NMUSAF Asserts Ownership Over CAF P-82

[RickH]

Mark, I responded to your post because I have first hand experience with your senator and his lack of understanding about what we and others do as it regards formerly owned DoD equipment of any kind.. Apparently he and his Chief of Staff also have a distinct disregard for selected tenets of the Constitution. I don't care which party he belongs to. A US Senator shouldn't be so arrogant when dealing with constituents but he views this measure as back door gun control.

[mtpopejoy]

I don't care which party he belongs to. A US Senator shouldn't be so arrogant when dealing with constituents but he views this measure as back door gun control.

Exactly, I have no problem your post, just dont want it to get locked down or moved. Too important of a topic.
I've had to deal with Levin too, all my life, being one of his constituents. He is pretty much a lock to be re-elected term after term in this state.
To tell you all the truth, as bad as the response I received was, I was suprised to receive anything at all!
Regards,
Mark

[mtpopejoy]

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???

I LIKE IT!!!!

[Bill Greenwood]

Mark from Australia, latest polls, like the Wall Street Journal one as of Tue the 21st show a 10 point spread, and slightly up from before, probably pretty clear. BUT, in the US things can move 5 points in the last weeks. Also the poll, while an honest reflection of those contacted can still be wrong, because it may not reach all segments. For instance if it is a phone poll, it won't include cell phones, so it misses some people like my Son at school who has only a cell phone. So the best polls choose their groups carefully. Of course, it is not just the "name" polls like Gallup, both sides try to do their own polls. Even so, if the poll uses the same focus group over time the results can show a shift that may be valid. And as far as "concern on the street", WIX guys for the most part are at one end of the scale, and are not representative of the mass voter.

As for one side being, "idiots", I don't think that's the case. The "vet" may have finished near the bottom of his college class, but he has survived lot's of years and lot's of elections. I think his weak points are not from being dumb, but from who/what he represents. It is amazing that he is still within 10 points with an unpopular war and an economic disaster, and his party leader such an albatross. The front runner has a degree from Columbia, a law degree from Harvard, and is a law professor, and defeated some tough opponents in the primary. So like him or hate him, he's no idiot, either. The lady VP candidate has been the but of jokes, but in her case I think it is more being uniformed that unintelligent. She got thrown in over her head in a hurry. She has done about as well as she could.

Last edited by Bill Greenwood on Wed Oct 22, 2008 9:49 am, edited 2 times in total.

[RyanShort1]

Mark, YES there is strong concern - especially where I live. People who VERY strongly disagree with McCain are voting for him out of fear - not fear of his color - but of his policies.

And no, much as I dislike him, I'm not voting for either of the major candidates as neither represent my views!
Vent over.

Dude guys, I know I have strong feelings about this like everyone else does, but can we keep threads on topic?

I personally believe that the P-82 question is out of the President's jurisdiction and much as I'd like to see the CAF keep it, I'd hate for the President to further the special interest racket even if it benefits those I like.

Also, things I'm hearing DO indicate that there are major implications for other aircraft and items if this goes the wrong way.

Ryan

[Bill Greenwood]

I don't know much about Levin, BUT I doubt if he even saw the letter, the response was probably from an aid. Ha it been from a big contributor or a union it may have been different.
And if he is secure in his spot without any election worries he has no motivation to do or change anything.

Now, I want to word this carefully, as I want the topic to stay also. But doesn't the CAF have any influence or pull of its own. The Pres is from Midland, he flew TBMs, there is a whole display dedicated to him in our hangar. He will be retired soon. Does he have any allies on the inside, if he was to pursue this case?

Another thing about Levin, if he is the "key" or the "door" that makes it harder. The CAF has mostly aligned itself with one party, the other one, and experienced hands like Levin can count and they know who their constituents are and are not. Perhaps the CAF can get some of the military vets to stand up for it. A man like Tex Hill might have been great, or of course Joe Foss. I don't know who fits that spot now if anyone. If not, it may come down to getting public opinion on our side, and that is harder. With the economy shot down in flames, people are more worried about their jobs and mortgages, than an old airplane; and that's if they even know the issues. By the way Levin also has a Harvard Law degree, so calling people who you don't agree with "idiots" in this case is not accurate and may not help the issue.

It's a tough road, maybe some middle ground can be worked out, or maybe there is some way to go around or above the one Gen that seems to be the problem.

Last edited by Bill Greenwood on Wed Oct 22, 2008 9:45 am, edited 1 time in total.

[Bill Greenwood]

Ryan, I don't see the problem if the Pres was to advocate for the CAF. There are lobbyist and special interest groups for every other cause in Washington, why not ours? We, with all our warts, are certainly better than Enron.

Last edited by Bill Greenwood on Wed Oct 22, 2008 9:46 am, edited 1 time in total.

[mustangdriver]

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???

I LIKE IT!!!!

ANd then afterthe president can give your house away. He doesn't own that either, but what the heck. Same thing right? I'm telling you guys mixing politicians and aviation is bad. I have seen it first hand.

[Mudge]

Randy wrote:

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

How right you are. If stupidity were a crime, half the people in Congress would be in jail.

My apologies for getting this "political" thing started. I have been upset/worried/angry about the direction of this election for some time and my thoughts found their way to my fingers.

Mudge the cynic

[mike furline]

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???

I LIKE IT!!!!

ANd then afterthe president can give your house away. He doesn't own that either, but what the heck. Same thing right? I'm telling you guys mixing politicians and aviation is bad. I have seen it first hand.

I believe the Supreme Court (5-4 vote) has already ruled they can take your house for a WalMart or anything else they deem more taxable.

Mike

Last edited by mike furline on Wed Oct 22, 2008 10:48 am, edited 1 time in total.

[mustangdriver]

[Mark_Pilkington]

Mark, YES there is strong concern - especially where I live. People who VERY strongly disagree with McCain are voting for him out of fear - not fear of his color - but of his policies.

And no, much as I dislike him, I'm not voting for either of the major candidates as neither represent my views!
Vent over.

Dude guys, I know I have strong feelings about this like everyone else does, but can we keep threads on topic?

I personally believe that the P-82 question is out of the President's jurisdiction and much as I'd like to see the CAF keep it, I'd hate for the President to further the special interest racket even if it benefits those I like.

Also, things I'm hearing DO indicate that there are major implications for other aircraft and items if this goes the wrong way.

Ryan

Ryan,

The only implication I can see arising from this is for other aircraft loaned by the USAF to museums etc, that have occured in the USA and UK etc, I cant see any argument arising from this dispute that affects aircraft disposed of by the Department of Defence through sales, scrapping etc

From reading the court decision it is a clear dispute of ownership and contract performance, relating to a conditional "donation" that was documented and agreed on that basis. The CAF's defence against that is a later document implying full transfer of ownership, that the court considers was for the purpose of permitting FAA registration, and not modifying the original agreement, which it considers still stands.

The word "donation" is the sticking point, the conditions imposed, and obligation to return it, makes it really more an indefinate "loan" in my opinion, but the conditions seem the original intent and basis of the agreement.

That interpretation results in the opinion that the CAF (in proposing its sale) have triggered a return of the asset to the USAF on the basis of "not requiring it any further".

I really cant see this creating precedents or risks for anyone other than a museum who had similarly recieved a USAF aircraft on the same conditional loan/donation, and has "changed its use" or disposed/sold it since that time.

How do you see this extending beyond that situation?


regards

Mark Pilkington

[Garth]

So the best polls choose their groups carefully.

Don't want to politicize this (or any) thread, but thought the following would be useful to mention.

That's pretty much the crux of the problem this cycle - there are too many new or unusual variables for pollster's weightings to be anything but educated guesses. Significantly more art, a lot less science. So the numbers are literally all over the place, but seemingly typified by oversampling of specific demographic groups (young voters, for instance, or first-time voters) based on belief that those demographic groups will turn out in higher-than-historic-norm numbers.

Whether the samples were chosen carefully enough is only going to become apparent after the election, when pollsters can go back and compare actual results with all the weighting assumptions they made.

[RyanShort1]

I really cant see this creating precedents or risks for anyone other than a museum who had similarly recieved a USAF aircraft on the same conditional loan/donation, and has "changed its use" or disposed/sold it since that time.

How do you see this extending beyond that situation?

For starters - even for folks who think they have their aircraft (or tanks, or other military surplus items) in the clear - the issue that seems to be in play is - did the person or group that sold them to the general public have the right to do so? That seems to be the general trend of the matter from the folks I've talked to. Also an issue here is if the USAF and Navy are going to follow their own rules. From what I understand, for everything that is on loan or conditional loan that the they are supposed to send out information forms that check on it's status and the organization the item is on loan to is supposed to report back. The CAF and other organizations have a number of aircraft for which this is the case - but from what the CAF folks I talked to have said - this was NEVER the case for the P-82 until after it became an issue. Effectively, whatever the case of the documentation and such, the USAF themselves treated the P-82 as no longer part of their inventory.

I've personally talked to at least one of the CAF board members who was at the meeting where the trade of the P-82 came up and they said that based on their review of the matter and having looked at the documents, they thought, in good conscience, that they had legal ownership of the aircraft - not just because of the FAA registration. I think, from what I've heard, that besides the documents cited in the court briefing, that there may be some other (later) documents that seemed to clarify to them that they indeed did have ownership. I don't know why they'd be fighting it as hard as they are if they didn't feel they had some reason.

As far as precedent? From what some folks I know say, there is a possibility that if the USAFM is successful in this case that they (and the Navy) may try to say that other aircraft that were given to trade schools or other organizations, and then sold to warbird restorers or owners, were not done so legally, and that they still have the rights to them - even if they are not officially still a part of their inventory. They can try to go back and establish whether or not certain rules were followed as far as ownership and authorization and some folks fear a LOT of aircraft might not survive such a search.

The other side is saying that the USAF and other military organizations did dispose of the items in a legitimate manner and have acknowledged this to a degree by the fact that they have not followed their own procedures regarding loan and conditional loan items.

When it really gets right down to it - why should the military be sorry for a large number of their fans to preserve and maintain their heritage? The US military doesn't need to be in the museum business on a large scale - they don't have the resources and shouldn't waste resources on such, but should be happy to trust the American public to continue to treat them with respect and dignity - and continue to invest in their preservation - as do the vast majority of major surplus owners.

Ryan

[RickH]

It aint about what's right, Ryan. It's all about control ! You are just one of the minions that follow the bureaucratic rules, they know what is best for you, so you should just learn to accept it. We can't have a member of the general public operating this type of equipment, only the govt has the rescources to do that correctly.