DEMIL/Govt Confiscation
Wed Jan 07, 2009 6:39 pm
Seems like the provision for the govt to require demil and or confiscation of legally owned DOD equipment deemed significant by the Secretary may be coming back.
I understand that it may be part of the annual Defense Authorization Act for 2010.
We've managed to kill this 3 times but it may be that the stars are perfectly aligned this time. Sen Carl Levin (D) of Michigan is the Chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee again. He was a big proponent the last time this came up.
I understand that it may be part of the annual Defense Authorization Act for 2010.
We've managed to kill this 3 times but it may be that the stars are perfectly aligned this time. Sen Carl Levin (D) of Michigan is the Chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee again. He was a big proponent the last time this came up.
Wed Jan 07, 2009 7:36 pm
Oh NOOOOOO. How many more times must we fight this thing? It's like a cancer that just keeps coming back. I fear that some time in the near future, all warbirds will be grounded in the U. S. Whether it is demill procedures, the DOD wanting it's "illegally and unlawfully obtained" airframes back, insurance/liability concerns or the lack of Av gas, it's only a matter of time. Hopefully it will happen later than sooner, though. 
Wed Jan 07, 2009 8:26 pm
I figure the EPA will get us first..
Wed Jan 07, 2009 8:36 pm
EPA thats a good one. So while that C97 may burn at the most 150 gallons per hour per engine. The average 757 class airplane gets to drink its gallon per second per engine, and at normal taxi to take off and climb out, put out more pollutants than the c97 will in a 1000 mile trip, yet the recip will be blasted for its carbon foot print.
De mill etc. I just hope people that own those war birds get some good reverse engineering drawings of the parts before giving them up.
De mill etc. I just hope people that own those war birds get some good reverse engineering drawings of the parts before giving them up.
Wed Jan 07, 2009 9:00 pm
engguy wrote:EPA thats a good one. So while that C97 may burn at the most 150 gallons per hour per engine. The average 757 class airplane gets to drink its gallon per second per engine, and at normal taxi to take off and climb out, put out more pollutants than the c97 will in a 1000 mile trip, yet the recip will be blasted for its carbon foot print.
De mill etc. I just hope people that own those war birds get some good reverse engineering drawings of the parts before giving them up.
They sound and look better too!
The God of sweet piston aircraft!
Wed Jan 07, 2009 9:34 pm
No, not due to gas emissions, but the results of lead fuel, oil dripping everywhere (I dont care you cant escape that) and engguy, ever look at a ramp after starting a C-97 up? Looks like an asphalt parking lot.
That's why I figure the EPA will get us first.
That's why I figure the EPA will get us first.
Wed Jan 07, 2009 9:42 pm
engguy wrote:EPA thats a good one. So while that C97 may burn at the most 150 gallons per hour per engine. The average 757 class airplane gets to drink its gallon per second per engine, and at normal taxi to take off and climb out, put out more pollutants than the c97 will in a 1000 mile trip, yet the recip will be blasted for its carbon foot print.
You are right about that.
Wed Jan 07, 2009 9:48 pm
We've managed to kill this 3 times but it may be that the stars are perfectly aligned this time.
Not really, you should say nearly 3 times, because the last time it still did some damage. Now all x-military planes cannot be purchased from the government. Only trainers, and there are provisions in there which the FAA enforces as well. For example, if you somehow managed to buy an Air Force F-4 after the the date the latest reauth bill was passed, and you manage to restore it complete with an N number- then you apply for an airworthiness cert., the FAA DAR will not let it happen.
Sen Carl Levin (D) of Michigan is the Chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee again. He was a big proponent the last time this came up.
He's totally out to lunch, (MOD EDIT)
Wed Jan 07, 2009 10:11 pm
You know, I've been one of those types to be sorry to hear that another warbird is going to Europe, Australia, or other places. Now I'm thinking we need to start encouraging those folks to get at least two copies of everything they can get their hands on. One to fly and one to reverse-engineer. Oh, and I like the idea of them going to New Zealand as well.
Ryan
Ryan
Wed Jan 07, 2009 11:24 pm
A2C, what you are seeing is the results of DoD [i]policy[i]. What I'm talking about is actual legislative language that would be turned into Public Law as part of the Authorization act for 2010. Vast difference.
If it comes back in its original form it would allow the Secretary to deem any formerly owned DoD equipment to be required to be returned or demilled in place. The legal owner would not be reimbursement of the destruction of their property and if demilled in place the DoD could send out a verification team. The team's expenses would be paid for by the owner of the property.
The last variations had the following restrictions, weapons; only exempted Civil War muskets, any other equipment out there that was formerly owned was fair game for classification as significant as defined by the Intl Arms Agreements. There was no grandfathering of any equipment. The section within the bills was titled Demilitarization of US Munitions. It wasn't until you read the actual legislation and applied it with the Intl Arms Agreements that its true meaning became known.
It covers, aircraft, guns, ammunition, trucks, ground support equipment, manuals. All could be subject. Of course the bureaucrats were saying that's not the intent, but give a bureaucrat an inch and he'll take a mile.
Under this law, boot laces could be classified as significant if the Secretary so decided ! The implications were far reaching.
Anybody ever heard of the TSA ?
If it comes back in its original form it would allow the Secretary to deem any formerly owned DoD equipment to be required to be returned or demilled in place. The legal owner would not be reimbursement of the destruction of their property and if demilled in place the DoD could send out a verification team. The team's expenses would be paid for by the owner of the property.
The last variations had the following restrictions, weapons; only exempted Civil War muskets, any other equipment out there that was formerly owned was fair game for classification as significant as defined by the Intl Arms Agreements. There was no grandfathering of any equipment. The section within the bills was titled Demilitarization of US Munitions. It wasn't until you read the actual legislation and applied it with the Intl Arms Agreements that its true meaning became known.
It covers, aircraft, guns, ammunition, trucks, ground support equipment, manuals. All could be subject. Of course the bureaucrats were saying that's not the intent, but give a bureaucrat an inch and he'll take a mile.
Under this law, boot laces could be classified as significant if the Secretary so decided ! The implications were far reaching.
Anybody ever heard of the TSA ?
Wed Jan 07, 2009 11:49 pm
Yeah Airlift48 I have to laugh well you know. How they vilify oil/ petroleum/ mineral oil, when in all actuallity you can't get more natural than oil from the planet earth, well maybe its because it is so useful to us, yes its a very deep topic, pun intended. With alot of very mislead individuals that want us not to use it. No you will never rid it from the earth, because if it isn't mined so to say, it will do what it has always done bubble forth from the earth, in the oceans, in natural tar pits etc. So this is just like an old military aircraft kinda, everyone needs to stick together and make sure they don't legislate things from our possession. I know very well about the lower exhaust manifolds of the wasp major filling with oil. And the smoke and a pickup and car coated with it. But that smoke is no worse than the blue angels at an airshow, or when the fire department decides to practice burning a house or building down, or a transit bus catches on fire. And the oil not any worse than a 747 that blows an oil line at 30,000 feet, or another 2 miles of asphalt layed down for a county road for the rain to leach out the oils from. Lead! How long have we had lead? Since TEL has come close to disapearing, what has improved? Grade levels in schools have gone down, cancer is rampant yes more so when we had all that lead. Anyway you get the idea. Sorry I don't want to loose things over a well orchastrated, contrived lie. I get very upset about this sorry.
Wed Jan 07, 2009 11:49 pm
Makes you wish you had a Harvard, eh?
Wed Jan 07, 2009 11:50 pm
*sneaks up from a dark corner*
*whispers*
ruby ridge
waaaaco
lee harvey oswald
deeeeeep throooooat
seriously guys, if this is such a big deal then why hasn't it become a larger issue in the news? And don't reply that it's because the news agencies are all left wingers intent on taking our guns away, please. Their primary interest is in making money. ANY news item that will get them attention will find its way onto the air.
Am I wrong? Seems like the NRA, every Veterans group in the country, (lots of us) every military museum, and history buff would be hollaring about it...
I'm not arguing that it isn't important, or that you're wrong to be paranoid about it (when HASN"T a government ended acting stupid just to empower itself?)
*whispers*
ruby ridge
waaaaco
lee harvey oswald
deeeeeep throooooat
seriously guys, if this is such a big deal then why hasn't it become a larger issue in the news? And don't reply that it's because the news agencies are all left wingers intent on taking our guns away, please. Their primary interest is in making money. ANY news item that will get them attention will find its way onto the air.
Am I wrong? Seems like the NRA, every Veterans group in the country, (lots of us) every military museum, and history buff would be hollaring about it...
I'm not arguing that it isn't important, or that you're wrong to be paranoid about it (when HASN"T a government ended acting stupid just to empower itself?)
Thu Jan 08, 2009 1:04 am
Muddy,
Last time this thing came up everyone with a Helmet, Jeep, M1 Garand, Duce and a Half and B-17 that was LISTENING was "hollaring" about it.
That's why it went nowhere.
After the last few years of TSA NSA DOD FAA etc...overreaching bureaucratic zeal I wouldn't put anything past them...
Rick is right, If the law passes as it was written before everything from Quonset huts to boot laces could conceivably be at risk. (look at the Yank's F-14's)
The "They came for the boot laces but I said nothing because I don't wear boots"...argument (response) is dangerous.
Save our history! Save our airplanes!
Last time this thing came up everyone with a Helmet, Jeep, M1 Garand, Duce and a Half and B-17 that was LISTENING was "hollaring" about it.
That's why it went nowhere.
After the last few years of TSA NSA DOD FAA etc...overreaching bureaucratic zeal I wouldn't put anything past them...
Rick is right, If the law passes as it was written before everything from Quonset huts to boot laces could conceivably be at risk. (look at the Yank's F-14's)
The "They came for the boot laces but I said nothing because I don't wear boots"...argument (response) is dangerous.
Save our history! Save our airplanes!
Last edited by Ztex on Thu Jan 08, 2009 8:14 am, edited 2 times in total.
Thu Jan 08, 2009 1:58 am
I'm not sure I'm arguing as much as I can't imagine why I haven't seen people screaming about it except in here. Which come to think of it doesn't bode well, eh?