Poor Statement

[Daveman]

Before we destroy this guy's reputation, remember one thing: He was talking to a member of the press over the phone. This reporter is not paid to take what someone says and just meekly put it into a story, because if it is bland or otherwise not what the reporter wants to hear, its not going to make a splash and the story ends up on page R78, right underneath the used appliances want ads. They are paid to sell newspapers, and to merely be near the same zip code as the truth.

A close family member of mine is in the nuclear industry and he learned long ago that reporters A) Don't know squat about how nuclear energy is generated, distrubuted or even basic math... and B) They will flat out lie to make a story sparkle. Why do you think the newspapers print corrections in very remote portions of the paper?

Let's see if he sues the paper for libel. After all, it will ruin his reputation.

 

[sleepy]

I read a story in the USA Today today that said the accident was causeed by the defective wing design on the CL-601. They said that if it had slats, they would have prevented the ice from forming on the wing. LOL media idiots!

 

[Kingairrick]

WHat happens when you fax 10 pages of black construction paper?

Actually, I saw a better idea on this site a couple of years ago.

Write, in large block letters a message to Dave, horizontally on as many pieces of paper it may take. (4 or 5 probably works best.)

Tape the pages together at the ends.

Dial Daves fax line at 8PM and hit send with the leading edge of the message inserted into the fax.

As the leading edge comes out the bottom, bend it around and tape it to the trailing edge of the message.

You have now created the endless fax from hell. Congratulations.

 

[Quimby]

The story was qouted to the LA Times as the source......I guess the Trib just did a reprint on the article. That would explain why the source (phone interview -evidently) came from somewhere west of Chicago.

 

[Flying Illini]

I read a story in the USA Today today that said the accident was causeed by the defective wing design on the CL-601. They said that if it had slats, they would have prevented the ice from forming on the wing. LOL media idiots!

But who are they (the media) getting their info from??!!??! If I am ever in a position to speak with the media, the prereq for my statement would be that I get to proof read the article before it goes to print. All the media does is scare people who are too stupid to know better. But if you didn't know anything about aviation, you would read that and say, "oh my, why are they flying an airplane with a defective wing?" Why can't the media just do a little bit of research and actually quote what their pilot-source said. (I doubt some pilot actually said that a defective wing caused this accident...although this Dave Kemper guy may be in on it....)

Aaaaarrrrggggg, it's so freakin' frustrating!!!!!!!

 

[Flywrite]

(I doubt some pilot actually said that a defective wing caused this accident...although this Dave Kemper guy may be in on it....)

Aaaaarrrrggggg, it's so freakin' frustrating!!!!!!!

But you're forgetting, the Challenger's engines are so powerful a little thing like a defective wing won't slow it down. It'll just bully on through!

 

[irapilot]

His answer to my email to him:

Thank you for your email regarding the December 1, 2004 L.A. Times article in which I was badly misquoted. I appreciate the opportunity to set the record straight as the newspaper seems disinclined to print a correction.



In addition to having owned and operated an air charter referral service for some 23 years, I myself am a pilot with nearly 8,000 hours. I hold an ATP as well as a current CFII SEL MEL. Moreover, much of my flying experience was in the east where winter operations can, at times, be severe. Therefore, I know full well what effects ice can have on any kind of aircraft be it large or small, overpowered or underpowered.



During my interview with L.A. Times staff writer David Kelly, I stated how the Challenger’s engines were powerful enough such that, if one engine quit after V1 during the take off roll, the airplane could still fly. While there clearly would be a change in performance characteristics, it would not be so dramatic that a safe lift-off could not be achieved. Once airborne, the crew could then deal with the problem. This part of the discussion had nothing to do with the subject of icing.



Separately, Mr. Kelly asked if the weight of the ice would keep the aircraft from lifting off. As a direct response to that question, I said the “weight” would not necessarily be an issue as the aircraft was more than likely a thousand pounds or more under gross. However, I did say that ice which adheres to the wings, while not primarily a weight problem, does disrupt airflow thus degenerating lift capabilities and even adding drag. Somehow the distinction between the two questions about power and icing did not get distinguished in the mind of Mr. Kelly.



As an aside, I asked Mr. Kelly if I could review what he was going to publish. He said, “No.” His reason: if he did it for me, he would have to do it for everyone. Also, he said he could not have every politician rewriting his articles. What is interesting to note is how the Associated Press and several other news organizations, including the CBS affiliate KCNC Channel 4 in Denver, all reported my remarks correctly.



As I am sure you know, there are still some puzzling aspects surrounding the incident in Montrose, Colorado. Not surprisingly, it will be months before we have a factual NTSB report to shed some light on what happened. Meanwhile, I was simply trying to satisfy the media with some known information that would aid their inexorable rush to judgment. It is impossible to keep them from doing such a thing, so I wanted to, at least, put them on a right path. That seemed to work for all but the L.A. Times and I am sorry for the confusion which resulted from their misquote.



I also regret what effect this all might have on the charter industry which, based on my years of experience, is very safe and reliable. Incidents like these usually mean we have to rebuild the levels of trust with the flying public, but I know we can do it.



Sincerely,





David W. Kempa

President, Air Denver Inc.



cc: Editor, Los Angeles Times



CHARTERS by Air Denver Inc.

Worldwide Air Charter Referral Service

Since 1981

(303) 333-3332 or (800) 333-4057, fax (303) 670-7810

To go directly to our web site, click: http://www.airdenver.com

e-mail [email protected]

 

[O-Line]

His answer to my email to him:

Thank you for your email regarding the December 1, 2004 L.A. Times article in which I was badly misquoted. I appreciate the opportunity to set the record straight as the newspaper seems disinclined to print a correction.

In addition to having owned and operated an air charter referral service for some 23 years, I myself am a pilot with nearly 8,000 hours. I hold an ATP as well as a current CFII SEL MEL......

Two points:

One, he's lying since he doesn't have an ATP (unless he got it in the last couple of months) according to the FAA database.

Two, it's very likey he got misquoted. Reporters usually hear only what they want to hear and incorporate that into their story.

 

[laser]

Illini and LXJ31 are among the few who realized that the most likely source of misinformation was the media. How many times do we see the media get it wrong? How about every **CENSORED****CENSORED****CENSORED****CENSORED** time they print an aviation related story!

Predictably, many others rushed to judgement against a guy and a situation they knew nothing about. I know nothing about his business and I dont know Mr Kempa, but his response was concise and is certainly believable. Of course the reporter is going to get it wrong. He's not going to have a solid understanding of aerodynamic principles after a 15 minute interview.

Lying about his ATP? You think that database is maintained accurately and completely? I doubt it.

 

[irapilot]

I did say in my email to Mr. Kempa that in regards to the media keeping your mouth shut is always the best option. I learned, the hard way too, the media industry has no real standards or responsibility to be right, fair or even accountable for what they say/quote or print. Certainly they are not going to print a retraction – they have no interest in it.

I am a cynic and can say that this all ties into the “dumbing” of America, that the public does not demand truly accurate reporting, does not want to have an in-depth analysis of current events so they get what they deserve. People generally only want to hear the point of view that reinforces what they are doing and how they are behaving currently and media adapts and conforms to this.

 

[Flywrite]

Well I for one owe the man an apology. It seems his biggest mistake was trusting the media.


As for the media...well...what is there to say that hasnt been said.

Sorry Mr. Kempa

 

[HawkerF/O]

Lying about his ATP? You think that database is maintained accurately and completely? I doubt it.

That database is in fact 'maintained accurately and completely'! Unless you notify the FAA that you want to opt out of the Database, it's on the up and up. Medical status is there in less than 45 days after your physcial.

At the end of the day, Mr. Kampe or whatever his name is should have kept it shut! That reporter did not intentionally misquote what Kampe said, he just reported what he understood. Why on earth would one go into a complicated (to the average Joe) detailed lecture about Ice on the Wings???

Here is how that interview should have gone down:

During my interview with L.A. Times staff writer David Kelly, I stated how the Challenger’s engines were powerful enough such that, if one engine quit after V1 during the take off roll, the airplane could still fly. While there clearly would be a change in performance characteristics, it would not be so dramatic that a safe lift-off could not be achieved. Once airborne, the crew could then deal with the problem. This part of the discussion had nothing to do with the subject of icing.

Why even mention V1? Just confusing the person listening. Should have just said that the airplane has been certified to contiue the takeoff safely if one engine quit while on the take off roll, at Max Take off weight. NOTE- As for Montrose, I don't know the surroundings and the gradient requirements, so maybe in this case it would not have been.

Separately, Mr. Kelly asked if the weight of the ice would keep the aircraft from lifting off. As a direct response to that question, I said the “weight” would not necessarily be an issue as the aircraft was more than likely a thousand pounds or more under gross. However, I did say that ice which adheres to the wings, while not primarily a weight problem, does disrupt airflow thus degenerating lift capabilities and even adding drag. Somehow the distinction between the two questions about power and icing did not get distinguished in the mind of Mr. Kelly.

Once again, easy with all the technical jargon, Mr. Yeager! When he asked, 'if the weight of the ice would keep the aircraft from lifting off', the answer is "Not so much the weight in this case, but it is possible." If he pressed on about what ice would do to the wing, "A lot of ice would change the shape of the wing and now the aircraft's preformance would be somewhat unpredicatable, because there is no longer a smooth flow of air over the top of the wing."

As an aside, I asked Mr. Kelly if I could review what he was going to publish. He said, “No.” His reason: if he did it for me, he would have to do it for everyone. Also, he said he could not have every politician rewriting his articles.

Of course he said no. Were you an Editor of a large newpaper before you started in aviation? You are not his editor!

What is interesting to note is how the Associated Press and several other news organizations, including the CBS affiliate KCNC Channel 4 in Denver, all reported my remarks correctly.

You just got lucky.

As I am sure you know, there are still some puzzling aspects surrounding the incident in Montrose, Colorado. Not surprisingly, it will be months before we have a factual NTSB report to shed some light on what happened. Meanwhile, I was simply trying to satisfy the media with some known information that would aid their inexorable rush to judgment. It is impossible to keep them from doing such a thing, so I wanted to, at least, put them on a right path. That seemed to work for all but the L.A. Times and I am sorry for the confusion which resulted from their misquote.

I don't think he put anyone on the right path. Mr. Kampe, where did you get your experience investigating accidents? I know you have lots of it because you are speculating on what happened. You told the reporter, "it looks like the plane aborted takeoff. Something mechanical probably happened, and they figured it was better to stay on the ground."' WTF????? What on earth makes you think that??? Though it is possible, ice could have been on the leading edge thus preventing it from takeoff. There are tons of things that could have gone wrong, and you have no business speculating on the cause of an accident less than a week old. If you ever put one in do you want us to sit here and speculate on what we don't know? By the way, in a Challenger, there is no such thing as a flaps 0 take off. That should mean something to you pertaining to this accident if you truly are qualified to talk about swept wing T/O performance and ice. It might also give you a clue as to what happened.

 

[Daveman]

I am a cynic and can say that this all ties into the “dumbing” of America, that the public does not demand truly accurate reporting, does not want to have an in-depth analysis of current events so they get what they deserve. People generally only want to hear the point of view that reinforces what they are doing and how they are behaving currently and media adapts and conforms to this.

Very well put my friend. And so very true.

 

[Kingairrick]

The FAA website had my latest type rating published in 3 weeks, the same day I got my permanent certificate. They also get the medical right every 6 months. I'm inclined to think that it's pretty well maintained.

I do however think we owe Mr. Kempa an apology for flaming him so badly. He just should have kept his mouth shut. A lesson we can all learn from...

 

[laser]

Okay so maybe he's lying about his ATP - or maybe he just got it. I don't know the guy. I looked up my own info and it was accurate as well. (Although I didn't see my types on the landings.com database)

If you talk to a reporter, no matter how simply you explain it, you put yourself at risk of being misquoted or misunderstood. Even HawkerF/O's simpler explanations could be bent in the direction the writer thinks the story should go. He could even add them to his story so that they seemingly agree with Mr. Kempa!

So what's the answer? Pilots should never talk to reporters? Personally, I don't think I would ever do so. If you do, no matter how careful you are, you risk your reputation and being bashed by every pilot who reads the article (not to mention getting endless hell-fax's and emails) .