NMUSAF Asserts Ownership Over CAF P-82

[RyanShort1]

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.

Honestly, I think it's that, and more. I think that they really FEAR the American public - or at least some segment of it that they suppose is going to be the new "terrorists." Oh, and only tyrants fear their own people... That and they're so bent on "protecting" us from enemies that they are happy to take away our liberties in the process - even if we'd personally, rather face the terrorists than lose our freedom.

Ryan

[mustangdriver]

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

I'm not taking sides in this, but I will say this, the NMUSAF has so many aircraft that they can not always check in on it as they should. They try to do it at least every so many years. The F-86 at the Beaver County Airport is a prime example. It is on a pylon and has been since the 70's I think. Air Heritage takes care of it from time to time, and the NMUSAF checks on it about every 5 years I'd say. They know that Air heritage is taking care of it, and trust them with that.

[Mudge]

RickH wrote:

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.

WOW...I'm glad you reconsidered and deleted "and intelligence" from that sentence. Good re-write.

Mudge the editor

[RickH]

Don''t laugh, Mudge, I've actually had one o' them bureaucrats tell me that.

Years ago, after operating the CF F-4D Phantom safely for over 3 1/2 years, a bureaucrat affilliated with the NMUSAF, who has fought the F-4 program every step of the way, told me " if this was so important then the USAF would do it themselves so it could be done right !" The arrogance of that one statement says it all to me. It's not one guy, it's an internal culture.

[JDK]

" if this was so important then the USAF would do it themselves so it could be done right !" The arrogance of that one statement says it all to me. It's not one guy, it's an internal culture.

Fair point, but be careful wat you wish for. For instance, as a journalist, first question I'd ask would be "What's the (training an non-combat) accident rate of the USAF and CAF?"

It wouldn't be hard to make the CAF look a bunch of ill disciplined cowboys more like a biker gang than the lovely, cuddly uncles we know they all are...

As August pointed out before stirring up public opinion, bear in mind it could go hard against the CAF.

And thirdly, calling people names on a public forum won't help. Warbirds need to win friends and influence people, not the other way around.

[RickH]

James, my comment does not involve a CAF aircraft. There are other organizations out there operating far more sophisticated equipment safely. That may be because there are fewer aircraft to supervise and most are not as spread out.

Almost every conversation involves the unfortunate F86/ice cream parlor accident. There were multiple causes to that accident but it was over 30 years ago. One accident, even a high profile one shouldn't be the driving force behind govt policy.

[JDK]

James, my comment does not involve a CAF aircraft. There are other organizations out there operating far more sophisticated equipment safely. That may be because there are fewer aircraft to supervise and most are not as spread out.

Sure Rick, no argument, and you continue to show what a great job you're doing. This discussion (thread) however, is focussed on a tug-o-war over a P-82 between the NMUSAF and the CAF. It would not be hard to paint the CAF in a bad light. (Their last fatal accident, for instance, is not 30 years ago.) Obviously I don't want to go over the history here, we should just bear in mind the CAF might not thank us for lobbing stones as their glazing is extensive.

Almost every conversation involves the unfortunate F86/ice cream parlor accident. There were multiple causes to that accident but it was over 30 years ago. One accident, even a high profile one shouldn't be the driving force behind govt policy.

Absolutely. However it's worth noting that current safety procedures for airshows in the UK have a cornerstone of preventing a recurrence of the 1952 [edit] DH-110 accident's crowd fatalities.

Cheers,

Last edited by JDK on Thu Oct 23, 2008 10:42 pm, edited 1 time in total.

[Taylor Stevenson]

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

I'm not taking sides in this, but I will say this, the NMUSAF has so many aircraft that they can not always check in on it as they should. They try to do it at least every so many years. The F-86 at the Beaver County Airport is a prime example. It is on a pylon and has been since the 70's I think. Air Heritage takes care of it from time to time, and the NMUSAF checks on it about every 5 years I'd say. They know that Air heritage is taking care of it, and trust them with that.

Ryan- VERY well put!

Mustangdriver- I can understand a 5 year checkup (though it should truly be every year), but to go 30+ years without so much as a hint of concern for the aircraft... to me that says they didnt want it and didnt care about it.

[dhfan]

Pedant mode James, the DH110 at Farnborough was 1952.

[mustangdriver]

James, my comment does not involve a CAF aircraft. There are other organizations out there operating far more sophisticated equipment safely. That may be because there are fewer aircraft to supervise and most are not as spread out.

Almost every conversation involves the unfortunate F86/ice cream parlor accident. There were multiple causes to that accident but it was over 30 years ago. One accident, even a high profile one shouldn't be the driving force behind govt policy.

Didn't we just lose an F-86 in Hickory, N.C. not that long ago as well. with all due respect it is not JUST one crash we are talking about. People are going to get touchy when we start talking about flying the real high tech aircraft as warbirds. I consider myself a good and safe pilot, but I do not think that I can handle an F-15. I have not been trained to do so, and only one place can and should teach you to fly an F-15 and that is the USAF. We aren't talking the same as a P-51 here. I have two old cars. Lets's take the Charger. 1969 Charger. I am fine to drive it, that is let's say the P-51. Then you have a NASCAR that is the F-4, F-15, F-16, or whatever you want to use. I am not qualified to drive that. even an older one from the 80's. I am really not taking sides, but I am saying that we need to look at this fairly.

[RyanShort1]

Didn't we just lose an F-86 in Hickory, N.C. not that long ago as well. with all due respect it is not JUST one crash we are talking about. People are going to get touchy when we start talking about flying the real high tech aircraft as warbirds. I consider myself a good and safe pilot, but I do not think that I can handle an F-15. I have not been trained to do so, and only one place can and should teach you to fly an F-15 and that is the USAF. We aren't talking the same as a P-51 here. I have two old cars. Lets's take the Charger. 1969 Charger. I am fine to drive it, that is let's say the P-51. Then you have a NASCAR that is the F-4, F-15, F-16, or whatever you want to use. I am not qualified to drive that. even an older one from the 80's. I am really not taking sides, but I am saying that we need to look at this fairly.

Mustangdriver - first - I'd rather be trained by an Israeli F-15 driver personally (nothing against the USAF, but they're NOT the only ones that can teach you) . Anyway, that aside, the training really doesn't seem to be a big issue to me. There are guys out there who can be safely trained to fly most anything - whether they are civilian or military. Saying that only the USAF should fly an F-15 is just crazy and frankly, strikes me as elitist - and smacks of the attitude of the General up there. There are plenty of ex-F-15 drivers out there that I'm sure would be glad to teach you how to fly it if you could obtain one (A two seater F-15E?). I'm sure that you could also be trained to drive a NASCAR, provided you take care of yourself and don't have any preconditions or old injuries, mental problems, etc... that would prevent you from learning the mental and motor skills required. AND are willing to put the mental effort into learning the systems and technical knowledge required for safe operation.
I don't think I get your "look at this 'fairly'" point at all.
What I do think is worth looking at is the "safety culture" - but from what I can tell, I really do think that the current general staff at CAF are doing a decent job of addressing this. The main difference I see between an organization like the USAF, and the CAF or any other civilian group is the accountability structure. It's a lot harder to tell someone that has donated $20K that they can't fly because they aren't safe. On the other hand, if you are unsafe or do something stupid in say, the USAF, then your superior can do some things to keep you from being in a position to do something stupid. Also, the USAF gets to use taxpayer funds to maintain decent training levels, something that is harder to do with warbirds and private funds - hence sometimes people with more money than sense go out and get themselves in situations they shouldn't have been in, when a more proficient pilot might have been perfectly safe... Ever heard of Doctor-killers (Bonanzas)?

Ryan

[mustangdriver]

I had a good long response written that was tasteful, but I think I am just going to get nasty P.M.'s again if I keep going. So never mind.
As for the F-15, who trained Israel to fly the F-15? The USAF.

[Jase]

I grew up an AF brat. Anytime I hear someone saying "The USAF is the only organization that can possibly fly these complex planes safely" or some such, the name "Bud Holland" pops into my head.

Think B-52 at Fairchild.

[mike furline]

USAF F-15's, Israeli F-15's, F-86's, DH 110's, B-52's.........this is getting way off topic.

Focus, Focus, Focus.


Mike

[Oscar]

ok then here is my 2 cents. legally the USAF held ownership of the aircraft. it was on loan to the CAF. the CAF had no authority to attempt sell the aircraft to, of all people, Tom Cruise (yes the actor/scientologest). therfore the NMUSAF has every right to retreve their aircraft.