Re: Input and opinion please...
Thu May 13, 2010 1:22 pm
Tom,
I would strenuously disagree with the policy as written and with the other contributors who say that an operating aircraft is not an artifact.
If it is not an artifact, then it is something else -- a toy, maybe. Whatever it is, it has no place at a museum or sucking up the museum's money if it is not an artifact and treated as such.
I agree with the other posters who have favored characterizing it as an artifact and making the fewest and least intrusive alterations necessary for safe operation. Also, the parameters of operation should be considered with historical integrity in mind. For example if it is determined that it would be necessary to install a modern IFR panel in order to take it to remote airshows, consideration should be given to not going to remote airshows in order to reduce the amount of compromises to the artifact.
It follows from all of this that the curatorial staff should be very much involved in decisions involving the aircraft.
Good principle; terrible example. Gary do you have the foggiest notion how much litigation over the 2nd Amendment there has been?
August
I would strenuously disagree with the policy as written and with the other contributors who say that an operating aircraft is not an artifact.
If it is not an artifact, then it is something else -- a toy, maybe. Whatever it is, it has no place at a museum or sucking up the museum's money if it is not an artifact and treated as such.
I agree with the other posters who have favored characterizing it as an artifact and making the fewest and least intrusive alterations necessary for safe operation. Also, the parameters of operation should be considered with historical integrity in mind. For example if it is determined that it would be necessary to install a modern IFR panel in order to take it to remote airshows, consideration should be given to not going to remote airshows in order to reduce the amount of compromises to the artifact.
It follows from all of this that the curatorial staff should be very much involved in decisions involving the aircraft.
"I would also makes sure that the policy was written in such a way that it did not require an attorney to translate it. See 2nd Ammendment Constitution United States."
Good principle; terrible example. Gary do you have the foggiest notion how much litigation over the 2nd Amendment there has been?
August
Re: Input and opinion please...
Thu May 13, 2010 1:51 pm
k5083 wrote:Tom,
I would strenuously disagree with the policy as written and with the other contributors who say that an operating aircraft is not an artifact.
If it is not an artifact, then it is something else -- a toy, maybe. Whatever it is, it has no place at a museum or sucking up the museum's money if it is not an artifact and treated as such.
I agree with the other posters who have favored characterizing it as an artifact and making the fewest and least intrusive alterations necessary for safe operation. Also, the parameters of operation should be considered with historical integrity in mind. For example if it is determined that it would be necessary to install a modern IFR panel in order to take it to remote airshows, consideration should be given to not going to remote airshows in order to reduce the amount of compromises to the artifact.
It follows from all of this that the curatorial staff should be very much involved in decisions involving the aircraft."I would also makes sure that the policy was written in such a way that it did not require an attorney to translate it. See 2nd Ammendment Constitution United States."
Good principle; terrible example. Gary do you have the foggiest notion how much litigation over the 2nd Amendment there has been?
August
OK...keep in mind that when I looked in the mirror this morning, I didn't see an restoration expert looking back so here goes.
August...I must disagree with your "don't go to remote airshows" reasoning. If you could go to an airshow that had
an airplane that you've wanted to see all your life, would you decline going to see it because the instrument panel/seat/brakes/etc. was not 100% authentic. I think not. People go to see them fly. It's the appearance that draws the crowds that pay the bills. Not whether the seat/panel/etc. isn't authentic. If it's "concourse" you desire, fine. Go to those. I just want to see something that's WWII vintage fly. If it takes some modern electronic/mechanical upgrades to get it to where I can see it fly, go for it.
Just MHO
Mudge the magnanimous
Last edited by Mudge on Thu May 13, 2010 3:41 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Re: Input and opinion please...
Thu May 13, 2010 3:27 pm
k5083 wrote:Tom,
I would strenuously disagree with the policy as written and with the other contributors who say that an operating aircraft is not an artifact.
If it is not an artifact, then it is something else -- a toy, maybe. Whatever it is, it has no place at a museum or sucking up the museum's money if it is not an artifact and treated as such.
I agree with the other posters who have favored characterizing it as an artifact and making the fewest and least intrusive alterations necessary for safe operation. Also, the parameters of operation should be considered with historical integrity in mind. For example if it is determined that it would be necessary to install a modern IFR panel in order to take it to remote airshows, consideration should be given to not going to remote airshows in order to reduce the amount of compromises to the artifact.
It follows from all of this that the curatorial staff should be very much involved in decisions involving the aircraft."I would also makes sure that the policy was written in such a way that it did not require an attorney to translate it. See 2nd Ammendment Constitution United States."
Good principle; terrible example. Gary do you have the foggiest notion how much litigation over the 2nd Amendment there has been?
August
August, Trust me, I know that volumes have been written in an attempt in the interpretation of the 2nd Amendment, when anyone without a degree in Rocket engineering, can clearly read it and understand it. “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State , the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”
Seems pretty clear cut to me and no interpretation is required, and I only have two years of college, but what do I know….But, that is not what this thread is about and merely meant as an eggzample. I will not discuss Our crumbling Constitution in this forum.
Re: Input and opinion please...
Thu May 13, 2010 5:30 pm
August
Thanks for the input...I think you and I are on the same page.
I have no problem with private owners altering their private property to use as they wish and if that means upgraded panels etc go for it.
But a museum should be held to a different standard in my mind...not to critize others that depend on airshow revenue to make their museum operation work...a museum's first job is to survive.
In our case we do not and have no intention of having air show revenue as a line item, operating aircraft are a showcase of our historical mandate and an attraction to the facility...we are fortunate we have this little bit of a luxury.
Mudge
"August...I must disagree with your "don't go to remote airshows" reasoning. If you could go to an airshow that had
an airplane that you've wanted to see all your life, would you decline going to see it because the instrument panel/seat/brakes/etc. was not 100% authentic. I think not. People go to see them fly. It's the appearance that draws the crowds that pay the bills. Not whether the seat/panel/etc. isn't authentic. If it's "concourse" you desire, fine. Go to those. I just want to see something that's WWII vintage fly. If it takes some modern electronic/mechanical upgrades to get it to where I can see it fly, go for it.
Just MHO"
I agree with you view as well and we have paid private operators to bring their aircraft in for events and have no issue with them modifiying their aircraft to make it pay for itself.
Gary 1954
I am not going near your second amendment discussion...I'm Canadian and don't know enough to open my mouth and insert my foot on that topic.
Thanks for all the thoughts everyone.
Tom
Thanks for the input...I think you and I are on the same page.
I have no problem with private owners altering their private property to use as they wish and if that means upgraded panels etc go for it.
But a museum should be held to a different standard in my mind...not to critize others that depend on airshow revenue to make their museum operation work...a museum's first job is to survive.
In our case we do not and have no intention of having air show revenue as a line item, operating aircraft are a showcase of our historical mandate and an attraction to the facility...we are fortunate we have this little bit of a luxury.
Mudge
"August...I must disagree with your "don't go to remote airshows" reasoning. If you could go to an airshow that had
an airplane that you've wanted to see all your life, would you decline going to see it because the instrument panel/seat/brakes/etc. was not 100% authentic. I think not. People go to see them fly. It's the appearance that draws the crowds that pay the bills. Not whether the seat/panel/etc. isn't authentic. If it's "concourse" you desire, fine. Go to those. I just want to see something that's WWII vintage fly. If it takes some modern electronic/mechanical upgrades to get it to where I can see it fly, go for it.
Just MHO"
I agree with you view as well and we have paid private operators to bring their aircraft in for events and have no issue with them modifiying their aircraft to make it pay for itself.
Gary 1954
I am not going near your second amendment discussion...I'm Canadian and don't know enough to open my mouth and insert my foot on that topic.
Thanks for all the thoughts everyone.
Tom
Re: Input and opinion please...
Thu May 13, 2010 6:30 pm
Mudge wrote:August...I must disagree with your "don't go to remote airshows" reasoning. If you could go to an airshow that had
an airplane that you've wanted to see all your life, would you decline going to see it because the instrument panel/seat/brakes/etc. was not 100% authentic. I think not. People go to see them fly. It's the appearance that draws the crowds that pay the bills. Not whether the seat/panel/etc. isn't authentic. If it's "concourse" you desire, fine. Go to those. I just want to see something that's WWII vintage fly. If it takes some modern electronic/mechanical upgrades to get it to where I can see it fly, go for it.
We may actually agree, Mudge. I didn't quite say "don't go to remote airshows," I said "consider not going to remote airshows if you would have to alter the artifact too much." Maybe it is not really necessary to install an IFR panel to go to remote airshows. Maybe it is necessary, but the alteration will be deemed acceptable. The point is just that historical integrity should be considered as a factor, not that it should trump everything else.
August the agreeable
Re: Input and opinion please...
Thu May 13, 2010 6:34 pm
gary1954 wrote:August, Trust me, I know that volumes have been written in an attempt in the interpretation of the 2nd Amendment, when anyone without a degree in Rocket engineering, can clearly read it and understand it. “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State , the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”
Seems pretty clear cut to me and no interpretation is required, and I only have two years of college, but what do I know….But, that is not what this thread is about and merely meant as an eggzample. I will not discuss Our crumbling Constitution in this forum.
I agree with you there. I will only point out that if the part you put in bold type were the entire 2nd amendment, it would indeed be clear. A lot of the litigation has centered on that part you chose not to emphasize, and whether/how it qualifies the other part.
August
Re: Input and opinion please...
Fri May 14, 2010 6:49 am
Very interesting question, there, Tom, and some interesting and useful replies.
What is the museum's definition of an 'artefact'? If there isn't a (precise / exclusive) definition, but this kind of prescription is being made, then maybe there needs to be a definition agreed. It may seem trivial to those outside the museum business, but it's a core factor underpinning the museum's acquisition and retention policy. If there is a definition, it may just answer the question.
As you've said, you are asking for opinion - so I'd ask what do others do - what's the peer (or benchmark) position? Most national level collections (Smithsonian; Science Museum, UK; RAF Museum; NMUSNA and NMUSAF) specifically exclude flying aircraft. In (your) Canada the National Aviation Collection used to fly several aircraft (Avro 504Ns and Sopwith Snipe) and latterly, has run engines on aircraft like the Hawker Hind. What was their policy? When and why did it change? Should be obtainable.
(There are, of course, also active aircraft museum collections, such as Vintage Wings of Canada and the Temora Aviation Museum in Australia, but in those cases demonstration of the aircraft and airworthy active aircraft are a pre-requisite of the collection - so a different thing. The Shuttleworth Collection fits this model, but should be considered due to a long-term successful and safe operation of many significant, unique historic aircraft.)
In the UK, the RAF Museum (an independent but part-RAF funded museum) does not operate any active aircraft, but the Battle of Britain Memorial Flight is an active unit of the RAF, not a museum. The BBMF aircraft are on RAF charge, and I understand have to adhere to (current) RAF standards as far as possible. Their are, and have been significant deviations from originality with BBMF aircraft (the Lancaster is fitted for dual control, for instance, which is not unknown, but atypical for a Bomber Command example).
In Australia the RAAF Museum (a unit of the RAAF and a national level museum collection) operate five aircraft, one a replica (a 1970s Transavia built Sopwith Pup) a Tiger Moth, CT-4 and CAC Winjeel, all pretty standard, while the CAC Mustang has a number of variations from originality for operational advantage - scheme, radios, no guns etc.) I may be able to find out what the aircraft's status is as regards curatorial and originality / preservation expectations. Maintenance-wise they are (generally speaking, I understand) expected to adhere to both best current practice and expectation of both RAAF standards and civil requirements; effectively meaning that the highest civil or military requirement is that to be met, no easy task.
As August's touched on, if they aren't artefacts, then what are they? A case could be made for them being 'demonstration tools' or 'educational accessories' which might sound odd, but if we consider, say, a museum-made wind tunnel for use in demonstration to school groups of flight theory, we'd not expect that to be a 'museum artefact' of local or historical significance. In the same way a non-scale flying replica of, say, a Spitfire in City of Edmonton colours would be of use for demonstration and education, but not being a real Spitfire have no historical value in itself. However if the museum was gifted an original W.W.II era airworthy aircraft and the gift mandated funds and a requirement to keep it flying (nice bit of imagination, eh?) it would be inappropriate to make permanent changes to the aircraft purely for modern operational advantage or ease.
Which leads us to 'reversible changes'. If the museum decides an original operational aircraft is a museum artefact, then any changes should be reversible (or if not, they should be vital, not just desirable). Taking an earlier example, changing a wheel brake system or adding modern navaids may be a very good idea for operational reasons, and is fine as they can be reversed once/if the aircraft retires to static status in the museum - the original type wheels or cockpit configuration can be re-installed. Items like a low maintenance paint scheme require a greater effort to return to a more prototypical example of matt paint, and obviously original paint can't be re-applied!
The other issue is the risk factor. Any operational aircraft will consume original material during operation, which may be against policy. Likewise the risk in operating a machine is greater than holding it in inhibited static preservation - particularly the risk of total loss involving loss of life - and not to be overlooked - negative publicity for the organisation. That's balanced against the advantages of demonstrating an aircraft, and there are (obviously) many different cases where deciding on either option makes perfectly good sense.
There are good cases for operating substitute (replica) aircraft and likewise cases for operating original aircraft, but the decision process / rationale has to be clear. For instance the RAAF Museum holds another example of each of the four airworthy original types, but not another Pup replica as its historical significance (and originality) is minor.
What is the museum's definition of an 'artefact'? If there isn't a (precise / exclusive) definition, but this kind of prescription is being made, then maybe there needs to be a definition agreed. It may seem trivial to those outside the museum business, but it's a core factor underpinning the museum's acquisition and retention policy. If there is a definition, it may just answer the question.
As you've said, you are asking for opinion - so I'd ask what do others do - what's the peer (or benchmark) position? Most national level collections (Smithsonian; Science Museum, UK; RAF Museum; NMUSNA and NMUSAF) specifically exclude flying aircraft. In (your) Canada the National Aviation Collection used to fly several aircraft (Avro 504Ns and Sopwith Snipe) and latterly, has run engines on aircraft like the Hawker Hind. What was their policy? When and why did it change? Should be obtainable.
(There are, of course, also active aircraft museum collections, such as Vintage Wings of Canada and the Temora Aviation Museum in Australia, but in those cases demonstration of the aircraft and airworthy active aircraft are a pre-requisite of the collection - so a different thing. The Shuttleworth Collection fits this model, but should be considered due to a long-term successful and safe operation of many significant, unique historic aircraft.)
In the UK, the RAF Museum (an independent but part-RAF funded museum) does not operate any active aircraft, but the Battle of Britain Memorial Flight is an active unit of the RAF, not a museum. The BBMF aircraft are on RAF charge, and I understand have to adhere to (current) RAF standards as far as possible. Their are, and have been significant deviations from originality with BBMF aircraft (the Lancaster is fitted for dual control, for instance, which is not unknown, but atypical for a Bomber Command example).
In Australia the RAAF Museum (a unit of the RAAF and a national level museum collection) operate five aircraft, one a replica (a 1970s Transavia built Sopwith Pup) a Tiger Moth, CT-4 and CAC Winjeel, all pretty standard, while the CAC Mustang has a number of variations from originality for operational advantage - scheme, radios, no guns etc.) I may be able to find out what the aircraft's status is as regards curatorial and originality / preservation expectations. Maintenance-wise they are (generally speaking, I understand) expected to adhere to both best current practice and expectation of both RAAF standards and civil requirements; effectively meaning that the highest civil or military requirement is that to be met, no easy task.
As August's touched on, if they aren't artefacts, then what are they? A case could be made for them being 'demonstration tools' or 'educational accessories' which might sound odd, but if we consider, say, a museum-made wind tunnel for use in demonstration to school groups of flight theory, we'd not expect that to be a 'museum artefact' of local or historical significance. In the same way a non-scale flying replica of, say, a Spitfire in City of Edmonton colours would be of use for demonstration and education, but not being a real Spitfire have no historical value in itself. However if the museum was gifted an original W.W.II era airworthy aircraft and the gift mandated funds and a requirement to keep it flying (nice bit of imagination, eh?) it would be inappropriate to make permanent changes to the aircraft purely for modern operational advantage or ease.
Which leads us to 'reversible changes'. If the museum decides an original operational aircraft is a museum artefact, then any changes should be reversible (or if not, they should be vital, not just desirable). Taking an earlier example, changing a wheel brake system or adding modern navaids may be a very good idea for operational reasons, and is fine as they can be reversed once/if the aircraft retires to static status in the museum - the original type wheels or cockpit configuration can be re-installed. Items like a low maintenance paint scheme require a greater effort to return to a more prototypical example of matt paint, and obviously original paint can't be re-applied!
The other issue is the risk factor. Any operational aircraft will consume original material during operation, which may be against policy. Likewise the risk in operating a machine is greater than holding it in inhibited static preservation - particularly the risk of total loss involving loss of life - and not to be overlooked - negative publicity for the organisation. That's balanced against the advantages of demonstrating an aircraft, and there are (obviously) many different cases where deciding on either option makes perfectly good sense.
There are good cases for operating substitute (replica) aircraft and likewise cases for operating original aircraft, but the decision process / rationale has to be clear. For instance the RAAF Museum holds another example of each of the four airworthy original types, but not another Pup replica as its historical significance (and originality) is minor.
Re: Input and opinion please...
Fri May 14, 2010 9:27 am
First...thanks for the input it is appreciated.
"What is the museum's definition of an 'artefact'?"
Short answer for our facility...items deemed of historic significance relating to the mandate of the Alberta Aviation Museum accepted to the archival register.
Obvious second part...Mandate
To Preserve, Educate and Promote the Aviation History of
a) Edmonton, Alberta
b) Alberta and the North
c) Canada as it relates to a) and b)
d) The world as it relates to a) and b)
With such an extensive history in Edmonton we have not yet made it past a) and our collection all has an Edmonton Provenance. (mind you Edmonton has such a huge connection to the north we do tie to it even with the current focus)
Of all the aircraft (and other artifacts for that matter) the only one not accepted into archival register is a homebuilt bi plane replica which was acquired specifically to do a series of Centennial Flight recreations (and now the BCATP Tour) as we did not want to risk an aircraft of historic significance in what were difficult flights.
"As you've said, you are asking for opinion - so I'd ask what do others do"
I have through the Museums associations taken this step and am awaiting reply...initial are trending to artifact first.
I appreciate your other references and in fact feel that safety and operational issues should come first...but the historic value and its presentation are important pieces and I am hoping to find a balance.
"There are good cases for operating substitute (replica) aircraft"
As noted above...I agree.
Thank you again for the input and insight into what others are doing.
Tom H
"What is the museum's definition of an 'artefact'?"
Short answer for our facility...items deemed of historic significance relating to the mandate of the Alberta Aviation Museum accepted to the archival register.
Obvious second part...Mandate
To Preserve, Educate and Promote the Aviation History of
a) Edmonton, Alberta
b) Alberta and the North
c) Canada as it relates to a) and b)
d) The world as it relates to a) and b)
With such an extensive history in Edmonton we have not yet made it past a) and our collection all has an Edmonton Provenance. (mind you Edmonton has such a huge connection to the north we do tie to it even with the current focus)
Of all the aircraft (and other artifacts for that matter) the only one not accepted into archival register is a homebuilt bi plane replica which was acquired specifically to do a series of Centennial Flight recreations (and now the BCATP Tour) as we did not want to risk an aircraft of historic significance in what were difficult flights.
"As you've said, you are asking for opinion - so I'd ask what do others do"
I have through the Museums associations taken this step and am awaiting reply...initial are trending to artifact first.
I appreciate your other references and in fact feel that safety and operational issues should come first...but the historic value and its presentation are important pieces and I am hoping to find a balance.
"There are good cases for operating substitute (replica) aircraft"
As noted above...I agree.
Thank you again for the input and insight into what others are doing.
Tom H