Is Dan Gryder the biggest asset to aviation on youtube?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Warmi said:
There is a simple and often overlooked solution to all your dilemmas … don’t watch his videos if you don’t like his content.
Click to expand...
Is that you Dan? JFC the guy makes c-r-a-p up out of thin air and presents it as fact.
 
NHWannabe said:
Is that you Dan?
Click to expand...

Of course it is not DG. Warmi is just a sweet old man who doesn't understand modern terms like 'cancel' and is very moderate and non-judgemental. Note his "I have no idea who is right and who is wrong" text. See how even an non-judgmental he is. Absolutely nothing like DG. And because of this, we should all take his advice and back off and welcome DG and sing his praises. After all, isn't Warmi such a voice of reason?*
Warmi said:
I understand that and I won’t comment on the actual settlement because I have no idea who is right and who is wrong - it is funny to me though that people here are almost clamoring to have him essentially canceled ( thats the modern term for it I guess ) cause they don’t like him and what he is saying ..
Click to expand...

*Yeah, I'm not buying it either.
 
I don't see anyone trying to cancel anyone. we're (most of us are) merely pointing out what a tool he is (whether he is numero uno tool or not was the debate). you're more than welcome to watch him or whoever you want. but to claim he isn't a tool, leaving a wake of shenanigans wherever he goes, with whomever he meets, has been proven over and over to be incorrect. PROVEN......you know, FACTS, not what you THINK of him.
 
guest user said:
Of course it is not DG. Warmi is just a sweet old man who doesn't understand modern terms like 'cancel' and is very moderate and non-judgemental. Note his "I have no idea who is right and who is wrong" text. See how even an non-judgmental he is. Absolutely nothing like DG. And because of this, we should all take his advice and back off and welcome DG and sing his praises. After all, isn't Warmi such a voice of reason?*


*Yeah, I'm not buying it either.
Click to expand...
You are bordering here on being funny ... still on the wrong side of that border because you are trying too hard - the good news is that is a common problem , the bad news is that it won’t get better … you either have it or you don’t.
 
Wasn’t there something of a 1 million dollar lawsuit he lost?
 
Warmi said:
You are bordering here on being funny ... still on the wrong side of that border because you are trying too hard - the good news is that is a common problem , the bad news is that it won’t get better … you either have it or you don’t.
Click to expand...

No, the actual funny thing is that the point of my post seems to have completely gone over your head.

But thats ok. It seems to be in keeping w/ the accusation.
 
eman1200 said:
I don't see anyone trying to cancel anyone.
Click to expand...
I'm trying to cancel him. I'm old, so I remember when it was called "accountability" instead of "canceled". But being held accountable is part of life and sometimes it comes to the tune of a million bucks. Not sure why that became out of fashion lately.
 
Re Mr. Gryder: His videos on preventing stall/spin accidents with FlightChops and Aviation101 were excellent material. His kneejerk accident analysis is very problematic and in my observation often mere speculation. He was just nailed with a $1mm defamation judgment the other day for falsely reporting that someone was primarily responsible for a accident at a private airfield when that person was not in the area. Gryder interviewed a disaffected individual who also was not there, and did no verification of the information. Thus, the problem: the nuggests that are good suggestions get hidden in the smoke of bad information, lecturing, and, often false, blame laid with regard to these incidents. He started off well and has gone downhill since.
 
GaryR said:
Re Mr. Gryder: His videos on preventing stall/spin accidents with FlightChops and Aviation101 were excellent material. His kneejerk accident analysis is very problematic and in my observation often mere speculation. He was just nailed with a $1mm defamation judgment the other day for falsely reporting that someone was primarily responsible for a accident at a private airfield when that person was not in the area. Gryder interviewed a disaffected individual who also was not there, and did no verification of the information. Thus, the problem: the nuggests that are good suggestions get hidden in the smoke of bad information, lecturing, and, often false, blame laid with regard to these incidents. He started off well and has gone downhill since.
Click to expand...

You mean when he made up his own definition of maneuvering speed, then admonished people who only knew the book version instead of his made-up one? No he did not start off well and go downhill. He's always been a narcissistic prick.
 
eman1200 said:
I don't see anyone trying to cancel anyone. we're (most of us are) merely pointing out what a tool he is (whether he is numero uno tool or not was the debate). you're more than welcome to watch him or whoever you want. but to claim he isn't a tool, leaving a wake of shenanigans wherever he goes, with whomever he meets, has been proven over and over to be incorrect. PROVEN......you know, FACTS, not what you THINK of him.
Click to expand...
The first couple of times watching him is funny or interesting but after awhile it gets to be a bit much. But at the end of the day we are all intelligent enough to form our own conclusions.
 
Where he ran afoul on the legalities front was meddling in the medical certification angle. I've seen similar attempts at reprisal on my side of the house. Pilots and flight surgeons making idle threats about doxxing them to the civilian medical issuing authortity. That is the most clear cut case of attempting to cancel someone, and it is criminal as it should be.

Had he kept his argument opinionated for entertainment purposes, and dispensed with the recorded threats of reprisal, the whole thing would have been exempted. But he crossed that line and got taken to the shed over it. To wit, people have murdered each other for less. Don't threaten people's livelihoods, you'll always find out more than you were intending to deal with.
 
Hard to believe DG was once a Delta captain. Or was he?
 
He’s the Alex Jones of the aviation world. Quite frankly most of his content makes me cringe, BUT…. That being said, the man calls it usually like it is and that’s too much salt for some folks wounds. Is he an asswagon at times? Yea…. Doesn’t change the fact that he isn’t scared to just call it like it is.
 
Most major airline captains are too afraid to take a stand on anything… in that respect he was not typical.
 
Piperonca said:
Hard to believe DG was once a Delta captain. Or was he?
Click to expand...
Briefly. He was a very long standing wide-body FO. Upgraded to Captain on the DC-9 and flew the old Northwest -9s for maybe a year until Delta retired them. IIRC, he was offered a Captain spot on the MD-88 but he chose to take an early retirement.
 
I've gained a lot of respect for the Plaintiff in this thing. I aspire to have his tenacity if I ever need to settle a score, and I suspect DG is going to be ground rather fine under this judgement, even if it takes 10 years.

I wonder how being regularly hounded by Sheriffs looking for assets will affect his ability to "influencer". Hopefully so.
 
Skymac said:
...Quite frankly most of his content makes me cringe, BUT…. That being said, the man DOESN'T call it usually like it is and that’s too much salt for some folks wounds. Is he an a--wagon at times? Yea…. Doesn’t change the fact that he isn’t scared to just call it like WHAT HE THINKS IT is.
Click to expand...
FIFY. He literally just lost a lawsuit about his "calling it what it was" that was actually just a whole lot of lies tied up under the bow of "I'm a Youtube Expert". Just because some of the stuff he said turns out to be true does not give him the right to pull stuff out of his donkey and claim it's the truth. I'm not saying he never gets it right, but even a broken clock is right two times a day.
 
Skymac said:
He’s the Alex Jones of the aviation world. Quite frankly most of his content makes me cringe, BUT…. That being said, the man calls it usually like it is and that’s too much salt for some folks wounds. Is he an asswagon at times? Yea…. Doesn’t change the fact that he isn’t scared to just call it like it is.
Click to expand...
If only he’d also be right about what he claims
 
SkyChaser said:
FIFY. He literally just lost a lawsuit about his "calling it what it was"
Click to expand...

True statement. However, he was defaulted, which means that there was no trial or disposition by the court based on a factual determination that the allegations were true. The allegations are just judicially assumed to be true.
 
PPC1052 said:
True statement. However, he was defaulted, which means that there was no trial or disposition by the court based on a factual determination that the allegations were true. The allegations are just judicially assumed to be true.
Click to expand...
Incorrect. The initial judgement was a default. Then he showed up to defend himself after losing his legal team and lost a second time....
 
Fearless Tower said:
Incorrect. The initial judgement was a default. Then he showed up to defend himself after losing his legal team and lost a second time....
Click to expand...
The second time didn't examine the facts either, it was procedural to decide whether to vacate the original judgement. So it's still a default.
 
PPC1052 said:
True statement. However, he was defaulted, which means that there was no trial or disposition by the court based on a factual determination that the allegations were true. The allegations are just judicially assumed to be true.
Click to expand...
That was his choice. He also effectively defaulted on his own motion for new trial. And the plaintiff still had to prove damages.
 
I’m not defending the fella, but I disagree with how wrong you guys think he is all the time. The court case is one thing and he’s been slipping more lately, but still.
 
The second hearing was procedural, the question at hand there was the IT oracle "proving" to the satisfaction of a court [already shown contempt towards pro se representation] that he got served electronically. When he loses that argument (and I do think the court got that decision wrong, and I do think the court is biased against pro se representation, that is my opinion) it thus reverts to the default judgement. But it's still a default, the merits of the case were not given opportunity to be adjudicated on that hearing either.

There's an appeal process, which apparently is tracking on a similar path to the GA lawsuit he got overturned on appeal. Somewhat similar chronology, in that it appears to rise out of politically expedient courts making default judgements, which later get slapped back to trial by appellate courts. We will see what happens with the Texas case, but Gryder appears at least on the video, to be fairly undeterred by the default judgement. Understanding the successful GA appeal (which he did pro se mind you) gives us a glimpse on where that willingness to double down without financial concern in the Texas case may be coming from.
 
Skymac said:
I’m not defending the fella, but I disagree with how wrong you guys think he is all the time. The court case is one thing and he’s been slipping more lately, but still.
Click to expand...

The problem is he is a liar, a bully, and does not care the least about what he purports to be an advocate of.
The man does not care about aviation safety in the least. I have flown with him. I would not get on a plane with him again under any circumstances.
IMO, He is dangerous, reckless, and has left a list of people that he has allegedly screwed over but don't wish for a public fight so they have taken the L and moved on.
Anyone that believes his top priority is saving lives of pilots has bought into his online persona which couldn't be farther from reality.
 
PPC1052 said:
I haven't been paying close attention to this. Can you explain what you believe the court got wrong, and why it was wrong?
Click to expand...
I don't feel strongly enough to engage on it publicly.

I do hope the case can be tried on its merits, and this default judgement nonsense to stand down. I think he'd be an idiot to represent himself pro se on a full up trial, not because I disagree with the premise, but because I believe the courts reprise against the pro se (the anecdotes that inform my opinion on that matter are independent of the Gryder anecdote). I'd need a lawyer to prove that in a court of law of course, which rests my case. The irony does not escape me.

The Georgia appeal was an interesting read, and again I think gives a glimpse on the angle that could be forthcoming from ol' AQP danny in the Texas appeal. It's not completely without merit from my chair and gavel here in front of my Honorable Keyboard.
:D
 
hindsight2020 said:
I do hope the case can be tried on its merits, and this default judgement nonsense to stand down.
Click to expand...
I mean, even if we believe Dan's version of the story and he didn't know about the case until the default judgement (and his track record is such that believing him seems questionable), he still had a second chance. He went to court and had a judge that seemed inclined to vacate but hadn't done the homework necessary to be prepared.

I'm not sure what the judicial system is supposed to do. Beg the guy to defend himself?
 
172andyou said:
I'm not sure what the judicial system is supposed to do. Beg the guy to defend himself?
Click to expand...
From Dan Millican's account the judge kind of did that.

In addition, he didn't bother showing up to the hearing where damages were determined.
 
Last edited:
hindsight2020 said:
I don't feel strongly enough to engage on it publicly.

I do hope the case can be tried on its merits, and this default judgement nonsense to stand down. I think he'd be an idiot to represent himself pro se on a full up trial, not because I disagree with the premise, but because I believe the courts reprise against the pro se (the anecdotes that inform my opinion on that matter are independent of the Gryder anecdote). I'd need a lawyer to prove that in a court of law of course, which rests my case. The irony does not escape me.

The Georgia appeal was an interesting read, and again I think gives a glimpse on the angle that could be forthcoming from ol' AQP danny in the Texas appeal. It's not completely without merit from my chair and gavel here in front of my Honorable Keyboard.
:D
Click to expand...
I just watched part of a video where Gryder was boasting about his legal prowess. So I'm not sure what your issue with the courts are (malapropisms notwithstanding). He chose to not appear and answer the petition. That's on him. He chose to not be represented at the hearing on his motion for new trial. And he chose to not argue it. He's responsible for his choices, not the courts and not anyone else. Gryder was treated the same as anyone represented by a lawyer would be. I know you won't take my word for it, but represented parties get defaulted all the time. And lose MNTs. I haven't read the record because Tarrant county sucks, but if the reporting is at all accurate, and the final judgment accurately records the case history, I honestly have no idea what DG's appeal points will be on liability. He might have arguments that the damages are excessive, but I don't know what evidence was presented.
 
Lindberg said:
He might have arguments that the damages are excessive, but I don't know what evidence was presented.
Click to expand...
He bragged on YT that he had presented no evidence. He represented that his entire case to vacate is based on having not presented any evidence so the appeals court has no choice but to vacate and give him a new trial.

Makes no sense to me. According to his own words, he showed up in court unrepresented because he thought paying an attorney didn't make any sense and (my words) was unprepared to request a trial so instead had the default judgement affirmed.

He really seemed to think that he had masterfully played all this and now the deck was stacked in his favor.
 
If I'm not mistaken, DG was playing defense in this case, not prosecution. It is not required of him to present evidence, or else defense would never present evidence and then just have things overturned on appeal.

And I can't help but think the exchange w/ the prosecution had to be more than:
Judge: How much did you say he owes you?
Prosecution: $1.1m should do it.
Judge: Ok, $1.1m it is! Done!

Not saying there isn't a way for this to be overturned on appeal, but I doubt it is as straight forward as it is being presented.

Good news is that just means there is plenty more to come of this saga. Should be really good for the popcorn industry.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top