Letter to Warbird owners from USAF

[Randy Haskin]

And I'll agree that it's a shocker of a letter written in appaling bureaucratese.

Unfortunately, that's pretty typical of a lot of USAF written communication.

[oscardeuce]

I wonder about the other aircraft, T-28, P-51, etc?

Why were these relative few singled out. There are many more T-28's than F-4's or even O-2's out there, the same with the B-57.

The typo theory is a good one too.

Got to think like a grade 38 bureaucrat.

http://www.comedycentral.com/videos/ind ... crats-song

[JDK]

Unfortunately, that's pretty typical of a lot of USAF written communication.

Ah, the PowerPoint Warriors eh?

It seems that military writing tends to be to a pretty low standard in general.

[avenger2504]

You can buy B-57's and F-111s ? Wow

Yes I sat back a bit when I saw those types!!

[Mark_Pilkington]

I wonder about the other aircraft, T-28, P-51, etc?

Why were these relative few singled out. There are many more T-28's than F-4's or even O-2's out there, the same with the B-57.

The typo theory is a good one too.

Got to think like a grade 38 bureaucrat.

http://www.comedycentral.com/videos/ind ... crats-song

The letter would apply to all "Proven Aircraft", ie all formerly operated by the USAF, and then lists some specific types, but that doesnt limit the letter to only those types.

As I said earlier, I dont think its really aimed at the private warbird or not for profit operators of WW2 & Korean vintage aircraft, I think its aimed at other Government agencies such as NASA / CIA etc flying far more recent USAF cast-off's.

I think NASA is still flying B-57's, but I'm not sure any one is flying F-111's in the US any more? the USAF lawyers are probably just covering their backsides by including everything flown by others in the last 10 years etc.

Because the USAF is a Government agency, it is likely other agencies such as NASA consider they fly under USAF approvals etc, this letter is pushing the risk back to NASA etc for their own aircraft operations.

regards

Mark Pilkington

[John Dupre]

I wonder if the Collings Foundation got one of these letters because of the F-4 they operate. Doesn't the California Forestry Dept. operate some OV-10s or is that the US Forestry service? There is some USAF operation that uses a C-47 ( I think it is a Basler turboprop conversion) but why would they send the letter to themselves? I saw the NASA WB-57 in MA a few years ago.

[K5DH]

I'm not a pilot. I'm not an aviation mechanic. I'm not an aeronautical engineer. I'm not a lawyer. I've never served in the USAF (although I wanted to, but I was ineligible due to a congenital heart condition). I'm just an aviation geek. So, with that disclaimer behind me, here's my guess. . .

I wonder if the "never" term is in reference to aircraft that are of the same type as those used by the USAF, and are a civil offshoot of the USAF type, but which were not in USAF service. An example would be the Lockheed L-100 Hercules (same basic airplane as the C-130). Or, perhaps they're also referring to civil types that were adopted by the USAF: Cessna 337 (O-2), Lockheed Connie (C-121), Douglas DC-4 and DC-6 (C-54 and C-118), Douglas DC-3 (C-47), and even trainer and liason types (deH Beaver, Cessna 310, Beech 18, et al).

Just guesses, people. . .

(ducks and runs for cover)

[gale_dono]

I wonder if the Collings Foundation got one of these letters because of the F-4 they operate. Doesn't the California Forestry Dept. operate some OV-10s or is that the US Forestry service? There is some USAF operation that uses a C-47 ( I think it is a Basler turboprop conversion) but why would they send the letter to themselves? I saw the NASA WB-57 in MA a few years ago.

AF Special Ops at Hurlburt uses BT-67's.

[Mark_Pilkington]

.

Its a poorly drafted letter from any point of view - "Proven Aircraft (PA) are defined as aircraft that were formerly, or never, in the USAF active operational inventory."

Through the power of google comes:

The 508th Aerospace Sustainment Wing provides sustainment of existing systems as well as the acquisition of new and improved airpower capabilities. It serves all U.S. military services, civil agencies and multiple foreign countries. Support includes acquisition, modifications, modernization, engineering and technical, as well as maintenance, repair and planning. The ASW team directs, plans and manages the interface between domestic and foreign customers throughout the world. Programs include the F-16 Fighting Falcon, A-10 Thunderbolt II, T-37 Tweet, T-38 Talon, aerial targets, multiple mature and proven aircraft and training devices for nearly all aircraft in the Air Force inventory, as well as trainers for space systems control and air traffic control towers. The wing includes sustainment planning and preparation for the F/A-22 and F-35 aircraft.

The 508th Fighter Sustainment Group is the sustainment arm of the F-16 System Program Office at Wright-Patterson AFB, Ohio. The directorate provides a unified direction for F-16 production, sustainment, engineering and manufacturing development, modification and worldwide deployment for more than 3,900 F-16 A, B, C and D aircraft in various configurations for units of the combat air forces of the U.S. and 18 foreign nations. This includes extensive foreign co-production and is among the most complex acquisition program in the Department of Defense. In addition, the group coordinates with product group managers and materiel group managers across the command to ensure the F-16 weapon system is operationally sustainable in peace and war.

The 508th Mature Aircraft and Simulator Sustainment Group is responsible for the acquisition of new and improved capabilities as well as sustainment for 36 different aircraft weapon systems. Assigned management responsibility includes acquisition, modification, engineering, technical support, maintenance and repair. The group directs, plans and manages the interface between the directorate and domestic and foreign customers.

Mature aircraft are those systems that are out of production but still active in the Air Force inventory. These aircraft are the A-10, T-37 and T-38. Proven aircraft are those systems that are out of production and not in the active Air Force inventory. They are primarily flown by foreign countries or US agencies. Among proven aircraft are the F-4, F-5, C-47 and others.

It seems that the USAF has a "Mature and Proven Aircraft Directorate" which manages all mature and proven aircraft for the Air Force, several foreign countries, and U.S. federal agencies.

Obviously those US Federal agencies are the "domestic" owners, and this letter is to ensure remind that only those who have active MoU's or contracts with the USAF are covered under this arrangement, and if no MoU exists the agency must undertake its own certification and operational safety management.

You could imagine that if a type is out of production and no longer in the active USAF inventory, that the USAF would cease investing in a SPM program "unless" someone else was footing the bill through an "MoU"?

Although the letter does say "never", I am confident its a typo for "ever", as "never" would open up all types of legal interpretations and catch many types of little relevence to USAF operational responsibilities or SPM programs?, in fact based on the definition above that "Proven" relates to types no longer in the active inventory the letter may have intended to say b]"Proven Aircraft (PA) are defined as aircraft "types" that were formerly, but are no longer, in the USAF active operational inventory."[/b]

On that basis it is probably technically applicable to P-40, P-51 & B-17 owners even though not specifically mentioned or the true target, in that unless you have an MoU with them, the USAF is not responsible for supporting your certification, and operational safety management, regardless of any aircraft's former use in the USAF active operational inventory.

I suspect the USAF is withdrawing effort and support for types no longer in its active inventory, and simply covering its exposure or implied obligations to other government agencies still operating those types.

regards

Mark Pilkington

[airnutz]

.

Its a poorly drafted letter from any point of view - "Proven Aircraft (PA) are defined as aircraft that were formerly, or never, in the USAF active operational inventory."

Through the power of google comes:

The 508th Aerospace Sustainment Wing provides sustainment of existing systems as well as the acquisition of new and improved airpower capabilities. It serves all U.S. military services, civil agencies and multiple foreign countries. Support includes acquisition, modifications, modernization, engineering and technical, as well as maintenance, repair and planning. The ASW team directs, plans and manages the interface between domestic and foreign customers throughout the world. Programs include the F-16 Fighting Falcon, A-10 Thunderbolt II, T-37 Tweet, T-38 Talon, aerial targets, multiple mature and proven aircraft and training devices for nearly all aircraft in the Air Force inventory, as well as trainers for space systems control and air traffic control towers. The wing includes sustainment planning and preparation for the F/A-22 and F-35 aircraft.

The 508th Fighter Sustainment Group is the sustainment arm of the F-16 System Program Office at Wright-Patterson AFB, Ohio. The directorate provides a unified direction for F-16 production, sustainment, engineering and manufacturing development, modification and worldwide deployment for more than 3,900 F-16 A, B, C and D aircraft in various configurations for units of the combat air forces of the U.S. and 18 foreign nations. This includes extensive foreign co-production and is among the most complex acquisition program in the Department of Defense. In addition, the group coordinates with product group managers and materiel group managers across the command to ensure the F-16 weapon system is operationally sustainable in peace and war.

The 508th Mature Aircraft and Simulator Sustainment Group is responsible for the acquisition of new and improved capabilities as well as sustainment for 36 different aircraft weapon systems. Assigned management responsibility includes acquisition, modification, engineering, technical support, maintenance and repair. The group directs, plans and manages the interface between the directorate and domestic and foreign customers.

Mature aircraft are those systems that are out of production but still active in the Air Force inventory. These aircraft are the A-10, T-37 and T-38. Proven aircraft are those systems that are out of production and not in the active Air Force inventory. They are primarily flown by foreign countries or US agencies. Among proven aircraft are the F-4, F-5, C-47 and others.

It seems that the USAF has a "Mature and Proven Aircraft Directorate" which manages all mature and proven aircraft for the Air Force, several foreign countries, and U.S. federal agencies.

Obviously those US Federal agencies are the "domestic" owners, and this letter is to ensure remind that only those who have active MoU's or contracts with the USAF are covered under this arrangement, and if no MoU exists the agency must undertake its own certification and operational safety management.

You could imagine that if a type is out of production and no longer in the active USAF inventory, that the USAF would cease investing in a SPM program "unless" someone else was footing the bill through an "MoU"?

Although the letter does say "never", I am confident its a typo for "ever", as "never" would open up all types of legal interpretations and catch many types of little relevence to USAF operational responsibilities or SPM programs?, in fact based on the definition above that "Proven" relates to types no longer in the active inventory the letter may have intended to say b]"Proven Aircraft (PA) are defined as aircraft "types" that were formerly, but are no longer, in the USAF active operational inventory."[/b]

On that basis it is probably technically applicable to P-40, P-51 & B-17 owners even though not specifically mentioned or the true target, in that unless you have an MoU with them, the USAF is not responsible for supporting your certification, and operational safety management, regardless of any aircraft's former use in the USAF active operational inventory.

I suspect the USAF is withdrawing effort and support for types no longer in its active inventory, and simply covering its exposure or implied obligations to other government agencies still operating those types.

regards

Mark Pilkington

"It seems"..probably "ever for never"..."I suspect"..."poorly drafted letter"...sounds like the bill of sale for the the CAF P-82...Hee..Hee..Hee..

[mustangdriver]

I would guess that they are trying to ensure that they will not be sued if a warbird crashes that has USAF painted on it. The NMUSAF has been threatend before when a warbird crashed that they had nothing to do with, but it had USAF on painted on it. This maybe be where the "never" comes in. If I build a homebuilt and paint USAF on it, then crash, they may want to show that they had nothign to do with it.

[bluehawk15]

Or the "never" in the USAF inventory aircraft could be those of the same type as operated by the USAF, but were sold direct to another country, without having been in the USAF inventory, i.e., sold new directly from the manufacturer, not surplus.

[rreis]

Does the USAF only have one Inventory, the Operational one? Can't an A/C belong to the USAF and never be part of the Operational Inventory (i.e, belong to some other Inventory)? If so, the "never" would apply to those A/C.

[Ken]

Or the "never" in the USAF inventory aircraft could be those of the same type as operated by the USAF, but were sold direct to another country, without having been in the USAF inventory, i.e., sold new directly from the manufacturer, not surplus.

I think Bluehawk gets a gold star. I have a little exposure to USAF FMS (foreign military sales) - enough to know that some models were sold/transferred after US service and some were purchased from the manufacturer, such as a C-130.

If the C-130 was built as a "C-130K", then it's governed by US export laws. If it was placarded as a "L-100 or L-382" then it's a civilian aircraft. Looking at the list in the memo, yes, those are the most common export birds; F-111s to Australia, and so on. Although warbirds may be included, as someone else suggested, the target audience is, no doubt, foreign governments.

Each MWS (major weapon system) in the USAF is managed by what used to be called a SPO (system program office). Here are the engineers, contract managers, technical writers, etc who support the system from cradle to grave. They arrange funding to buy new aircraft, maintain and modify them in service, decide which tails go to the boneyard and when, and even retain control of the parts on those airframes until they're scrapped or transferred via FMS (or inter-gov't transfer, such as a T-38 to NASA)

Some nations, like Australia, have the infrastructure to maintain their own fleets. Others, like the Philippines, sign an agreement with the USAF to support their fleet, much like a car's extended warranty. If they find a crack in a panel on their C-130, they don't call Lockheed, they call the USAF. Folks at the SPO help diagnose the problem and guide a proper fix. When necessary, a team from the AF travels to the customer nation and performs the repair - that's service the customer has paid (or will be billed) for.

Airplanes are always finding new ways to break or have new systems installed. Since we don't operate B-57s, F-111s, or C-47s any more, the SPOs have been closed and no longer staff experts, parts, update manuals, etc.

So, all this crappy letter (seems) to be trying to say is: You're on your own. Geesh.

[Maverick]

A lot of confusion has been caused by the title given the first posting " Letter to Warbird owners from USAF ". The letter of concern was not sent to or meant for Warbird owners, In my opinion, based on having been the Deputy Director of the F-5 System Program Office in the mid 70's, the word "never" is correct. The F-5 was one case that while some of the airplanes were in the USAF inventory the majority were assigned to foreign military sales (FMS) cases and never entered the USAF inventory. These are the airplanes referred to as "never". For those working in the FMS area and those FMS countries the letter is pretty clear, no MOU, no support from the USAF to keep your airplanes flying.