Warbird Information Exchange

Still too early to tell what's going to happen. There may be changes on the horizon with this situation, but as usual, I have to try to remain patient.

Gary

Well, I'm finally at liberty to start sharing more detailed information about this situation. I apologize for not being more informative in the past month or so, but it just wasn't the right time to pass along anything.

All of this started (short version here) when I got a phone call from Pat Ochs at the NMUSAF, who told me that they felt the airplanes in question were property of the NMUSAF and were supposed to not even exist anymore, as they "were scheduled to be cut up at Camp Bullis and never supposed to be transferred to anyone." She went on to say that she and her assistant, Mark Wertheimer, were going to look into the ownership issue and then determine whether or not these aircraft "should be cut up where they sit." Now, I will say that they have been friendly about this whole affair, but it has been frustrating to not hear anything from them, other than "the NMUSAF definitely owns those airplanes."

Well, the fact is (and it's just as we thought from the start), that the NMUSAF does NOT own the aircraft in question, and has no right whatsoever to order their destruction!

I mentioned in a previous post here that I was no longer handling the situation first hand, as the Texas Air Museum was now working with the NMUSAF first hand. I had written Mark Wertheimer to let him know that I was "out" and that the TAM was "in" now. He wrote an e-mail to the TAM this morning, to discuss the issue and it was replied to with the following...(posted with permission)...............

Mr. Wertheimer,

Since Camp Bullis is now an Army Facility, they wanted the aircraft be removed from what was the alert strip training area. The Air Force Base Commander was at a loss as to how to remove the aircraft. These aircraft were offered to the NMUSAF while in place at Camp Bullis by the USAF base commander. The NMUSAF refused to have anything to do with them. Since they were also combat damage repair training aircraft, they were deemed unfit for the NMUSAF to accept ( I think that was a quote.) No other command or HQ unit he contacted wanted anything to do with them.

The Texas Air Museum was contacted and agreed to move two aircraft for the USAF commander (one F-101 and one F-105) from the remote airstrip where all the aircraft were located to the front of the USAF commanders HQ, in exchange for the other four aircraft as is, where is. (Two F-105B's and two F-101's) This was done at substantial expense, which included, but not limited to, cranes at the remote location, trucks, rigging and lifting equipment, manpower and transportation.

The Texas Air Museum then removed the other aircraft from Camp Bullis as agreed. The base commander was told by USAF Materials Command, prior to removal, that the DD-1149 form was all that was required to properly transfer these aircraft to the Texas Air Museum. We preformed all contracted services and were assured that the USAF knew what it was doing when they paid us for the work performed by transferring these aircraft to us. These aircraft are either on static display and/or under restoration for static display. They have not been sold or traded, and there is no intent to. Mr. Austin was to get one F-101 on loan from the Texas Air Museum, for display at his restoration facility.

Should you have any documents which show transfer of these aircraft from the USAF to the NMUSAF prior to the date of our DD-1149, please forward them to us for our review.

Until such documentation is provided and authenticated, it is the position of the Texas Air Museum that these aircraft were not moved on your behalf. There is no record of an exchange contract or donation with the Texas Air Museum - required by NMUSAF regulations, because the NMUSAF was not involved in any manner after refusal to have anything to do with them. They were payment for services rendered, in an "as is, where is" condition, to the Texas Air Museum by the USAF.

Respectfully Submitted,


Texas Air Museum
Caprock Chapter
PO Box 667
Slaton, TX
79364


I'll be sure to keep y'all posted on what happens next.

Gary

Nice. Thanks for posting this Gary. Fingers crossed for a speedy end to this mess we can get back to work!!

-Derek

Sounds like a positive step......fingers still crossed. We KNOW how the government is with paperwork!!!! If they decide they want it back, regardless of what the paperwork says, it is trouble.

_________________

Aviation Illustration Website
http://shepartstudio.com/illustration/

WE ARE ALL BEHIND YOU 100 %

_________________
PAPPY ch-46 phrog,endangerd species 40 years and still flying

110%

_________________
.
.
Sure, Charles Lindbergh flew the plane... but Tom Rutledge built the engine!

Visit Django Studios online or Facebook!

Headline TAM says to NMUSAF "Bite Me!"

_________________
Don't touch my junk!!

To quote that famous basketball announcer who's name slips my memory-

"YEAH, BABY!"

Robbie

This reminds me of the recently well discussed P-82 situation. I would not be so sure that one letter from the TAM clears this up with the NMUSAF. Do you guys not think the NMUSAF looks at this site and the comments like 'bite me'? Do you just want to piss them off and make them work even harder to find 'proof' that they still own this stuff?

I think it would be wise of the NMUSAF in this case to support Gary who is just trying to save an aircraft that they don't want anyway. Gary, I am with you all the way man

_________________
Chris Henry
EAA Aviation Museum Director

I'm with you Gary and TAM!



the only thing that scares me with this whole deal is the seeming precedent of ...


With this attitude they can come after anything they want that was transferred/sold from 1947 onward...

_________________
Zane Adams
There I was at 20,000 ft, upside down and out of ammunition.
_______________________________________________________________________________
Join us for the Texas Warbird Report on WarbirdRadio.com!
http://www.facebook.com/WarbirdRadio
Listen at http://www.warbirdradio.com

Unless they're no taking the position of we own every x-USAF aircraft even ones we previously rejected,
I don't see how this can end in any way other than in Gary's/TAM's favor.
This episode is a lot different than the CAF's P-82 problems.
I'm really curious though how the NMUSAF started here............

What did they even base that on???

_________________
Don't touch my junk!!

Jack the NMUSAF believes that they own/control any piece of USAF excess property. Aircraft, parts, ground support, manuals, etc...

_________________
"You cannot invade the mainland United States. There would be a rifle behind each blade of grass..."
Admiral Isoruku Yamamoto

I'm not a lawyer, but I do have some bit of legal exposure courtesy of business law classes I took both undergrad and as part of my B-school degree.

It strikes me that the situation is probably more complicated than "well, NMUSAF rejected them, so the base commander could offload them as he saw fit". My guess is that this boils down to them being USAF property, whether the base commander had the authority to dispose of them (other than cutting them apart) and the interpretation of whether (or not) NMUSAF has right of first, refusal on surplus USAF property.

So, playing devil's advocate (read: HYPOTHETICAL SCENARIO) it would possibly follow this way . The aircraft were USAF property (undisputed). The base CO did not have authority to dispose of them by means other than outright scrapping (possibility). Since they still exist, and were not legally disposed of, the NMUSAF has the ability to exercise right of first refusal and claim them (true statement, assuming the above is true as well). Even if only for scrapping.

remember.....
These aircraft were offered to the NMUSAF while in place at Camp Bullis by the USAF base commander. The NMUSAF refused to have anything to do with them.
and
No other command or HQ unit he contacted wanted anything to do with them.

and
The base commander was told by USAF Materials Command, prior to removal, that the DD-1149 form was all that was required to properly transfer these aircraft to the Texas Air Museum.
and most of all...........
The NMUSAF refused to have anything to do with them. Since they were also combat damage repair training aircraft, they were deemed unfit for the NMUSAF to accept
and maybe most importantly..........
They were payment for services rendered, in an "as is, where is" condition, to the Texas Air Museum by the USAF

_________________
Don't touch my junk!!