JDK wrote:
Ryan, IF that text has any validity it wouldn't cover warbirds unless they were to be exported/imported as a weapon themselves (in most cases currently the issue has been on any weapons - guns etc) rather than the aircraft as a weapon carrier, or a weapon system part.
I remain unconvinced that in our area of interest it would require any modification to existing international ex-military aircraft trades. With reference to the US, we can think of the issue of exporting a Spitfire, and the issues over the Skyraider where guns in the crate and inadequate paperwork was the issue - not the aircraft.
I'm certainly not able to authoritatively interpret international legal speak, but there's clearly a good deal of disinformation being pushed by most participants of all perspectives in the matter.
Oscar, a warbird should be regarded as equivalent (at worst) to a deactivated machinegun - an important distinction.
Anyone advocating that private individuals should be able to operate fully-armed and capable aircraft originally intended for national operation and ownership will have a task on their hands, and not my support either. No country legislates for that now.
In short, we don't know (I certainly don't) but I'm not concerned from a warbird perspective.
Just a few thoughts,
Precedent-wise, we've already seen some sort of action on this kind of thing even without such a treaty, haven't we with the Skyraider from France and the US ATF or whomever it was that held up the aircraft?
On a side note, it would be interesting to see what kind of history there is with private individuals and fully-armed and capable aircraft. I doubt it would be seriously damaging.
Ryan
_________________
Aerial Photographer with
Red Wing Aerial Photography currently based at KRBD and tailwheel CFI.
Websites:
Texas Tailwheel Flight Training,
DoolittleRaid.com and
Lbirds.com.
The horse is prepared against the day of battle: but safety is of the LORD. - Prov. 21:31
- Train, Practice, Trust.