Dan Gryder Lockheed Electra Crash

wayneda40 said:
BTW, in the original video of Gryder's about this accident it appears that neither the left or right seat pilots had (or were using) shoulder harnesses. Who these days doesn't upgrade their expensive aircraft with at least a shoulder harness?! Would have almost certainly avoided at least the head injuries.
Click to expand...
Ever been in a Lockheed Electra?

It's similar to a DC-3 in that the windscreen is literally in your face. It's a tight cockpit. Shoulder harness won't keep your head from hitting it.
 
woxof said:
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.
StraightnLevel said:
Thinking beyond this option, it puts you back in the air, and still without brake pressure on one side - but at least you know what you're dealing with. That's better than the result we see on the video.

Now what? Aside from slowing your approach and touchdown speed to the bare minimum, what else can you do to deal with this situation? Is it better to run off the end of the runway slowly or risk a low-speed side-loading gear failure from trying to turn onto a taxiway too fast?

Once back in the air, you can now examine your options(which will vary from case to case) and then come up with a plan. What type of aircraft(Piper Cub could find a nice grass runway where brakes are not needed whereas a Lockheed twin is likely different. Where can one go to find a long runway or a wide runway or a runway where there are few obstacles or where the winds are more ideal, what is the fuel status, ARFF, etc, etc. Now you can plan.
 
I’ve been in a DC-3 and I’m pretty sure shoulder harnesses would be protective.
 
The real right decision would have been an immediate go around, land at a very long runway.

The mechanic there may not be cheap, but much cheaper than the present status.
 
geezer said:
The real right decision would have been an immediate go around, land at a very long runway.

The mechanic there may not be cheap, but much cheaper than the present status.
Click to expand...
Pretty short strip. By the time they got on the brakes and realized they had a problem, I don’t think a go-around was feasible.
 
And with an unlocked tailwheel, once it went, they were pretty much along for the ride, and adding full power and trying to do a go-around could have ended up worse than they already got.
 
Dave Theisen said:
Pretty short strip. By the time they got on the brakes and realized they had a problem, I don’t think a go-around was feasible.
Click to expand...
Yeah, I'm not fan of Dan's, but by the time an issue became apparent a go around would have resulted in a much higher energy crash into the trees at the end of the strip.

Based on what we know today, the second guessing should be on what might have been done differently to prevent the brake failure to begin with.
 
172andyou said:
Yeah, I'm not fan of Dan's, but by the time an issue became apparent a go around would have resulted in a much higher energy crash into the trees at the end of the strip.

Based on what we know today, the second guessing should be on what might have been done differently to prevent the brake failure to begin with.
Click to expand...
Working on aircraft with no factory support for parts, they had to fabricate the brake hose. If you fabricate anything you test it. In this case the aircraft should have been put on jacks and the gear swung. Most likely the brake hose would have failed in the shop and this would not have happened.

Even if you replace a brake hose on a supported Piper, Cessna or Mooney the gear should be swung and inspected that nothing is touching or under stress.
 
Klaus M said:
Working on aircraft with no factory support for parts, they had to fabricate the brake hose. If you fabricate anything you test it. In this case the aircraft should have been put on jacks and the gear swung. Most likely the brake hose would have failed in the shop and this would not have happened.

Even if you replace a brake hose on a supported Piper, Cessna or Mooney the gear should be swung and inspected that nothing is touching or under stress.
Click to expand...
Yep. That seems valid. And the pilot's comment imply, though doesn't outright state, that they didn't do that test.
 
172andyou said:
Yeah, I'm not fan of Dan's, but by the time an issue became apparent a go around would have resulted in a much higher energy crash into the trees at the end of the strip.

Based on what we know today, the second guessing should be on what might have been done differently to prevent the brake failure to begin with.
Click to expand...
Or detect it earlier.....
 
Lindberg said:
Or detect it earlier.....
Click to expand...
Yeah, sure.

I guess I'm looking the other way on that one because I can't remember if I've ever done a before landing brake check. I know my checklist doesn't have it, but think someone mentioned that his did.
 
172andyou said:
Yeah, I'm not fan of Dan's, but by the time an issue became apparent a go around would have resulted in a much higher energy crash into the trees at the end of the strip.

Based on what we know today, the second guessing should be on what might have been done differently to prevent the brake failure to begin with.
Click to expand...
When you land a single engine taildragger, you should be ready to add power to either straighten out or go-around if able(and necessary). On a twin, you should be ready to use differential power to straighten out(or at least prevent you from heading toward an obstacle. It is more likely that you will be ready to do this maneuver in the short time available for a positive recovery if you mentioned it to yourself as a reminder prior to touchdown. A simple increase in power on the left engine at the appropriate time would have straightened things out at least to a certain extent. One can even use a lot of power to intentionally groundloop if an obstacle is looming ahead.
 
172andyou said:
Yeah, sure.

I guess I'm looking the other way on that one because I can't remember if I've ever done a before landing brake check. I know my checklist doesn't have it, but think someone mentioned that his did.
Click to expand...

I was always taught to check the brakes for proper feel and pressure before every landing. It’s helped twice when things might have gone bad with no check. It won’t prevent a failure on initial application after touchdown but it will detect a slow leak that has compromised the brake system.
 
Jeff767 said:
I was always taught to check the brakes for proper feel and pressure before every landing. It’s helped twice when things might have gone bad with no check. It won’t prevent a failure on initial application after touchdown but it will detect a slow leak that has compromised the brake system.
Click to expand...

Oh, sure. It totally makes sense. Just saying that it's not something I was ever taught and isn't on any checklist I've ever had.
 
I once had one of the brake disks break off (!) of a Travel Air. The runway was long and wide enough so that getting stopped was not too difficult, but directional control during taxi was really a bear. I wish it had occurred to me to use differential power.
 
Just watched a new Gryder video. He reported on the NTSB preliminary. The NTSB report says that the tailwheel handle was found in the Locked position.
 
Let's say you start a landing without it locked. Hypothetically, could you successfully pull that lever/flip the switch/whatever it is during the rollout when things are obviously not working or after the crash?
 
SkyChaser said:
Let's say you start a landing without it locked. Hypothetically, could you successfully pull that lever/flip the switch/whatever it is during the rollout when things are obviously not working or after the crash?
Click to expand...
Only way to be sure on whether it was locked or not, would be pull the tailwheel strut assembly and tear it down and examine the locking parts.
 
Craig said:
Only way to be sure on whether it was locked or not, would be pull the tailwheel strut assembly and tear it down and examine the locking parts.
Click to expand...
The video showed the tailwheel rotating around. Either lock was broken or wasn't locked.
 
I thought gryder said he doesn’t lock the wheel on that aircraft.
 
Daleandee said:
Might hold off on that until after the crash ... :dunno:
Click to expand...
I've seen someone try to put the gear down after a gear up... it was comical seeing the tailwheel come down... but I honestly doubt that happened in this accident.

Maybe, maybe someone did try to lock the tailwheel after they swerved, but there wasn't a lot of time and I doubt that they were in a condition to do so after the impact.
 
My recollection of tailwheel locks is that you can pull the handle, but the tailwheel has to be centered for the lock to drop in place.
 
RyanShort1 said:
I've seen someone try to put the gear down after a gear up... it was comical seeing the tailwheel come down... but I honestly doubt that happened in this accident.

Maybe, maybe someone did try to lock the tailwheel after they swerved, but there wasn't a lot of time and I doubt that they were in a condition to do so after the impact.
Click to expand...
I'll wait for the NTSB report.

That's the kicker - as much as DG has publicly trashed on the NTSB, I'm willing to be the NTSB Final report will go into great detail not the condition of the tailwheel locking components.

If the lock was in place and something broke, that will be apparent.

But, if they find the lock in place and nothing wrong and everything else is intact....
 
RyanShort1 said:
I've seen someone try to put the gear down after a gear up... it was comical seeing the tailwheel come down... but I honestly doubt that happened in this accident.

Maybe, maybe someone did try to lock the tailwheel after they swerved, but there wasn't a lot of time and I doubt that they were in a condition to do so after the impact.
Click to expand...
Or maybe someone did lock the tailwheel, but when Gryder saw the video of the thing spinning around he came up with the story about never locking it and not needing to, not knowing that it was actually broken. Will he maintain that it had nothing to due with the LOC, or will he now deflect blame to the broken lock?
 
Lindberg said:
Or maybe someone did lock the tailwheel, but when Gryder saw the video of the thing spinning around he came up with the story about never locking it and not needing to, not knowing that it was actually broken. Will he maintain that it had nothing to due with the LOC, or will he now deflect blame to the broken lock?
Click to expand...
Hmmm...are you suggesting the cause was GLOC (Gryder Loss Of Continuity)? :)

Ron Wanttaja
 
Theory: Could someone have realized after the accident(while still in the cockpit for a long time) that they had never locked the tailwheel, realized that it was supposed to be locked for landing, and therefore decided to put the handle in the locked position(sort of like guys who put the handle down after landing gear-up). Knowing that the NTSB would ask about this, the answer would be...."of course it was locked". All this would have been based on the expectation that there would be no video proving that the tailwheel was actually unlocked. Once the video came to light, the story would have to change. Now it would be......I never lock the tailwheel....it is unecessary....I don't care what the manual says, I have been doing this for years." The B-nut would mysteriously become loose soon after.

Just a theory of coourse....I will delete this video...ahem....post soon.
 
woxof said:
Just a theory of coourse....I will delete this video...ahem....post soon.
Click to expand...
Sure, that's why I said that it would require a tear down of the tailwheel assembly to verify if it was locked or not. If I remember correctly, the locking key is brass, so quite soft and easy to shear.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top