If Gryder is correct about the airboss briefing, then that's a problem. I'm not convinced that whatever recording he heard included the actual briefing the bombers and fighters had, as it may have been a sidebar-brief after the main briefing for all the performers. I'm inclined to believe he doesn't have all the information at this point, but his is the only datapoint at the moment.

I'm suspicious about his description of the radio traffic betwen the airboss and the P-63 pilot. Nobody else has described the airboss directing the P-63 to "take the lead", and it doesn't make any sense as the fighters and bombers were separate formations, and the P-63 was #3 of the fighter formation. I don't think he knows what he thinks he knows about what was briefed and what was said. There are other reports that indicate the airboss told the P-63 to "overtake" the B-17 to get back his correct spacing with the other members of the fighter flight.

That being said, he's incredibly off the ranch with both his comment about CAF culture (if you speak up, you're out!) and his comment about "paying riders" flying on the B-17 in the show.

No to his comment about culture. As I've posted more than once before, I've been associated with numerous privately-owned and museum-owned warbirds over the last 25 years or so, and it was difficult to find a group that actually was interested in maintaining the airplanes correctly and flying them safely. I'm only flying for the CAF currently because in the last 15 years they've cleaned up their act incredibly, with legit safety management system programs and a just culture when it comes to conservative decisionmaking. Needless to say, I've never heard anything remotely like "if you speak up, you're out of the program". Not to say it doesn't exist in some dark corner, but it sure isn't the predominant cultural outlook anywhere I've seen, *especially* at the airshow hosted by CAF HQ.

That's a big spear to throw at that group of pilots that haven't had problems calling spades in the past. I'm way more inclined that he didn't hear any bullsh*t flags in that briefing because he didn't hear all the relevant briefings.

As for the accusation of "riders" on the B-17, no, Dan.  There weren't any "riders", and the minimum crew isn't just two pilots. I'm not 100% certain if the B-17s have one or two scanners as their min crew; on the B-24 we only have one scanner, but we have three scanners on the '29.

This is directly from the CAF Flight Operations reg:
Attached File


Overall, I at least appreciate that his analysis is looking at the organization/administration factors just as much as the execution factors.

What are the typical duties of a scanner?

@dlshady

Yes, it was when they were in Huntsville/Meridianville last May.

Since it is impossible in the bombers to see a lot of what's happening with the aircraft from the cockpit, scanners are the eyes and ears of the crew in the back end of the airplane.

In flight, they're a crucial indicator of aircraft and systems performance. They're looking at engines while they're operating, reporting anything abnormal like smoke or fluids or shaking of the cowls (which is crucial to identifying and diagnosing engine problems, since on supercharged radial multiengine aircraft it is difficult to use the engine instruments alone to do this). They're looking at flight controls (verifying positions during the flight control check), and in flight especially verifying flap positions. If there's a flap failure (in the B-29, at least), scanners are the ones working both the alternate flap extension or emergency flap extension procedures. They're checking and confirming the gear being in position and locked (both up and down), as well as the primary personnel who crank the gear down in the event of a failure. They are the ones fighting a fire anywhere in the fuselage. When the APU is being used, they're the operators of that.

On a ride flight, the scanners are also the handlers of the passengers. They do the safety briefings, make sure riders aren't going/doing things they're not supposed to, they're administering first aid when it is needed (there are a lot of cuts that occur while passengers move around the exposed guts on the inside of a bomber, regardless of how many times they're briefed). Obviously in the event of an emergency, they're the ones handling the passenger evacuation in the back of the airplane.

I'm sure I'm missing some things, but that's just off the top of my head here early this morning over coffee.

In the bomber squadron, our scanners have varied backgrounds with some being pilots who don't have the medicals to be PICs/SICs all the way to pedestrians who want to be involved as aircrew. The scanner checkout program is quite detailed and lengthy because of this.

To add to what MudEagle said about minimum crew, and Grinder’s dumb comment about “paying customers “. Each aircraft has a “minimum crew”. While taking part in the airshow you can only have that minimum crew. The FFA strictly enforced this.

Back up 20 years. I only had about 800 hours and bought the O-2A. Put on a 100 hours getting training and ratings in it. Took the training and started airshows. Sure I’m just a civilian private pilot with a love of aviation and history. I’m not a profession pilot like Mud Eagle and many others on this board. I’m just a dude how had a dream to fly warbirds.  My insurance company, a National well known company, required I take an airshow experienced safety pilot for my first 4 shows.

Minimum Aircrew per the FAA for the O-2A was one. As I signed in I took my credentials and insurance to the FAA examiner. Twice I was told I could not fly that airshow with my safety pilot. He was also my instructor and had 40 years of airshow experience in many aircraft including the Tora Tora Tora Val. It sucked sitting out while everyone else flew but those FAA officials would not allow it, even as a requirement for me to be insured. Some actually thought it was a good idea, and allowed it.   I eventually flew the 4 shows and then was back to solo. On the other hand after flying solo in some pretty amazing airshows I was wishing for another set of eyes to watch the instruments and some of my blind spots.  

For our Hueys it was 3 pilots and crew chief to keep an eye on the back.  They also spotted the tail while you were landing. I did the same as a life flight physician. I had to clear my side of the rear of the aircraft for takeoff and landing.

Spotters are important for bigger complex aircraft.
Training is much better these days.
I too have heard and seen the CAF culture is greatly improved and top notch. Many pilots I highly respect and learn from fly for them. I’d happily jump into any of their aircraft today.

MudEagle & oscarduece

Thank you very much for sharing your knowledge with us. It really helps those of us that are not "in the loop" to understand the workings of regulations and protocols.

Good words, oscardeuce.


I didn't mention it in my previous post, but it is important to remember that these bombers were designed to fly with an 8-10 man crew. That's especially important because many times the emergency procedures were written to use those non-flight-deck crew members to perform required steps for emergency procedures.

So, we may no longer need radio operators or navigators or waist gunners, but we sure need people to crank down gear and flaps and numerous other tasks during other hydraulic or electrical malfunctions/emergencies, tasks that can't be accomplished by the cockpit crew because the implements and controls are located elsewhere in a large aircraft.

I just rewatched Grynder’s video. He said they needed to “tell me why” there were 5 crew on the B-17. He then proceeded to tell his story of ferrying a DC-3 and having to fight to have approval for the spotter he apparently just criticized.

I realize that Gryder is a guy who is running a YouTube channel for clicks and glory, but the problem is that a lot of non-aviators (and pilots, too!) listen to what he says with a belief that he has knowledge and experience beyond what he actually possesses.

It is really not at all helping the industry he professes to be trying to improve.

In training during WWII my late Dad had to use both feet and keep kicking a B-17 manual landing gear crank until it broke loose enabling him to get a right main down and locked.

I think what Gryder is trying to say is that the B-17 should have only had a max of 3 guys flying in it. Pilot, Co-pilot and a spotter. Him saying "giving rides" was probably meant as the other two guys were not needed and probably just went along to ride. He meant it as (extra lives were lost for no reason) and there should have only been a max of 3 crew members on board the aircraft. I think that's what he trying to say?

Very cool, thanks for the great explanation.  Coming from flying E-3s, I'm a big fan of "more eyes is a good thing", not to mention more hands for emergencies.

You might be right.

That being said, I’d give his thoughts a lot more credence if he actually had some experience on the 4-engine bombers.

I have some experience in the B-25 and DC-3, and there is a noticeable increase in workload and systems operation on the 17 and 24 that warrants the Flight Engineer position at a minimum. The location of the fire bottles on the 24 alone (on the aft wall of the cockpit where the FE sits would make handling an engine fire without an FE quite a circus in the cockpit.

I wouldn’t want to fly the Liberator with just a 3-person crew on an easy day…much less a complicated one like a formation demonstration at an airshow.

Coming out of the single-pilot fighter world, I was sort of skeptical when I first started flying the heavy bombers.  

Now, several in-flight emergencies and engine failures later, I’m a true believer.

Hilarious that “master investigator” Gryder couldn’t even take the effort to read the CAF flight operations reg to find out why there were 5 people on Texas Raiders.

Salute to him.

I had to do it once on the ground when I was training and it was a serious workout!

I'm sorry to be so blunt but everything that comes out of Dan Gryder's mouth is garbage. My opinion of course.  
It is a disappointment that so many see him as some source of expertise in aviation.

The Muddy Eagle isn't the first or last pilot who correctly thought Gryder was FOS.

Edit: left out the word 'correctly'

Forty five years ago was a whole different era. This is a pic of Texas Raider doing a one wheel landing in the 1977 Oshkosh Tora Tora Tora show. On one wheel for the length of the runway. Now they do a low pass instead of touching down.

Attached File

Yeah, I dismiss anything Gryder posts, too. Juan Brown is my go-to accident reporting/investigation guy.

He then went on to boast how he fought to get a 3rd person to ferry the DC-3 while turning away all his “friends who wanted a ride”. Apparently that one friend wasn’t very important, or he felt was essential to flight safety.  

Gryder's investigation into the Lear jet crash in the TN lake was interesting.   After that it got pretty weird.  His videos about the Burley ID Caravan crash were bizzare and off base.

He has become a clickbait expert.   It is sad to see Juan Browne doing some videos with him.

I’m not a pilot nor do I work in aviation, but I was even questioning the things he said in that video. Mainly, what was his source for CAF firing anyone that asked questions or raised concerns during a briefing? A disgruntled pilot that got rejected or fired by the CAF? Or how about his claims of the CAF making all sorts of increasing profits, but the balance sheets he displayed not reflecting it being as profitable as he made it seem.

Dan Gryder is a clown.

Research his history, and why he doesn’t fly for Delta anymore.  I’ll give you a hint, it involves threatening to use the DC3 he was operating as an offensive weapon against law enforcement seeking to write him a ticket.

Ok, for those of us that don't know, got a link to that story?   Lol

Does anyone know the significance of this B-17G?   It's tailflash & data plate are featured on both a long sleeve and short sleeve shirt on Boeing's company store?   I figured they picked this specific aircraft for a reason.






@KA3B

Edit - Links to Boeing company website:
https://www.boeingstore.com/products/red-canoe-boeing-totem-logo-b-17-long-sleeve-t-shirt
https://www.boeingstore.com/collections/mens-apparel/products/red-canoeboeing-totem-logo-b-17-t-shirt

Quick search turned this up on Facebook.

You can also buy it in the gift shop of the National WW2 Museum in NOLA, which is where I got mine. It's especially awesome to me as my grandfather was a pilot in the 381st.

Link to this item at the company store? I looked and looked but couldn't find it. Kinda sorta want.  Thanks.  

https://www.dallasnews.com/business/airlines/2009/11/12/delta-pilot-accused-of-a-lot-of-things/

I believe he also has a video about it on his own channel, but I haven't watched it.

I edited and added to my post above, meant to do that but forgot.  Here you go:

Links to Boeing company website:
https://www.boeingstore.com/products/red-canoe-boeing-totem-logo-b-17-long-sleeve-t-shirt
https://www.boeingstore.com/collections/mens-apparel/products/red-canoeboeing-totem-logo-b-17-t-shirt

Wow.   Thanks for that

Wow... Did he loose his license over that stunt?

No and he was reinstated nearly immediately.   He is a clickbait master for sure.  His video on the incident also speaks volumes to our culture of media sloppiness and public outrage

Not to spoil it but basically he did nothing wrong, and everything was throw out in a court of law.  The guy that wrote the newspaper article was apparently a rookie journalist and didn't do much investigating into the story or facts.

Very well stated

I have never given him much thought.  Some of the stuff he says just makes me shake my head.

Wont disagree brother

Did US B-17 Bomber & P-63 Kingcobra Collide Over Dallas Executive Airport Due To A Drone?

watch video

"Tries to restart engine."  

That hurt my brain. Is it possible the there is an article so dumb and wrong that one can lose intelligence just for reading it?

Those B-17 shirts and similar aviation themed ones are made be a company called Red Canoe and are available from a number of sources. My wife gave me one from the Boeing store years ago. I also saw them in the gift shop at the Pima Air & Space Museum. Looking online, they can be found on various websites and eBay.

Last year I saw the Red Canoe Boeing 747 RA001 shirt at the Boeing store at Paine Field in Everett, WA but they were very limited in sizes so I bought one on eBay.

That video was so stupid the author should be banned from society.

I avoided that main thread in GD for a good reason.

However, the source is...interesting.  https://eurasiantimes.com/publish-your-news/

Well, you shouldn't just exclude evidence just because it comes from a questionable source.

All evidence has to be evaluated on its merits, and obviously the source can be part of that evaluation, but also in the context of what other evidence is out there.

But, certainly conclusions that originate from questionable sources can be roundly scoffed and mocked especially if other evidence shows it is completely off the ranch. If the analysis of all the evidence ultimately arrives back at that conclusion, then eat some crow for disbelieving that source, but accept that the totality of the evidence -- and not just that one piece -- is what led us there.

In this case, I'm comfortable entertaining the idea that the video shows a drone operating illegally within waivered airspace, but am scoffing the conclusion about the stall, engine failure/restart, and the like.

True, of course.

Every reporting is biased.  Just a matter of understanding those biases.

In this case I read the rather bizarre article and started looking around at the source.  

In the interest of disclosure, I spend a lot of time dealing with social engineering and things like that.  I also spend a lot of time dealing with things related to drone security.  My take on this article?  It was intended to stir the drone "debate".  The source (Indian) makes me suspect it was intended to be a (small) middle finger to the Chinese.  

It is a stupid article.  Is it possible it can stir up discontent with stupid people in Congress?  Absolutely.

NTSB releases preliminary report on deadly Dallas air show plane crash that killed 6

The NTSB report says the air boss told the fighter formation to transition to a trail formation, fly in front of the bomber formation and head toward the 500-foot show line. The bombers were told to fly down the 1,000-foot show line.

The NTSB report says the 500-foot show line and the 1,000-foot show line were 500 feet and 1,000 feet from the airshow viewing line, behind where the audience viewed the show.

NTSB says altitude maneuvers weren’t discussed before the flight or while the airplanes were in the air. According to the data, when the fighter formation approached the designated performance area, the P-63 King Cobra was in a left bank and collided with the left side of the B-17 Flying Fortress, just behind of the wing section.

Both airplanes broke up in flight and hit the ground in a grassy area at the Dallas Executive Airport. The NTSB says a fire ignited in the wing center section of the B-17 as it descended and exploded upon ground impact.

So there we have it: the airboss did intend to use the Cat I and Cat II showlines as geographic deconfliction.

The geographic deconfliction plan can be used effectively without altitude in the mix, but not usually with the "dogbone" flightpath that the airboss wanted to use.

Seems like a bad idea to have the fighters cross the path of the bombers in a turn which the bombers won't be visible to the fighters with no altitude deconfliction.