Input and opinion please...

[Tom H]

Our museum is considering making changes to our restoration policy and by and large I have not issue with the changes with the exception of this proposal.

"3. This Policy does not apply to an aircraft that is to be flown, or to an aircraft or other aviation-related object that is to be otherwise operated, because such aircraft or aviation objects are not artifacts. Care and support of such aircraft and objects is considered maintenance and is to be guided by specific operational and technical requirements of that object."

To me an artifact is an artifact and its significance and historical value is unrelated to if it is being operated or not....thoughts.

I believe within our policy operating artifacts need to match our overall policy with exceptions made due to the operation status and with aircraft the regulations and service requirements mandated by the type...opinions.

Tom

[RyanShort1]

If my body is in an aircraft being operated in flight, the aircraft had better NOT be treated as an artifact - which probably has a different set of defined guidelines for it's preservation - it had better be in airworthy condition by legal means.
As long as it is being operated for purpose of flight, you have to put real safety and performance items first, not the historical significance of any particular piece of the machine. I think that's the point.

Ryan

[SHAEF1944]

Non-flying aircraft kept in a museum enviroment must be maintained so that it does not fall apart.

A flying aircraft must be maintained so that it does not fall apart at 1,500 feet altitude over an airshow crowd.

[Ken]

"Care and support of such aircraft and objects is considered maintenance and is to be guided by specific operational and technical requirements of that object."

Unless your museum leadership came out and said it wasn't going to treat flying airplanes well, my interpretation is that you and they are saying the same things, just a different choice of words.

Example 1: If a B-17 needs new brakes, then they will likely be changed (by a maintenance team) using "specific operational and technical requirements of that object" - ie., the B-17 maintenance T.O.'s. That's not preservation, that's maintenance - but no matter how you slice it, the airplane remains historically accurate and safe.

Example 2: If a P-51 needs brakes and the staff decides to modify the airplane to use P-63 brakes, then the arument can be made that the airplane is no longer historically accurate, but that it is safer - and done so in a manner consistent with other P-51s. That's maintenance in lieu of preservation.

Example 3: If a Corsair needs to attend airshows and, in doing so, fly IFR, the museum may elect to re-do the panel with a Garmin G1000 electronic display. In this case, the plan for the aircraft totally diverges from artifact status, ie. a mod is added that is out of step with operational warbirds. This could be seen as a operational plus but a 100% historic bust.

Let's hope your musuem follows Example 1 when possible, Example 2 when necessary, and avoids Example 3 unless absolutely necessary.

That's my opinion.

Ken

[mrhenniger]

I think the other posts have nailed down what my thoughts are on the subject. In short if it is maintained as a flyer it is not an artifact. If however it is static, and let's say has been so since it's retirement, then it is an artifact. When I think of an aircraft artifact I think of Smithsonian standards of authenticity, but then that is a whole other subject.

Mike

[Tom H]

Appreciate the input....

But here is the problem when creating a policy.

As written the curator is out of the equation as is the board.

Now I am all in favor of flying aircraft but as a museum it is our responsibility to insure that what is presented is as accurate as possible and reflect the history we are showcasing.

So the way it is written all of this is thrown out and the authority becomes the maintainer.

My belief is that the aircraft should remain as original as possible/practical within the bounds of safety, regulations and the servicing requirements and the decisions around those points be handled by professionals in the field.

But the appearance, equipment, colours and similar historic presentations be handled by the Curator and the board with all approvals going through the Curator on historical issues and the board on overall process and needs.

Tom

[Tom H]

"Care and support of such aircraft and objects is considered maintenance and is to be guided by specific operational and technical requirements of that object."

Unless your museum leadership came out and said it wasn't going to treat flying airplanes well, my interpretation is that you and they are saying the same things, just a different choice of words.

Example 1: If a B-17 needs new brakes, then they will likely be changed (by a maintenance team) using "specific operational and technical requirements of that object" - ie., the B-17 maintenance T.O.'s. That's not preservation, that's maintenance - but no matter how you slice it, the airplane remains historically accurate and safe.

Example 2: If a P-51 needs brakes and the staff decides to modify the airplane to use P-63 brakes, then the arument can be made that the airplane is no longer historically accurate, but that it is safer - and done so in a manner consistent with other P-51s. That's maintenance in lieu of preservation.

Example 3: If a Corsair needs to attend airshows and, in doing so, fly IFR, the museum may elect to re-do the panel with a Garmin G1000 electronic display. In this case, the plan for the aircraft totally diverges from artifact status, ie. a mod is added that is out of step with operational warbirds. This could be seen as a operational plus but a 100% historic bust.

Let's hope your musuem follows Example 1 when possible, Example 2 when necessary, and avoids Example 3 unless absolutely necessary.

That's my opinion.

Ken

Ken in general we agree, but as our policy is being presented for approval...
Using your examples

Example 1...We agree and the policy should reflect the regular maintenance facts

But as written the maintainer could change the brakes and the colour of the aircraft with no accountabilty to the curator or board.

Example 2...This one is a great examle of what I mean, with the policy as presented it would just happen, which I feel is wrong. A change of this level should have to be justified to the curator and board prior to any work being done and if operations require the upgrade happen approved by the board, documented as to the whats and hows and whys it was done.

Example 3...Is what I want to see the policy avoid, not the flying aircraft, but wholesale change without justification, approval and historic documentation.

Being a museum is different that a private owner...a private owner can do as they wish it is their aircraft.

Being a museum we have a mandate to present as much as possible a piece of history and be sure it represents that history properly.

As a pilot I will never oppose proper, safe and by the book service and operations...but a policy needs to insure the historic integrity and operational safety with accoutability.

My 2 bits...appreciate hearing other opinions and thoughts though.

Tom

[Ken]

All due respect, it sounds like you're wasting your time soliciting input on WIX - it appears as if your time would be better spent negotiating with your musuem management.

[Tom H]

Appreciate your comment Ken

I am the Executive Director, when a decision becomes controversial I try to get input from outside our closed world.

My theory being when you're too close you can become fixated on being right...rather than doing right.

As I frequent WIX and flyers are the focus I felt it would be a good source for outside opinion before our next board meeting.

Tom

[bluehawk15]

Why not suggest that it include wording to the effect that any change to the (external ?)appearance of the aircraft must be approved by the Board, or the Executive Director, or Curator (pick one)?

[Second Air Force]

My two cents worth, for what it's worth:

All of these machines are artifacts in my view. Whether we fly them or restore them as static exhibits they still are pieces of history and I always try to keep that in mind when I work on them. Granted that certain changes are made to enhance safety for flying aircraft, but I still consider the flyers as artifacts of the time when they were built, modified, etc.

Scott

[gary1954]

I would also makes sure that the policy was written in such a way that it did not require an attorney to translate it. See 2nd Ammendment Constitution United States.

[Mudge]

"Care and support of such aircraft and objects is considered maintenance and is to be guided by specific operational and technical requirements of that object."

Unless your museum leadership came out and said it wasn't going to treat flying airplanes well, my interpretation is that you and they are saying the same things, just a different choice of words.

Example 1: If a B-17 needs new brakes, then they will likely be changed (by a maintenance team) using "specific operational and technical requirements of that object" - ie., the B-17 maintenance T.O.'s. That's not preservation, that's maintenance - but no matter how you slice it, the airplane remains historically accurate and safe.

Example 2: If a P-51 needs brakes and the staff decides to modify the airplane to use P-63 brakes, then the arument can be made that the airplane is no longer historically accurate, but that it is safer - and done so in a manner consistent with other P-51s. That's maintenance in lieu of preservation.

Example 3: If a Corsair needs to attend airshows and, in doing so, fly IFR, the museum may elect to re-do the panel with a Garmin G1000 electronic display. In this case, the plan for the aircraft totally diverges from artifact status, ie. a mod is added that is out of step with operational warbirds. This could be seen as a operational plus but a 100% historic bust.

Let's hope your musuem follows Example 1 when possible, Example 2 when necessary, and avoids Example 3 unless absolutely necessary.

That's my opinion.

Ken

What he said.

Mudge the succinct

[Tom H]

Appreciate all the input everyone

I will be presenting all the comments from all sources (not just Wix) to the President and Curator so we can create an alternative that meets the needs of both the history and operations.

"I would also makes sure that the policy was written in such a way that it did not require an attorney to translate it. See 2nd Ammendment Constitution United States."

You have my complete agreement...if the guys doing the work can't understand on the first read whats the point.

Tom H

[gary1954]

I'm Down with that like four flat tires