|
Aerobatics Server
ACRO E-mail Archive Thread: [Acro] AVflash (Special Edition) (fwd) [International Aerobatic Club] [Communications] [Aerobatics Images] Disclaimer: These aerobatics pages are developed by individual IAC members and do not represent official IAC policy or opinion. |
[Usage Statistics] |
Thread: [Acro] AVflash (Special Edition) (fwd)
Message: [Acro] AVflash (Special Edition) (fwd)
Follow-Up To: ACRO Email list (for List Members only)
From: "Dr. Guenther Eichhorn" <gei at head-cfa.harvard.edu>
Date: Wed, 24 Jul 2002 20:46:53 UTC
Hi all, I just received this email. I am posting it to the ACRO list so it will be included in the ACRO email list archive as requested by the lawyers. Guenther --------------------------------------------------- Dr. Guenther Eichhorn | E-mail, Internet: Project Manager | gei at cfa.harvard.edu Astrophysics Data System | Phone: 617-495-7260 SIMBAD US Gateway | Fax: 617-496-7577 Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory 60 Garden Street, MS-83 Cambridge, MA 02138 USA ------- Forwarded Message Date: Wed, 24 Jul 2002 15:52:13 -0400 From: Rick Durden <RDurden at compuserve.com> To: Webmaster <gei at cfa.harvard.edu> Subject: AVflash (Special Edition) We represent AVweb, a defendant in the lawsuit, Arthur Alan Wolk v. AVweb, et.al., filed in the Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County, Pennsylvania, which was referenced on your site at: http://acro.aerobaticsweb.org/threads/1011234/thr1011234.html; and http://acro.aerobaticsweb.org/threads/1011234/m000001a01.html. The suit has been settled and the attached apology has been sent by AVweb to its subscriber. This e-mail is to respectfully request that you remove any offensive referencs to Mr. Wolk from your site and/or publish the attached apology so as to right a wrong done to Mr. Wolk. Very truly yours, Richard J. Durden Tolley, VandenBosch, Korolewicz & Brengle, P.C. - -------------Forwarded Message----------------- From: AVweb Support, INTERNET:AVflash at avweb.com To: Date: 7/19/02 5:07 AM RE: AVflash (Special Edition) - ----------------------------------------------------------------------- AVflash Special Edition Friday, July 19, 2002 - ----------------------------------------------------------------------- AVWEB APOLOGIZES TO ARTHUR ALAN WOLK TO OUR SUBSCRIBERS As you know aviation attorney, Arthur Alan Wolk sued AVweb and certain of our subscribers for libel. While we initially felt that we were justified in our characterizations of Mr. Wolk and his activities, it has become apparent that many of our subscribers disagree with us, and others with whom we have consulted believe we did libel him. One of Mr. Wolk's complaints was that we did not supervise our chat room to prevent libelous comments about him being published by our subscribers. We have corrected that. Another of Mr. Wolk's complaints was that our characterizations instigated some of our subscribers to libel him. We will no longer characterize matters in such a way as to bring apparent discredit upon anyone. Mr. Wolk also complained that we didn't gather the facts before "reporting" events that concerned him on AvFlash. He is correct and in the future we shall make certain that we see the black and white instead of reporting on mere rumor or innuendo. While the defense of Mr. Wolk's lawsuit has been expensive, he nonetheless has been gracious enough to settle with us for a payment to charity. In fact, even in settlement negotiations, when there was a demand for money, it was always to be contributed to charity, none for Mr. Wolk himself. He steadfastly insisted that his lawsuit was not about money and we have come to believe him. One of the terms of our settlement with Mr. Wolk was that we investigate the facts and issue a point for point retraction of the things said about him to or by our subscribers. We have investigated and we have consulted with attorneys who because of their own aviation practices know Mr. Wolk personally and professionally. We have been assured that Arthur Alan Wolk is perhaps the most highly regarded aviation lawyer in the country, if not the world. He has never been known to break his word, either written or verbal, even in the most hotly contested cases. One of our lawyers informed us that Mr. Wolk's word is well known to be completed trusted. We are also informed that aircraft manufacturers, their insurers, their defense counsel, whether they agree with Mr. Wolk or not, would never question his honest belief in the rightness of his clients' cases or his attempts to honestly plead their causes before judges and juries. In fact, one of the things most respected about Mr. Wolk's word is that he thoroughly tests his theories, analyzes accidents and the components he feels contributed to them and looks at the accidents through his pilot-trained eyes. The zeal with which he prosecutes his cases is also highly respected. In one of our articles about Mr. Wolk, we criticized him for suing the NTSB and Allied Signal about the report of his own accident. We suggested that money was the motive. The truth is that when we wrote that piece we hadn't read his complain, knew little or nothing of the reasons he filed it and weren't familiar with the particulars of his accident. In a complete departure from accepted journalistic practices, we didn't telephone Mr. Wolk or get a copy of his complaint so we really didn't know enough to legitimately characterize it in any manner. It turns out, now that we have seen it, Mr. Wolk complained that Allied Signal investigators consulted by the NTSB falsely mislead the NTSB how the fuel control in his jet fighter operated so Wolk alleges the focus of the investigation was misdirected. Wolk also complained that the NTSB after agreeing that the first investigation was sloppy and inaccurate again published the withdrawn NTSB report on the web. This occurred even after three new investigators had concluded mechanical failure was the cause of the accident. What Mr. Wolk was suing about was not money, it was to protect the families of other victims of airplane crashes who are dead and can't speak up for themselves from being victimized by component manufacturers who are trying to protect themselves from liability instead of helping the NTSB. What we did was wrong and violated not only Mr. Wolk's rights, but journalistic ethics as well. In another article we called Mr. Wolk a "self-proclaimed safety advocate". This was in response to a press release he issued where he criticized the FAA for refusing to order a fix on aircraft fuel tanks to prevent explosions like TWA 800 because it was cheaper to pay the claims for the dead people than to fix the problem. We were wrong! In truth, we learned that the night of TWA 800's crash, Mr. Wolk, who had investigated fuel system safety for many years, was the lone expert on MSNBC to suggest the fuel system explosion and not a terrorist act brought that aircraft down. It turns out he was the only one who was correct. We reported that following the NTSB hearings on that crash, Mr. Wolk was trolling for clients in the media coverage that followed. In truth, Mr. Wolk was not at those hearings and was recovering from injuries he suffered in the crash of his own aircraft. He did not represent any victims of TWA 800. We were wrong again. Our investigation reveals that far from being a self-proclaimed safety advocate, Arthur Wolk is regarded as an aviation safety expert and advocate by virtually ever major news organization in this country and many throughout the world. He was given these titles not by himself, but by others after time after time he correctly identified the causes of aircraft accidents long before the NTSB. In fact, Mr. Wolk calls himself a pilot and avaiation lawyer, both of which are true. The other appellations came solely from those who were impressed by his accuracy and credibility and were not self-proclaimed. Our investigation reveals that Mr. Wolk is considered an expert in the causes of aircraft accidents by many more than just the media including pilots, manufacturers, aircraft owners, insurance companies, judges and juries. His work in identifying correctly the Boeing 737 rudder problem is being rewarded now by the FAA ordering a complete re-design of the rudder control system on that aircraft. We have also investigated statements made about Mr. Wolk in our chat room. They were appalling and untrue. We should have acted immediately to filter them and prevent them from being published. We now appreciate the power a site such as ours has. A power to do good for aviation and our subscribers, and the power to do harm to people like Arthur Wolk. We have learned a very powerful lesson and we are sorry. It will not happen again to Mr. Wolk or to anyone else if it's in our power to prevent it. We began this piece with a statement that Mr. Wolk's lawsuit against us has been withdrawn. He has demanded no money, but we acknowledge that what happened here on AVweb and our chat room has damaged him. After our investigation was completed and we learned the facts, we can honestly say he did not deserve that. We learned, for example, that he has worked since he was twelve years old, first in a hobby shop selling model airplanes; that he came from a poor family raised by a single mother and worked his way through school. We learned that he worked a full time job while he went to college and law school on full academic scholarships. After acquiring his first new airplane and experiencing multiple equipment failures, he realized that maybe pilots who died in crashes also experienced mechanical failure and just couldn't defend themselves because "dead men tell no tales". That's what influenced him to limit his practice to air crash litigation and most often to be the voice of pilots who could not longer speak for themselves. Whether you agree with what Mr. Wolk does, and many of our subscribers do, his motives appear, to us, to be honest. If we or our subscribers made him appear dishonest, that was a disservice to him and the people he represents and for that we apologize. We thought that in fairness to Mr. Wolk, even though we know we can't fix it completely, we should publish some comments from his clients whose loved ones were lost in airplane crashes and others who know his work. Some are pilots and some are not, but perhaps they can give a perspective that we didn't publish. So we ask that you take the time to read these as we have. Perhaps a balance can then be struck which is what we should have done in the beginning. Mr. Wolk, in behalf of the ownership, publishers, editors and to the extent we speak for the subscribers of AVweb, we apologize and we thank you for giving us the opportunity to make amends. ***************************************************************** Wolk v. Avweb, et al An Apology to Arthur Alan Wolk by Kingsley Brent Owen During the 2000 and 2001, and even more recently, I have made statements both on the Internet and elsewhere about Arthur Alan Wolk. Mr. Wolk has sued me and others concerning those statements. I would like to settle that lawsuit and, at the same time, try to undue some of the damage I did to Mr. Wolk, as I have acted unfairly and have libeled him. I previously wrote in Avweb that Mr. Wolk pranced around in an overstressed flight suit covered in patches that real pilots had to earn. In fact, the person to whom I was referring turned out to be not Mr. Wolk at all, but rather another pilot of another flying Panther jet. That occurred around 1996, and I assumed it was Mr. Wolk. In fact, it was not. The pilot I was referring to, and with whom I had a conversation, was not Mr. Wolk after all, it was, in fact, a former Navy pilot who did earn the patches on his flight suit. I have never seen Mr. Wolk's flight suit or the patches on it. Therefore, when I made the statement on the Internet, I had no idea whether Mr. Wolk had earned his patches or not. I am informed that Mr. Wolk's flight suit has only patches that he has earned and, therefore, for that misstatement, I apologize. I also published on the Internet that the Kalamazoo Air History Museum has been forced to curtail its flight activities due to Mr. Wolk's causing insurance rates to be raised so extortionately, and I accused Mr. Wolk of raising those rates because of his own accident, which I claimed was due to incompetence. In truth, when I made those statements, I had not even seen a copy of the NTSB Report on Mr. Wolk's accident, had not spoken to any NTSB investigator, I had not contacted the Kalamazoo Aviation History Museum, nor spoken to them as to why they curtailed flight activities, I did not speak to any other pilot of the Cat Flight with whom Mr. Wolk had flown for eleven years before his accident, and I did not contact Mr. Wolk or even make an attempt to do so to learn of the particulars of his accident or what was found following the completion of the NTSB investigation of the accident. Indeed, I have learned that Mr. Wolk's accident had nothing to do with Kalamazoo Aviation History Museum curtailing its activities or insurance rates at all. In fact, I was not familiar with the myriad of problems Mr. Wolk had had with the fuel control of his aircraft or that, in fact, the fuel control overhauler did not, in fact, overhaul the fuel control, but had yellow tagged it improperly. Indeed, I was not familiar with the particular circumstances of Mr. Wolk's accident, or the fact that the NTSB itself concluded that it had improperly investigated his accident, and had assigned three new investigators, all of whom had concluded that the accident was not Mr. Wolk's fault in the slightest. In fact, I did not know that the Federal Aviation Administration, which performed its own accident investigation concluded it was as a result of mechanical failure, and did not even require Mr. Wolk to demonstrate his competence to fly with a 609 checkride. All of this investigation should have been performed before I made such statements on the Internet. For these misstatements, I apologize. I also stated on the Internet that Mr. Wolk's aircraft was perfectly flyable and his crash was due to his incompetence, that he demonstrated aviation stupidity and endangered innocent lives. In truth, I knew nothing about Mr. Wolk's accident, except that he crashed. I knew nothing about the circumstances about the accident, what went on in the cockpit, or what indications he had in the cockpit. In fact, I did not have in my possession nor had I reviewed a flight manual for the F9F-2 Panther Jet (and still don't have one), which outlined procedures to be followed in the event of the circumstances described by Mr. Wolk. In truth, had I had this manual prior to making those statements, I would have realized that Mr. Wolk followed the emergency procedures that were set forth in the manual, which perhaps was one of the reasons why both the NTSB and FAA concluded that he was blameless for the accident. I have also called Mr. Wolk an ambulance chaser and suggested that he hounded grieving relatives to squeeze the maximum amount of blood money, that he was a low life, that he was an unpleasant fat fellow, not the least bit gifted, and a number of other equally demeaning and ugly comments. In truth, I realize, and should have realized before, that Mr. Wolk is none of those things. In fact, he is not fat, and is generally considered to be gifted in his field. In fact, he has never, to my knowledge, nor did I have any information to the contrary, solicited a widow, a grieving widow, grieving relatives, or performed any unprofessional or unethical act as an attorney ever. In fact, when I made these statements, I knew nothing about Mr. Wolk, except what had been written on Avweb, and made no investigation and, even though I live in Pennsylvania, as does he, I made no attempt to contact him, to meet with him, to discuss his work or see the results of it. In short, I essentially knew nothing about Mr. Wolk and took no steps to learn anything before I made these false statements about him. For this, I apologize. I also have accused Mr. Wolk of being self aggrandizing, and have also disputed his claim of performing critical work in the investigation of the Boeing 737 rudder failures. I was completely unaware when I made these statements that on the very night of the crash of United Air Lines Flight 585 in Colorado Springs, which involved a Boeing 737 aircraft, Mr. Wolk suggested on Larry King Live on CNN, that the rudder was a likely cause. I was completely unaware that between that crash and the crash of USAir Flight 427 near Pittsburgh, also involving a Boeing 737, Mr. Wolk had conducted a personal investigation of the 737 rudder system, including the purchase of a rudder control unit of a Boeing 737, which he had reconstructed and tested, and discovered failure modes which had not been previously disclosed either to the NTSB or the FAA. I also learned that Mr. Wolk's metallurgist was asked to come to Washington, DC to present evidence discovered during the course of Mr. Wolk's investigation to assist the NTSB in its investigation of USAir Flight 427 accident. I was completely unaware that Mr. Wolk had been speaking to the NTSB and providing the results of his findings to the NTSB, trying to persuade it to take steps to cause the rudder to be fixed before any further accident occurred. In fact, I was completely unaware that Mr. Wolk had attempted to get the rudder fixed on Boeing 737s before the unnecessary loss of life in the Pittsburgh USAir accident. I was unaware, when I made these statements, that following the Pittsburgh accident when further studies were performed by the FAA, it was indeed found that Mr. Wolk's concern about the rudder were confirmed, and now all Boeing 737s will, within the next five years, be retrofitted with an entirely newly designed rudder control system. It was unfair of me to take these statements about Mr. Wolk without performing any investigation whatsoever to determine the truth or falsity of what he claimed. It now appears that his claims were sound. I also participated in chat rooms where it was suggested that an F-14 pilot in the group known as the Cat Flight in which Mr. Wolk flew the Panther jet with other Grumman cat fighters was concerned about his flying ability. That was no true. I had never spoken to such a pilot, I never met with such a pilot, I never received correspondence from such a pilot, I knew nothing about such a pilot, and, in fact, there was no such pilot who made such a reference to Mr. Wolk's flying. Indeed, the members of the Cat Flight, many of whom were former Navy and Air Force trained pilots, embraced Mr. Wolk's flying, flew in formation with him for eleven years in air shows throughout the Country, with high regard for his flying abilities. Indeed, I have met not a single person, nor spoken to any person who has flown with him, who has any complaint about Mr. Wolk's competence as a pilot. I never spoke to anyone who had flown with Mr. Wolk who said anything negative about his capabilities as a pilot. I, in fact, never flew with Mr. Wolk, never saw him fly, never spoke to anyone who flew with him, and never spoke to the NTSB or the FAA, who had knowledge of his flying capabilities. In fact, before I made these statements, I had not even attempted to talk to the Flight Standards District Office that issued his Letter of Authorization to fly the Panther jet to find out what they thought of Mr. Wolk's flying abilities and competence, his Low Level Aerobatic Waiver to 500' AGL or his Formation Airshow Qualification. During the course of the litigation that Mr. Wolk brought, I accused him of perjury and altering documents, none of which is true. During the course of the discourse over the Internet, I made belittling statements about Mr. Wolk's knowledge of aircraft fuel systems and the like. The truth is I didn't know whether Mr. Wolk had knowledge on these subjects or not. In fact, I have no knowledge of Mr. Wolk's training, capabilities, experience, study, or virtually anything else about him. I should never have made these remarks, because they were inconsistent with what I believe that I stand for. There is a mob mentality that takes hold on chat rooms on the Internet. Things that people would ordinarily never say or do becomes easy perhaps because of the anonymity that is provided by this electronic means of communication. What I didn't realize, and do now, is that the Internet has great capacity to do harm to innocent people. Whether I am in agreement with Mr. Wolk's profession or the results he has obtained for clients, what was wrong about what I did was not taking any steps to learn about what this man has dedicated himself to do for essentially his entire professional life. That was unfair, illegal and wrong. It was also against the principals that I believe that I stand for, and have my whole life. Therefore, for some reason that I cannot adequately explain, I harmed a person whom I didn't even know. That is just wrong, and for that I apologize to Mr. Wolk, and I appreciate his willingness to forgive me without exacting a price from me. It is my understanding that Mr. Wolk has resolved his case with Avweb, and in exchange for that resolution, monies are being paid to charities, none to Mr. Wolk personally. That tells a lot about Mr. Wolk, and says a lot more about Mr. Wolk than anything I could say in this apology. Again, I am sorry. I apologize, what I did was wrong, and I've learned a lesson that will remain with me the rest of my life. Kingsley Brent Owen ***************************************************************** May 8, 2002 Dear Arthur, Words are really insufficient to convey my family's deepest gratitude to you for handling my parents' wrongful death suit against Egypt Air. My sisters and I could not have asked for a more competent, professional, yet compassionate attorney -- or an attorney who would be more personally involved in our case. But what impressed us most throughout this horrible orderal was the fact that your integrity, honesty and work ethic were always above reproach (not an easy thing to say about most lawyers). As you know, in a time of unbearable grief we were inundated with solicitations from other law firms. We found this type of "ambulance chasing" disrespectful and distasteful. Thankfully, that is something you would never think of doing. We found you by asking three personal friends, who are all lawyers we trust who they would recommend. They independently gave us your name and told us they felt you were the top lawyer in the aviation industry. When I contacted you I was immediately impressed not only by your expertise and breadth of knowledge about the Egypt Air situation, but by your personal reaction and genuine sadness for my sisters and me. I was also amazed that in an attempt to help us find an attorney we would be most comfortable with, and one who could best handle our case, you actually recommended two other law firms whom you felt were competent. This allowed us to make an educated comparison when deciding on one of the most important courses of action in our adult lives -- who to represent us in the murder of our parents. Arthur, this has not been an easy two years for my sisters and me. But we have constantly been bolstered by your support, your friendship, and your incredible dedication to our case. You have worked relentlessly on our behalf and have never made us field like clients. And you have cared about us on a personal level. For all of this, we will always be grateful. But most importantly, you have helped us to reach some sort of closure on a tragic event that has changed our lives forever. We will never be able to truly thank you enough. Sincerely, Susan Murray (For all the Schelpert daughters) ***************************************************************** May 12, 1996 Dear Arthur, I am writing to thank you for being our lawyer. You took the case and overcame the red herring -- the fact that the crash occurred while training. You conducted a first class investigation and your own financial risk and put the evidence together. If we or ALPA are successful in a petition to NTSB it will be due to your work. Words are inadequate to describe how great you were in court as you presented the case and gave John a voice. It was a special time and we will never forget it. Our desire to be involved in all the details of the case may have been unusual but you allowed it and it helped us. You were more than generous to us in the settlement we received and we appreciate the way you handled it. I think you already know how we feel about everything but I wanted to put it in writing. Sincerely, Alice Murphy ***************************************************************** November 14, 1999 Dear Arthur, Congratulations on winding up successfully Keystone vs. Textron. You did a great job under difficult circumstances. Considering the basic problems I think we are all lucky that it worked out as well as it did. I hope we don't have any more problems like this but if we do I will certainly call on your firm for help. Thanks again for a job well done. Sincerely, Peter Wright Chairman of the Board Keystone Helicopter Corporation ***************************************************************** November 15, 1999 Arthur: As you know, we have completed the USAir 427 case in Cook County. I wanted you to know that your contributions in the discovery in 585 and in our case as well in uncovering the culprit in the deaths of many is not lost on me. I hope that I get the opportunity to work with you again in the future. Very truly yours, Todd A. Smith Power Rogers & Smith, P.C. ***************************************************************** Dear Arthur, We cannot thank you and Richard and Cheryl and Catherine enough for your unflagging efforts on our behalf. I am reminded of your sleepless nights at the Pensacola Grand Hotel preparing for the next day's trial, and passing the peanuts for dinner. Anything I want to give you as a gift can be only a small token of our appreciation for your efforts. Your performance in those three weeks of the entire 12 years leaves me much to ponder and to compare to what I once believed about business law, friendships and justice. We wish you, as always, all the best. Carlos and Judy ***************************************************************** Mr. Wolk: With all of the many cases and clients you handle, I hope you remember me. I only had the privilege of meeting you once when I traveled to Philadelphia to meet with you about my Father's accident. I was browsing the Landings.com website, and found your email address. Our case was so important to us, as I am sure many clients tell you about their own circumstances. I finished my degree, checked out the legal field with an internship in a local law firm, and decided to run as fast as I could toward private industry. I currently work in the Information Technology field, but spend a lot of time flying. For now, the flying is just a great hobby, no aviation career plans for now. As I am sure you know, it seems to be in your blood when you grow up with a Dad who is a pilot. Although our case, and the accident, happened several years ago, it still seems fresh in my mind. I cannot tell you how supportive I am of your ongoing battles to make the sky a safer place. I have often thought of how I could help bring attention to the many problems that plague the airways. These problems, in so many ways, have directly affected my life through my Dad's accident. I continue to study aviation safety, obviously on the level of an amateur, but your Larry King appearances do provide good ammunition when discussing these things with other pilots. I would like to get your opinion on good places to start in really getting involved in aviation safety, specifically, as a victim of an aviation accident. I belong to AOPA, attend the FAA Safety Meetings, but I know I can do much more. Would my experience as a victim of an aviation accident and interest in aviation safety ever be of potential use to you or your firm? I am curious and interested in how I can help. Please feel free to contact me any time, I am attaching my personal contact information. Once again, thank you for all of your support and hard work on our case, and aviation safety in general. Bryan A. Sklar - ----------------------- Internet Header -------------------------------- Sender: avflash at avweb.com Received: from primary.avweb.com (primary.avweb.com [64.39.15.200]) by siaag2ab.compuserve.com (8.9.3/8.9.3/SUN-1.12) with ESMTP id FAA2750 9; Fri, 19 Jul 2002 05:06:40 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from avflash at localhost) by primary.avweb.com (8.11.3/8.11.3) id g6J5och12319 for avflash-list-4; Fri, 19 Jul 2002 00:50:38 -0500 Date: Fri, 19 Jul 2002 00:50:38 -0500 Message-Id: <200207190550.g6J5och12319 at primary.avweb.com> From: AVflash at avweb.com (AVweb's AVflash) Sender: AVflash at avweb.com (AVweb's AVflash) Errors-To: AVflash-errors at avweb.com Reply-To: AVflash at avweb.com (AVweb Support) To: AVflash mailing list:; Precedence: Bulk Subject: AVflash (Special Edition) ------- End of Forwarded Message