CEO calls Gonzaga jet incident media coverage ‘irresponsible,’ says story will ‘disappear into thin air as facts are discovered’

There are plenty of media critics out there. One of them is Cliff Honeycutt, CEO of aircraft owner and operator Key Lime Air. Honeycutt’s criticisms come in response to media coverage of a Dec. 27 incident at Los Angeles International Airport involving a Key Lime charter jet carrying the Gonzaga Bulldogs’ men’s basketball team.

That incident saw footage of air traffic controllers shouting “Stop, stop, stop!” at the Key Lime pilot as that jet, landing ahead of Gonzaga’s game against UCLA Saturday, approached a runway where a Delta Airlines flight was taking off. That footage appeared on aviation YouTube channels such as Airline Videos Friday:

The footage there then went viral across social media Monday, and led to a lot of reporting on the plane and the Bulldogs’ presence on that. A quick Google search shows a plethora of pieces from big media outlets using terms like “near collision” or “near miss.” But, as Dan Bernstein wrote at Sportico Tuesday, Honeycutt is unhappy with that:

“Characterizing this as a ‘near miss’ or ‘near collision’ just seems irresponsible,” Key Lime CEO Cliff Honeycutt said in an email. “Was there an event? Yes. Does ‘anyone’ have all the facts surrounding it yet? No, absolutely not.”

Honeycutt said the private jet chartering company has “no interest in dodging or downplaying our responsibility” and will continue to review the matter with the FAA.

He added, though, that “our aircraft stopped well short of the runway in question,” and thus the controversy has been misconstrued.

“While still considered to be a ‘runway incursion,’ this event would seem to illustrate the effectiveness of the countless programs, systems and resources that have been put in place over the last couple decades to address this inevitable risk in the industry,” Honeycutt added.

For the record, Bernstein includes the FAA’s official language on this as well, which does not include “near miss”:

“Air traffic controllers directed Key Lime Air Flight 563 to hold short of crossing a runway at Los Angeles International Airport because a second aircraft was taking off from the runway at the time,” the FAA wrote in a statement. “When the Embraer E135 jet proceeded to cross the hold bars, air traffic controllers told the pilots to stop. The jet never crossed the runway edge line.”

There are lots of interesting dimensions to this. One is about the differences between descriptive language and technical terminology, and “near miss” in aviation is perhaps especially fascinating there. As well-detailed in a 2016 feature by Richard Korman in The Atlantic, there’s a complicated system of aviation incident reporting and eventual grading by the FAA, with only some of that actually counting as a “near miss” by FAA standards (and with incidents meeting that definition having actual consequences for airlines and airports in safety ratings and beyond).

And on that level, Honeycutt perhaps has a point. This may not wind up ruled a “near miss” by the FAA. And while “near miss” is an acceptable standard English phrase for a collision that didn’t happen, there’s at least potential for confusion (and for negative business impacts for a company like Key Lime) if that less-specific general language is used in media reports on an incident that is determined to not meet the level of that technical term.

However, there are also questions about the value of publicly arguing about the media’s word usage here. Yes, it can be debated if “near miss” or “near collision” is fair, but there certainly was a notable “runway incursion” here, which even Honeycutt admits happened. And that was significant; the response from the air traffic controller, and from the reaction to the Airline Videos clip, helps illustrate that. While many outlets may not have gotten the technical terminology right here, this was something worth some media interest.

And, along those lines, Honeycutt’s strategy of pushing back on coverage he deems inaccurate is interesting. He may be technically correct with his specific complaint, but he’s bringing more attention to the incident and to the coverage of it in the process.

And Honeycutt is also bringing more attention to his company’s history. It’s notable that many of those initial reports on the incident didn’t really delve into that, but Bernstein did while relaying Honeycutt’s commentary. There, he noted Key Lime’s past litigation against former pilots over alleged contract-breaking, with those pilots questioning the company’s safety standards. (The litigation was settled, but the pilots’ attorney said it didn’t conclude with a definitive answer on the company’s safety standards.)

Thus, there’s a potential Streisand effect here, where an attempt to go after media coverage leads to more media coverage. But Honeycutt seemed confident in his comments to Bernstein that there won’t be anything further negative for his company. Indeed, he preemptively complained about the lack of coverage of their vindication:

“It is very interesting … how the most sensational news stories disappear into thin air as facts are discovered,” Honeycutt said. “It will be no different here.”

Honeycutt is correct that there often isn’t follow-up coverage of many stories all the way through, especially if an eventual decision or ruling is less dramatic. And it’s understandable why a business might find that unfair. However, news coverage always requires decisions about what’s notable, and the initial incident here certainly appears notable.

And while Honeycutt may have an argument that much of the news coverage here didn’t use the best possible terminology considering the role of a technical definition of “near miss” in the FAA process (which has not played out yet), his complaints about it are only drawing more attention to this incident. And he doesn’t dispute that there was a “runway incursion” incident here. And that incident certainly doesn’t look great for his company, even if it didn’t involve the technical terms he’s objecting to in the media coverage.

There’s a larger element of discussion here of when it makes sense for subjects of media stories to push back publicly. We’ve seen this on a number of fronts over the last few years, with sports figures from Lane Kiffin through Jimmy Butler and Pat Riley objecting to particular reporting on them. With Kiffin, though, he wound up right (although there remain questions about if some of the reporting had merit at the time). With Butler and the Miami Heat, the end result remains to be seen.

But with Honeycutt and Key Lime, it seems apparent their pilot did something wrong to the level of meriting a FAA investigation. And while that investigation may not wind up with a heavy penalty for them, it seems highly unlikely it will completely clear them. So that makes Honeycutt’s decision to go after media over specific language interesting, especially with it bringing more attention to the situation and the company. Technically correct is only the best kind of correct for a specific kind of mind.

[Sportico; Airline Videos on YouTube]