P-82 going Bye Bye!! A very sad day at the CAF!

[JDK]

Might I then also be permitted to opine, "Ouch"?

You may! I'd put it badly. Many more aircraft have been lost by other flying organisations as well - very few active organisations extant over the last forty years can claim a zero loss record - most museums can claim not to have lost a single aircraft in an accident.

AFAIK, off the cuff, there've been only three major fires in that period in museums - Yankee, CWH and le Bourget in reverse order. Every year there are too-many vintage aircraft lost in accidents, all to often with crew and occasionally bystanders.

(Incidentally, the le Bourget, CWH and Yankee fires were all in buildings that were at a much greater risk from fire than average, or quality museum buildings; they were all old /historic and not adhering to a good modern safety standard.)

Is your aircraft safer in a properly constituted museum than flying regularly? Yes. Significantly, on any risk assessment. But that doesn't mean aircraft should be grounded, because if you factor in benefits of flying the aircraft (education, entertainment, commemoration, greater exposure) there is a good case to be made for that as well.

However the zero-sum test - the 'last example' - don't fly it. Put it in a museum with good fire protection.

Cheers,

Last edited by JDK on Wed Mar 11, 2009 11:09 pm, edited 1 time in total.

[airnutz]

usually not due to some great "guvvment" conspiracy, but simply because the lawyers got it wrong.

Good point Mark.

[bdk]

AFAIK, off the cuff, there've been only three major fires in that period in museums - Yankee, CWH and le Bourget in reverse order.

Please add the following link to your cuff:

1978 - Balboa Park - Aerospace Museum Fire
At 8:13 p.m. on February 22, 1978 the San Diego Fire Department responded to one of the city's most spectacular fires. The Electric Building in Balboa Park burned to the ground in a third-alarm fire. The Electric Building housed the Aerospace Museum and contained vintage airplanes, mementos and artifacts. San Diego's contributions to the history of aviation and manned flight--dating from the construction of Charles Lindbergh's "Spirit of St. Louis" by San Diego's Ryan Aircraft Company, to rocks taken from the surface of the moon--were destroyed. A valiant attempt by the first and second alarm companies to rescue artifacts and display cases from the building was in vain as fire broke through the ceiling and drove them outside. The fire was caused by arson. There was little to be done to save the 62 year old structure, which was made of wood and contained no sprinkler system.

If it is so clear cut that the P-82 is owned by the CAF, and everything else is just me being dumb, then why is it on the way to Dayton? Why did a ruling go in favor of the NMUSAF? Something somewhere isn't being put out there.

And I suppose that you are one of those that believe that everyone convicted of a crime is guilty? Or maybe that O.J. was innocent?

There is a reason that an appeals process exists. Court rulings are not always just.

[JDK]

Thanks bdk. What aircraft were lost? I wonder how many 'vintage airplanes' were lost that year in the US in accidents?

Note, again, a wooden building with no sprinkler system. Not a good place, albeit historic, for a museum. I know of several that have moved from such buildings as well as the examples we've seen above that didn't get the chance.

Next time you visit a major museum, have a look at its protection from break in (theft/arson) fire and other hazards - not all of which is obvious.

Of course one can add the hurricane damage to the Lone Star Museum last year and Kermit's old base to both sides of the loss ledger - active aircraft damaged / destroyed in museum hangars.

[warbird51]

I'm confused. Didn't this all start when the CAF tried to sell/trade the P-82 to someone else? Apparently they didn't want it if they were willing to get rid of it. Now that the USAF wants it back, everyone is all mad at the Air Force. How come all you people didn't show this passion when the CAF was trying to raise funds for it's restoration?? Apparently the Air Force was fine with the the arrangement until the CAF tried to sell/trade it. I wish you all had shown this much interest in the P-82 when it could have done some good. It's a little late now.

[airnutz]

I'm confused. Didn't this all start when the CAF tried to sell/trade the P-82 to someone else? Apparently they didn't want it if they were willing to get rid of it.

Sell/trade to someone with the funds to restore and fly the F-82 and transfer a P-38 to fly for the CAF again.
Now the F-82 will not fly again if the AF wins, and the CAF has an empty hole in their hangar with nothing to
show for it.



Why wasn't I involved then or donate to the F-82? The past 10 years the CAF have made changes(for the better,IMHO)
and I see them in a positive light now.

[Randy Haskin]

I'm confused. Didn't this all start when the CAF tried to sell/trade the P-82 to someone else? Apparently they didn't want it if they were willing to get rid of it.

Sell/trade to someone with the funds to restore and fly the F-82 and transfer a P-38 to fly for the CAF again.

Does that justification really matter?

That's like trying to tell the police that you were ONLY stealing so you could give the loot away to some poor people. More severe a scenrio, of course, but the reason is really completely beside the point so far as the lawyers go.

[51fixer]

Thanks bdk. What aircraft were lost? I wonder how many 'vintage airplanes' were lost that year in the US in accidents?

I really don't recall all the aircraft but among them was a Japanese Zero IIRC.
Rich

[RyanShort1]

I'm also not sure the CAF should be "fighting this on behalf of everyone else", unless everyone else is going to stumping up some cash for legal costs?

In the end it is a dreadful situation, I agree the history, documentation and management of the agreement seems poor and the concept of a "conditional donation" and ability to require the donation's return seems ambiguous to begin with, and I can understand the CAF's view that they are in the right, however the court judgement took all of that into account and still found in favour of the USAF.

Mark,

My understanding is that part of the reason the CAF considers the fight worth the risks is because a number of other aircraft may be affected if precedent is set. Essentially, there ARE other planes out there, including some other well known aircraft in other places (including, but not limited to CAF) believe to be OK paperwork wise, that might be subject to re-interpretation based on the outcome of this case. Essentially, if the first document is the only thing that can be considered, even if subsequent documents clarify that it is indeed a donation, then there is a problem.

Here's an analogy from what I understand of the CAF's position:

Suppose I give a company that you own one of my cars - on the condition that if you ever want to get rid of it, then it comes back to me. Fine. That's pretty clear - there's a condition established, and the ownership reverts to me if you no longer want it. Oh, and every year, or at various intervals you report to me on it's condition.
Then suppose I send you other documentation that for all intents and purposes indicates that I have relinquished my claim to the vehicle, don't really need it back, stop sending you paperwork checking on it's condition, and leave the paperwork in such a way that when you die, or move on, your son, who reviews the documentation, believes that your company does indeed have ownership of it.
Now your son, and his friends in the company feel they can't get it running and try to trade it for a vehicle that will help their company meet it's goals. They DO review the paperwork, without malicious intent, and believe from what they read, that while aware of the first document, the later documents make it clear that they're ok to do so.
Now, I come back and say that I didn't really mean what the other documents said, and my secretary didn't have the right to give the authorization for whatever else was done with the car.
Now, from my perspective, if I knew that the other guys didn't intend any malice, apologized and said, "OK, we didn't realize that first clause was still binding, may we still keep it?" a person with ANY kindness should have found a different way to deal with them than this whole mess. That's basically how I understand the whole deal.

Ryan

[TAdan]

Good analogy Ryan, that is along the lines of how see it also.

Either way, I hope for a successful outcome for the CAF.

[Mark_Pilkington]

Now, from my perspective, if I knew that the other guys didn't intend any malice, apologized and said, "OK, we didn't realize that first clause was still binding, may we still keep it?" a person with ANY kindness should have found a different way to deal with them than this whole mess. That's basically how I understand the whole deal.

Ryan

Ryan, I too had hoped some type of compromise or pragmatic solution might be reached, and thats where I suspect the CAF's letter of proposal indicating some level of ongoing dispute/persuasion or outright appeal worked against that by ensuring any USAF decision or response would be is based on legal advice of risk/precident etc, regardless of any sympathy for the ideals and efforts of the CAF.

AS I said before, I would hope that the CAF and USAF can conduct their "dispute" proffessionally so as not to trash the underlying relationship between the two groups, as I feel the CAF has much to offer the USAF in terms of a Heritage Flight on tap.

Its for the same reason I hope that the lynch mob mentality on forums such as this doesnt get out of hand and appear to be speaking on behalf of the CAF, rather than simply being supporters, and get the USAF's back up as well?

Perhaps as I said earlier, that in time a new loan for static display can be struck once all of the disputes etc of this existing situation have been resolved, or alternatively the CAF could offer to trade/buy the P-82 outright, and move back to an airworthy objective?

While its understandable that the USAF wanted to defend its ownership/loan/conditional donation rights, if the USAF Museum already hold an example of each Allison and Merlin powered versions, they might well be willing to relinquish ownership through one of those two methods - what is a static P-82 worth?

regards

Mark Pilkington

Last edited by Mark_Pilkington on Thu Mar 12, 2009 8:36 am, edited 4 times in total.

[k5083]

Good analogy Ryan, that is along the lines of how see it also.

Either way, I hope for a successful outcome for the CAF.

The problem with Ryan's analogy is that it assumes facts that are disputed and were held by the court to be not true (e.g. his statements about the "other documentation"). And I would add that in my estimation, a reasonable person could agree with the court's view of this "other documentation," although that is guesswork because I have not yet found a reasonable person interested in looking at the "other documentation" or for that matter, interested in the whole controversy.

August

[RyanShort1]

From another thread...

For anyone who has taken "Law 101" or who feels that actually knowing the basis of the court's decision might inform your opinion, I have obtained the court's July 1 ruling. It's a small (54 Kb) pdf file and you may download it here:

http://rapidshare.com/files/143771160/7 ... n.pdf.html

August

August,

Is there any way you could post that up again, just so we aren't talking without basis? I thought I had it saved...

Like I've said before. It may be that the USAFM DOES have the right to the plane, but it sure seems that their intentions were different by the fact that they allowed it to be operated as long as the CAF did. I'm beginning to wonder if it wasn't essentially a "gentleman's agreement" in the beginning. It isn't like the CAF hid the aircraft for the previous 35 years. Obviously, if they USAF had thought it a threat, or a problem they could've stepped in a LONG time ago.

Ryan

[Nathan]

I'm confused. Didn't this all start when the CAF tried to sell/trade the P-82 to someone else? Apparently they didn't want it if they were willing to get rid of it. Now that the USAF wants it back, everyone is all mad at the Air Force. How come all you people didn't show this passion when the CAF was trying to raise funds for it's restoration?? Apparently the Air Force was fine with the the arrangement until the CAF tried to sell/trade it. I wish you all had shown this much interest in the P-82 when it could have done some good. It's a little late now.

If someone was willing to make it flying that is why it was offered for sale. Wasn't that something to do with Tom Cruise? If I had an airplane in my collection but I did not have the funds to make it flying then someone comes up with an offer that they would make it flying...hell yeah I would sell it. Afterall the goal here is to get these warbirds flying with any means possible. Some people I think are forgetting htat or are giving in to the worlds negativity. Stay possitive.....NEVER GIVE UP!!!!!!
I have yet to visit the USAFM but when I do I am going to demand a free pass. :x Afterall my tax dollars pays for their F-82 shipment!

[k5083]

Is there any way you could post that up again, just so we aren't talking without basis? I thought I had it saved...

I'll see if I can find it and upload it again.

Like I've said before. It may be that the USAFM DOES have the right to the plane, but it sure seems that their intentions were different by the fact that they allowed it to be operated as long as the CAF did. I'm beginning to wonder if it wasn't essentially a "gentleman's agreement" in the beginning. It isn't like the CAF hid the aircraft for the previous 35 years. Obviously, if they USAF had thought it a threat, or a problem they could've stepped in a LONG time ago.

Yes, the USAF's neglect of the airplane for many years is one of the points in the CAF's favor. Unfortunately, the CAF's own neglect of the airplane since its last prang doesn't help shade the equities in its favor. The truth is that this airplane has not been well treated by either party. If it had been repaired and flying a reasonable time after its crash, probably the USAF would not have tried to take it back, and if it did, the aviation community would feel more sympathetic to the CAF, having had the fun of seeing the plane fly in recent memory. It really undercuts any argument by or on behalf of the CAF that in the USAF's hands, the plane will just "sit and rot" because that is exactly what the CAF has been letting it do for 25 years. It makes me think there is no "good guy" in this debate, and the airplane will be at least as well off with the USAF as with the CAF, notwithstanding all this cheap talk of sugar-daddy sponsors.

August