Closing Statement (quite long)
Question:
Thank you for your excellent review of Zoom, and for your philosophy of "Let’s get on with what the newsgroup is all about."
Response:
I tried to very clearly divorce myself from this issue once before, but one of those who was allegedly tired of seeing it perpetuated baited me back in by using my name in a context that was intendedly offensive. Although I would, as many others here, like to see this matter discontinued, be advised that I can be baited back into the discussion again. That said, I hope that these are my last comments on the matter. I do not intend them to be "scoring off," but rather a statement of what I did and why. Anyone who wants to followup on these comments may do so without my interference–so long as they stick to the facts, regardless of their convictions. My original intent was to put Mr. Campbell (whose arrival on this group was heralded by grudging apologies from contributors made under threat of legal action for statements that were, perhaps, incorrect, but which could have been countered with a simple statement of the truth, rather than a demand for public groveling) on notice that his own past actions and confrontations with the truth were known by some folks around here. I did not want him to go away. I merely wanted him to contribute honestly and as an equal. I also had a few apprehensions about desires that he might have to turn this into an electronic infomercial for his publishing endeavors, but we have discussed that privately. I’ve tried to express my concerns without unduly embarassing Mr. Campbell. It seems, however, that many people jumped to the wrong conclusions, based on scanty evidence, and that Mr. Campbell sometimes appeared to take advantage of the fact that contraint was shown in holding back details of his own past–from public record– to make it appear that there was little evidence to back up concerns that I, and some others, had. My knowledge of Mr. James Richard Campbell goes back many years. In 1977 he attempted a "base jumping" feat from the World Trade Center. His reasons for doing this are his own. He was pulled back by a police officer as he was going over the edge, and arrested. The resultant news story, which was picked up by newspapers across the country, carried the line, "The young man, who told police that he is a member of the United States Parachute Association, was charged with reckless endangerment, criminal trespass, resisting arrest, and disorderly conduct." (New York Times, Nov. 16, 1977, II, 3:6) I don’t doubt for a moment that Mr. Campbell had *no* intention of having the United States Parachute Association’s name dragged into the national press in context with criminal charges against a member. I suspect that he mentioned his association with that organization only in efforts to explain why he felt he could have conducted the illegal jump safely. The end result, however, was that the name of one of the foremost sport aviation associations in this country was associated with activities that the public perceived as foolhardy for the participant and a needless endangerment to a police officer’s life and to those who might have been on the ground. This affected the sport parachuting community as a whole, and damaged the efforts of lots of people (especially the USPA) who were trying to make the sport safe, legal, and perceived by the public as something far more than a bunch of renegade death-defying daredevils with no respect for life or property. (On a personal note, had the jump been sanctioned by the authorities, I have no doubt that Mr. Campbell was properly qualified and prepared to execute it without danger to the public) This episode was one of several incidents, or alleged incidents, that later led to the emergency revokation of Mr. Campbell’s medical certificate, and the subsequent upholding of that revokation by a circuit court judge. (Langhorne M. Bond, FAA Administrator, represented by Sharon Hauselt vs. James Richard Campbell: Docket SE-4661, New York, NY, November 18, 1980). For those who have questioned whether this action has any bearing on Mr. Campbell’s current credibility as an editor/publisher, I extract a few excerpts from the public record. I do this noting that these things were long in the past, and that such judgements and statements as made by that court, if they were true, should not condemn someone permanently. As a personal comment, I agree with Campbell that his medical should not have been revoked, because the following information, IMO, has had no demonstrated bearing on his ability to fly an airplane. I do, however, think that it has a bearing on someone’s personal credibility at that time (if not later). (From the Initial Decision and Order by Administrative Law Judge Joyce Capps): "The Administrator is alleging that Respondent [Campbell], due to an established medical history and clinical diagnosis of a personality disorder that is severe enough to have repeatedly manifested itself by overt acts, is not qualified for an airman’s certificate [...]." "There has been a lot of evidence presented by the Government in furtherance of establishing its claim in this case. Said evidence came in the form of testimony by Sandra Ann Taylor, an aviation safety inspector in the Portland, Maine, General Aviation District Office, who testified as to the results of a rather extensive investigation conducted by her in connection with this case. There was testimony from two well-qualified and Board-certified psychiatrists, Dr. Thomas R. Powers from San Francisco and Dr. Barton Pakull from Washington, D.C. There is little doubt in my mind, from the evidence that has been presented in this case, and in the many instances from the Respondent’s own admissions and testimony, that there is [sic.] sufficient overt acts to convince me that they were the result of a personality disorder which the two psychiatrists who testified agreed the Respondent now has — and has seemed to have had for quite awhile." [listing of examples cited by judge deleted] "Some of the characteristics of the disease were exhaustively testified to by Dr. Pakull and Dr. Powers [...]." "Such a person suffering from this mixed personality disorder would have illusions of grandeur [...] a grandiose sense of self importance [...] constantly is seeking attention and admiration [...]." "I think we’ve got a lot of examples in the evidence where in various ways — [list deleted] — the Respondent alleged certain things that simply were not true." "I think this grandiose behavior would be exemplified by [... list deleted]. This seems to be more wishful thinking that I think perhaps the Respondent was hoping would be true, and it wasn’t true at the time. But it sounded good and it made him look good in front of his friends and former co-employees." "Another characteristic of the personality disorder syndrome would be the ability of the Respondent to manipulate others, many times through very devious devices — either by outright lies, by charm itself [and] sometime [by] intimidation." [Note: in the above excerpts, the "[...]" marks indicate places where I have deleted material for the sake of brevity or to spare Mr. Campbell from publishing specifics of his past. We all have done things of which we are not proud, and we all deserve the chance to redeem ourselves. But the issue I raised was one of credibility, and those excerpts shown suggest credibility problems at one point. My question is whether they continued afterward, or not.] My next contact with Mr. Campbell came after his medical was revoked, and after he had supposedly received treatment for his problem. I met him in person on that occasion (of a couple of days). In the summer of 1983, he and a companion had an extended layover at the Wood County airport (Bowling Green, Ohio) during an intended "around-the-world" ultralight flight. It seems that Mr. Campbell was left stranded there for a few days when he was abandoned by his ground crew (the trans-USA part of that flight was eventually completed, but with a different aircraft company’s sponsorship). While he was at the Bowling Green airport, I had the opportunity to listen to Mr. Campbell tell the "locals" about his past experiences and abilities. They were truly amazing for a man of his age. I have recently discussed one of these claims with Mr. Campbell (he telephoned me) and he does not recall having made such a statement (conceding that it wouldn’t be true), and questioning whether my recollection was clear. Had it not evoked such a pronounced and distinct reaction from another pilot, for whom I have deep and lasting respect, I probably would not have remembered the statement or (or Mr. Campbell, for that matter). Here, however, is one of the points on which Mr. Campbell and I have "agreed to disagree." I recall that there were several claims made by Mr. Campbell at that time which now appear to be false. The trans-continental leg of Mr. Campbell’s "around-the-world" flight ended before the news cameras at the base of the Statue of Liberty. Mr. Campbell successfully landed his airplane first, then, according to the news articles, perceived that his partner might overshoot her landing and ran out to save her by grabbing a wing. He got hit in the face by the wing, her plane swerved and piled up against the base of the statue, and the whole thing was captured on film. (New York Times, June 17, 1983, IV, 17:3) A photo of Mr. Campbell lying on the ground, with his partner’s plane piled up against the Statue of Liberty in the background, was published in papers across the country. For many folks who were then trying to convince the aviation community and the public that ultralight flying was safe and sane, this appeared to be an embarassing and unnecessary publicity stunt. It was a question of some interesting debate as to whether, under such circumstances, another pilot has the right or responsibility to try to lend "assistance" in another’s operation of an aircraft. A … read more »
