I refuse to even look at those pages, don't want to raise the bastard's click count for whatever advertisers he has left.
Negative ANN article about Cirrus
- Thread starter Dave Siciliano
- Start date
Clicks in the wayback machine dont count.
I dont click on it because it is not interesting.
Last edited:
wanttaja
En-Route
You are a kind and benevolent man, Ron...there are those who believe that any click-count data provided to advertisers is totally false, anyway.
Ron Wanttaja
Yeah, well it's been a while since he's called my employer to complain about me making death threats against him.
MAG Aviation. First I've heard of it, but very entertaining. I didn't see Campbell's name on the web page, but the breathless and repetitive prose sure sounded like him, along with the shameless name dropping. Quite a stable of aircraft they thought they could somehow operate and maintain. Hilarious.
I wonder if some of his "supporters" privately cringe when he attaches their names to his naive save-the-aviation-world projects. (And I still wonder what the aviation world needs to be saved from -- though I can imagine a candidate.)
Looks like my suspicion has been confirmed.
"Aviation News/Analysis/Commentary By ANN CEO/Editor-In-Chief, Jim Campbell I’ve been having a running conversation, the last few weeks, with a person many of you used to know – a person who is given much to the world of aviation -- and after a series of setbacks and disappointments… well, he’s given up on us. I don’t want to single him out. I understand his disappointment. But I know many like him, and the fact of the matter is that one of my fondest desires, personally, is that something that I might do some day will convince him that not all is lost -- and that aviation not only can be saved, but should be saved."
wanttaja
En-Route
Yep. I suspect there are quite a few of the leaders in aviation who give Campbell lip service, but balk when it comes time to support him with money or endorsements. He tries to take credit for Bob Hoover's final win over the FAA...but when you read Hoover's book, he thanks over two dozen people by name for helping him beat the FAA, and Campbell isn't one of them.
Campbell's phraseology is always fun to watch. He invariably refers to himself with the editorial "we," to the extent that a judge in one of his court cases (think it was the SnF case) chastised him on it. So phrases like, "well, he’s given up on us", can be interpreted two ways....
Ron Wanttaja
Yeah. I caught that.
http://www.aero-news.net/emailarticle.cfm?do=main.textpost&id=e3073210-5c2d-4d17-90c5-521465a70274
Ron is right: Master of the future tense. Just once I'd like to see Campbell announce something when it's ready to go (or better still, when it's had some newsworthy successes), instead of endlessly and breathlessly telling us about all the wonderful things in store for us in the future. For example, why didn't he wait to publish the story until he could announce the advisory committee members, instead of teasing about an impending announcement? To be fair, many media outlets jump the gun with half-baked stories, but ANN is no better.
Ron is right: Master of the future tense. Just once I'd like to see Campbell announce something when it's ready to go (or better still, when it's had some newsworthy successes), instead of endlessly and breathlessly telling us about all the wonderful things in store for us in the future. For example, why didn't he wait to publish the story until he could announce the advisory committee members, instead of teasing about an impending announcement? To be fair, many media outlets jump the gun with half-baked stories, but ANN is no better.
Pedals2Paddles
Cleared for Takeoff
After reading about 1/3 of that article, I've determined he missed his calling as a politician. Talk a lot about what you will do to make everything wonderful for everyone, saying everything they want to hear, then doing nothing.
wanttaja
En-Route
Interesting discovery... I scrolled back a bit to refresh my memory, and hit the link to the article where he complained that some prominent (but unnamed...) aviation figure was claiming there was no hope for aviation. But that article has changed...now it's talking about how Phil Boyer is going to lead the committee (or whatever).
Wonder if it had been Boyer who originally told him "no"....
Ron Wanttaja
Wonder if it had been Boyer who originally told him "no"....
Ron Wanttaja
Good chance, I'd think.
Campbell seems to think someone not wanting to associate with yet another of his save-the-aviation-world projects means that person has given up on aviation when, as alluded to earlier, it might mean they've just given up on Campbell.
Personally, I think Campbell being out front on these dubious (though well-meaning) projects is self defeating, given the easy availability of material to discredit him. I think he'd have a better chance to get support if he stayed in the background and cast these things as ANN, rather than Campbell, initiatives. (Of course, he's made ANN such a cult-of-personality that that would likely be viewed as a distinction without a difference.)
Campbell seems to think someone not wanting to associate with yet another of his save-the-aviation-world projects means that person has given up on aviation when, as alluded to earlier, it might mean they've just given up on Campbell.
Personally, I think Campbell being out front on these dubious (though well-meaning) projects is self defeating, given the easy availability of material to discredit him. I think he'd have a better chance to get support if he stayed in the background and cast these things as ANN, rather than Campbell, initiatives. (Of course, he's made ANN such a cult-of-personality that that would likely be viewed as a distinction without a difference.)
Last edited:
I notice Campbell isn't railing against Mooney now that it's under Chinese ownership. I think even he realizes that to "save" GA will require foreign investment. He probably knew that when he attacked Cirrus for its relationship with Chinese investors, but let his own personal issues with Cirrus cloud journalistic judgement.
Last edited:
wanttaja
En-Route
For those of us who don't like to increase his hit count, what does it say?
Ron Wanttaja
Ghery
Touchdown! Greaser!
- Joined
- Feb 25, 2005
- Messages
- 10,944
- Location
- Olympia, Washington
- Display Name
Display name:
Ghery Pettit
Way too many words for me to finish reading it. In typical fashion he looses the reader quickly with his style of writing. I honestly don't know what his point was or how the article ends.
Pretty much the same rant about Cirrus.
It comes down to "It's my blog so I get to rant about things." You know, like most of 24/7 cable news.
wanttaja
En-Route
Campbell reminds me of the Black Knight in "Monty Python and the Holy Grail": An armless, legless torso sitting in the sand, screaming, "I'm inVINCEable!!!!!"
Ron Wanttaja
- Joined
- Jun 13, 2008
- Messages
- 7,837
- Location
- Marietta, GA
- Display Name
Display name:
Drake the Outlaw
He goes through a long list of those who have been out to get him and he does mention "a couple of guys in the Pacific Northwest" that wanted to do him harm.
The punchline is he wants to create a documentary about Bob Hoover's tussle with the FAA..."Let Bob Fly"
"Life is a tale, told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing"
- Shakespeare
wilkersk
Pattern Altitude
Nothing like BEING the news your reporting on. Journalism is dead!
He lost it for being delusional once: http://www.ousterhout.net/zoom/se-4661.html
Currently he seems to have an expired third class.
TangoWhiskey
Touchdown! Greaser!
I wonder if the guy is even capable of writing without using parenthetical modifiers to nearly every sentence.
And that's in just ONE article! I think his split personality is watching over his shoulder as he writes, and injecting thoughts and clarification that he adds parenthetically.
- I (personally) had been getting to a point
- even though we were copied aggressively (and mostly without credit/attribution)
- helped us keep aviation informed and (mostly) honest
- after a number of years of significant (and really enjoyable) prosperity
- it threw me off my game for well over a year (OK, WAY more than that)
- we caught the new management (first led by Brent Wouters and later by Dale Klapmeier) of Cirrus
- we knew of others that were victimized as bad (or worse) than we
- a contract we reached years before with Alan Klapmeier (and which we honored despite Cirrus dishonesty)
- another deal (also reached with Alan) when we undertook
- they owed us (A LOT) for prior contracted business (IMO), but
- while there are too many bizarre permutations to list for the moment (but we will… via a forthcoming book and other works), each month brought new surprises
- we survived… barely… because (we believe) Cirrus had much more to fear
- only minutes (literally) before we were to depose Dale
- at a frightful financial cost to all involved (their attorney actually bragged about how many hours he was billing them… I have no idea how much it actually was, but judging by the way he acted in this case, it was likely to be a horrendous amount of dough, IMO).
- with better resources (we had stunning evidence of their lies and falsehoods, as well as their many broken promises/breaches)
- Alan Klapmeier had much of the same issues with Cirrus (and also testified bravely and honestly in support of our case – pretty much confirming all aspects of our major claims)
- winning a case with them to the tune of $10 million bucks (which, of course, Cirrus is still appealing).
- we defeated Cirrus demands to make us cover up/lie about them (no kidding… I still have the emails and applicable documents involved) and retract what we’d written and known to be true
- I haven't owned a plane since (and certainly NOT a Cirrus), and I lost the chance to keep a home I truly loved
- ask any so-called aviation journalist (of which there are precious few), especially those cashing Cirrus ad dollars every month, if (facing what we had) they’d have caved in, sold their integrity, and taken the hush money
- it’s a provable fact (IMO)… I took a half-million-dollar hit to maintain and ‘win’ my right to tell you the truth
- I couldn’t live with that… I could live (barely) without the bucks…
- few seemed to care (or take notice)…
- blood money for turning the other way (IMO) as Cirrus went ahead and screwed way too many people
- harassing communications (see link above) << this one is probably ok
- he shared with anyone that dared to question him about our stories (to defer attention from our having documented his many misdeeds) and also referred
- might have been avoided had jerks like these (and others) not given Riggs more excuses/incentives
- He tried everything (again and often gleefully implicating Cirrus and others as supporters and/or partners) -- extortion,
- we dealt with it… we stayed strong (if a little shaky)... we carried on…
- men and women (my wife, in particular) of uncommon courage and integrity
- while I told him (again and again) that we had an interview to conduct
- he wanted me to know that while we might not always agree on all things aero-political (though ‘arguments’ with Paul were always educational, if not fun), that he appreciated my courage
- lots of round engine airplanes (among others), for Paul
- claimed to working with Cirrus or others (including the two previously mentioned NW nutballs who comprised the ‘I hate Campbell’ committee) to bring on my ruin, my death or injury
- name after name (and I’m sorry for those MANY I've left out… but I really need to keep this story short-er) who have empowered me
- transform aviation, flyer by flyer, into a world even better than it once was (albeit much different than what we once knew)
- The FAA must be forced to respect us (as we must learn to respect ourselves and not let such powers disrespect us) … not just as aviators but as aero-citizens…
- because of my friendship with Bob (among others), and the knowledge I gained from working with him
- I found the strength to face the scumbags, the liars, the cons and the crooks… be they (IMO), the powers that be at Cirrus or AVIC, a David Riggs, some anonymous coward trying to legitimize the greed of FlightPrep, or anyone of the dozens (literally) of other causes we have taken on when no one else would
And that's in just ONE article! I think his split personality is watching over his shoulder as he writes, and injecting thoughts and clarification that he adds parenthetically.
dell30rb
Final Approach
He's got issues. That article reminds me of some of the crazy rambling **** on Dan Bernath's webpage.
wanttaja
En-Route
Well, there are ten million or so people living in the Pacific Northwest, so that doesn't narrow it down much.He goes through a long list of those who have been out to get him and he does mention "a couple of guys in the Pacific Northwest" that wanted to do him harm.
He made a similar claim when he sued me and the rest of the RAH-15. Our attorney did some digging in police records; in a roughly eight-year period in the '90s, there are more than 20 police reports involving Campbell. Here's the kind of thing he was accusing folks of:
Grand theft
Petit Theft
Forgery
Battery
Burglary/unarmed force entry
Assault by intimidation (twice)
Criminal mischief (twice)
Written threats bodily harm
Extortion/threats (twice)
Harrassing phone call (four times)
Shoplifting/theft
Tamper with witness
No one ever arrested. In some cases, the accused were persons who Campbell was involved in civil cases with.
The forgery case was when a subscriber named Carriero sent in a $25 subscription check that was altered and cashed for $300; Campbell blamed an employee.
The list above DOESN'T include direct accusations to individuals, or accusations in the magazine or web page, of course.
Ron Wanttaja
I got zoomed when I made the mistake of using my work email on an RAH post that had zoom calling the president of our company making all sorts of crazy demands. Fortunately, we're a small place and I just had to explain who this crazy person that he just got off the phone with really was. It was suggested I not use my company email on my recreational posts.
So did the Cirrus dispute ever come to a conclusion?
Iirc Cirrus got their plane back but none of the money he owed. There is a transcript of the rather comical hearing further up in the thread.
wanttaja
En-Route
Settled out of court. Campbell gave the airplane back, agreed to waive any claims for alleged unpaid advertising, parties responsible for their own legal bills.
Ron Wanttaja.
wanttaja
En-Route
IIRC, Campbell claimed on ANN that Cirrus owed him almost three-quarters of a million dollars.
Ron Wanttaja
Good enough, they should have known better, they either failed due diligence or were stupid.
EminiTrader
Cleared for Takeoff
Wow after reading a bit... I had no idea that guy from ANN was a loon...
wanttaja
En-Route
Well... one must remember how this deal got started. Cirrus CEO Alan Klapmeier was told he was being fired, THEN Campbell's deal for the plane was made (signed off about two weeks later). If Klapmeier had remained as CEO, the one-year limit on the enforceability of verbal contracts wouldn't have mattered. By the time that one year anniversary came around, Klapmeier was already head of a competing aircraft company.
Ron Wanttaja
Last edited:
So Campbell is correct in claiming that there was a contract?
wanttaja
En-Route
Cirrus never *denied* there had been a verbal contract. However, they presented to the court a written contract, signed by Campbell, in which he promised to pay ~$5,500 a month on the aircraft. With no mention of offsetting the payments by advertising.
Written contracts have precedence, thus Campbell attempted to cast doubt on the validity of the written contract by claiming his signature was forged.
However, he refused to provide signature samples for the handwriting expert Cirrus hired, and was not going to present evidence from his OWN handwriting expert to support his forgery claims (he had to identify the expert ninety days before the scheduled trial date, and did not).
There are also limitations on verbal contracts in most states. In some cases, they're limited to one year and to values of $500 or less. Of course, exceeding these doesn't matter if both parties are willing. But if one party becomes LESS willing, the other party is in trouble.
I'm not a lawyer, I don't know if either limitation would apply in this case. However, I think it's significant that Cirrus' claim for lack of payment has a starting date a year from the date that the written contract was signed...which should have also been the starting point for any verbal agreement. It might well be that, if they had to address the issue of a verbal contract, Cirrus would just claim that they had complied to the limit that the law required.
Campbell has sued a half-dozen companies, claiming they violated supposed verbal advertising contracts. He really can't claim he didn't understand the law....
Ron Wanttaja