Sun Nov 16, 2008 12:15 am
I haven't heard one dissenting voice yet, were all preaching to the choir. So the million dollar question is how do we stop the wrong people from getting into the NHC or furthering their abuse, or something along the lines of what we've been discussing in this topic?
Sun Nov 16, 2008 1:07 am
A2C wrote:I haven't heard one dissenting voice yet, were all preaching to the choir. So the million dollar question is how do we stop the wrong people from getting into the NHC or furthering their abuse, or something along the lines of what we've been discussing in this topic?
Truth be told, as long as we assume that the military has a right to preserve it's traditions and history, then I don't see a huge problem with the position and I don't think you can "stop" someone from getting in.
Personally, I believe that a better way to proceed would be to work on two or three fronts. The first would be to find ways to put together a coalition of folks who work WITH the museums and are on speaking terms. If they feel that it's an US vs. THEM deal, then, like US, they will feel like they have to defend their position. That's why I always get frustrated with the flying vs. static argument. There's room for both, and both have their place. The real problem is that folks aren't willing to share, or to admit that there are real concerns that the other side hold.
There are apparently folks at the museums now who would LIKE to work with warbird restorers if it meant that they could get museum pieces as well. Trouble is that the current rules apparently are making it difficult for BOTH groups to do the recoveries. The old Great Lakes deals had the Navy getting a very decent percentage of whatever was pulled up by the recovery teams.
Another thing to do is to be educate folks about the true costs of maintaining the aircraft in flying condition, as well as the problems and challenges of preserving the aircraft on static display.
Finally, the REAL biggest problem I see is easy to prove by just going back and reading this thread. There are WAAY too many folks who are willing to get angry, call people names, and act like complete fools about something that they are passionate about. Why do we have to write stuff like having them "walk into a propeller" or such? We are our own worst enemy at such moments. It's always better to follow the Proverb that says "a gentle answer turns away wrath, but harsh words stir up anger." Find ways to befriend such people. Show them kindness. "Heap burning coals upon their heads" by being a good friend and being respectful. What they may not be willing to admit in general, they may be forced to admit in private if you prove to them that there are exceptions to their perceptions, and that perhaps, the exceptions, are indeed the rule (I hope)!
Tell your friend that if he's ever in San Antonio, I'd personally like to know about it. We maintain birds that many museums would likely turn their noses up at. Eventually, we'd like to build our own museum to tell the stories we think are worthy of remembering. Most of the funds are from our private efforts, and if we're a bit capitalistic, it's because we'd like to do more! It takes money to build museums, maintain airplanes, keep the grass mowed, etc.
My 2 cents.
Ryan
Last edited by RyanShort1 on Sun Nov 16, 2008 9:20 am, edited 1 time in total.
Sun Nov 16, 2008 1:43 am
Some problems with this saga - factual, documented corrections welcome.
You can't qualify as an 'aviation archaeologist'. It's not a recognised discipline in academic or museum circles. (See previous posts by MuddyBoots etc.)
Museums deal with lots of self-designated aviation archaeologists; a term with a recognised non-academic common definition. Museum's don't employ them under that job title or description.
Lots of young people are going to revolutionise their specialised field when they qualify and take over the department they join as an intern. 99.9% don't.
Our hero is telling everyone what's going to be different when he's running the world, but hasn't decided if he's going to be Navy or Air Force.
After qualifying as a curator, conservator or similar, the first years of work in recognised museums is at the bottom, following other people's policy. Not setting it.
Latest on the NHC seems to be a change to a more open policy, not the reverse.
Some good points made - however I still don't see anything to lead me to believe that this friend is doing anything other than talking big.
You can't qualify as an 'aviation archaeologist'. It's not a recognised discipline in academic or museum circles. (See previous posts by MuddyBoots etc.)
Museums deal with lots of self-designated aviation archaeologists; a term with a recognised non-academic common definition. Museum's don't employ them under that job title or description.
Lots of young people are going to revolutionise their specialised field when they qualify and take over the department they join as an intern. 99.9% don't.
Our hero is telling everyone what's going to be different when he's running the world, but hasn't decided if he's going to be Navy or Air Force.
After qualifying as a curator, conservator or similar, the first years of work in recognised museums is at the bottom, following other people's policy. Not setting it.
Latest on the NHC seems to be a change to a more open policy, not the reverse.
Some good points made - however I still don't see anything to lead me to believe that this friend is doing anything other than talking big.
Sun Nov 16, 2008 2:55 am
A shame there isn't more pics and info on digs availabel on the net is all i can say.
Sun Nov 16, 2008 9:07 am
A2C wrote:I haven't heard one dissenting voice yet, were all preaching to the choir. So the million dollar question is how do we stop the wrong people from getting into the NHC or furthering their abuse, or something along the lines of what we've been discussing in this topic?
Somebody mentioned something about a propeller
Sun Nov 16, 2008 10:46 am
You guys know that I like both. Consideration needs to be given. My deal is that anything belonging to the pilot and crew including remains be dealt with in a respectful manner. After that it should be like Gettysburg Civil War battle Field. If you find something in the field that is a relic, you are supposed to bring it to the museum there. After the museum looks at if and photos it, it is decided if it is needed for the collection. If it is needed, an honest deal is worked out, if it is not needed, then the person that found it can keep it. Why won't this work for aircraft? People need to understand that if you find a TBM from Midway, that if might be best to restore it at the NMNA. However if you find a TBM in Lake Michigan or wherever that is not a combat vet, then it should be pulled up, photoed by the museum, and left with the person that raised it, and restored to whatever status they wish. Does this sound fair?
Sun Nov 16, 2008 11:33 pm
mustangdriver wrote: However if you find a TBM in Lake Michigan or wherever that is not a combat vet, then it should be pulled up, photoed by the museum, and left with the person that raised it, and restored to whatever status they wish. Does this sound fair?
This Plan....I could live with 
Mon Nov 17, 2008 12:11 am
However if you find a TBM in Lake Michigan or wherever that is not a combat vet, then it should be pulled up, photoed by the museum, and left with the person that raised it, and restored to whatever status they wish. Does this sound fair?
Eminently fair. (Hmm... so if the Navy gets the two combat veteran TBDs in the Pacific at Jaluit, some civilian can get the one in the Atlantic... where's my snorkel...
)
Mon Nov 17, 2008 1:40 am
JDK Wrote:
James, here I am minding my business, and you go and write something like this. Tsk, Tsk, if your not careful, you might hurt my feeling.
As well as quite a few evil capitalists, I know quite a few evil archaeologists and evil museum people and most of them, face to face, come over a lot better than the Ed D n' Bill G show.
James, here I am minding my business, and you go and write something like this. Tsk, Tsk, if your not careful, you might hurt my feeling.
Mon Nov 17, 2008 3:11 am
mustangdriver, while i agree with your stance, tell it to the navy, but don't expell to much oxygen as it is precious. there historical branch is beyond bull headed & their thinking is redundant. if they had historical foresight they would be pursuing, or let others pursuing any wreck feasible for salvage do what's right for the future of aviation history, with the exception of war grave sights. honestly..... the red tape & b.s. they have put up is better than all the anti aircraft artillery of ww 2.
Mon Nov 17, 2008 9:06 am
Mustangdriver, your proposal about the non-veteran TBM does not sound fair to me. In some ways this is the crux of the whole debate. We are talking about, to begin with, a public asset -- an ex-military aircraft wreck on/in public land/water. You propose to make a gift of that asset to a private party. The rationale on this thread has been that private parties can do just as good a job as museums of making the aircraft restored and available to educate the public, citing the example of Paul Allen. But not all private owners are Paul Allen. Many are Tom Cruise. His Mustang goes to no airshows, his hangar is not open to the public. Who is it educating? It is educating a movie star and his wife and friends how cool it is to have your own fighter plane. Or even folks like our friends Beasley and Greenwood. To get educated by their planes we have to hope that they feel like taking them to some airshows we can attend. Not good enough!
Yes, they are their planes and they can do what they want with them. But that's only because we the public did not have to give them a gift of a wreck. If we did, we would have the right to expect more than that. The government museum should secure a commitment that the recoverer will restore the plane and make it available for public display during regular business hours and satisfy itself that there is financial ability and a good faith intention to do so within a reasonable time. The government should also have either a no-sale clause or a first option to purchase. Otherwise we are just talking about a simple conversion of public into private property in which we, the public, get the shaft. It is irritating when recoverers think they should have the right to take public propery and keep it with no strings attached; they seem to think public means not "for the good of all" but "for the good of who gets there first with a crane." They even have the nerve to complain about the red tape! The sense of entitlement boggles my mind frankly.
August
Yes, they are their planes and they can do what they want with them. But that's only because we the public did not have to give them a gift of a wreck. If we did, we would have the right to expect more than that. The government museum should secure a commitment that the recoverer will restore the plane and make it available for public display during regular business hours and satisfy itself that there is financial ability and a good faith intention to do so within a reasonable time. The government should also have either a no-sale clause or a first option to purchase. Otherwise we are just talking about a simple conversion of public into private property in which we, the public, get the shaft. It is irritating when recoverers think they should have the right to take public propery and keep it with no strings attached; they seem to think public means not "for the good of all" but "for the good of who gets there first with a crane." They even have the nerve to complain about the red tape! The sense of entitlement boggles my mind frankly.
August
Mon Nov 17, 2008 9:41 am
First, I have to disagree with you on that August. The argument is that the government DID knowingly and intentionally abandon the property - because they felt it was in the public interest. Either the items were wrecked, and junked, and they felt it was not in the public interest to spend the money to restore the items, or they felt that dumping them back on the civilian market would cause other economic concerns (I disagree with that one, but it was a reason) and so, much equipment was left as it was - really, and truly abandoned, and there was NO serious public outcry. Other equipment was pushed overboard in brand new condition. So NO, they are NO longer public assets. In fact, they could be liabilities if someone decided to start suing for damages due to corroding metals, fuel and oil leaks, explosives, etc... (BTW, I strongly oppose anyone trying to do THAT!). The PUBLIC is NOT losing anything. In fact, if the government decided to do all of the recoveries, or turn all of the sites into mini-national parks, with a police agency, etc... they public would still be for it as someone has to pay those salaries, and the restoration/preservation costs.
Legitimate folks have gone back and recovered aircraft that would have otherwise continued to sit and rot, and have restored them to flying condition. This is good, and I don't care if it's the Collins Foundation, or Tom Cruise who does it. It's still in better condition and being treated more responsibly. And on top of that, while some owners may indeed have them for the "cool" factor, I am not going to be the first to say that I can jump into their head and determine their motives.
Also, forcing an owner to sign some kind of display / historical clause in my opinion is a REALLY BAD idea. It costs money to maintain a museum (even with a largely volunteer crew) or display an aircraft at an airshow and even if someone is going to be willing to spend the money to restore the plane, they may not be able to fulfill this - especially if they fall into financially hard times, or if there is a glut (ie. too many Mustangs on the circuit) of aircraft on the airshow market, a serious drop in museum attendance, etc... The Museums aren't going to be better able to care for the aircraft (can you imagine 100 Mustangs being taken back by the USAF? Where would they put them - outside like so many of their other aircraft???) than the folks who currently own them.
To me, it is irritating when folks think that the government is so almighty and worship-worthy, and that private enterprise of legitimately abandoned, deteriorating items is somehow evil and that they should be forced to jump through red tape!
BTW, How many L-1s does the government have? I know of five or so in existence. One, the squadron I'm a part of found and restored, and I believe it's now in a museum in Alaska. Three are apparently in the Weeks museum. The fifth - in the NMUSAF - is an aircraft that was recovered by a private individual, and later donated to the museum after his death. If not for visionary wreck-chasers and aircraft lovers, this type would probably be extinct now. I'm pretty sure that a good number of their rarer aircraft came through private hands before going back to the USAF.
Ryan
Legitimate folks have gone back and recovered aircraft that would have otherwise continued to sit and rot, and have restored them to flying condition. This is good, and I don't care if it's the Collins Foundation, or Tom Cruise who does it. It's still in better condition and being treated more responsibly. And on top of that, while some owners may indeed have them for the "cool" factor, I am not going to be the first to say that I can jump into their head and determine their motives.
Also, forcing an owner to sign some kind of display / historical clause in my opinion is a REALLY BAD idea. It costs money to maintain a museum (even with a largely volunteer crew) or display an aircraft at an airshow and even if someone is going to be willing to spend the money to restore the plane, they may not be able to fulfill this - especially if they fall into financially hard times, or if there is a glut (ie. too many Mustangs on the circuit) of aircraft on the airshow market, a serious drop in museum attendance, etc... The Museums aren't going to be better able to care for the aircraft (can you imagine 100 Mustangs being taken back by the USAF? Where would they put them - outside like so many of their other aircraft???) than the folks who currently own them.
To me, it is irritating when folks think that the government is so almighty and worship-worthy, and that private enterprise of legitimately abandoned, deteriorating items is somehow evil and that they should be forced to jump through red tape!
BTW, How many L-1s does the government have? I know of five or so in existence. One, the squadron I'm a part of found and restored, and I believe it's now in a museum in Alaska. Three are apparently in the Weeks museum. The fifth - in the NMUSAF - is an aircraft that was recovered by a private individual, and later donated to the museum after his death. If not for visionary wreck-chasers and aircraft lovers, this type would probably be extinct now. I'm pretty sure that a good number of their rarer aircraft came through private hands before going back to the USAF.
Ryan
Mon Nov 17, 2008 10:09 am
mustangdriver wrote:My deal is that anything belonging to the pilot and crew including remains be dealt with in a respectful manner.
Agreed.
After that it should be like Gettysburg Civil War battle Field. If you find something in the field that is a relic, you are supposed to bring it to the museum there. After the museum looks at if and photos it, it is decided if it is needed for the collection. If it is needed, an honest deal is worked out, if it is not needed, then the person that found it can keep it. Why won't this work for aircraft? People need to understand that if you find a TBM from Midway, that if might be best to restore it at the NMNA. However if you find a TBM in Lake Michigan or wherever that is not a combat vet, then it should be pulled up, photoed by the museum, and left with the person that raised it, and restored to whatever status they wish. Does this sound fair?
No. First, it's not quite the same situation as at the ACW battlefields. They are designated National Parks and you are not supposed to search or dig for artifacts per federal law. Second, say someone were to come across 5 Midway birds... The Navy made NO attempt to recover them and has not maintained the aircraft on their inventory - which is why some would argue that they should no longer have claim to them. As far as I can see it, the big costs with recoveries are hiring persons and equipment in the first place, transportation, doing the search for the items, and stabilizing the items after they're brought up. Economy of effort would indicate that it shouldn't be to much harder, and in fact might be more economical to bring up multiple aircraft at once, rather than one at a time. Personally, if I found five Midway aircraft and if Pensacola was willing to help with the costs, I would be pretty happy to let the Navy have 3 or even 4 of them. After all, I like museums as well, and would like the story to get out. On the other hand, why should they mooch off of my time, effort, search, and money to hire the recovery and restoration teams when they don't have any current intentions of recovering it in the first place? I think that the Navy should have to prove either that the aircraft is still on their inventory legally, or that they know where the relatively accurate location of the aircraft they want is, their intentions for the aircraft, and a reasonable recovery strategy in order to claim ownership - within a budget (ie. there's no way that even the US Government could recover 1000 aircraft next year)! Then, let folks go after the rest.
The real problem now is a bad law that some bad apples at NHC that got into a Congressional bill that passed. That currently ties even Pensacola's hands with recovery efforts. Hopefully some folks will eventually find a resolution to this problem in the near future.
Ryan
Mon Nov 17, 2008 10:17 am
Ryan, I didn't say the aircraft are the government's, I said they are the public's.
A TBM on the bottom of Lake Michigan, even if the government has abandoned it, does not belong to you, even if you get to it first. It belongs to all of us. "Finders keepers" and is a good rule for second-graders, a bad rule for heritage preservation. "First come first served" is a good rule for allocating Hannah Montana tickets, but, again, a bad rule for allocating historic artifacts.
We need to decide how best to arrange that the aircraft are preserved for the benefit of all of us, the public. The warm fuzzy knowledge that an aircraft is not extinct because someone has restored it for his private collection where I can't see it is no good to me. I would just as soon the zebra mussels have it.
I'm sorry you don't trust the government to act on behalf of the public, but, you know what? I don't trust you to do it. At least the government, at some level, is accountable to me and the rest of the public. You aren't.
August
A TBM on the bottom of Lake Michigan, even if the government has abandoned it, does not belong to you, even if you get to it first. It belongs to all of us. "Finders keepers" and is a good rule for second-graders, a bad rule for heritage preservation. "First come first served" is a good rule for allocating Hannah Montana tickets, but, again, a bad rule for allocating historic artifacts.
We need to decide how best to arrange that the aircraft are preserved for the benefit of all of us, the public. The warm fuzzy knowledge that an aircraft is not extinct because someone has restored it for his private collection where I can't see it is no good to me. I would just as soon the zebra mussels have it.
I'm sorry you don't trust the government to act on behalf of the public, but, you know what? I don't trust you to do it. At least the government, at some level, is accountable to me and the rest of the public. You aren't.
August
Mon Nov 17, 2008 10:24 am
I'm sorry you don't trust the government to act on behalf of the public, but, you know what? I don't trust you to do it. At least the government, at some level, is accountable to me and the rest of the public. You aren't.
So do you prefer the NHC to Kermit Weeks, or Doug Champlin, etc.?