Warbird Information Exchange

Any one else get one yet? I've read it 5 times, yet it makes no sense to me.
Dated 12/9/09 out of Hill AFB

"Proven Aircraft (PA) are defined as aircraft that were formerly, or never, in the USAF active operational inventory."

Specific A/C covered are F-4, F-5, T-37, A-37, OV-10, F-111, C-123, O-2,C-212, T-33, T-34, B-57, C-47.

Now, I'm not al lawyer but could ALL aircraft have been former USAF aircraft, or NEVER USAF aircraft?

There is even a "proven aircraft squadron" 505 ACSS. Is this the USAF's way of saying "we still really own your aircraft, we're just letting you borrow and maintain it"?

I'd sure like some input to understand the gov'tese.

Thanks

O2

Can you post the whole letter so we can see the sentence in context?

_________________

From what I understand this group researches older aircraft that are no longer in frontline military use, but still used by government agencies and other countries. What did the letter say? Why they would be sending a letter out is interesting.

_________________
Chris Henry
EAA Aviation Museum Manager

I am wondering if this is a form for putting it in writting that they are not liable for anything that happens even if it says USAF on it.

_________________
Chris Henry
EAA Aviation Museum Manager

Looks to me like that is just the Air Force's way of saying don't ask us to help you maintain your airplane. Somebody was probably demanding that the Air Force pull parts off stored planes to help them fix something they have and the AF just wants to make it clear that once you buy something keeping it going is your problem not theirs.

James

So, what does part 3 mean. I can delegate the maintenence, or the ownership?

If ownwership for what? Other aircraft or $$$$?

Reading that document leads me to believe that the same Cat the FAA has writing AD notes, is writing stuff for the USAF
Looks like they are saying they are not responsible for the airworthiness,maintenance, safe operation of ''PROVEN AIRCRAFT".

_________________
Fly Fast Make Noise!

Wow. That letter, especially the definition of PA, is one of the worst-drafted that I have ever seen.

I would not even attempt to interpret it without reading what is in references (a) through (d).

I'm still chuckling over how it begins, "The purpose of this memo is to clarify ..." Yeah, thanks for clearing that up.

August

My thoughts exactly.

I'm still not clear.

I always get nervous when you get the "we're from the gov't and here to help".

OK, so all the Cessnas, Pipers, Beeches, etc. that are based at my airport are "PA", because they were never in the USAF? BFD! Their point is?????????

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

I am guessing that "never in USAF" means airplanes that belonged to other services or goverment agencies/ organizations.
Somebody should call this guy and tell him to explain what the heck he's talking about.

_________________
All I did was press this red button here...

.
if you correct the apparant typo from "never" to "ever", I think what its saying is that while the USAF has "SPM"s, System Program Managers responsible for the operational safety of these types while in USAF service, unless a "domestic" owner has contracted the obligation back to the USAF, that the "domestic" owner is solely responsible for the operational safety of the aircraft.

I suspect its aimed at other government agencies in the US who assume that because the USAF is still flying the type, that the USAF covers the cetification, safety, and operations of these other agencies.

I dont think it implies anything about private ownership of all these types being available, but it would clearly apply to private owners of any F-4's T-33, T-37 and C-47's as well as the other government agencies who may have access to the remaining types.

Obviously some of those government agencies do or can access the USAF "SPM" support via MoA agreements.

It seems to be a standard legal boiler plate notice of "all care no responsibility"

regards

Mark Pilkington

_________________
20th Century - The Age of Manned Flight
"from Wrights to Armstrong in 66 years -WOW!"

Jeepers! Thanks for sharing. If I'd been told about it but not seen it, I don't think I'd believe it!

I think Mark's nailed it.

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

If you'd want a bit of fun (yeah right) I'd bounce it back to clarify if that's a typo and require them to send out the letter properly checked and drafted. That'd fly, I don't think.

Does the US have an equivalent to the UK's 'Plain English' watchdog on governmental gobbledygook? http://www.plainenglish.co.uk/

_________________
James K

"Switch on the underwater landing lights"
Emilio Largo, Thunderball.

www.VintageAeroWriter.com