CAF News

[Robbie Stuart]

I don't know if you guys have heard about this, if it has already been posted, I am sorry.
This was sent to me by one of my old CAF Col. buddies.
From the NORDO News;
http://nordonews.leebottom.com/2014/01/ ... -wing.html

Robbie

[CH2Tdriver]

Well the first part of that article/posting was just incoherent rambling, so I ignored that. As for the letter and the Lobo Wing I admit I've never heard of them. I had to check their website and found they have a PT26 and AT11 project. I wish people would be a little more specific than cryptic. Why are they closing their doors? Is it really because two members got kicked off the board? Who owns the two planes? Are they being repo'd by HQ? If not it seems like they could spin off into their own nice little museum.

I don't have a dog in this fight and it seems we have enough threads where this subject has been beaten to death. It comes down to one question, will we still be able to see the CAF airplanes on tours and at airshows? Whatever it takes to make that happen is what's important.

[Taylor Stevenson]

I agree wholeheartedly with you, CH2Tdriver. There is no doubt that CAF aircraft will absolutely continue to fly.

Confirming some facts from the letter/article:

- NM Wing was the first official wing created outside of Harlingen. The late Hal Fenner, one of the founding members of the CAF and all-around great individual, started the unit and thus the "Wing" concept was formed.
- The General Staff did remove Graham Robertson and Floyd Houdashell from the General Staff for voting contrary to others on the board. The General Staff also terminated their membership in the organization, along with Gordon Stevenson and Joe Cowen. If I remember correctly, Hal Fenner was placed on a five-year probation. He was in his mid-80's at the time.
- If the NM Wing aircraft are CAF owned, which I believe they are, they will be returned to CAF HQ for assignment.

I know many on both sides of this debate, having been thrown in the middle of the fray due to lineage alone, and there are great people on either side. While the article and letter are definitely slanted to one direction, there has been a great amount of discontent in the CAF lately. The heated issues surrounded the ownership/future of the American Airpower Heritage Museum (but the CAF CEO and General Staff have promised the Midland people the Museum will remain as it was, so that issue for all intents and purposes is resolved), and the relocation of the CAF HQ to another city (the organization-wide vote supported the move, so this issue seems to be resolved as well). Obviously, change, good or bad, is not always uniformly accepted/supported. Hence the current NM situation.

However, one must remember that any all-volunteer organization is bound to have its hiccups and disagreements. Don't let the debate sway your understanding of the goals and objectives of the organization. The aircraft will continue to fly in remembrance of those who served in our nation's darkest hours. I encourage anyone interested in warbirds to look up the CAF unit closest to you, and get involved. The CAF offers many first-hand opportunities to work on, fly, and, most importantly, inform the future generations about these warbirds and the brave men and women who flew them. If you have any questions about how to get involved, feel free to PM me and I'll point you in the right direction.

Taylor Stevenson
CAF Life Member

[Rauhbatz]

"descending vote" should be "dissenting vote" in the letter...guess they were in a hurrry

[Taylor Stevenson]

"descending vote" should be "dissenting vote" in the letter...guess they were in a hurrry

[Robbie Stuart]

Well said Taylor. I am one of the "Old School" Confederate Air Force guys. I don't like a lot of the changes that have occurred over the last decade or so, & partially due to that, I am not active anymore. I am a life member (#880), & I try to keep my Dixie Wing dues up (I Am One Of The Founding Members), & I hope the CAF can get through these rough times that appear to be ahead.
Bottom Line Is, No Matter What; KEEP EM FLYING!
Lest We Forget
Robbie

Last edited by Robbie Stuart on Sun Feb 02, 2014 8:34 pm, edited 1 time in total.

[Taylor Stevenson]

Robbie,

The Dixie Wing is a great example of what a CAF unit can and should be. Their operation has always impressed me.

T

[Reid Langerman]

CH2Tdriver,

I am a member of the Lobo Wing and we are not part of the New Mexico Wing. We have the PT-26 that is flying and the AT-11 that is undergoing restoration. We are not closing up shop! I will try to post an update on our Wings' activities in the near future.

Reid Langerman
CAF Life Member 1502
Lobo Wing member

[CH2Tdriver]

Great to hear Reid. I did a search for CAF NM Wing and Lobo came up #1 in the search. The only other hits I got for NM Wing were related to this closure news posted on other aviation boards. No links to websites.

[Zachary]

Interesting! Usually Rich over at Nordo News likes to spend his time complaining about EAA and AOPA. If you belong to an aviation alphabet group, give it some time, he'll eventually get around to complaining about you too.

[pbeegle1]

Thanks Taylor! We love what we do!!!

Please tell your dad hi and come down to see us some time.

[ME108 Taifun]

Hate to say this but this is just bad news all around.

A couple of points. (And yes, I was a longtime member of the NM Wing up until several years back now.)

1) It is sad to hear that the wing has made this decision. Really sad. Because if you knew more about the wing, it was what the current CAF management really was looking for in regards to their whole "airbase" idea. The CAF hangar in Hobbs was/is huge - it easily could hold (and I've seen it hold) 10-12 airplanes. At one point in time, it held a B-25, the C-45, our ME-108, two of the Vals, a L-5 and some other visiting aircraft from time to time. It also housed a huge "parts" warehouse, an O'Club, a small museum area and VOQ quarters.

2) A wing cannot operate without membership. I'm not sure what the current membership is/was. But up until two years ago, they still continued to bring their fajita booth to Airsho to raise funds for the C-45 and I'm sure their ANNUAC. The fajita booth took 20-30 members to run the thing, so I know they still had people then. However, as time goes on it only points to dissatisfaction of maybe paying just general CAF dues. I dropped my membership to the wing only because we formed the sponsorship group here. And honestly, by the time I paid my national dues, the wing/squadron dues this just all adds up.

3) I've heard their annual ANUAC bill came out to be around $4400. That's pretty steep for a wing that is struggling. I too am concerned about our sponsorship ANUAC fees this year (about $1800 for both the airplane and the sponsorship group). That is all before required insurances (static insurance or flying insurance, pilot insurance, etc.) and general maintenance costs (annual inspection, additional restoration costs, etc.). Even without flying the aircraft, our group is going to pay out around $6500 without even flying the airplane! When we do put it back into active flying) status that means even more money for insurance. I wonder just "how long" we can continue to fund our airplane. I recognize that airplanes take lots of money. But the costs are beginning to be "too high." In New Mexico, the "mean" population is one of the poorest in the country. (Not Hobbs.) But the NM Wing membership is just not only "Hobbs."

4) For all of the discussion regarding dissatisfaction of CAF HQ (and the decision for the move for CAF HQ) it all boils down to this. Maybe the wing's demise is more related to a "lack of faith" towards the management of CAF HQ than anything else. Without berating the decision, it just sure seems sad that the CAF General staff has continued with this move despite nearly half of the CAF's general membership still thinking it was a bad idea. I realize Mr. Brown won. But I would have taken under advisement (had I been a General Staff member) that almost half the membership still thought it was a bad idea.

5) Costs to the individual wings/sponsor groups in the form of ANUAC are supposed to help support operations at CAF HQ. I can agree with a small administrative cost. But it sure seems like it just keeps going up. What happened to "development funds" (grants, etc.) that are supposed to offset these costs? What are the actual costs to operate CAF HQ? Maybe we should look at "cutting back" as opposed to raising ANUAC fees to the individual units/wings. The economy stinks. So why are we expanding our administrative costs while the rest of the nation struggles?

6) I (personally) resent paying administrative costs. I know they are a necessary evil. But this was and/or has been an organization that was built on the volunteer. Since I've been a volunteer for almost 30 years now, I know personally just what kind of an effort and cost that entails. I'd like to know the salary that we pay Mr. Brown. I'd like to know what his travel costs were/are. I would like to know just "how much" this move is costing us even before we've left Midland. It is costing "us" right now. Not the future "host" city. If we are not getting the development funds (grants, etc.) then why are we continuing to pay for a development person? I know some positions are vital to the CAF. (And this isn't an attack on CAF HQ staffers (many of which are very dedicated, hard working folks and friends)). Is the tide turning? Are we hiring more people to take on the work? If so, we are lazy, and we should be ashamed of ourselves.

Trying really hard to keep personal feelings out of this. And would rather try to ask the "hard" questions instead. It can/and is very personal to me to see a wing (any wing) die. Personalities aside, seeing a wing close up it doors is never a good thing.

Hearing the wing's current situation, makes me ashamed of myself for not paying my dues. I wish I knew what kind of dire straights they were in before hearing this news.

The New Mexico Wing was once a thriving and yes #1 wing for the CAF. It's just a sad, sad day for us all.

[Brad]

Without berating the decision, it just sure seems sad that the CAF General staff has continued with this move despite nearly half of the CAF's general membership still thinking it was a bad idea. I realize Mr. Brown won. But I would have taken under advisement (had I been a General Staff member) that almost half the membership still thought it was a bad idea.

I would just like to point out that only 2,053 votes were received from the membership. 511 were against the move. The "yes" group had 1,542. That is 75.1% of those that bothered to vote. 42 ballots were thrown out for various reasons. Last I heard we had roughly 9,000 members. If that is true then only about 23% of the membership even voted. The other 77% didn't seem to have an opinion or at least didn't care enough to make it known. I realize the physical location of HQ is a moot point to the majority of people but I just can't see why there was so little interest in the decision one way or another.

I think the decision of the New Mexico wing is sad for the entire CAF. I understand their position but I hate to see it end this way.

[ME108 Taifun]

[quoteI would just like to point out that only 2,053 votes were received from the membership. 511 were against the move.

My apologies Brad. You are right. Sorry, things were a little fuzzy on me this morning. (Lack of coffee maybe?)

The point is that had there been a few votes the other direction, the CAF would not have been able to move.

As I said in this past fall's posts - it's a done deal now. So we will all have to live with the consequences.

This is one of those consequences.

[Invader26]

I still think we shouldn't have moved from Harlingen