Warbird Information Exchange

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.

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

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.

" 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.

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.

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.

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.