Negative ANN article about Cirrus

jm0045 said:
I guess you could say that, in that he attacks villains. But his villians always seem to start out as pretty normal people who happen to cross, or won't kowtow to, him, and then he pours barrels of ink on them, painting them as the exaggerated dastardly fools he considers them to be.
Click to expand...

You're right about his treatment of supposed "villains," but that's why I said issues and not people. When it comes to things like calling attention to concerns over runway safety at SnF, questioning a sport plane maker over reports they weren't delivering kits, or publicizing the hush-hush sale of a well-known manufacturer by a Chinese company, well... that's what an aviation advocate with a pulpit should be doing, I think.

In each of those examples, of course, Zoom went nuclear and made it personal against John Burton, CGS and (of course) Cirrus, with no interest in hearing or reporting on the other side of the story. That's exactly the point where what had been valid concerns, worthy of editorial coverage, get rightfully dismissed as the angry rantings of a man with an obvious grudge against those parties.

It does him no favors, it does ANN no favors (other than a "train-wreck-in-slow-motion" fascination for some) and it discounts the validity and importance of the original issues. Thing is, I really don't think Zoom could stop his actions if he wanted to. I don't think he's able to not want to act like that.
 
Last edited:
flightwriter said:
In each of those examples, of course, Zoom went nuclear and made it personal against John Burton, CGS and (of course) Cirrus, with no interest in hearing or reporting on the other side of the story. That's exactly the point where what had been valid concerns, worthy of editorial coverage, get rightfully dismissed as the angry rantings of a man with an obvious grudge against those parties.
Click to expand...
There have been cases where Campbell opposed entities that I agreed probably deserved it. Sadly, these are indistinguishable from cases where the enmity stemmed from stepping on Campbell's ego.

Ron Wanttaja
 
weilke said:
'Fairness' would be a judicial process that returns property to the rightful owner in an expedited manner.
Click to expand...
Well...can't really say I disagree with you, but....

The judge not only has to come to a fair decision, he has to come to one that won't be overturned on appeal. If he denies Campbell the opportunity to present a defense (even a belated opportunity), an appeals judge is likely to say "uh-uh" and cause the whole thing to start over again. Campbell has appealed at least two of his losses, including the first SnF case. Lost both, of course, but it did drag things out longer.

If Campbell did manage to find an attorney but the judge refused to wait, the retainer would then go towards getting an appeal filed. But if the judge magnanimously gives them additional time, and Campbell again refuses to cooperate with his own attorney (e.g., provide the Discovery information), the judge can then slap him down hard with little worry about how an appeals court would view his actions.

Ron Wanttaja
 
denverpilot said:
Aww dang it. You suckered me into clicking. I've avoided that for a long time now. I have to reset my "We've been Internet Accident Free for X Days" flip sign on the wall. :(

Here's the sad part. *Some* of what he said was true. Usually is.

We won't hear anything but Rah Rah Rah from AOPA, EAA, or any of the other more stable journalistic sources.

There will be another puff piece about a tiny jet that cost 8 times my house, roughly... and lots of added ooh and ahh buzzwords like "innovative" and "economical" tossed in for good measure.

Maybe J. Mac will get to fly the darn thing and gush about it in Sport (cough) Aviation too. Regale us all with his autopilot at FL210 prowess.

He may be biased, but Cirus' Corporate priorities are a shame nevertheless...
Click to expand...
I had two questions/observations on the story.
1) Nowhere in it does he take the journalistic high road of disclosing potential bias, i.e. "this fine upstanding news organization is currently involved in litigation with the dastardly Cirrus Corp." or something like that.
2) The ANN Podcast had the same slant on the story. I am guessing that Moyer is pretty much reading the copy that Campbell provided, but it was my impression that Plack had a little more separation, though it may have just been that I was less aware of the behind-the-scenes machinations when he was doing the podcasts.
 
flightwriter said:
In each of those examples, of course, Zoom went nuclear and made it personal against John Burton, CGS and (of course) Cirrus, with no interest in hearing or reporting on the other side of the story. That's exactly the point where what had been valid concerns, worthy of editorial coverage, get rightfully dismissed as the angry rantings of a man with an obvious grudge against those parties.
Click to expand...

Rob, you must have been with ANN at the time the Cirrus deal was made. How did Campbell describe it? Did he say, "I bought an airplane" or did he say he was trading advertising space for it?

Ron Wanttaja
 
wanttaja said:
Rob, you must have been with ANN at the time the Cirrus deal was made. How did Campbell describe it? Did he say, "I bought an airplane" or did he say he was trading advertising space for it?

Ron Wanttaja
Click to expand...

Ron, the Cirrus deal was underway right as I was leaving ANN, but to be honest I don't remember exactly what he said about it. I don't think he had the plane yet when I left.
 
flightwriter said:
Ron, the Cirrus deal was underway right as I was leaving ANN, but to be honest I don't remember exactly what he said about it. I don't think he had the plane yet when I left.
Click to expand...
Thanks, anyway. With nothing but legal documents to look at, I was hoping to get some insight from a non-involved observer....

Ron Wanttaja
 
Sorry, I don't recall any specific details - by that time, he and I didn't talk that often, and when we did it was about editorial matters.

He's not exactly one of my favorite people, but I am still sad to see that Zoom will probably lose his aircraft. I don't know how often he flew the Glasair III he had before the Cirrus - my guess would be not a lot - but I know he considered "stepping up" to an SR22 to be a big deal.

I think it was a form of validation for him, and that's now slipping away. Zoom has earned a lot of the animosity he gets from the industry and his former employees, but he's still human, and I do feel badly for him.
 
Last edited:
flightwriter said:
I think it was a form of validation for him, and that's now slipping away.
Click to expand...

Validation must be earned. Sorta like going to medical school before being "validated" as a physician.
 
Last edited:
jm0045 said:
Validation must be earned. Sorta like going to medical school before being "validated" as a physician.
Click to expand...

You won't hear any argument from me. There's ample evidence of how Zoom's 'eccentricities' have caused, or potentially could have caused, significant harm to others. Physically, emotionally, financially.

When the true scope of Zoom's issues started to become obvious to me (and I could no longer rationalize them) it became an interesting intellectual exercise to consider how much of his behavior was due to his reported narcissistic personality disorder, and how much came from "just" him independent from any disorder.

Does Zoom's behavior stem from an underlying (and, as cited by NTSB, very real) psychological disorder, or is it just him being a jerk like we all sometimes are, albeit to a more pronounced degree? The times when he seemed to be a genuinely warm and considerate individual, who loves his dog and enjoys telling jokes and sharing stories both real and imagined - is that really "him," or is that also a byproduct of the disorder? Is it possible to separate the condition from the person?

Not surprisingly, I never found an answer to that. None of us can know that; all we're left to do is judge him by what we've seen and continue to see from his actions, from which there are considerable reasons to think ill of him.

He's definitely off my Christmas card list; however, it's in that uncertainty where I also find some measure of compassion, if that makes sense.
 
Thanks for your insight, Rob. I appreciate the mixed emotions you have right now. It's one of the sad aspects of mental illness; the lost potential, and the way the sufferer harms himself as much as those around him.

Ron Wanttaja
 
flightwriter said:
You won't hear any argument from me. There's ample evidence of how Zoom's 'eccentricities' have caused, or potentially could have caused, significant harm to others. Physically, emotionally, financially.

When the true scope of Zoom's issues started to become obvious to me (and I could no longer rationalize them) it became an interesting intellectual exercise to consider how much of his behavior was due to his reported narcissistic personality disorder, and how much came from "just" him independent from any disorder.

Does Zoom's behavior stem from an underlying (and, as cited by NTSB, very real) psychological disorder, or is it just him being a jerk like we all sometimes are, albeit to a more pronounced degree? The times when he seemed to be a genuinely warm and considerate individual, who loves his dog and enjoys telling jokes and sharing stories both real and imagined - is that really "him," or is that also a byproduct of the disorder? Is it possible to separate the condition from the person?

Not surprisingly, I never found an answer to that. None of us can know that; all we're left to do is judge him by what we've seen and continue to see from his actions, from which there are considerable reasons to think ill of him.

He's definitely off my Christmas card list; however, it's in that uncertainty where I also find some measure of compassion, if that makes sense.
Click to expand...

Rob, that was one of the most intelligently written, compassionate and on-target thoughts I've seen on this board.

When I first fell in love with flight, Zoom's writing really impacted me (in a positive way). I read EVERYTHING I could get my hands on. I forget the name of the big, over-sized magazine/paper he used to put out, but I loved it. I was also on rec.aviation.homebuilt and remember when it all blew up the first time back around 1993 or so. At first, I was genuinely confused, but the truth became obvious over time.

It's always struck me an a painful waste ... his writing could be really compelling. Unfortunately, if you can't trust the source, compelling or not it is useless.

Anyway, just wanted to tell you that you really hit this about perfect.

Jeff
 
flightwriter said:
... it became an interesting intellectual exercise to consider how much of his behavior was due to his reported narcissistic personality disorder, and how much came from "just" him independent from any disorder ... it's in that uncertainty where I also find some measure of compassion, if that makes sense.
Click to expand...

I have personal experience dealing with a family member who is full-blown paranoid schizophrenic. Despite her maddening and irrational attacks on all of us, we have compassion for her for the same reason you do for Campbell. But her illness is so pronounced that it’s clear that her unpleasantness is due to the illness. She won't take medications, is physically unable to act any differently, can't function in society, and is beyond any help or influence.

But Campbell can function in society and is doing real harm to others out there. So I cheer any attempt to stop him. Call it tough love.
 
Last edited:
jm0045 said:
When Cirrus announces moving forward with "the Jet" ANN mocks and berates them and complains about the revised price point versus the initial estimate.

When Campbell darling Eclipse announces the resumption of production we get this: http://www.aero-news.net/index.cfm?do=main.textpost&id=4775daf8-0baa-4f1e-b175-14d2d05128a5, and absolutely no mention of the ultimate price versus the initial one.

Quite a contrast.
Click to expand...

ANN is no different from the glossy aviation mags in that ad space dictates editorial content.
 
jm0045 said:
When Cirrus announces moving forward with "the Jet" ANN mocks and berates them and complains about the revised price point versus the initial estimate.

When Campbell darling Eclipse announces the resumption of production we get this: http://www.aero-news.net/index.cfm?do=main.textpost&id=4775daf8-0baa-4f1e-b175-14d2d05128a5, and absolutely no mention of the ultimate price versus the initial one.

Quite a contrast.
Click to expand...

United Technologies announced the official end of the Eclipse program today per FlightGlobal. No plans to resume. Dead.
 
Didn't see that yet, but haven't read today's updates from various services. Russian deal dead too?

denverpilot said:
United Technologies announced the official end of the Eclipse program today per FlightGlobal. No plans to resume. Dead.
Click to expand...
 
mikea said:
attachment.php


Well then Cirrus needs to get you to go all Raylan on him.
Click to expand...

dell30rb said:
Best show on TV
Click to expand...


Gotta say - when Limehouse chopped Quarles' forearm off, Raylan Givens has a-hold of it, and pulls it back as Quarles reaches out for it- that, my friends, was one of the great moments in television history. :thumbsup:
 
Henning said:
Untrue, to the best of my knowledge any lien or contract dispute involving an N-tail aircraft is automatically eligible to be pursued in federal court and have the asset placed in protection of the USMS through a court order. These orders are proforma in cases where the judge sees the requisite evidence to make a case and the asset is mobile. This happens in both aircraft and boat civil disputes on a regular basis. There is an entire industry built around custodial contracts with the USMS.
Click to expand...

Maritime liens are governed by the Federal Maritime Lien Act, 46 USC 31342. There is no corresponding Federal Aviation Lien Act.
 
SCCutler said:
Gotta say - when Limehouse chopped Quarles' forearm off, Raylan Givens has a-hold of it, and pulls it back as Quarles reaches out for it- that, my friends, was one of the great moments in television history. :thumbsup:
Click to expand...

I grew up in Western Kentucky, in Coal Country. I get a creepy mix of nostalgia and "thank god I got out" when I see the show. Of course, I came to Kentucky from New England, so I had quite a case of culture shock.
 
What in the world are you talking about?

SCCutler said:
Gotta say - when Limehouse chopped Quarles' forearm off, Raylan Givens has a-hold of it, and pulls it back as Quarles reaches out for it- that, my friends, was one of the great moments in television history. :thumbsup:
Click to expand...
 
wabower said:
What in the world are you talking about?
Click to expand...

In the season finale of Justified, the cop show penned (in part) by Elmore Lenard and starring Timohy Oliphant, and arguably one of the better shows on television, the seaon's chief malefactor gets his arm literally amputated by a cleaver. Oliphant later quips that the villain was "disarmed".
 
denverpilot said:
United Technologies announced the official end of the Eclipse program today per FlightGlobal. No plans to resume. Dead.
Click to expand...

The way I read it, UT didn't actually say the project was dead, just that UT doesn't intend to be a part of it. They said their relationship with Eclipse is solely to support jets currently in the field, not to build new ones.

I think the timing of UT's comments was to counter or thwart any implication by Eclipse that UT has any role, funding or otherwise, in restarting production.

LATE EDIT:

Here's another blurb, this one from http://www.smartbrief.com/news/aopa...11D64EC0&brief=aopa&sb_code=rss&&campaign=rss:

United Technologies says there are no plans to restart the manufacturing of the Eclipse very light jet. "We're not investing any more money in Eclipse," said Chief Financial Officer Greg Hayes. "We are not in the light jet business."

I believe UT is a major shareholder in Eclipse so you may be right that they're not only saying they won't be a part of it, but that they won't allow it.

Of course, ANN is silent on UT's comments, their proud muckraking tradition notwithstanding.
 
Last edited:
Been reading some more re the UT/Eclipse production restart.

Definitely mixed signals from UT. The CEO, who is an Eclipse owner, seems to be committed to a restart, but the CFO is publicly saying the opposite. Sounds like a power struggle going on. My guess is the CFO feels that the CEO's personal interests as an Eclipse owner are clouding his judgment as to what's in UT's best interest.
 
Last edited:
jm0045 said:
Been reading some more re the UT/Eclipse production restart.

Definitely mixed signals from UT. The CEO, who is an Eclipse owner, seems to be committed to a restart, but the CFO is publicly saying the opposite. Sounds like a power struggle going on. My guess is the CFO feels that the CEO's personal interests as an Eclipse owner are clouding his judgment as to what's in UT's best interest.
Click to expand...

Yeah, yesterday a press release saying production is ended, today announcements about continued certification. Very interesting.
 
jm0045 said:
I think the timing of UT's comments was to counter or thwart any implication by Eclipse that UT has any role, funding or otherwise, in restarting production.
Click to expand...

I think you're exactly right. When presented with two conflicting statements about a business matter, I also tend to believe the words coming from the global aerospace concern over the statements from the Albuquerque-based upstart. (Then again, in the interest of full disclosure, it could also be that I'm still jaded about pretty much anything having to do with the EA50.)

Eclipse Aerospace seems to be working the media today, with a story on the "Flying" web site attributing yesterday's seemingly clear and concise comments from the UTC CFO as "rumors."

http://www.flyingmag.com/aircraft/jets/eclipse-550-cleared-production
 
Last edited:
When I first heard about Sikorsky partnering with Eclipse to support the jets in the field, and that the Sikorsky CEO was himself an Eclipes owner, it sounded to me like a clear conflict of interest for him to make that call himself. (Maybe he didn't.)

So I think it's likely that UT frowns upon the Sikorsky's involvement, probably for the same reason, and they're sending a clear message to Sikorsky not to get any more entangled with Eclipse than they already are.
 
"We do have a funded plan for production." He said Sikorsky continues to take an active role in that process, particularly in supply chain management and manufacturing. In fact, the airframe will be built at Sikorsky's PZL plant in Poland. Final assembly will be in Albuquerque.
Click to expand...

I didn't realize Sikorsky bought the PZL plant. Since airframe production will happen there, I'd say they have a vested interest in seeing this venture get back into production to make that plant more profitable. I presume this also means that Sikorsky either moved or duplicated the friction stir welding machinery, which is no small feat. Perhaps they wanted this deal to get access to that technology/process/design allowables so they could expand it to other products?

It will be interesting to see how it plays out...
 
flightwriter said:
Another interesting development -- Jeffrey Pino to "retire early" from Sikorsky...
Click to expand...

UT CFO Greg Hayes (quoted in the article) has consistently denied any Sikorsky plans to get involved with the Eclipse restart, while at the same time Pino was being coy, saying that a restart might make sense and not refuting Eclipse's showcasing a Sikorsky involvement.

Score one for the CFO.
 
Last edited:
Cirrus has filed for summary judgment. Five new documents posted.
 

Attachments

  • Motion for default judgement from Cirrus.pdf
    436.9 KB · Views: 38
  • Exhibit A - Promissory note.pdf
    802.1 KB · Views: 22
  • Affidavit of Costs.pdf
    69.1 KB · Views: 22
  • Affidavit of Attorney's Fees.pdf
    88.3 KB · Views: 26
  • Affidavit in Support of Plaintiff's Motion.pdf
    181.1 KB · Views: 18
[Late edit: Oops. Someone beat me to it!]

Looks like there's some on the Clay County docket.

05/16/2012 Motion for Final Judgment Default Summary Final Judgment as to Counts I, II & IV as to Kindred Spiri

05/16/2012 Motion (Generic) Exhibits to Motion for Entry of Default Summary Final Judgment

05/16/2012 Affidavit in Support of Motion for Judgment Affidavit in Support of Motion for Judgment

05/16/2012 Affidavit as to Costs Affidavit as to Costs

05/16/2012 Affidavit as to Attorney's fees Affidavit as to Attorney's fees
 
Does someone have a copy of the order that struck down KSAs defense ?
 
jm0045 said:
[Late edit: Oops. Someone beat me to it!]
05/16/2012 Motion for Final Judgment Default Summary Final Judgment as to Counts I, II & IV as to Kindred Spiri
Click to expand...

Interesting:
16. As a result of the Order Striking Defendant KSA's Pleadings, the facts in this case are clear and undisputed.
Click to expand...

I don't think that order has been issued (yet), and is set for a hearing on Monday.
 
That was an interesting paragraph, Steve.

So is #14, where Cirrus states they, "upon information and belief" know that KSA has the aircraft in wrongful possession at Haller Airpark in Green Cove Springs.

They've tracked down where he's stashed it, apparently.
 
Note that the motion is against Kindred Spirit, not co-defendant Campbell. Might be, since Campbell's motion for an extension of time could not cover KSA, that Cirrus can just assume default due to missing the court-specified deadline for obtaining a new attorney. Campbell's turn will probably at the court hearing on Monday. May well see similar filings against him, after that.

Cirrus' claim as to the aircraft's location may just be guesswork; "Information" could just be the knowledge that the defendant possesses a hangar there.

Ron Wanttaja
 
And almost $52K in attorney fees! I wonder if there's enough equity in the plane to cover that, or if Cirrus will have to engage in an endless battle with Campbell to recover them.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top