Dan Gryder is tweaking the NTSB

Boy, this is the gift that keeps on giving (or the rabbit hole that keeps going deeper). Gryder was also essentially using the FAA and AOPA, and his work with them on the Cardinal, to strong-arm his local airport authority into giving him free parking for the DC-3:

http://cityofgriffin.com/portals/1/Documents/Airport/Advisory/docs/Aiport Advisory Minutes/2007/3Minutes Advisory Board 2 Aug 07.pdf

And I never really followed the FAA response to the DC-3 police incident, but apparently the FAA did suspend his certificate for an unknown length of time, and he initially appealed and then withdrew the appeal.

https://www.ntsb.gov/legal/alj/OnODocuments/Aviation/5687.pdf
https://www.governmentattic.org/18docs/NTSB-FOIArequests_2012-2013.pdf
 
OneCharlieTango said:
ISTM that maybe AOPA should've googled Dan's name before giving him such a high profile assignment.
Click to expand...

Such a search probably wouldn't have revealed anything untoward back then. The wheels didn't (publicly) start flying off his wagon until the police incident in November 2009.
 
OneCharlieTango said:
Ah. . .the DC-3 thing hadn't happened?
Click to expand...

Nope. The DC-3 vs. Cops incident at 6A2 happened 22 months after the apparently ratty-as-hell Catch-A-Cardinal airplane was delivered to AOPA in January 2008.

On a related note, I must say the folks in Frederick did a masterful job of keeping that entire affair under the radar.
 
Last edited:
flightwriter said:
Nope. The DC-3 vs. Cops incident at 6A2 happened 22 months after the apparently ratty-as-hell Catch-A-Cardinal airplane was delivered to AOPA in January 2008.

On a related note, I must say the folks in Frederick did a masterful job of keeping that entire affair under the radar.
Click to expand...

Do you have the rest of the story? Or at least a summary?
 
flightwriter said:
Nope. The DC-3 vs. Cops incident at 6A2 happened 22 months after the apparently ratty-as-hell Catch-A-Cardinal airplane was delivered to AOPA in January 2008.

On a related note, I must say the folks in Frederick did a masterful job of keeping that entire affair under the radar.
Click to expand...
Explains a LOT. Somewhere around 2012-2013 Dan was waging an all out online war with AOPA leadership using the internet to blast them every chance he got.
 
Fearless Tower said:
Explains a LOT. Somewhere around 2012-2013 Dan was waging an all out online war with AOPA leadership using the internet to blast them every chance he got.
Click to expand...

Odder still, as despite past "differences" AOPA has continued to report favorably about him and those around him. The association reported as Dan's oldest son spent his 17th birthday checking off several ratings in 2013...

https://www.aopa.org/news-and-media...r/18/pilot-rates-milestone-birthday-a-success

...And referred to Dan's DC-3 type course in a story from a few years later.

https://blog.aopa.org/aopa/2016/01/26/born-in-to-the-golden-age-of-aviation/

One other note: Dan lost his wife in (I believe) 2011 to cancer. I don't know what effect that may have had on his personality in the time before or since... but it may offer some added context about his more recent behavior. Or, it might not.
 
Could you perhaps provide some cliff notes for the unwashed masses? I remember that Cardinal and had heard nothing about this. I do recall seeing an AOPA sweepstakes Cherokee 6 that was weeping copious quantities of oil.

flyingcheesehead said:
Interestingly enough, I discovered that he had some involvement in the AOPA 2007 "Catch-a-Cardinal" sweepstakes that also got him in trouble with the FAA and AOPA, who had to take the plane back and do an additional $40,000 worth of work AFTER awarding it to the winner because of him. Lots of entertainment here if you're interested: https://www.regulations.gov/docket/FAA-2009-0281/document?sortBy=postedDate/QUOTE]
Click to expand...
 
Everskyward said:
Previously, I thought the arrogance was just his shtick and refused to give him any clicks. Now I see that it is who he really is.
Click to expand...
Makes you involuntarily throw up in your mouth a little having read that evidentiary document and then hear him say on his vids (paraphrasing), "The purpose of my channel is to prevent accidents."
He was actually going to pass that 177 to an unsuspecting sweepstakes winner as a legit. How did he escape criminal fraud charges?
 
steingar said:
Could you perhaps provide some cliff notes for the unwashed masses? I remember that Cardinal and had heard nothing about this. I do recall seeing an AOPA sweepstakes Cherokee 6 that was weeping copious quantities of oil.
Click to expand...

QUOTE: Inspector McKee will testify that to refurbish the aircraft between November 2006 and January 2008 Gryder Networks, LLC brought the aircraft to several maintenance facilities who performed maintenance on the aircraft but who didn't make the appropriate logbook entries in the aircraft's maintenance records for the maintenance performed. Specifically, Mr. McKee will testify that Mr. Dan Gryder of Gryder Networks, LLC told the various maintenance facilities not to provide him with logbook entries for the maintenance performed. Also, for the logbook entries Mr. Gryder did receive he chose not to put these logbook entries in the aircraft's maintenance records. Additionally, Inspector McKee will testify that two avionics racks were installed into the aircraft, an installation which constituted a major alteration, without the necessary 337 form being submitted to and approved by the FAA. Further he will testify that after a major alteration of an aircraft has been performed a 337 form must be submitted to and approved by the FAA before that aircraft can be considered airworthy. Finally, he will testify that Gryder Networks, LLC operated the aircraft on 10 flights subsequent to the installation of these avionic racks (prior to a 337 form for this installation being submitted to (and approved by the FAA) and therefore these 10 flights were operated in an unairworthy condition.UNQUOTE
 
steingar said:
Could you perhaps provide some cliff notes for the unwashed masses? I remember that Cardinal and had heard nothing about this. I do recall seeing an AOPA sweepstakes Cherokee 6 that was weeping copious quantities of oil.
Click to expand...

QUOTE
Tracey Potter call to inform me of his meeting with Mr. Steve Harris of AOPA scheduled for 05/06/08. He stated that the AOPA is aware of their mistakes in handling the paperwork with N778RD (formerly N18729) and he hopes to educate them a bit on how things should be handled. He also told me they (HAS) have a $22K (and counting) bill for the AOPA in order to fix all the problems found with the aircraft. Some of the major problems are outlined as follows:
Approximately 8 missing 337s (Field Approvals and STCs)
Missing rivets in the floor boards
Wrong prop governor installed
Aircraft out-of-annual

UNQUOTE
 
TxJim said:
Specifically, Mr. McKee will testify that Mr. Dan Gryder of Gryder Networks, LLC told the various maintenance facilities not to provide him with logbook entries for the maintenance performed.
Click to expand...

Why on earth would he do that? That doesn't even make sense.
 
eman1200 said:
You can’t fix stupid?

Makes zero sense...at least get the sticker as if u were gonna put it in the books.....
Click to expand...

No kidding. Unless you were going to try to make it look like the maintenance wasn't done... Or maybe you were going to pull a fast one at the very end and make it look like your (brand new) company did it all or something. I just don't get it. :dunno:
 
flyingcheesehead said:
make it look like your (brand new) company did it all or something.
Click to expand...
Probably this as I've seen and heard this happen before. However, I think the context of the quote of "not providing the mx entries" is more along the lines of not including those write ups in the aircraft record like the latter quote. Those mx facilities are required to make the entries per FAR regardless what the owner wants. Otherwise the mx provider gets nailed. Whether Gryder took possession of mx work package is another matter.
 
I’m guessing what he testified too was that he wasn’t provided a logbook to make an entry into. I hope he had a sticker with a logbook entry that he tried to provide.
 
Regarding an older comment here about the admissibility of NTSB reports: government reports are generally hearsay and therefore inadmissible under the rules of evidence. If there are factual findings in an NTSB report, you still generally need a person on the witness stand to testify as to those factual observations. The reason for the hearsay rule makes perfect sense here: if you're facing accusations by the NTSB or by a law firm suing you based on NTSB findings, it's hardly fair to let the jury see a written NTSB report when you can't cross-examine a report.

As for Dan Gryder, as a student pilot I do follow his YouTube videos as well as many other experienced pilots on YouTube. He'd probably increase his credibility if he wasn't so cranky, but I do feel I learn something from watching him spout off. In one hilarious video he posted, he audio-recorded a phone call with an NTSB lawyer who threatened him with criminal charges for supposedly removing evidence from a crash scene. (This was not an active scene, but a scene the NTSB had finished with. Gryder found a part lying around afterward.) That threat sounded super flimsy, and lawyers (especially government lawyers) really shouldn't be running around threatening criminal charges against people who annoy them. Even Gryder. I follow him but take him with a grain of salt, like most of what I watch on YouTube.
 
Sudburian said:
R. In one hilarious video he posted, he audio-recorded a phone call with an NTSB lawyer who threatened him with criminal charges for supposedly removing evidence from a crash scene. (This was not an active scene, but a scene the NTSB had finished with. Gryder found a part lying around afterward.) That threat sounded super flimsy, and lawyers (especially government lawyers) really shouldn't be running around threatening criminal charges against people who annoy them. Even Gryder. I follow him but take him with a grain of salt, like most of what I watch on YouTube.
Click to expand...
Don’t discount the possibility that what you heard was completely scripted and the “NTSB lawyer” was a voice actor Dan hired. It is reality TV, after all.
 
The ALJ seems to be a hoot: "
I will invoke the [sequestration] rule if counsel asks me to. Other than that, the witnesses can sit here in the courtroom and get bored to death.

But later on in the transcript, it appears Gryder entered the building with a prohibited device and was told to check it with security guards but he ran past the guards instead.

Okay. My mother warned me about lawyers who say, I just have one question to ask --
 
Last edited:
Sudburian said:
Regarding an older comment here about the admissibility of NTSB reports: government reports are generally hearsay and therefore inadmissible under the rules of evidence. If there are factual findings in an NTSB report, you still generally need a person on the witness stand to testify as to those factual observations.
Click to expand...

Yes, the NTSB report is hearsay, but reports by public agencies are very often* admissible as an exception to the hearsay rule under 803(8). The reason NTSB probable cause determinations are not admissible is by statute; not the rules of evidence. See, 49 U.S.C. § 1154(b).

(* Yes, there can be issues of hearsay within hearsay, and lack of foundations for opinions contained therein that might prevent admissibility of all or part of such documents.)
 
PPC1052 said:
Yes, the NTSB report is hearsay, but reports by public agencies are very often* admissible as an exception to the hearsay rule under 803(8). The reason NTSB probable cause determinations are not admissible is by statute; not the rules of evidence. See, 49 U.S.C. § 1154(b).

(* Yes, there can be issues of hearsay within hearsay, and lack of foundations for opinions contained therein that might prevent admissibility of all or part of such documents.)
Click to expand...

Uh oh, two lawyers on the thread. Watch out, Internet. But yeah, we're on the same page. I'm not familiar with that federal statute as I don't practice aviation law or know much about it, so that's interesting to know. The older comments in this thread were pretty sweeping in suggesting that NTSB documents "are accepted in courts" or "are not accepted in court," and the truth is of course kind of muddled because it depends on various wildly-changing circumstances that vary from one case to another--not to mention that we aren't even identifying any particular jurisdiction.
 
Sudburian said:
the truth is of course kind of muddled because it depends on various wildly-changing circumstances that vary from one case to another--not to mention that we aren't even identifying any particular jurisdiction.
Click to expand...

It's really not that muddled. It's clear in all jurisdictions under the statute I cited above that the final report setting forth the probable cause conclusions of the NTSB is inadmissible. ("Reports.—
No part of a report of the Board, related to an accident or an investigation of an accident, may be admitted into evidence or used in a civil action for damages resulting from a matter mentioned in the report.") Some courts held that the statute doesn't apply to the factual reports, and that became the prevailing view of the courts. The NTSB even ratified that view in a later promulgated regulation. See, 49 C.F.R. § 835.2.
 
PPC1052 said:
It's really not that muddled. It's clear in all jurisdictions under the statute I cited above that the final report setting forth the probable cause conclusions of the NTSB is inadmissible. ("Reports.—
No part of a report of the Board, related to an accident or an investigation of an accident, may be admitted into evidence or used in a civil action for damages resulting from a matter mentioned in the report.") Some courts held that the statute doesn't apply to the factual reports, and that became the prevailing view of the courts. The NTSB even ratified that view in a later promulgated regulation. See, 49 C.F.R. § 835.2.
Click to expand...

Interesting.Thanks. After a couple decades of doing this constitutional stuff that I do it’s not likely I’d risk malpractice by dabbling in aviation, but as a student pilot I can’t help but take an observer interest in it as I progress.
 
Apparently Dan Gryder was involved in a forced landing today. You can fast forward to 6:30 or so to see him talking about it while walking out of a corn field:
 
I don't understand why he has a beef with YouTubers that are not his friends... Matt G, Jason S... Soon he's gonna add Steveo...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top