Final out on N928JP

Hoo boy...Gryder is featured in the NTSB report, regarding the red beacon light he stole during his trip to the accident site:

"The agglomerate stack warning light was stolen following the accident, so an accurate determination of its operating status could not be made."​
 
The agglomerate stack was equipped with an aircraft warning light; however, the light was stolen before it could be examined by the NTSB. The Heyburn Police Department investigated the theft but was unable to recover the light. According to the police report, an individual was found to have trespassed on the property of Gem State Processing after the accident. This individual later published a YouTube video where he reported to have taken the light from the accident site. When questioned further about the location of the light, the individual recanted and stated that he had essentially made the video for dramatic effect, and while he examined the light at the accident site and removed it from its conduit, he had not taken it away. The Heyburn Police Department report, along with a copy of the YouTube video are included in the public docket. Examination of the video appeared to indicate that the light was the same type as initially observed at the accident site and bore similar labels along with signatures of possible damage that matched the accident light.
 
Last edited:
Racerx said:
The agglomerate stack was equipped...
Click to expand...
Thanks, I was just about to post that exact quote...
Gryder may still have some legal exposure here, either civil or criminal but I'm no lawyer so who knows?
 
Two things in the NTSB report that I don't believe were widely discussed in public are that flaps were found retracted at the scene, and the analysis showing that the "agglomerate stack" may not have been visible above the instrument panel.

No surprise the pilot was faulted for descending below the approach path.

The issues about the various stacks -- not being painted as required, and the one stack perhaps not having a red beacon (thanks, Gryder, for obscuring that) would be moot if the pilot would not have seen the stacks anyway.

Lots of discussion in the report about interaction between FAA and potato plant about the stacks.

Figure 3 in the report shows that the published descent angle from JAMID (3.75 deg) only clears the stack that was hit by 98 feet. Of course, you can't leave the MDA (4560) without proper visual references, and that's about 400 ft above the stack (4156).

Seems like th danger with this approach is that if you break out with runway environment in sight but stacks below line of sight, and then proceed below the published descent angle, you may never see the stack that kills you. The intracacies of instrument appraoch charts can be lethal.

Have I got this right?
 
Racerx said:
The agglomerate stack was equipped with an aircraft warning light; however, the light was stolen before it could be examined by the NTSB. The Heyburn Police Department investigated the theft but was unable to recover the light. According to the police report, an individual was found to have trespassed on the property of Gem State Processing after the accident. This individual later published a YouTube video where he reported to have taken the light from the accident site. When questioned further about the location of the light, the individual recanted and stated that he had essentially made the video for dramatic effect, and while he examined the light at the accident site and removed it from its conduit, he had not taken it away. The Heyburn Police Department report, along with a copy of the YouTube video are included in the public docket. Examination of the video appeared to indicate that the light was the same type as initially observed at the accident site and bore similar labels along with signatures of possible damage that matched the accident light.
Click to expand...
So no matter which story is true, the guy's a liar... and may be a thief as well. I'm still scratching my head over why anyone would care what he has to say, or contribute to his attempts to suck money out of YouTube.
 
I'm curiously about how they are using the word trespassing. I'm also curious that he was ABLE to "steal" the thing if they had actually done their investigative job properly. Seems like someone must've failed to secure the scene and the evidence. As much as I think Gryder has issues, this is more embarrassing for someone else.

That's not the first time he's visited a site after the the fact and found pieces, and I've found pieces before, too... at a more high profile scene. I turned what I found in to the NTSB, mind you, but still...
 
The NTSB is just taking a pot shot at DG because he's constantly calling them out for not doing what is supposed to be part of their jobs - making recommendations to improve safety after each accident.

IMO this is a clear attempt on their part to try and discredit him. If the light was important they would have recovered it during their investigation. At the time of this report this light clearly has no bearing on anything. It's clear from previous videos the light was installed. Whatever happened to it after it was damaged is completely irrelevant. Just NTSB pulling a Trent Palmer on DG.
 
Lndwarrior said:
The NTSB is just taking a pot shot at DG because he's constantly calling them out for not doing what is supposed to be part of their jobs - making recommendations to improve safety after each accident.
Click to expand...
Your post is a pot shot against the NTSB, who is merely stating as a matter of fact that a piece of evidence was stolen and therefore could not be analyzed.
Lndwarrior said:
At the time of this report this light clearly has no bearing on anything. It's clear from previous videos the light was installed. Whatever happened to it after it was damaged is completely irrelevant.
Click to expand...
It's not up to you, or internet con artists, to decide whether evidence is relevant or not.
 
dmspilot said:
Your post is a pot shot against the NTSB, who is merely stating as a matter of fact that a piece of evidence was stolen and therefore could not be analyzed.

It's not up to you, or internet con artists, to decide whether evidence is relevant or not.
Click to expand...
As my previous post stated - the issue is that someone has to not be doing their job FIRST for Gryder to even gain access. I think you’re wrong and the NTSB failed to ensure that all relevant evidence was secured.
 
Page 20 the accident report states “[T]he Heyburn Police Department report, along with a copy of the YouTube video are included in the public docket.”

Which of the 43 docket items contains the above? I’ve looked without success.
 
RyanShort1 said:
As my previous post stated - the issue is that someone has to not be doing their job FIRST for Gryder to even gain access. I think you’re wrong and the NTSB failed to ensure that all relevant evidence was secured.
Click to expand...
I am wrong about what? What you wrote is completely orthogonal to what I wrote.
 
Lndwarrior said:
The NTSB is just taking a pot shot at DG because he's constantly calling them out for not doing what is supposed to be part of their jobs - making recommendations to improve safety after each accident.

IMO this is a clear attempt on their part to try and discredit him. If the light was important they would have recovered it during their investigation. At the time of this report this light clearly has no bearing on anything. It's clear from previous videos the light was installed. Whatever happened to it after it was damaged is completely irrelevant. Just NTSB pulling a Trent Palmer on DG.
Click to expand...
There's plenty of evidence not from the NTSB that he's a criminal and a sociopath in addition to a lying narcissist. That's just my opinion, of course.
 
I wasn’t aware that standard NTSB procedure was to post armed guards at the scene where a small aircraft crashed

But, hey, anything to defend the biggest tool
 
Bob Noel said:
I wasn’t aware that standard NTSB procedure was to post armed guards at the scene where a small aircraft crashed

But, hey, anything to defend the biggest tool
Click to expand...
I’m not defending him, not one iota. I have personally interacted with him about two different accidents telling him why he was wrong about something, and he wouldn’t listen, but he appears to be correct when he says that the NTSB frequently isn’t doing their job. Both things can be true in this instance.

No, it’s not the NTSB’s job to post the armed guards, but they are the agency with the final responsibility to make sure that the evidence that they need is collected, and should at a minimum be ensuring that the agencies they work with understand what they need to collect and do so adequately.
 
It's trespassing whether they "secured" the scene or not. Actually, in this case under Idaho law, it's burglary.

The NTSB doesn't have the resources to go surround the entire perimeter from interlopers. That's usually done by the local constabulary. On minor accidents like this, you're lucky you got even one NTSB employee on scene.
 
flyingron said:
It's trespassing whether they "secured" the scene or not. Actually, in this case under Idaho law, it's burglary.

The NTSB doesn't have the resources to go surround the entire perimeter from interlopers. That's usually done by the local constabulary. On minor accidents like this, you're lucky you got even one NTSB employee on scene.
Click to expand...
Trespassing is usually subject to a LOT of interpretation. If a news reporter showed up on scene, they 100% would not be accused of trespassing. If DG hadn't picked up the light, he probably wouldn't be, either. The question is: Did someone on site actually ask him to leave, or was this accusation leveled at him after the fact.

None of that even matters, because it is an ad hominem against him, also a red herring, and that isn't the right kind of argument to disprove the essential thing he is saying, that the NTSB isn't really doing their job according to their purpose. That light shouldn't have been sitting there for him to pick up.
 
Does Gem plant have some Civil liability here for failing to adhere to the FAA mitigation study by not painting the stacks as required?
 
RyanShort1 said:
Trespassing is usually subject to a LOT of interpretation. If a news reporter showed up on scene, they 100% would not be accused of trespassing. If DG hadn't picked up the light, he probably wouldn't be, either. The question is: Did someone on site actually ask him to leave, or was this accusation leveled at him after the fact.

None of that even matters, because it is an ad hominem against him, also a red herring, and that isn't the right kind of argument to disprove the essential thing he is saying, that the NTSB isn't really doing their job according to their purpose. That light shouldn't have been sitting there for him to pick up.
Click to expand...
It's hardly "ad hominem" when the NTSB doesn't mention any person in their report, just the light was stolen (which is not under dispute).
 
Also- this accident highlights the dangers of obstacles around airports that may only be known to locals. I looked today and the only identifiable call out for this obstacle is in a user comment on Foreflight. Minimal comment in Remarks section and buried within a lot of other remarks about railway cars, agriculture activity, fuel sales, etc. I would have expected a remark about this in the remarks section on the approach plate. I can absolutely see how breaking out at the MDA and seeing the runway and starting a descent would lead to this- even if she got a little low (98') at 1/2nm final. A white stack in the middle of a steam cloud on a low contrast snowy day would be hard to see.
 
Another aspect, it would be amazing foreknowledge to know from the start that a red beacon light would be material to the crash investigation
 
AquaLand said:
Which of the 43 docket items contains the above? I’ve looked without success.
Click to expand...
I can't find it either. Went through the whole docket. When I get some time when the week starts, I'll try and see if the local PD has it, and also I'll *try* to reach out to the NTSB to see where it is. Wish me luck. haha.
 
RyanShort1 said:
So, uh, I wonder if this guy was also violated for "trespassing"?

Click to expand...
That guy seems to have remained on the public right of way. So no trespassing occurring. But was Gryder actually violated for anything? It seems to be clear enough that he tampered with and concealed items that the NTSB would have liked to have for its investigation. And whether he thinks they're good at their jobs or not, he's not entitled to do that. Of course, when he wrecked that poor guys Cessna he refused to cooperate with the NTSB investigation there too, so no surprise.
 
Lindberg said:
That guy seems to have remained on the public right of way. So no trespassing occurring. But was Gryder actually violated for anything? It seems to be clear enough that he tampered with and concealed items that the NTSB would have liked to have for its investigation. And whether he thinks they're good at their jobs or not, he's not entitled to do that. Of course, when he wrecked that poor guys Cessna he refused to cooperate with the NTSB investigation there too, so no surprise.
Click to expand...
I sure looks to me like that guy was shooting from inside the property on the second half of the video. All I'm saying is that there'd better not be a double-standard, and the fact that he found the light seems to me to be evidence of sloppy accident investigation, which isn't a good look.
I expect more from the NTSB whom our taxpayer dollars fund, than I do from Gryder. You can slam him all day long, and he can be everything we don't like, and it doesn't change one bit the issues with the NTSB.
 
RyanShort1 said:
I sure looks to me like that guy was shooting from inside the property on the second half of the video. All I'm saying is that there'd better not be a double-standard, and the fact that he found the light seems to me to be evidence of sloppy accident investigation, which isn't a good look.
I expect more from the NTSB whom our taxpayer dollars fund, than I do from Gryder. You can slam him all day long, and he can be everything we don't like, and it doesn't change one bit the issues with the NTSB.
Click to expand...
That's a stretch. If he's on their property at all, he's on the very edge of an external parking lot. According to the report, Gryder actually entered the property and retrieved the light. And then hid it from investigators. If he was anything other than a completely self-absorbed **** brick and actually cared one single iota about air safety, he would have done exactly the opposite and instead called investigators' attention to the light and immediately turned it over.

He's not only not good at what he claims to be good at, he's not a good person. Just my opinion, of course.
 
In Idaho, it is trespassing if you enter the property of another without permission, knowing or with reason to know that his presence is not permitted. That's possibly arguable. It much depends on the presence of signs, fences, warnings, etc...

One you take something from the property, that's theft and elevates the crime to burglary. There's no obligation for the property to be secured. You enter onto property of another and take something that does not belong to you, it is burglary. Not much to interpret there.
 
flyingron said:
In Idaho, it is trespassing if you enter the property of another without permission, knowing or with reason to know that his presence is not permitted. That's possibly arguable. It much depends on the presence of signs, fences, warnings, etc...

One you take something from the property, that's theft and elevates the crime to burglary. There's no obligation for the property to be secured. You enter onto property of another and take something that does not belong to you, it is burglary. Not much to interpret there.
Click to expand...
I doesn't look that simple to me. The first responders weren't trespassing simply by entering the property, and neither is a person who walks up to the door to ask to use the restroom at a place of business, even if that's dumb, or if they are trying to apply for a job. There are all kinds of reasons that a person an enter a property before it elevates to criminal trespass. The question remains: Did someone at the plant tell him to leave and he refused?

I have to deal with this somewhat frequently as a commercial photographer. Also, picking up "trash" doesn't usually get you in trouble for burglary. Now the light is definitely a different matter, but in this case, if it was carelessly left on the ground days after the investigation documentation should have been finished, it's a major oversight and worth being noted.

Section 18-7008 – Idaho State Legislature

legislature.idaho.gov legislature.idaho.gov
 
RyanShort1 said:
I doesn't look that simple to me. I have to deal with this somewhat frequently as a photographer. The question remains: Did someone at the plant tell him to leave and he refused?

Section 18-7008 – Idaho State Legislature

legislature.idaho.gov legislature.idaho.gov
Click to expand...
They didn't have to if he crossed the fence. Criminal trespass warnings are usually given when someone initially has permission to be in a place and then the permission is revoked, like if you're kicked out of a Walmart and told to never come back.
 
Lindberg said:
They didn't have to if he crossed the fence. Criminal trespass warnings are usually given when someone initially has permission to be in a place and then the permission is revoked, like if you're kicked out of a Walmart and told to never come back.
Click to expand...
I dunno, looks like the Oats Family Center is "open" to the public pretty much and that parking lot would be right where you'd need to be.

OATS FC.jpg
OATS FC 2.jpg
 
RyanShort1 said:
I dunno, looks like the Oats Family Center is "open" to the public pretty much and that parking lot would be right where you'd need to be.

View attachment 128025
View attachment 128026
Click to expand...
So no one knows what trespassing means. You can totally go onto other people's property and take their stuff without consequence because the law is so vague. But not really.
 
Lindberg said:
So no one knows what trespassing means. You can totally go onto other people's property and take their stuff without consequence because the law is so vague. But not really.
Click to expand...
Don't exaggerate. If you heard about an accident of a friend of yours in a public parking lot, let's say some Walmart, and went to see for yourself what happened, the chances of it being considered a trespass by all but the most unreasonable people is extremely slim and we all know that, and I'd include the dock areas, too. Trespass is generally reserved for those who are doing something with criminal intent. I don't think Gryder started with criminal intent, at all. Like him or not, he does want to see accidents reduced and the NTSB doing their job.

I'm not at all condoning it at all if he kept the light, which doesn't appear to be factually proven, but I'd be unhappy to find that light just sitting around in a parking lot days afterwards, just like I was unhappy to find parts next to the street after the B-17 collision. I don't think it was wrong of him to "pick it up" or video it, but if he kept it, sure, that's wrong and it's absolutely fair to condemn it.

Some of y'all hate Gryder so much (even if it's reasonable!) that it's clouding your perspective and objectivity. If it was a friend of yours that crashed and you just went to look at the scene, like I did two days after the B-17, P-63 collision in Dallas, I guarantee you wouldn't be trying to fit a crime to your behavior. Take the emotions regarding this guy out of the equation.
 
Too fast, no flaps, below the mda, not a very long runway. Too fast and forgetting the flaps should have been enough to abandon that approach IMO. RIP pilot.
 
Several things to add:
-Not all public docket documents are posted online;
-Its not uncommon for the NTSB to revisit initial findings later in an investigation and look for additional evidence;
-Short of a Go Team investigation, the FAA handles a lot of the ground investigative work to include initiating their own investigations;
-Accident site security falls initially to local law enforcement and the aircraft operator by existing protocols, then to the FAA, then to the NTSB;
-And it is against federal law to "knowingly remove, conceal or withhold a part of a civil aircraft involved in an accident" and by extension items located at the accident site. You usually don't hear about this publicly for such a small site. However, on larger sites like the Atlas 767, etc. the local feds will issue statements reminding the public of this law which can bring some heavy civil fines and criminal charges in some cases.
 
Last edited:
RyanShort1 said:
Like him or not, he does want to see accidents reduced and the NTSB doing their job.
Click to expand...
The facts in evidence are all to the contrary. If that were true, he'd cooperate with them and help them do their job better, rather than obstruct and interfere with their investigations.
 
Lindberg said:
The facts in evidence are all to the contrary. If that were true, he'd cooperate with them and help them do their job better, rather than obstruct and interfere with their investigations.
Click to expand...
That argument is so full of holes it’s not worth parsing.
 
The thing about the NTSB is they will only publish what they can PROVE is true. There is no conjecture, no guessing, just pure simple facts. It may occasionally conflict with what *actually* happened, but their jobs aren’t to spin a narrative.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top