Video and Discussion - Burley, ID accident. Was "Gryder"

[Kenny Phillips]

Not a fan of Gryder or his conjecture that the advisory glideslope is partially to blame, but an improperly lighted tower so close to the runway is a concern even in VFR conditions. At night, under VFR, it doesn't take much to see the runway but miss an antenna penetrating your path. At the very least there should have been a NOTAM. At my home field I get notams about unlit towers that are nowhere close to the final approach path. This one looks like it is smack in the middle of the short final path.

If the tower was below a certain height, it wouldn't need to be lit, and wouldn't be NOTAM'd, correct? So only normally lit towers with lighting outages would be NOTAM'd, in that case.

 

[sarangan]

If the tower was below a certain height, it wouldn't need to be lit, and wouldn't be NOTAM'd, correct? So only normally lit towers with lighting outages would be NOTAM'd, in that case.

That could very well could be the case.
It appears a NOTAM for light outage went into effect a few hours after the crash. It does raise some eyebrows. The message I am taking away from this unfortuate accident is not to descend below MDA until the entire path to the runway is clear. That means a glimpse of the runway lights is not enough.

Juan Browne of blancolirio channel has two very informative videos on this topic (with none of the hype and speculation):

 

[Kenny Phillips]

That could very well could be the case.
It appears a NOTAM for light outage went into effect a few hours after the crash. It does raise some eyebrows. The message I am taking away from this unfortuate accident is not to descend below MDA until the entire path to the runway is clear. That means a glimpse of the runway lights is not enough.

Juan Browne of blancolirio channel has two very informative videos on this topic (with none of the hype and speculation):

I get you on the MDA. It's also possible that the tower was lit, if it was required to be, and the accident took it out. There are some videos of pretty heavy localized fog from the stack plume.

 

[midwestpa24]

That could very well could be the case.
It appears a NOTAM for light outage went into effect a few hours after the crash. It does raise some eyebrows. The message I am taking away from this unfortuate accident is not to descend below MDA until the entire path to the runway is clear. That means a glimpse of the runway lights is not enough.

Juan Browne of blancolirio channel has two very informative videos on this topic (with none of the hype and speculation):

First time I've gotten a look at the stack and steam cloud in question. That is extremely poor planning by the Airport, FAA, and/or the city having jurisdiction to permit a steam emitting stack to be built in line and so close to a runway threshold. In a low wind environment, the steam could be straight vertical blocking the view of the runway, not to mention the height of the stack being an obvious obstacle. Something tells me the FAA is going to look harder at this, and restrict operations to that runway unless the airport and city do something to mitigate the hazard.

 

[Hector Parra]

First time I've gotten a look at the stack and steam cloud in question. That is extremely poor planning by the Airport, FAA, and/or the city having jurisdiction to permit a steam emitting stack to be built in line and so close to a runway threshold. In a low wind environment, the steam could be straight vertical blocking the view of the runway, not to mention the height of the stack being an obvious obstacle. Something tells me the FAA is going to look harder at this, and restrict operations to that runway unless the airport and city do something to mitigate the hazard.

I'm wondering how much lobby the processing plant did to raise that stack there

 

[midwestpa24]

I'm wondering how much lobby the processing plant did to raise that stack there

There is a term the FAA and airports have, called Compatible Land Use. The FAA, through Grant Assurances, pushes airports to protect their operations and airspace through the use of zoning and height restrictions at the local level. However it is ultimately up to the local authorities to implement such zoning and restrictions, and to continue to enforce them. Often times the local government authorities don't even know or understand the restrictions, and fail to enforce them. I've dealt with that from time to time. The only recourse the FAA has is to restrict operations that are impacted by known hazards.

 

[Hengelo]

Can we pin this post whenever DG is mentioned? Might save a lot of electrons.

Hopefully! I've come back to many accidents years after the fact and not found much value other than a redux of what happened and a one sentence probable cause with really not much in there that wasn't already immediately known within days of the event. This one is higher profile so maybe we'll get more. Fingers crossed

RE: Gryder
-if people don't like him simply don't watch him, don't start threads about him, and ignore the ones that exist. He's found a formula that works and gets people talking about him, watching his videos, and get the YT algorithm to promote the channel

His channel's existence demonstrates that there is a void in the aviation space for adequate accident coverage. "Wait until the NTSB" isn't enough for most people, and people generally want to know what caused accidents, or at least talk about and exchange ideas so hopefully they don't make the same mistake. Everything else in life gets plenty of uneducated opinion coverage from Ukraine, to the economy, to whether the Red Sox will win, etc. Aviation is one of the worst areas of this. At least DG knows a thing or two about flying and offers a perspective and story that's not there. You've also got Juan Brown if you appreciate a different approach

I'm not defending DG as a person, but can understand why the channel exists and has followers

 

[Piperonca]

That’s not necessarily true. Some people are authorized to use the MDA as a DA on certain non-precision approaches with VNAV glide path guidance.

Edit: clarify approaches

Good catch. https://www.ifr-magazine.com/technique/decision-altitude-vs-minimum-descent-altitude/

 

[Turbo-Arrow-Driver]

Regarding Gryder, after a lot of review and analysis, I've concluded that of the four main points he makes about this accident, three are incorrect. I'll spare you the details and plan to send him a letter describing the errors he made.

However, highlighting the FAA's inability to enforce obstacle limits, and their lack of action in this case seems to me to be a real contribution.

BTW, anyone aware of this little incident involving Gryder back in 2009? https://www.avweb.com/news/pilot-arrested-after-airport-incident/

 

[luvflyin]

That’s not necessarily true. Some people are authorized to use the MDA as a DA on certain non-precision approaches with VNAV glide path guidance.

Edit: clarify approaches

Who?

 

[luvflyin]

Good catch. https://www.ifr-magazine.com/technique/decision-altitude-vs-minimum-descent-altitude/

This? That’s the RNAV (GPS) RWY 16L at KSLC. Gov Chart doesn’t have that Note. Wonder why Jepp likes to put it on there. If you were an authorized operator, wouldn’t you already know you can do it?

 

[midwestpa24]

However, highlighting the FAA's inability to enforce obstacle limits, and their lack of action in this case seems to me to be a real contribution.

The only tool the FAA has for enforcing obstacle limits is raising the minimums on the instrument approach, and making sure the obstruction is noted. The FAA has no statutory authority to prevent obstacles, they can only limit aircraft operations to avoid said obstacle. In this case, I believe the MDA would have prevented the collision, unless I missed that somewhere in this thread. Once below MDA, you are responsible for your own terrain and obstacle avoidance.

 

[MauleSkinner]

This? That’s the RNAV (GPS) RWY 16L at KSLC. Gov Chart doesn’t have that Note. Wonder why Jepp likes to put it on there. If you were an authorized operator, wouldn’t you already know you can do it?

there are certain criteria that need to exist in order for the approach to be eligible for operators to use MDA as a DA. That note is simply how Jepp states that the approach meets those criteria.

 

[luvflyin]

there are certain criteria that need to exist in order for the approach to be eligible for operators to use MDA as a DA. That note is simply how Jepp states that the approach meets those criteria.

Ah

 

[mryan75]

Once Gryder started insulting dead people and spreading Covid conspiracies I decided to stop watching. He is just plain crazy.

 

[Kyle N]

Often times the local government authorities don't even know or understand the restrictions, and fail to enforce them.

This is why it's a good idea for towns/cities to have airport commissions or boards - that way the people on the commission can help relay information to the other applicable parties (planning board, city counsel, etc).

 

[Kyle N]

I'm still having a hard time wrapping my head around how someone could reach the MDA, see the landing environment in front of them, but then descend into the fog from the stack. The geometry of it doesn't make sense to me.

Maybe Gryder answers this in his video, if I can find an hour of my life to spare.

 

[Tantalum]

Juan Browne

Juan Browne is great, really appreciate his content. Doesn't have the usual YouTube garbage that the others do

 

[Tantalum]

I must admit, this looks like a pretty stupid spot for a steam spewing exhaust stack


Yes - if you lose sight of the runway don't go below / start go around. But that is an accident waiting to happen. Not sure who was there first, runway or the factory, but that doesn't pass the sniff test.

 

[midwestpa24]

This is why it's a good idea for towns/cities to have airport commissions or boards - that way the people on the commission can help relay information to the other applicable parties (planning board, city counsel, etc).

Many small airports and communities don't even have a full time airport manager. Sometimes the "official" manager of the airport is a public works director, mayor, city manager, or even the city traffic engineer at one city I know. Their interest and knowledge of aviation and the FAA is the bare minimum that someone has made them do.

 

[Kenny Phillips]

Once Gryder started insulting dead people and spreading Covid conspiracies I decided to stop watching. He is just plain crazy.

I consider him entertainment. Though he likely has the DB Cooper thing correct.

 

[Kyle N]

Many small airports and communities don't even have a full time airport manager. Sometimes the "official" manager of the airport is a public works director, mayor, city manager, or even the city traffic engineer at one city I know. Their interest and knowledge of aviation and the FAA is the bare minimum that someone has made them do.

That's a good point, I have seen those examples as well.

 

[SixPapaCharlie]

Special VFR looks extra special in the video.

 

[Radar Contact]

Special VFR looks extra special in the video.

View attachment 106925

There goes the MC invite.

 

[Piperonca]

Regarding Gryder, after a lot of review and analysis, I've concluded that of the four main points he makes about this accident, three are incorrect. I'll spare you the details and plan to send him a letter describing the errors he made.

When you say 'spare the details', that's synonymous with 'POA Challenge.' OK, I'll go first. Can only attempt three because my headache won't let me watch the video again:
1. FAA, airport operator, and potato plant culpable in errors of omission/commission. Correct
2. DG assumes pilot followed Garmin guidance. Incorrect
3. Garmin at fault. Incorrect

So, what's my score?

 

[benyflyguy]

Special VFR looks extra special in the video.

View attachment 106925

Be neat to see what the rest of the cameras have to show. He probably had 6 of them in that plane

 

[Turbo-Arrow-Driver]

My apologies...I figure that most would not be interested. Here's the count as I have it -- facts only and ignoring opinions:
1) Tower was not properly painted or lit. Correct (if we believe him that the light was not connected)
2) Light should have been high intensity white strobe. False. An FAA letter about their review of the tower (he has a copy of it) specifically states the light s/b red -- not a strobe. Also, FAA AC 70/7460-1 inicates that the light does not need to be a strobe. I also think I saw somewhere that the FAA doesn't like to see high intensity strobes too close to an airport.
3) The FAA violated it's own circular AC120-108 by changing the descent angle at JAMID fix. False -- the AC specifically states this may be done in rare cases, and provides two possible methods for operators to fly the approach when this occurs.
4) There is not guidance for a 3.75 degree descent to the RW20 displaced threshold (with TCH 40'). False. His calculation of the descent angle from JAMID to RW20 is flawed. His horizontal distances are wrong (must use published FAA locations in lat/lon to determine distances, not the approximate values on the approach plate), and he's got the wrong altitude for the displaced threshold (10 feet too high). The descent angle from JAMID to RW20 is in fact 3.75 degrees, just as printed on the chart.

 

[Turbo-Arrow-Driver]

Just found this article from 2016, when the potato plant stacks were installed. Pilots were complaining about it then, and the FAA was trying to get the airport relocated. Don't know what ever happened with the relocation effort.

https://magicvalley.com/news/article_261a3ed6-dc1b-5426-b3a1-26463e7a121d.html

 

[Palmpilot]

My apologies...I figure that most would not be interested. Here's the count as I have -- facts only and ignoring opinions:...

I used to rent a turbo-Arrow. I loved it! Unfortunately it's no longer on the line where I rent.

 

[SixPapaCharlie]

There goes the MC invite.

Knowing what I know now I should never have agreed to that.

 

[luvflyin]

My apologies...I figure that most would not be interested. Here's the count as I have it -- facts only and ignoring opinions:
1) Tower was not properly painted or lit. Correct (if we believe him that the light was not connected)
2) Light should have been high intensity white strobe. False. An FAA letter about their review of the tower (he has a copy of it) specifically states the light s/b red -- not a strobe. Also, FAA AC 70/7460-1 inicates that the light does not need to be a strobe. I also think I saw somewhere that the FAA doesn't like to see high intensity strobes too close to an airport.
3) The FAA violated it's own circular AC120-108 by changing the descent angle at JAMID fix. False -- the AC specifically states this may be done in rare cases, and provides two possible methods for operators to fly the approach when this occurs.
4) There is not guidance for a 3.75 degree descent to the RW20 displaced threshold (with TCH 40'). False. His calculation of the descent angle from JAMID to RW20 is flawed. His horizontal distances are wrong (must use published FAA locations in lat/lon to determine distances, not the approximate values on the approach plate), and he's got the wrong altitude for the displaced threshold (10 feet too high). The descent angle from JAMID to RW20 is in fact 3.75 degrees, just as printed on the chart.

What do you know about how Garmin Navigators display the VDA? Is how he displayed what happened accurate as far as you know. Not arguing about anything you just said. Yeah, he gets some stuff wrong in his ‘chalk talk.’ I’m just trying to get my head wrapped around how Garmin interprets this Approach, how it processes it and what it shows you on the it looks kinda like a Glidepath your’re above/below thingy.

 

[Turbo-Arrow-Driver]

What do you know about how Garmin Navigators display the VDA? Is how he displayed what happened accurate as far as you know.

I don't really know how G1000 displays this, but his suggestion that it just "snaps a chalk line" from one point to the next makes sense. That would result in the published 3.75 degree descent angle. I'm not sure what else it might do. With the chalk line in space, it would be the equivalent of a glide slope and it would display how much you were above or below the chalk line...but of course there is no actual radio glide slope signal...just the computer generated equivalent inside the G1000's processor.

As an aside, I calculated the descent rates needed to follow the approach segments prior to and after JAMID assuming a 90kt ground speed. From HIKLO to JAMID you'd need to descend at 522 fpm, and at JAMID that would increase to 597 fpm.

 

[IK04]

The airport where I began my flying career has one of the steepest VASI angles in the US: 4.0 degrees and a displaced threshold. There is a shopping Mall less than a 1/4 mile from the approach end of the runway.

That was before GPS and there were no GPS approaches when I flew there. I couldn't imagine a decent Nonprecision approach into there. Well guess what? There are now a RNAV (GPS) Y and Z to that runway! The Y approach is a nonprecision with an MDA of 1200 feet AGL, so it is useless, but the Z approach is an LPV down to 400 feet!

Both approaches are still based on the 4.0 degree Glidepath and there is no note about the visual not being concurrent with the electronic GP. The VDP is 2.6 miles from the MAP, that would allow a pilot to see the runway, if the visibility allowed, and intercept the VASI when it becomes visible. Yuck.

 

[luvflyin]

The airport where I began my flying career has one of the steepest VASI angles in the US: 4.0 degrees and a displaced threshold. There is a shopping Mall less than a 1/4 mile from the approach end of the runway.

That was before GPS and there were no GPS approaches when I flew there. I couldn't imagine a decent Nonprecision approach into there. Well guess what? There are now a RNAV (GPS) Y and Z to that runway! The Y approach is a nonprecision with an MDA of 1200 feet AGL, so it is useless, but the Z approach is an LPV down to 400 feet!

Both approaches are still based on the 4.0 degree Glidepath and there is no note about the visual not being concurrent with the electronic GP. The VDP is 2.6 miles from the MAP, that would allow a pilot to see the runway, if the visibility allowed, and intercept the VASI when it becomes visible. Yuck.

So is it like a secret? What’s the airport? Sounds like the VGSI and Glidepath are concurrent, so no note required. I don’t think that’s all that rare.

 

[IK04]

So is it like a secret? What’s the airport? Sounds like the VGSI and Glidepath are concurrent, so no note required. I don’t think that’s all that rare.

It's the now famous KRHV Reid-Hillview Lead poisoned (OMG!) airport. The only reason I thought of it is that within a year or so of them building that mall, a Cherokee landed on the roof of what was then J.C. Penney.

 

[exncsurfer]

Can someone explain how the magenta glide diamond or dot thingy moving down could cause a problem? I mean, if its supposedly showing you the 3.75(or whatever is correct) slope, wouldn't centering it keep you high enough? DG showed how that target jumped down, but wouldn't it still be showing a high enough slope?

Also, I don't get why it wouldn't stay centered until you flew out of the angle(by proceeding at a shalower angle) vs. jump down like that.

I'm not instrument rated so I don't know much about approach procedures, just confused by this changing glide path indicator and implications of it.

I guess this is a good reason not to follow these unofficial aids vs just looking out the window and going around(or missed as you instrument pilots like to call it). Not that we know if it was even a factor, could be irrelevant to what happened.

 

[Turbo-Arrow-Driver]

Can someone explain how the magenta glide diamond or dot thingy moving down could cause a problem? I mean, if its supposedly showing you the 3.75(or whatever is correct) slope, wouldn't centering it keep you high enough? DG showed how that target jumped down, but wouldn't it still be showing a high enough slope?

Also, I don't get why it wouldn't stay centered until you flew out of the angle(by proceeding at a shalower angle) vs. jump down like that.

Centering the dot would indeed keep you on the 3.75 degree slope, and if the stack height we are assuming (100 AGL) is correct it would be at 4261 MSL (give or take a couple feet). The 3.75 degree slope would clear the tower by about 93 feet by my calculations. That's not much but it would clear.

I don't think the diamond "thingy" would have instantly jumped to the bottom at JAMID if you did not increase descent rate -- it would start moving towards bottom, but how fast? (see below)

In the photos of the damaged tower, it appears the a/c impact was about 15 feet down from the top, so that would put the a/c (93+15) or 108 ft below the desired path. How many dots is that on a G1000? I don't know, but experiments with some Garmin trainers (e.g. GNX 375, GTN 750) showed that one dot is about 80 feet at any location between JAMID and RW20. The 108 ft error would then be displayed as (108/80) or about 1-1/3 dots.

With a 90kt ground speed, descent rate prior to JAMID would be 522 fpm and 597 fpm after JAMID -- an increase of 75 fpm. So if you did not increase descent rate at JAMID, you would be 75 ft high after one minute, so that's just shy of one dot. So, if the above math is correct, the "thingy" would not jump to the bottom -- it would take a full minute to show one dot of error. In a perfect world, that is.

In the real world, manually holding the descent rate that steady (e.g. 522 plus or minus a couple fpm) in actual weather in a small a/c would be somewhere between difficult and impossible, no?

The big assumption here is that the G1000 is scaled so one dot too high or low is 80 feet. Anyone have a G1000 simulator to run the experiment with?

 

[exncsurfer]

Centering the dot would indeed keep you on the 3.75 degree slope, and if the stack height we are assuming (100 AGL) is correct it would be at 4261 MSL (give or take a couple feet). The 3.75 degree slope would clear the tower by about 93 feet by my calculations. That's not much but it would clear.

I don't think the diamond "thingy" would have instantly jumped to the bottom at JAMID if you did not increase descent rate -- it would start moving towards bottom, but how fast? (see below)

In the photos of the damaged tower, it appears the a/c impact was about 15 feet down from the top, so that would put the a/c (93+15) or 108 ft below the desired path. How many dots is that on a G1000? I don't know, but experiments with some Garmin trainers (e.g. GNX 375, GTN 750) showed that one dot is about 80 feet at any location between JAMID and RW20. The 108 ft error would then be displayed as (108/80) or about 1-1/3 dots.

With a 90kt ground speed, descent rate prior to JAMID would be 522 fpm and 597 fpm after JAMID -- an increase of 75 fpm. So if you did not increase descent rate at JAMID, you would be 75 ft high after one minute, so that's just shy of one dot. So, if the above math is correct, the "thingy" would not jump to the bottom -- it would take a full minute to show one dot of error. In a perfect world, that is.

In the real world, manually holding the descent rate that steady (e.g. 522 plus or minus a couple fpm) in actual weather in a small a/c would be somewhere between difficult and impossible, no?

The big assumption here is that the G1000 is scaled so one dot too high or low is 80 feet. Anyone have a G1000 simulator to run the experiment with?

Thanks for trying to explain that to me. So it seems we agree that it doesn't make sense that the indicator would jump instantly to the bottom, but I thought he was saying that in the video. He demonstrated it on his demo ride, but it didn't show the dot jump in the vid, that demo ride didn't really show much. He showed a blurry picture of it after it had 'took a dive' as he said in the video. I don't know how fast it took a dive. Maybe his point is just that this could be confusing or throw someone off if they weren't expecting it and maybe cause an overshoot if they were trying to intercept the new angle.

 

[luvflyin]

Centering the dot would indeed keep you on the 3.75 degree slope, and if the stack height we are assuming (100 AGL) is correct it would be at 4261 MSL (give or take a couple feet). The 3.75 degree slope would clear the tower by about 93 feet by my calculations. That's not much but it would clear.

I don't think the diamond "thingy" would have instantly jumped to the bottom at JAMID if you did not increase descent rate -- it would start moving towards bottom, but how fast? (see below)

In the photos of the damaged tower, it appears the a/c impact was about 15 feet down from the top, so that would put the a/c (93+15) or 108 ft below the desired path. How many dots is that on a G1000? I don't know, but experiments with some Garmin trainers (e.g. GNX 375, GTN 750) showed that one dot is about 80 feet at any location between JAMID and RW20. The 108 ft error would then be displayed as (108/80) or about 1-1/3 dots.

With a 90kt ground speed, descent rate prior to JAMID would be 522 fpm and 597 fpm after JAMID -- an increase of 75 fpm. So if you did not increase descent rate at JAMID, you would be 75 ft high after one minute, so that's just shy of one dot. So, if the above math is correct, the "thingy" would not jump to the bottom -- it would take a full minute to show one dot of error. In a perfect world, that is.

In the real world, manually holding the descent rate that steady (e.g. 522 plus or minus a couple fpm) in actual weather in a small a/c would be somewhere between difficult and impossible, no?

The big assumption here is that the G1000 is scaled so one dot too high or low is 80 feet. Anyone have a G1000 simulator to run the experiment with?

The diamond thingy and what it did on Danny boys video in the test flight in his buddy's Centurion and what he said about it has been gnawing at me. I haven't flown a G1000 so let me get some things straight first. The diamond is you, the airplane, is that correct? Unlike an old fashioned CDI where you represent the dot in the middle and the needle representing the glideslope moves up and down. But on the Garmin, the glideslope is represented by the fixed line in the middle and you move up and down. Yeah, we ain't actually talking about a glideslope here or even a glidepath, but the LNAV+V psuedoitsadvisoryonlyandyabettercomplywiththealtitudesonthechart thang. How am I doing so far? I'm going to continue assuming I'm right.

The LNAV+V thing sure seems to start doing it's thing at HIKLO, even though the VDA begins at JAMID. So what's it giving you starting at HIKLO? The angle between HIKLO and JAMID and then at JAMID it doglegs so to speak and steepens the angle to the 3.75 from there to the runway? It almost sounds like he's implying that it starts at HIKLO with 3.75 and then at JAMID it realizes it shouldn't have been doing that and makes a midflight correction to the angle from JAMID at 4800 and 3.75 down to the runway. Now if it does that, then yeah, it's going to show you low all of a sudden because it had been having you descend to steeply up until then. Then he goes on to say that when she saw that she must have pushed it over and dove to get back down. That don't follow no kind of logic. If poof, all of a sudden the vertical guidance thing with the diamond shows you low, your initial reaction would be to get back up to it, not down like he said.

 

[Turbo-Arrow-Driver]

... but I thought he was saying that in the video. He demonstrated it on his demo ride, but I didn't show the dot jump in the vid, that demo ride didn't really show much. He showed a blurry picture of it after it had 'took a dive' as he said in the video. I don't know how fast it took a dive. Maybe his point is just that this could be confusing or throw someone off if they weren't expecting it and maybe cause an overshoot if they were trying to intercept the new angle.

Well, there's a non-instrument rated pilot flying, trying to follow the VDI and that's going to be far from ideal. The video doesn't provide us with a constant view of the VDI, so we don't know what it's doing most of the time. It might have already been at or close to the bottom as they approached JAMID. He should have had a camera locked on instruments showing altitude, VSI and VDI all the time in a little sub-window so we could make sense out of what was happening.