Can of Worms

Dan Jones · **Posted:** Fri Apr 01, 2005 5:56 am

You know what's interesting to consider with all of this, Rob; in many of these cases, an airplane in question may have belonged to just one individual far longer than the Navy or anyone else ever owned it, let alone it's whole civilian owned post-Navy history. I wonder how that consideration would play out in the courts, especially considering that the current owners of these airplanes (99% at least) would have purchased or traded for these aircraft in good faith.

Dan

airnutz · **Posted:** Fri Apr 01, 2005 7:06 am

Hoo Boy!!!!...I can see the lawyers "bombing-up" right now! The best
democracy money can buy! And the Gub'ment ain't got the pockets for
an "en masse" defense maneuver right now...

Robbo · **Posted:** Fri Apr 01, 2005 7:09 am

Rob, you simply don't get any message across once you stop being polite. Infact you stand a good chance of reducing support when you do so.

There are some very big and influential names who own ex-Navy airframes and if they felt there was any danger of that ownership being wrested from them, you'd see some pretty able campaigning taking place withoutthe need for steam to emerge from anyone's ears.

I tend to think that the main intention of this bill is to prevent plundering of sunken airframes that might contain human remains. No more, no less. Perhaps the bill has been strengthened beyond that original intent to provide a buffer against future pressure from those who seek to gain from such treasure hunting?

Just my opinion, but you're welcome to it.

Rob

Robbo · **Posted:** Fri Apr 01, 2005 7:48 am

Rob, in various places around the world it might be possible to cross a few palms with silver to recover planes that are considered war graves by many people. The Navy can't do anything to prevent these recoveries, but by asserting ownership of the airframes they can at least exert some control to make such recoveries such a financial risk that they don't take place without their approval and with a level of dignity that befits the sacfrice of those who lost their lives.

Just look at it this way and I think it makes a great deal more sense than the way I've seen it painted on here recently.

Rob

airnutz · **Posted:** Fri Apr 01, 2005 8:17 am

Hi, Robbo! Sorry but your giving the NHC a heart it professes to having...
but they have exhibited little of in action. Mr Cralley might give a clue...

http://warbirdinformationexchange.org/p ... php?t=3147

They are "stepping-up" to tell folks what to do with cast-off PUBLIC
property, which we the citizens care about saving. Many of we concerned
Americans are Vets, family members, historians of one ilk or another,
the faithful of saving technology we love, and patriotic folk....and
any shade and mixture of those colours that you can imagine.
Now add my statement in with the rememberence, that we Americans will
go thru extremes to bring our Dead back home. How can the government justify letting history rot at it's own gates...but seek to stifle the citizenry
from privately funding those projects to which they cannot afford? We
have seen the government on many occasions here attempt their
own recoveries ...and miserably "botch it", with waste of the aircraft..as
well as a total disregard for the archeology!!

We are dealing with a beauracracy which is bent on becoming our master,
rather than our employee and a collective overseer of fairplay for all!

Please excuse me for my indignation..and my exit..I must fire-off an
e-mail to the French Embassy, to see if all 30 pilots who attended the
"festivities at Dien Bien Phu" were honoured with the "Insignia of Knights
of the French Legion of Honour" recently awarded by the French
government.

happy trails....

Rob Mears · **Posted:** Fri Apr 01, 2005 10:50 am

If the NHC is foolish enough to step up to try and reclaim some of the airworthy ex-Navy planes I'm thinking about, they will set their entire agenda back to square one in an instant. As we've seen in the recent past, one phone call from a single senator can be enough to humiliate and quash a years-long lawsuit by the NHC. I dare say the combined will of the owners/operators of the privately owned warbirds in question should make a quick meal of the NHC's policies - once they sense an actual threat. The big money players who operate some of these birds do not exist in a vacuum. Either they or their close friends will no doubt have equitable sway with the REAL decision makers in Congress. Can you imagine a dozen or more multi-millionaires just handing over million dollar aircraft without rallying themselves and their aviator friends for an all out show of force against those who fart out conceptual policy at the NHC? The whole game would be redirected right over the head of the NHC quicker than they could answer the phone to accept their demotions.

I personally think the power players in the warbird community have not responded to the NHC's proposed aegenda because they don't yet feel wholly threatened by such a cartoonish concept. We're talking about owners and CEO's of major corporations. People with connections that, in a concerted effort as the result of being pissed off, could go a long way toward sacking the re-election any public official idiotic enough to let such a bunk proposition pass under their noses without a rebuttal.

The NHC may be able to preturb one warbird owner at a time, but attempting to affectively undermine a large sect of the warbird community all at once? I'll definitely be ringside to relish in the resulting counterstrike.

TimAPNY · **Posted:** Fri Apr 01, 2005 11:48 am

It does appear they (the NHC) are taking baby bites at this point.

I think of the Gun Control measure Down-Under about 12 years ago. I heard over and over Can't, won't happen here! Then it did.

kennsmithf2g · **Posted:** Fri Apr 01, 2005 10:08 pm

Wouldn't the time for the Gov't to have stepped in with the MAP aircraft have been the time that they were origionally imported back into the US? After all, the Gov't has already allowed these aircraft to be titled to new owners. It's not like they are hiding or anything. Would some kind of statute of limitations apply to these aircraft? Even aircraft with questionable information decades old that have been allowed to be titled. Wouldn't that be consider some kind of implied permission from the Gov't for a change in the origional status of the salability of the aircraft? If not the case,maybe the State Department should go after the the governments that violated the origional agreements and sold the aircraft back. Who is to say that an aitcraft built from parts that the parts were the "distroyed" airframe and so all points were kept.

With enough elbow grease and technology, anything cane be rebuilt.

As a taxpayer, I would rather see the planes flying then scrapped or regulated to a dusty museum (spent a summer dusting in a local museum) . And no, I will probably never be able to own one myself.

Just my 2 cents.

Kenn

Wolverine · **Posted:** Sat Apr 02, 2005 9:38 am

I agree w/Kenn. Sortof...
Methinks a TBD or SB2U would be better off on static display, no matter how much I'd like to see them fly.

srpatterson · **Posted:** Sat Apr 02, 2005 12:14 pm

kennsmithf2g wrote:

With enough elbow grease and technology, anything cane be rebuilt.

Kenn

Exactly. The only airframes that should not fly are those ORIGINAL, one of a kind aircraft that are preserved time capsules. The Arado 234 at Udvar-Hazy comes to mind, as does the Spitfire I in the Science Museum in London and the Typhoon in the RAF Museum Hendon.

Flying warbirds are rebuilt to make them safe to fly and display. And as we have unfortunately seen in the past, if an accident does occur the airframe can be completly rebuilt and returned to the skies or to a museum.

If the CAF SB2C were to have an accident it would be rebuilt to the same standards that it is in today. It's been done before, and it can be done again.

Steve Patterson

Warbird Information Exchange

Can of Worms

Who is online