YouTuber Dan Gryder Ordered to Pay Defendant $1-Million+

BrianNC

En-Route
Joined
Feb 2, 2009
Messages
2,971
Location
Atlanta
Display Name

Display name:
BrianATL
Just saw this from a couple of days ago in my email. I looked for it and can't find it. If already posted just delete. I expect the first reply to be a link to where it's posted. lol.

A Texas court has ruled that online allegations made by controversial YouTuber Dan Gryder against Texas pilot and airport-owner Charles Cook were false and defamatory. Judge John P. Chupp of the 141st District Court in Texas’s Tarrant County ordered Gryder to pay Cook a total of $1,081,667 plus interest accruing at five-percent annually "until all amounts are paid in full”—according to court records.

Dan Gryder is the proprietor of Probable Cause, a YouTube channel dedicated to the analysis of aviation incidents and accidents. Detractors of his channel contend Gryder’s analyses are hasty, often presumptuous, and vituperative in degrees ranging from tacit to overt.

In 2021, Gryder posted a three-installment video-series in which he cast aspersions on Charles Cook, a Boeing 777 captain and the owner of Fort Worth, Texas’s Flying Oaks Airport (2TE2).

Released on 28 August 2021, the first of the three videos addressed a 21 August 2021 accident in which an Aeronca 7AC Champion, registration N1472E, was substantially damaged and its pilot and a single passenger killed shortly after departing the aforementioned Fling Oaks Airport. Gryder, in subject video, named Cook as the airport’s owner and alleged the facility was "rampant with cowboys.” Moreover, Gryder made vague accusations of illegal activity having transpired at Flying Oaks Airport and alluded to "complaints," ostensibly pertaining to the alleged illegal activity, having been made to the FAA by unnamed parties.

Cook maintained in his lawsuit that neither illegal activity nor complaints thereof had transpired at the airfield.

The suit further stated Gryder, among the viewer comments germane to the 28 August video, had accused Cook of carrying on an extramarital affair and making false statements to the FAA on his medical certificate application form. In addition, Gryder claimed three past aircraft accidents transpired in the vicinity of Flying Oaks Airport had occurred "because of the lack of annuals and licensing." A screen-capture of Gryder’s allegations was presented as plaintiff's evidence.

Released in September 2021, the second installment of Gryder’s three-video series featured additional disparaging remarks aimed at Cook and his airport.

The third installment, posted September 06 2021, saw Grider brazenly cite Cook by name in the video’s title.

“I’ve got to talk about Charles Cook,” Gryder remarked, according to the lawsuit. “ … apparently, Mr. Cook is not very happy with me. Charles Cook—man, I did a deep dive on him; what a history on Charles Cook. It’s fascinating. … Charles Cook, if you want to get your name in lights, we are about to do that …”

Cook’s lawsuit filing states Gryder, in the 28 August video, alleged the Aeronca 7AC Champion accident-aircraft had, prior to its loss, been left on the Flying Oaks Airport following the death of its owner. Gryder contended Cook had sold the aircraft knowing full-well it was defective and misrepresented the machine as suitable for flight-training. Gryder claimed, also, that "Charles is a diabetic. He's got medical problems … All I can say is that the farther we go and the more stuff that Charles wants to stir up, the happier it makes me."

Cook’s attorney established the plaintiff’s medical conditions, which do not include diabetes, had been reported as required, accurately and in their entirety, to his flight-surgeon.

Gryder went so far as to accuse Cook of having sold aircraft with missing logbooks.

"Again, each comment is false," the Cook’s lawsuit asserts. "The airplane was never abandoned at Flying Oaks Airport. The airplane was in flying condition and Cook purchased it from its owner, Francis.” Cook refurbished the aircraft prior to its passing into the possession of the accident-pilot—a friend of Cook’s.”

Cook’s lawsuit cataloged numerous antagonistic text messages authored by Gryder, messages "further harassing Cook and threatening that if Cook files a lawsuit against him, the Defendant intends to 'report play by play as [the lawsuit] happens.”

Cook’s complaint stated the Flying Oaks Airport "lost multiple tenants who rented hangars at the airport. Cook has been unable to fill these hangars with new tenants."

"Additionally," the lawsuit contends, "Cook's reputation has been the subject of public ridicule, contempt, and hatred."

Whether or not Gryder dedicates a Probable Cause episode to the analysis of his own figurative Controlled Flight Into Terrain remains to be seen.

 
Ah embedded in that thread. No wonder I couldn't fine it. Just looking for a title with his name in it posted the last couple of days. Mods can delete.
I couldn’t find it either, sometimes I haven’t followed a thread and I see 30+ pages and I’m like heck no I’m not going to start.
 
Yeah, I'd leave this thread as a stand-alone. I hadn't heard about the lawsuit against him. Good, that tool needs a dose of his own medicine.
 
Yet another vote to leave this thread open for the same reason. Wasn't about to begin catching up on the old one.

This gryder guy sounds like a piece of work. Not that familiar with him but getting a first glance on The Google/YT it appears he's nothing more than a sensationalist YouTuber looking for clicks. When you can't find drama -- you invent it. It's the way this whole social media circus keeps going. Glad the courts brought him down a peg when they discovered he was FOS.
 
Am I wrong that the thread title is in error? The "defendant" isn't paying. Didn't the person who believed they were slandered bring the suit? If so, the Gryder is the defendant and the defamed person is the plaintiff. Okay, I feel better now.
 
when you owe the bank 1000 bucks, you have a problem. When you owe the banks a million bucks "at 5% interest"...*chuckles*......the bank has a problem.

To the degree this would have a chilling effect on the defendant from pursuing further slanderous speech, I think this outcome will have the desired effect. As to financial windfall for the plaintiff? Yeah, facts not in evidence. We outlawed debtor's prisons a while ago, and most state protect homesteads and exempt certain income garnishments. So the schadenfreude is self-limiting here on that front me thinks.
 
The plaintiff owns a grass strip. The defendant owns a DC-3. It isn't a million bucks, but a simple transfer of that asset would start things in the right direction.
 
The plaintiff owns a grass strip. The defendant owns a DC-3. It isn't a million bucks, but a simple transfer of that asset would start things in the right direction.

I'm not saying danny boy is judgement proof, but there ain't gonna be some generational level wealth expropriation here, if the insinuations of bankruptcy filing are anywhere near accurate. And state and federal law protect civil penalties from throwing people into abject poverty, especially as owners of a primary residence. I know that's not what those with a personal investment in watching DG atone for whatever personal suffering they deem he has inflicted on others (eye for an eye thing), but that's the likely scenario.

By all means, a DC-3 would likely be a non-exempted property for settlement. Of course I'm sure if that thing has liens on other fronts, then the line of creditors asking the courts for relief ahead of Mr. Cook can get quite long and fruitless. Many people live financial Potemkin village lives, even former airline pilots.
 
I took a quick look earlier today it appears Mr. Gryder has pulled down his YouTube page. Re the DC-3 - I understand it is in an LLC, so the Plaintiff cannot reach it per se, BUT he could seize Mr. Gryder's interest in the LLC and end up owning the company that owns the DC-3.
 
I took a quick look earlier today it appears Mr. Gryder has pulled down his YouTube page. Re the DC-3 - I understand it is in an LLC, so the Plaintiff cannot reach it per se, BUT he could seize Mr. Gryder's interest in the LLC and end up owning the company that owns the DC-3.

I'd call that a win by itself.
 
I took a quick look earlier today it appears Mr. Gryder has pulled down his YouTube page. Re the DC-3 - I understand it is in an LLC, so the Plaintiff cannot reach it per se, BUT he could seize Mr. Gryder's interest in the LLC and end up owning the company that owns the DC-3.
Must be someone filtering out your internet because this video came out last night and it's still up.

 
does he want some cheese?

(I could only get a few seconds in before I reached my limit...)
 
I'm ashamed to admit that I watched it out of morbid curiosity. Here's the Cliff's Notes version:
-Dan Millican sucks
-Mark Baker sucks and AOPA is evil and stupid
-EAA sucks
-He's got Mr. Cook right where he wants him.
 
I'm ashamed to admit that I watched it out of morbid curiosity. Here's the Cliff's Notes version:
-Dan Millican sucks
-Mark Baker sucks and AOPA is evil and stupid
-EAA sucks
-He's got Mr. Cook right where he wants him.
The problem with Dan is that he’s actually right or close to it about half the time, and that gives him credibility with those who can’t see where he’s clearly wrong. I mean, I’m really not sure I disagree with him at all about AOPA having issues.
 
…a DC-3 would likely be a non-exempted property for settlement. ….
N143D is registered to Gryder Networks, LLC in Delaware. Registered Agent for the LLC is P&P Aviation, also of Delaware.

I don’t know the intricacies, but I’m not sure the if the plane could be seized to help settle the bill.
 
I'm ashamed to admit that I watched it out of morbid curiosity. Here's the Cliff's Notes version:
-Dan Millican sucks
-Mark Baker sucks and AOPA is evil and stupid
-EAA sucks
-He's got Mr. Cook right where he wants him.
Don't forget, Basler sucks too. Maybe I heard him wrong, but I think he also took a swipe at JB too...
 
Ms. Hoyt's response at face value is hot trash, and if I were CAF I'd be more discerning who I let in my tent.

The problem with Dan is that he’s actually right or close to it about half the time, and that gives him credibility with those who can’t see where he’s clearly wrong. I mean, I’m really not sure I disagree with him at all about AOPA having issues.
I'm Glad I'm not the only one on here with the maturity to not throw the baby out with the bathwater. Lot of bad faith arguing in these social media circles regarding guilt by association.
 
I don’t understand why anyone has watched more than one of his videos. Sketchy information, badly packaged and poorly presented. Yet somehow he has 102k subscribers
 
I'm ashamed to admit that I watched it out of morbid curiosity. Here's the Cliff's Notes version:
-Dan Millican sucks
-Mark Baker sucks and AOPA is evil and stupid
-EAA sucks
-He's got Mr. Cook right where he wants him.
Is this the video with the football players in the thumbnail?
 
yes; the most recent one
 
Can you imagine a dedicated YouTube channel to weekly car accidents or accidental child deaths like drowning?
 
I'm a fan of Dan. 1692793696973.gif

The data he reviews is the aftermath of tragedies. Otherwise good people falling victim to the Pareto chart over and over.

Suing him won't bring those that have flown west back. Silencing the message, however delivered, of making better decisions so you don't die in a crash also won't bring anyone back.

I'll keep watching because anything I can absorb to be a safer pilot makes me a safer pilot.

I wish Dan the best of luck with his appeals process. And I'd shudder to be one of the gun-jumpers that victory-lapped the Texas case. Hide your closet skeletons, hide them now.
 
Re the DC-3 - I understand it is in an LLC, so the Plaintiff cannot reach it per se, BUT he could seize Mr. Gryder's interest in the LLC and end up owning the company that owns the DC-3.
A difference without distinction.
 
I don’t understand why anyone has watched more than one of his videos. Sketchy information, badly packaged and poorly presented. Yet somehow he has 102k subscribers
A) We have become avid consumers but we have lost our ability to discern quality.
DTSB vs NTSB; if you can’t tell the difference, well enjoy your margarine; butter is supremely better!

B) As consumers, we are addicted to those splashy, excited, emotional presenters that make the TV literally jump up and down. The more judgmental the presenter, the more appeal - apparently.
Compare DTSB to AOPA’s Air Safety Institute’s series on YT.
I haven’t had a TV for 25 years, guess which I prefer.

C) When an accident happens, we have no patience for the full story to come out, we want our instant gratification, like everyone else! DTSB can put out a report very quickly, unlike the NTSB. Personally I can wait. The chances of me learning of a brand new way to screw up, then doing that before the facts come out are small.

If he gets people thinking and talking about safety, well that is good.
 
Last edited:
I don’t understand why anyone has watched more than one of his videos. Sketchy information, badly packaged and poorly presented. Yet somehow he has 102k subscribers
Couple things to keep in mind:

1) "If it bleeds, it leads" is basically a result of human genetics. Every person reading this post is the result of an unbroken chain of about 3B years successful reproduction, and a big part of the recent history of that (say the past few hundred million years) involves brains big enough to notice threats and learn from them. The networks didn't invent "if it bleeds, it leads" humans demanded it.

2) Youtube overcompensates (IMO, as someone who publishes far less frequently, so bias...) people who publish regularly. Whether it's my subjective opinion that they "overcompensate" or the more objective statement that the algorithm rewards frequent publication, the fact is that people like Dan get rewarded for very low effort videos simply by posting every week at a minimum.

The combination of bloody headlines and youtube rewarding frequent publication is an easy path to 100K.

If it makes you feel any better, blancolirio has almost 400K using mostly the same formula, but (IMO) better quality.
 
Last edited:
I'm a fan of Dan. View attachment 120026

The data he reviews is the aftermath of tragedies. Otherwise good people falling victim to the Pareto chart over and over.

Suing him won't bring those that have flown west back. Silencing the message, however delivered, of making better decisions so you don't die in a crash also won't bring anyone back.

I'll keep watching because anything I can absorb to be a safer pilot makes me a safer pilot.

I wish Dan the best of luck with his appeals process. And I'd shudder to be one of the gun-jumpers that victory-lapped the Texas case. Hide your closet skeletons, hide them now.

What the **** are you on about?
 
I'm a fan of Dan. View attachment 120026

The data he reviews is the aftermath of tragedies. Otherwise good people falling victim to the Pareto chart over and over.

Suing him won't bring those that have flown west back. Silencing the message, however delivered, of making better decisions so you don't die in a crash also won't bring anyone back.

I'll keep watching because anything I can absorb to be a safer pilot makes me a safer pilot.

I wish Dan the best of luck with his appeals process. And I'd shudder to be one of the gun-jumpers that victory-lapped the Texas case. Hide your closet skeletons, hide them now.
I like Dan's content per se, but can't stand that he's a flaming ass hole.
 
I think many of the worser videos are gone. I can't seem to find the video where he ripped on Matt Guthmiller, I was waiting for the follow up promised but it never came. I suspect Guthmiller maybe was a bigger foe, and stopped it. But I could have missed it too.
 
I'm a fan of Dan. View attachment 120026

The data he reviews is the aftermath of tragedies. Otherwise good people falling victim to the Pareto chart over and over.

Suing him won't bring those that have flown west back. Silencing the message, however delivered, of making better decisions so you don't die in a crash also won't bring anyone back.

I'll keep watching because anything I can absorb to be a safer pilot makes me a safer pilot.

I wish Dan the best of luck with his appeals process. And I'd shudder to be one of the gun-jumpers that victory-lapped the Texas case. Hide your closet skeletons, hide them now.
The message gets lost when you lie. Dan is a proven liar, he makes c-r-a-p up and serves it up as "facts" he's been wrong on many things.

In his latest video he accused the FAA giving EAA a pass on pilot deviations and presented a call with someone who works at the FAA and the guy said there is no exemption, after he played the audio Dan claimed victory. Dan is a putz.
 
Back
Top