Warbird Community Rises to Meet Threat

**Bomber_12th** · April 19th, 2012, 08:05

April 18, 2012 - EAA and the Warbirds of America are joining with the Commemorative Air Force, Collings Foundation, and other warbird groups in opposition of a proposed amendment to the House National Defense Authorization Act (H.R. 4310) that could have a devastating effect on the fleet of civilian-operated historic military aircraft.

The amendment introduced by Rep. Michael Turner (R-OH) would bar the Department of Defense from loaning or gifting any U.S. military aircraft or parts to any entity except those that would put the aircraft on static display, such as in a museum. The amendment would preclude the aircraft from being loaned to private individuals, associations, or museums where there is any intent of flying the historic vintage warbirds, even at air shows or demonstrations of support for veterans.

Military branches such as the U.S. Air Force often do not donate aircraft to private groups outright; they instead "loan" them under a Defense Department provision called Title 10 to individuals and groups for indefinite periods. These private individuals and groups usually restore and operate the aircraft at their own expense to demonstrate these pieces of flying history to events such as EAA AirVenture Oshkosh.

"The Department of Defense has made numerous attempts through the years to preclude any former military aircraft from being flown in civilian hands," said Doug Macnair, EAA's vice president of government relations. "This view has never been supported by any safety or security imperative and is currently being couched as a move to supposedly 'preserve' rare military aircraft. We can be assured that the U.S. military has neither the funding nor the mandate to preserve these aircraft in flying condition, which would leave the only option for them to be used as static museum displays. That would truly be a tragedy and a loss of our aviation and military heritage."

Rep. Turner's district includes Dayton, Ohio, home of the National Museum of the U.S. Air Force, which has been adamant in its attempts to ground former U.S. military aircraft. Ironically, Dayton is the same site where this week more than 20 B-25 bombers - preserved and flown by private groups and individuals - are gathering in a public spectacle to honor the 70th anniversary of the famed Doolittle Raid on Japan.

EAA and the other warbird groups are working with staff in the House's Armed Services Committee and Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, as well as the House General Aviation Caucus as the Defense Authorization Bill goes into initial committee review next week and to the House floor in early May. Although the exact language of the amendment has not been shared with the aviation community or widely on Capitol Hill, Rep. Turner plans to push the amendment despite initial congressional opposition.

EAA and Warbirds of America recommend that members contact their congressional representatives, urging them to voice their opposition to the Turner amendment and in support of maintaining the private ability to restore and fly these historic aircraft.

From-
http://www.aviationpros.com/press_relea ... B120413002

***modelr*** · April 19th, 2012, 16:53

So, if I am reading this properly, EVERY warbird in existence today, whether flying or not, in civilian hands or not, restored with private money, or not, still belongs to the military???? And they want to recall/ground ALL of them??!!??

It says the USAF wants to keep all these "rare" aircraft for posterity. B.S. The only reason they are rare is because the military sold thousands of them for SCRAP!!! And the taxpayer did NOT recieve anything for that money!!

And while not trying to take this into political grounds, this is a Republican doing this!!?? (Yes, I am a conservative, but I do NOT think this is right.) The American taxpayers paid for ALL these aircraft, and they were then purchased, in most cases, by civilians, and restored by civilians, with civilian's money. As an ex-USAF member, this is enough to make me turn in my card.

***Willy*** · April 19th, 2012, 17:02

Sounds like they're taking a page from the Navy's book.

Folks around here are still not happy with how the USAF Museum snatched the Memphis Belle back in mid-restoration.

**GypsyBaron** · April 19th, 2012, 17:11

Originally Posted by modelr

-SNIP-
And while not trying to take this into political grounds, this is a Republican doing this!!?? (Yes, I am a conservative, but I do NOT think this is right.) T
-SNIP-

I would guess that it would not matter which party the congressman from that district belonged to. I suspect it is the
AF Museum in Dayton that is really pushing this.

Paul

**Bomber_12th** · April 20th, 2012, 08:06

Although I might not have it completely correct, I think some of this has to do with the fact that more complex and more modern former U.S. military aircraft are now being restored and flown in civilian hands, like the "Century-Series" fighters, the F-4 Phantom, A-4 Skyhawk, etc. I think there are some people connected to the USAF, who are pushing for this type of legislation behind the scenes, with the intention to prevent those types of aircraft from continuing to become airworthy and flown in civilian hands (i.e., it's those types of aircraft they mostly have in mind). The wording of such legislation, however, has a direct affect on all civilian operation of all former U.S. military aircraft, no matter how long ago they served. At least that is all of what I gather from this. These kinds of actions are always fueled by misconceptions and ignorance.

The line I like most in that article is the one about the pure and utter irony of the recent Doolittle Radiers reunion, where 20 airworthy civilian-owned B-25's flew and took part in, being held in Dayton, at the site of the USAF Museum.

**FSX68** · April 20th, 2012, 10:24

Originally Posted by Willy

Sounds like they're taking a page from the Navy's book.

Folks around here are still not happy with how the USAF Museum snatched the Memphis Belle back in mid-restoration.

I know what you are talking about. The Belle was in pieces in a hanger in Millington with the intent on restoring
it and then building a hanger in Memphis for it. The way I heard it, the pilot of the Belle dying words to his wife
were not to let it remain in Memphis. I know that the politicians had a deal with the Pilots wife to have it stay in Meemphis (as it should of-namesake and all). Memphis can really blow some opportunities i.e. the rock and roll

museum should of been in Memphis not Cleveland.

**FSX68** · April 20th, 2012, 10:27

Originally Posted by Bomber_12th

Although I might not have it completely correct, I think some of this has to do with the fact that more complex and more modern former U.S. military aircraft are now being restored and flown in civilian hands, like the "Century-Series" fighters, the F-4 Phantom, A-4 Skyhawk, etc. I think there are some people connected to the USAF, who are pushing for this type of legislation behind the scenes, with the intention to prevent those types of aircraft from continuing to become airworthy and flown in civilian hands (i.e., it's those types of aircraft they mostly have in mind). The wording of such legislation, however, has a direct affect on all civilian operation of all former U.S. military aircraft, no matter how long ago they served. At least that is all of what I gather from this. These kinds of actions are always fueled by misconceptions and ignorance.

The line I like most in that article is the one about the pure and utter irony of the recent Doolittle Radiers reunion, where 20 airworthy civilian-owned B-25's flew and took part in, being held in Dayton, at the site of the USAF Museum.

But what about some of those commerical airliners like Buffalo Airlines (ice pilots) that use those old DC3's and C-46's and make a living hauling (ice pilots) cargo. I know they are Canadians but would this "law" be applicable to private companies that purchased the older planes and use them for transport for profit?
What does this law say to those folks or is it applicable?

**Wittpilot** · April 20th, 2012, 14:04

Obviously there are plenty of us here at the Outhouse that will have an extreme interest in this bill.... I tried to find the bill itself, but when I did, it only mentioned the changes... i.e., remove paragraph 8, move up paragraph 9, etc.... Does anyone have any idea where I can find the original bill online?

-witt

***Willy*** · April 20th, 2012, 14:07

Most of the surviving WWII vintage aircraft were sold off as surplus post war by the government. The AF should have absolutely no claim on those. They were bought and paid for.

**Daveroo** · April 20th, 2012, 16:08

i was thinking that..if they were sold surplus,,after the war (WWII) like the huge P51 sale at McCellan...how coulld they possibly take them back legally?...oh wait....what am i saying?

***modelr*** · April 20th, 2012, 16:38

My EAA newsletter shows that this "policy" has also hit the CAF. They recalled the CAF's F-82 Twin Mustang, which was totally restored back to flying condition, at CAF and private donation's expense, but before it could be flown, the USAFM (Museum) said "NO!" and demanded it back, to be moved to Dayton. The CAF is battleing this in court, after the USAFM refused to allow the CAF to keep it on permanently grounded display in the CAF museum.

**Bomber_12th** · April 20th, 2012, 17:06

In my last post, I was going off what has cropped up in the past - and having read more into this, I don't think much of what I posted earlier has any relatable context to this in particular, at all. All of this, as initially mentioned in the article posted, seems to center around a select few warbirds that were donated under specified agreements with the USAF, which have allowed them to fly. As long as these aircraft are maintained according to the original agreements (the same that has to be adhered to with all static aircraft loaned out to museums/organizations by the USAF), those who possess and operate them are the legal owners of the aircraft. This also means that the aircraft, through the same agreements that also allowed them to be flown, could not be prevented from flying by the USAF as long as the aircraft are cared for under those original conditions. The only way, therefore, that such an aircraft could be grounded, is if the laws are changed, and that is what this is all about. Although there are a number of big warbird groups and individuals working to fight this legislation, it sounds like the one organization that has the most to be concerned about, is the Commemorative Air Force - the B-29 "FIFI" is owned by the CAF through one of those "Conditional Donations" as described.

More posted here: http://commemorativeairforce.org/?pa...&cms_page=1267

Based on this, it sounds like the USAF Museum has already been interested in grounding "FIFI" for a while now, but knows it can't do anything unless the current laws are changed.

**Daveroo** · April 20th, 2012, 18:01

well heres a knee jerk reaction...but how about we as aircraft fans..write all our congressmen and senitors..and demand that the USAFM be put into civilian hands..and be required to be funded only from civilian donations....make it illegal for the government to have control of anything they wouldnt use as combat capable now...take all theyre power away from them....

**Wittpilot** · April 20th, 2012, 18:22

While I believe the legislation is pointed towards more modern fighter planes, I also am worried that it could be a type of 'gateway' legislation... Essentially they start with something like this, and who knows what it could morph into in a few years. People will start to think, if an F-16 is a threat, then an F-4 Phantom is surely a threat; and if a Phantom is a threat, then surely an F-86 is bad... if an F-86 is bad, then obviously we have to take out T-33's... Then moving into P-51's, B-25's, then, then, B-17's!!!!!!!!

The phrase cold dead hands once again comes to mind...

I guess what I am worried about is if legislation is passed that heads aviation in this direction, where does it stop? IF a threat is what they are worried about, then what is the difference between a P-51, and a Cessna filled with explosives?????

**Bomber_12th** · April 20th, 2012, 18:30

Witt, that is one of the biggest issues I take with bills like these too - it's not always about what they seem to stand for now, but how they can be interpreted down the line or re-adapted for other causes.

***modelr*** · April 22nd, 2012, 06:25

Originally Posted by Bomber_12th

Witt, that is one of the biggest issues I take with bills like these too - it's not always about what they seem to stand for now, but how they can be interpreted down the line or re-adapted for other causes.

I agree, John. Especially in todays political climate! The politicians are doing all they can to take away our freedoms and rights, faster and faster. This is just another example. I think a lot of what might also be pushing this is the advanced accuracy of the restorations, to include as much of the original armament as possible. Even if it is presently non-operational, the political mind always worries that it is easily made/fixed to work, and might then be used on them. We are going through the same thing in the R/C hobby, as well.

**stansdds** · April 22nd, 2012, 09:05

Bomber_12th and modelr make excellent points. This could be devastating to the warbird community and I hope it either gets struck down or has some strict limitations to its scope. I understand not wanting a derelict B-52 (if there is such a thing) being restored to airworthy and used as a weapon, but is that likely to happen? Probably not, it would be much easier to use commercial aircraft ala 9/11. Given this representative's district, it is more likely the Air Force Museum's attempt to eliminate the flying of vintage aircraft and maybe fill museum spots and gate guardian spots with repossessed aircraft.

**Lateral-G** · April 24th, 2012, 05:34

I posted this article on several other forums with warbird enthusiasts and the general feeling was "meh, so what" or apathy towards the whole situation.

I fear that as current generations age there will be less and less interest in warbirds and keeping them flying.