NMUSAF Asserts Ownership Over CAF P-82

[Mark_Pilkington]

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, I would agree that anyone really wishing to understand this situation is best informed by reading the courts decision, rather than emotive declarations or wild accusations.

It seems clear the court focuses on the original "certificate" of donation and its terms and conditions, and rejects claims that:
it was an outright donation or that the later "transfer document confirming "donation" to permit FAA registration superceded the original "certificate".

It also seems clear the court accepts the CAF infringed its terms and conditions to the donation by attempting to trade the aircraft, and rejects all of the CAF's arguments of ownership.

While we would all like to see a flying P-82, and would agree that the USAF already has two examples ( one of each version -the P82B with Merlins and P82E with Allisons) the court case so far seems to conclude that the CAF never had clear title to the aircraft?

The court confirms FAA registration is no evidence of ownership in an ownership dispute, rendering that "evidence" of no value.

Given the apparant facts of a loan/conditional donation from the USAF Museum collection to the CAF, I dont think there is a strong risk of flow-on to claim all former military aircraft as remaining in government ownership if they have formally been disposed of, but obviously there may be other similar former government museum aircraft that are strictly on loan/donation rather than outright transfer of title, and those aircraft are likely to be considered to be subject to the same legal interpretations.

(It seems from comments made that this same interpretations extend to tanks, cannons etc made available to veterans clubs and memorials, that then close or choose to sell the asset to private individuals?)

However from an outside the USA perspective there has always certainly seemed to be aircraft being reported in magazines as being on loan from the US Government museum's to private and/or volunteer museums (not disputed?), and the USAF & government will be keen to ensure its ownerships in those other situations are not affected by a precedent here?

Seen from the USAFM point of view, they own 2x P82B's and 1xP82E, it would seem possible that the existing loan/donation certificate could be acknowledged and the aircraft left with the CAF for airworthy restoration an exhibition on behalf of the USAF (the CAF has effectively been the un-official USAF historical flight for the last 50 years in any case?).

Unfortunately the adversarial positions now created may be burning bridges to allow a common sense compromise to be negotiated.

A total of just under 280 P-82's were built, 4 survive "intact, two merlin powered P-82B's (including this one) and two Allison powered P-82E's (including Betty Joe) - as well as one fuselage section and wing parts from the prototype XP-82.

The USAF bent its rules about loaning an aircraft for flying restoration in the first place, and may now be reluctant to continue risking the P-82B in the air, given its earlier crash and risk of destruction.

There are concerns that this decision will create precedents for all warbird owners?

There is equally a precedent issue for the US Government and airforce here as well that needs to be resolved, regarding all government owned aircraft on loan or conditional donation to other organisations?

Both the CAF and the USAFM deserve support and thanks for their efforts over the years, it is dis-appointing to see some forumites takes sides to the detrimate of the reputaton of either organisation.

The "dispute" simply arises over the dis-agreement of interpretation, and perhaps poor management of relations between the two organisations some 40 years ago in regards to this aircraft.

Unfortunately that dis-agreement on interpretation now can only be resolved in a court, and not simply in the opinions or hearts of enthusiasts.

Hopefully once the court case is over, and regardless of the current expected outcome of USAF ownership, the CAF and USAF can come to an agreement that permits ongoing airworthy operation of the aircraft, while recognising correct ownership?, however the CAF have already pointed out the complication of recognising the CAF's investment in the airframe to make it airworthy, and any ongoing agreement would seem to be likely to be very complicated if the CAF sought to have those investments recognised or compensated?

regards

Mark Pilkington

[mtpopejoy]

I received a response finally from my Senator in regards to the CAF P-82 issue.

Dear Mr. Popejoy:

Thank you for sharing your thoughts with me regarding the American Airpower Heritage Museum. I will certainly keep your thoughts in mind should this issue come before the Senate.

Best wishes.

Sincerely,
Carl Levin

Oh boy...

[kenlyco]

Man does that not make you feel like you want to slap someone who wears a tie....LOL

[mtpopejoy]

I prefer the tie in the paper shredder myself!!!

[CAPFlyer]

Considering the source of the e-mail, I'm sadly not surprised...

[Garth]

Considering the source of the e-mail, I'm sadly not surprised...

Years ago Carl Levin's office would get into annual fights with the folks who restore historic military vehicles. IIRC he kept inserting amendments into various bills that would prohibit the importation/reimportation of the spare parts (spare parts ... not weaponry) required to keep the vehicles running. Since the rest of the world is still fairly awash in US military equipment and spares going back to WWII, overseas is a prime source for spares.

The amendments were invariably knocked down after LOTS of protests. Haven't heard much about them recently, I assume his office got the message and gave up.

[RickH]

Carl Levin is one of the proponents of the Demil Bill that we have killed three times. His Chief of Staff is lawyer named Levine. He is chomping at the bit to bring it back ! If the stars align the wrong way in November it could get ugly on the demil front !

[Mudge]

RickH wrote:

If the stars align the wrong way in November it could get ugly on the demil front !

Not to skew this in a political direction, but if the stars align the wrong way in Nov. a LOT of things could get ugly. Restoration would be the least of our worries.

Mudge the anxious

ps. By the way, what party is Levin? Yeah, that's what I thought.

[RickH]

No, Mudge. We're not talkin' restoration, we're talkin' potential confiscation of civilian legally owned former DoD equipment.

[Randy Haskin]

ps. By the way, what party is Levin? Yeah, that's what I thought.

Come on, get real. Idiocy in America goes WELL BEYOND any "party" affiliation.

[Fouga23]

ps. By the way, what party is Levin? Yeah, that's what I thought.

Come on, get real. Idiocy in America goes WELL BEYOND any "party" affiliation.

Too bad one of those parties has the biggest concentration of them

[Mark_Pilkington]

RickH wrote:

If the stars align the wrong way in November it could get ugly on the demil front !

Not to skew this in a political direction, but if the stars align the wrong way in Nov. a LOT of things could get ugly. Restoration would be the least of our worries.

Mudge the anxious

ps. By the way, what party is Levin? Yeah, that's what I thought.

Not wishing to ignite a political debate either?? but from the way the polls are portrayed here in Australia, the US Election result in November is a foregone conclusion verging on a landslide, and that prospect is not generating any concern here.

Is that different to the situation and attitudes on the ground in mainstreet USA?


Regards

Mark Pilkington

[RickH]

You have NO idea, Mark. The election is not a foregone conclusion. You don't win an election with polls, peopele actually have to get out and vote. The mainstream media is doing its best to annoint THEIR chosen one but most nonbiased polls show the race is within their margin of error.

[mtpopejoy]

This thread has nothing to do with partisanship. It seems as this thread is moving that way and I suggest we steer it back on course.
I was simply trying to show the response I got back from my Senator showing he (or whomever skimmed through) my email reallly doesn't give a rat's patootey about it, i.e. "American Airpower Heritage Museum."
I would venture to say that if you all received that response from your elected official, REGARDLESS OF PARTY, you too would want to fly to D.C. and backhand somebody.
Leave the party politics to the Off Topic Discussion Board.
Rant Off,
Mark

[wwrw2007]

Here's an idea speaking of politicians. The CAF is based in the great state of Texas, the exiting president is from the great state of Texas. Now considering all of the crooked pardons Slick Willie did at the end of his term the least the Big W could do would be to help out some fellow Texans and issue an executive order giving the CAF full ownership of the plane. So do we start a letter writing campaing or what???