Replica P-51 Mustang - Destroyed

nauga said:
The facts surrounding this incident notwithstanding, look into the philosophy of the flight test "no vote". It's not a measure of "when to fly," it's a measure of when to NOT fly.

Nauga,
with no tolerance for cowboys
Click to expand...

I think that philosophy is appropriate. The challenge is if you hand a pilot the keys to your airplane, you've delegated the ultimate decision to him. What's his philosophy? What are the ROE? The post-mort is ugly if you didn't establish all that up front.
 
kyleb said:
The challenge is if you hand a pilot the keys to your airplane, you've delegated the ultimate decision to him.
Click to expand...
An inexperienced or untrustworthy test pilot may overstep the bounds of authority delegated to them, but handing them the keys does not in any way give them the unilateral authority to overrule a no-vote unless safety is compromised by adhering to it.

Nauga,
and an old Let's Active song.
 
Well, against my better judgment, I broke down and watched the video and now feel compelled to respond.

Gryder has absolutely no idea what he is talking about. If you listen to his diatribe when discussing the CLE FSDO and their response, he completely misrepresents what is being said in the letter he quotes from. If you pay attention you can tell when he is reading the letter and when he is filling in what he thinks are blanks. The letter basically states that the CLE FSDO does not send out the hotline letter and doesn’t know when it will be sent out. That is all it appears to have said. Nothing more. It does not say that they did not investigate the complaint, or the accident, or the pilot’s wrongdoings. I am willing to bet they did all of that and more.

It is my understanding that when someone files a hotline complaint that the complaint gets assigned to the relevant office by the hotline complaint office. After the complaint investigation is completed, the local office (CLE FSDO) sends their findings to the hotline office so that that office can respond to the complainant. In the meantime, if the complaint investigation turned up evidence of a violation, the FSDO will pursue that investigation. And they will not discuss that investigation with anyone even the person who tipped them off to the violation via a complaint. They would definitely interview the complainant as they would any potential witness but are under no obligation to provide a status of that investigation to him. Besides, I guarantee that the pilot was very likely under investigation as a result of what the FSDO discovered during the accident investigation.

On this and other sites, the owner itemizes everything that was wrong with the aircraft and what he told the FAA in the hotline report. The thing is, as the owner of the aircraft he would have been interviewed by the FSDO as part of the accident investigation and even asked to provide a written statement. That statement should have included all the same info as his hotline complaint and his repetitive internet griping.

Gryder and others asserting that the FSDO or FAA did nothing in the way of an investigation solely based on the verbiage in the letter regarding the disposition of the hotline complaint do nothing more than illustrate their ignorance of the process.

I thought most pilots were too intelligent to fall for Gryder’s idiocy. He has serious heartburn against the government especially the FAA over their investigations into his own transgressions. I also would not be too surprised to learn that some of his extra bitterness is over him not being hired by either the FAA or the NTSB as he truly seems to believe his knowledge and expertise exceeds theirs. Regardless he definitely suffers from a case of major butt hurt.

Gryder also fails to assign any responsibility or blame on the builder/owner of the aircraft for his role in the chain of events. As others have noted here and elsewhere, the aircraft seems to have some possible build errors and the owner’s judgment is called into question by his hiring of this particular mechanic, test pilot, and Titan expert. If the owner built the plane, he should have the knowledge to be able to maintain it. If he doesn’t, hopefully he was not awarded a repairman certificate for it. Though maybe he was finally realizing his own inadequacies and felt he needed this “expert” to help him not crash the plane.

I seem to recall Gryder is big on throwing around concepts such as links in the accident chain or the Swiss cheese model. Strange that he left out the biggest hole in the cheese or the weakest link in the chain. But perhaps it didn’t fit his narrative.
 
MauleSkinner said:
Destroyed, but repairable?
Click to expand...

geezer said:
Yes, that is HIS employee who flew HIS plane. Did HE give instructions to his mechanic to keep that pilot out of his plane? Did he tell his mechanic to have his test pilot run the engine to test some of the work performed?

There lies the "rest of the story".

With $400,000 involved, the plane would not move without my specific permission, and the systems would be fully checked out, on the ground, chocked. Tail tied down.
Click to expand...

The mechanic was my rep. He had full authority, and exercised it. The pilot ignored him, and then crashed the plane. That sums it up. You can slice this any way you want.

Only a brain dead idiot would have flown that plane.
 
So the pilot stole the plane and crashed it. Call the police and make a report. The mechanic should have chocked the wheels, and taken the keys. He had custody, and you had not changed that condition, in your present view.

If the pilot had your permission to fly the plane, and the mechanic knew it, then you were not properly supervising your employee, and now have regrets.

Decide whether he can document that he was in legal possession of the keys and permission, and if not, send him to jail. Complaining to us on line will not harm or deter him.
 
Project: Mustang LLC said:
The mechanic was my rep. He had full authority, and exercised it. The pilot ignored him, and then crashed the plane. That sums it up. You can slice this any way you want.

Only a brain dead idiot would have flown that plane.
Click to expand...
Who hired a brain dead idiot to fly their $4000,000 investment?
 
I'm bored today and really want some mudpit of drama to roll around in and revel... but I just can't be moved to give a hang about any of this.
 
I can send the actual video to anyone who wants to see it, non-edited. Then you make up your mind.

You just need to PM me.

I never would have flown any plane, with known defects, after a mechanic told me not to. I guess many of the keyboard commandos on this forum see no problem, and are quick to come to the defense of someone who ignored sound advice. Someone who lied. And then took a plane without authorization and crashed it.

For those of you in Rio Linda, my personal rep and mechanic who had full authority, told him do not fly.

I hired the Titan Factory test pilot. He held himself out to be professional, conscientious, and safe. You can decide…

Final post, parking brake set.
 
Last edited:
What Project: Mustang needed was a competent project manager, and skilled system engineer, to see that the plane did not have inherent defects that could shut down the engine, and see to it that the plane was not fueled up until all the systems were complete, and ground tested. How could this plane have had a load for a portion of the engine controls that exceeded the current rating for the installed breaker? That violates both aviation and automotive engineering rules.

This keyboard monkey has had such responsibilities, and the projects came to fruition safely and profitably. Every element of a system must be tested independently, then as a system, and worst cases initiated.

This internet officiando has also refused to fly plane that were signed off by an A/P and A/I.

Furthermore, this pilot has test flown several aircraft after major repairs or modifications, but only after very thorough personal inspections of the entire aircraft, not just the repaired portion..

Until this Project takes a new approach to the plan and design, it will repeat the recent failures. People with the correct skills do not come cheap, but they do earn the pay.
 
Once it was discovered that you had a draw exceeding the 40 amp alternator, I don’t see why the airplane was started, let alone flown, until the alternator was upgraded or load was somehow decreased. And with all the other known issues, there was some major dumbassery by all involved parties.
 
man I sure wouldn’t want to fly an airplane with only electronic ignition and no backup battery to that electronic ignition
 
RyanB said:
Yes, let’s try to be kind to those who may be different than us.

/tsk,tsk
Click to expand...

You misunderstand, SkyDog58 clearly considers that his own face is similarly fugly, and there is therefore no difference to consider :D
 
Well one thing for certain, the plane seems to fit the term “amateur built” perfectly.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top