them a conspiracy theorist. They haven't done interviews or any actual unbiased analysis.

What does that make the people that believe or have anything thought provoking beyond an eye roll when digesting their content?
 
Having watched most of DG's videos, he and I would agree 90% of the time, as would most here.
But that other ten percent? Absolutely fringe. Or beyond.
 
flyingcheesehead said:
woxof said:
"I am once again pretty disappointed with a non CFI, non MEI, part 121 FO YouTuber that never checked out in a BE-18 or an L12A.
FACT: The L12A will climb 400 fpm with full flaps extended, and the tailwheel doesn’t need to be locked for takeoff or landing. Tailwheel lock is a work load reliever for long taxiways where no turns are required. I never locked a tailwheel for any BE-18 takeoff or landing and this has zero to do with what happened. We typically don’t lock tailwheel for any L12A operation, but some do, just personal preference."
Click to expand...
Is the red text something Gryder said about someone else, or something someone else said about Gryder?

FWIW, Gryder does have CFI and MEI. So it sounds like he's talking about someone else?
Click to expand...

Those were Gryder's words. He's taking a swipe at Thomas Juan Browne ("blancolirio.") I'm not really sure how being a Part 121 First Officer makes someone less qualified than a Captain to comment on neglecting a checklist item and running an antique airplane off the side of a grass strip and into a tree.
 
ColinD said:
Those were Gryder's words. He's taking a swipe at Thomas Juan Browne ("blancolirio.") I'm not really sure how being a Part 121 First Officer makes someone less qualified than a Captain….
Click to expand...
And the irony is DG was a 121 FO. Until he got fired or left DL because he was given an offer he couldn’t refuse depending on which version of the story one wants to believe.
 
Video link on the 6/20 FB post, rolling down the hall, offering to hospital staff that he was available for a sponge bath, while recording himself

Shut off the pain meds now, he is well enough to go home and clean his own weenie

Sayeth this retired RN for the nasty pervert
 
4RNB said:
Video link on the 6/20 FB post, rolling down the hall, offering to hospital staff that he was available for a sponge bath, while recording himself

Shut off the pain meds now, he is well enough to go home and clean his own weenie

Sayeth this retired RN for the nasty pervert
Click to expand...
Interesting that he decided to publicly admit that he hid at least one camera from the NTSB.
I’ll explain all that in Sunday nights video (YouTube ProbableCause:DanGryder) video and graphics. There were no cameras running for the landing at any time.
NTSB stole one of my cameras (private personal property) but they didn’t find the other!
Click to expand...
 
Five pages in and I'm still at:
Wait. So the right brake fails, and the plane swerves left and meets vegetation.
THEN, the right engine won't shut down with the mixture, mags or fuel shut off.
 
aftCG said:
Five pages in and I'm still at:
Wait. So the right brake fails, and the plane swerves left and meets vegetation.
THEN, the right engine won't shut down with the mixture, mags or fuel shut off.
Click to expand...

With the damage to the nose, who knows what control cables got bound up or broke. And if wires to mags were opened the mag switches were out of the loop.
 
If you look closely in the video, right after the plane starts swerving to the left, you can see the right wheel throw some mud/debris up. That looks like someone locked the right brake, so it seemed to be working.
Or maybe I'm seeing things... :)
 
dtuuri said:
Doesn't look like it was locked to me:
https://imgur.com/R1xXSBI
Click to expand...
When you look closely as the tailwheel first hits the gound, it comes off the ground for a second or two while it rotates into a left turning configuration, then the aircraft immediately turns to the left, which seems to initiate a ground loop that was likely halted early by the impact with a tree. I agree that a locked tailwheel would have avoided that process.
 
aftCG said:
Five pages in and I'm still at:
Wait. So the right brake fails, and the plane swerves left and meets vegetation.
THEN, the right engine won't shut down with the mixture, mags or fuel shut off.
Click to expand...

Was the right engine at idle when they touched down? Could its throttle have failed, leaving the engine providing thrust?
 
Glenn Hancock owner and PIC of the aircraft posted this comment on Juan Browne's youtube channel.
Pretty good video with all of the details you could have had. We did only work on the right gear and while tightening the brake line, didn’t tighten it enough. We tested everything on the ground before flying and didn’t see any leaks. Apparently when we started flying and the gear was retracted, it twisted the line enough to loosen the brake line. When landing, and the tail wheel lowered, it started moving to the left as the left wheel assembly is a little tighter than the right. This has been the normal operation since I bought it, and requires a tap on the right brake to keep straight. Locking the tail wheel doesn’t really stop this motion but would have kept us straighter for longer. However, if you look at a longer arc you would see we would have more than likely hit the gas tank. The Lockheed’s tail wheel does’t retract and has never shown any signs of trying to ground loop. If you don’t have brakes you can’t control most tail draggers. Some are light enough to control with rudders but the big ones are impossible.

It was just a tragic situation with a ton of little miracles that made it all work out. I hope to be able to get her back into the air but it is going to be a job.
 
I'm pretty sure you could weld that tail wheel at a 45 degree turn to the left and the main brakes could override any tendency to turn - if they were working.
 
I thought the clairvoyants on this forum determined that the plane crashed because Dan Gryder was on it? He calls himself Probable Cause, right? Or is that just my conspiracy theory?
 
Datadriver said:
I'm pretty sure you could weld that tail wheel at a 45 degree turn to the left and the main brakes could override any tendency to turn - if they were working.
Click to expand...
Agreed. But when you miss a checklist item like that ...or re-write the checklists like Dan has previously said about the dc-3. You wonder what else was overlooked or dismissed. Maybe if the tail wheel was locked they wouldn't have needed that extra right brake pressure that they didn't have.

I'd be interested to know if a gear swing would have been customary after such maintenance.
 
jim rush said:
started moving to the left as the left wheel assembly is a little tighter than the right. This has been the normal operation since I bought it, and requires a tap on the right brake to keep straight.
Click to expand...
To me, this is a maintenance issue, not an operational one…he’s been flying an airplane that wasn’t right, but not addressing the issue.
 
MauleSkinner said:
To me, this is a maintenance issue, not an operational one…he’s been flying an airplane that wasn’t right, but not addressing the issue.
Click to expand...
There could be more than one reason for that, including aerodynamic tendencies, just saying… it’s not a lock that it’s a maintenance / airworthiness deal.
 
RyanShort1 said:
There could be more than one reason for that, including aerodynamic tendencies, just saying… it’s not a lock that it’s a maintenance / airworthiness deal.
Click to expand...
Aerodynamic tendencies don’t make he left wheel a little tighter than the right.
 
Here's my gripe. One of them.

This is the guy who insists on adding another line on the airspeed indicator for *safety* because too many people are ignoring the other indicators on the airspeed indicator that they're not supposed to go below. This is the guy who advocates a different formula for engine outs because it's *safer* than the best glide speed published in the POH. This guy was recently bellowing that nobody should practice Vmc demos in twins with the instructor blocking the rudder briefly to simulate the student is out of rudder before they actually get to that point, because it's *safer* to just not do Vmc demos. So. WHAT exactly is his rationale for Not locking a locking tailwheel for takeoff and landing? A POH and checklist item, by the way, at least in the Twin Beech. Why would a person argue that they don't need to lock the tailwheel? Because they're just too good of a pilot suddenly? Too studly to take the "weenie" way out of locking the tailwheel? Is that not backwards of everything else he claims? Is it not *safer* to have the additional support of a locked tailwheel, or at least not have a loosely swiveling tailwheel in case, I dunno, there's a gust of wind, or bumps on a grass strip, or say a brake issue maybe? Where is the logic here?? And the owner's assertion that you can't control tailwheels without brakes is not generally true. You have more than one way to manage directional control, and differential power is one of the more marvelous tools. I had a full brake failure in a T-6 once, and had to land it without brakes and keep it under control, and I had 1) my tailwheel locked, and 2) would have loved to have had differential power available, mostly for taxiing and parking afterwards. lol Anyway, this is another fine example to me of why this guy is a narcissistic tool. I knew the moment this happened he'd have an argument that his followers would buy into as to why it's not his fault, but I never dreamed it would be "the unlocked tailwheel doesn't matter", (against the checklists, against other experienced multi tailwheel pilots, and against all logic), and they'd buy that too.
 
I’ve never flown the type in this event but I have to say that every tail dragger I’ve flown that had a tailwheel lock had it because the really smart folks that designed it determined it was necessary and/or beneficial. I can’t fathom having one and not using it, especially in a higher gross weight aircraft. The heaviest landing I’ve had in a TW was ~16k lbs. you can bet your butt that lock was on.

I won’t pass judgment until someone can speak authoritatively on the type but it sounds like BS to me when he asserts that the wheel lock is normally not used.
 
FlightofTwo said:
The Beech 18 I fly also does not have a tailwheel that retracts.
Click to expand...

What model, the d18's onward did. It is possible to stiff leg it down by removing the sprocket and chain and bolt it in place.
 
I always enjoyed hearing from Mt Olympus when I was a kid dialing in faraway short wave stations. I imagine it is getting pretty crowded up there. Thank you for yet another pontification.
 
Does yours have the walking gear too, so you can back into a spot?
 
Mikey52 said:
Does yours have the walking gear too, so you can back into a spot?
Click to expand...
It does have the walking gear. I've had three people in the last two months come up to me with concerns about what's wrong with my gear, one of them an A&P, just hadn't heard of walking gear. He still looked at me funny when he walked away, not really sure he believed it. (I don't own it btw, I say "my" because I'm flying it, but it belongs to the CAF.)
 
FlightofTwo said:
The Beech 18 I fly also does not have a tailwheel that retracts.
Click to expand...
Yes, I was going to say not all of them retracted and I'm pretty sure all of them were DESIGNED to retract but there were some issues (the tail gear could jam and keep even the mains from extending) so some had them fixed down (and the linkage disconnected).
 
Dan has a new video out. It is titled What Did Dan Forget. He forgot to check the brake pressures(actually, it was the PIC - I am not sure what experience Dan has on this aircraft). We did that on the Cessna 150 when I got my private pilot license as it was on the checklist. Surprised that Dan typically never did this). But it is a good idea for those not doing it.

A locked tailwheel could help(and that is from a real tailwheel pilot) as it will have a straightening force.

On touchdown, always try a smooth initial brake application(except perhaps on a short runway). If you add a lot of brake quickly at first and there is a brake without pressure, directional control will be a problem. If you smoothly applied increasing brake and discover a problem, you may still have an option to do a touch and go, depending on the runway and surrounding area. Adding power makes the rudder more effective and rudder alone can straighten the aircraft for the touch and go.
 
Last edited:
StraightnLevel said:
Thinking beyond this option, it puts you back in the air, and still without brake pressure on one side.

Now what? Aside from slowing your approach and touchdown speed to the bare minimum, what else can you do to deal with this situation?
Click to expand...
Go somewhere other than a small grass strip with hangars and trees just off the edge of the runway.
 
StraightnLevel said:
Well, anything will eventually come to to stop, one way or another.....

I was actually thinking of the more general case - any sort of plane, particularly something like a Cirrus that uses differential braking instead of a steering third wheel.
Click to expand...

A long, wide runway is your friend if you have a known ground directional control problem. The more open space, the better. In the SAT area, I look at SKF as my go-to emergency airfield. 11,000 x 150 with multiple approaches and a top-notch ARFF capability.
 
What I did when I tested the brakes in the air and realized I had a brake failure in a T-6 before landing, instead of taking it where I was going, which was a more narrow runway surrounded by trees that usually got pretty gusty, with a big ditch off to one side, I took it back to a long, wide runway where I landed uneventfully and had more difficulty parking than anything else. You land slow, power out, keep it straight with rudder and a locked tailwheel (!) and differential power if you have it (I didn't in the T-6 but you would in a twin). It'll slow to a stop. If you're about to go off the end or into something and you see it coming, you can kill it (mags are faster than mixtures). But choose a long enough runway and come in at the appropriate speed and you won't have that much trouble, (unless a person has always ridden the brakes and that's the only way they know how to taxi, land, etc.)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top