An ANN Special Report: Since When Is The FAA Using the Media to Do Its Dirtywork?

(Part Three of a Four Part Special Report)

• Read Part One

• Read Part Two

An Emotionally Compelling Story... Short On Facts

Despite being a cornerstone of the KIRO piece, Halsne admits that he didn't investigate the aforementioned details, instead quoting Robinson's Father heavily. "He deserved to be heard," says Halsne. That may be, but Robinson-Senior's concerns are emotional (and should be) and are bereft of expert factual detail. One must note that the NTSB does not get its evidence from the families of crash victims for much the same reason.

Worse; there is no mystery here to anyone but a heart-broken Father--a sad situation played up shamelessly (IMO) by KIRO. How the drop zone is responsible for a licensed jumper's decision-making is beyond us... but the scenario conjures up the previous tragedies that occurred when pilots of "more means/money than skill" bought high-performance airplanes that were more than they could handle (i.e., the "Doctor in a Bonanza" syndrome) and subsequently became statistics. Please note that ANN has heard numerous reports of other jumpers that allegedly counseled Robinson to "go slow" with this canopy and to operate it conservatively... advice that apparently was not followed... and since Robinson was licensed, the decision to act in the manner he did was (tragically) his right.

One of the more visually alarming aspects of the story is a small snippet of video in which a Twin Otter is seen, for all of a second or two, speeding past the wing of what appears to be a Cessna 140. Halsne implies that this is yet more evidence of a lack of safety on the part of the drop zone and that the two aircraft passed way too close to each other. The story sonorously intones, "We see one of Kapowsin's jump planes nearly smashing into another occupied plane on an active runway. The wings miss by inches."

According to the pilot of the Twin Otter, the aircraft was LANDING, and obviously had priority. Further; he notes that the Cessna was in an area off the runway customarily used for staging/holding and that the claim of inches of separation is inaccurate. Admittedly, the video perspective can be easily argued to be quite a bit more than the scant inches claimed by Halsne and KIRO. If there was a collision hazard here, it certainly seemed "overstated," especially since the Twin Otter allegedly had every right to be doing what it was doing... i.e., executing an announced landing with an aircraft holding visibly off to the side of the runway. The pilot notes that there is no hold line, but that the area frequented by the Cessna is often used in the manner seen, without hazard... several times a day.

So... what started this?

ANN talked to KIRO's Chris Halsne at length and found him to be both personable as well as unabashedly forthcoming about his story. Halsne claims to have the requisite experience to do aviation stories based on his ability to consult with a number of expert sources and the fact that he's "done a lot of aviation stories" previously. Halsne admitted that a very aggressive anti-drop zone personality, Jeff Dow (who tells a compelling story now being investigated by ANN), was heavily involved in the formulation of the story and makes no apologies for that fact based on his amazing revelation that the FAA was also a principal source for the report and lent it the requisite credibility it might otherwise have lacked. As a matter of fact, ANN got the strong impression that the FAA's involvement was a pivotal part of the decision-making that allowed this report to air.

Halsne claims that the FAA - specifically, an inspector by the name of David Lehman - told him that the Kapowsin was dangerous, that Kapowsin was under investigation, and that violations would be filed against Kapowsin--even though the investigation was admittedly STILL underway.

This caught our attention in a very big way. The FAA tells ANN that they can not talk to us about the Kapowsin matter because it is still under investigation... period.

No further comment.

We heard this from a PAO, from the head of the Seattle FSDO, and from FAA HQ in Washington, DC. It has been our experience that this is, indeed, the procedure mandated for FAA inspectors to follow when an investigation is underway... and yet Halsne states that he received specific information and conclusions from the FAA and its inspector, Lehman, while the investigation was still under way (as specifically admitted by Seattle FSDO Manager Samuel A. Aaron).

So... what's going on here?

Why is the FAA breaking its own rules?
Why is the FAA prejudging an investigation that it admits is NOT yet completed?
And why is the FAA making inflammatory comments that obviously damage the business and reputation of what skydiving industry sources (without exception) indicate is one of the better DZs in America?

Kapowsin regulars claim that the FSDO has been gunning for the DZ for a while... especially on the part of FAA Inspector Lehman, who a number of people claim has openly stated that he "hates skydivers." Normally, a claim like that has to be taken with a grain of salt... especially from the skydiving community which has a well-known distrust of the FAA. However; a few calls to respected industry luminaries not only seems to confirm this but have produced numerous cases in which Lehman appears to have "gone out of his way," to make trouble for parachutists.

To Be Continued...

• Read Part One

• Read Part Two

• Read Part Four

FMI: http://www.skydivenet.com/kapowsin/dropzone.htm, http://www.kirotv.com, http://www.kirotv.com/video/1990838/detail.html