Bill Greenwood wrote:
Mustangdriver, while the CAF may have made mistakes which brought on the conflict with the NMUSAF, in the end I'd blame Metcalf, or if you prefer give him the credit.
You say the museum would have allowed the CAF to keep the plane as static, even that there was an offer to let them fly it pre court case. I haven't seen any documents from Metcalf's side that say that. Maybe this was possible if each side was more conciliatory, but the initial letter from Metcalf does not sound like there is much room to negotiate.
I understand that it is human nature to be upset by having to go to court, and especially so for the military who don't like to be questioned; but in the end, even after the court case, Metcalf could have shown some generosity and good will and negotiated a binding legal agreement to let CAF keep the plane as a static loan, at least for some years. I know the CAF did not want to accept static, but they weren't flying it anyway. The agreement could have specified a certain amount of restoration to be done, paint and cleaning at a minimum., and the CAF pay any legal fees which they may have had to do anyway.
I don't think it can be both ways, that Metcalf is nice guy, who just happened to take back the CAF plane. He may have had the legal right, but still not the high road.I think I looked up Metcalf, and found that he is really sort of the bureaucrat type. Is there anything in his background to admire over some of the vets that built the CAF?
So now the plane sits static in a place that already had another one. And it does look better than when it was at CAF, at least.
And I and others really appreciate your insider type reports on this and other matters, even if me may not agree with all of it.
Bill,
I think you are judging Metcalf and the NMUSAF on the basis of legend rather than evidence?, when there seems clear written evidence to the contrary?
Chris' claims in regards to the NMUSAF's offers negotiate to continue to permit the aircraft to be "operated" and later for the CAF to retain it on static display are all provided in writing in the quote from court documents posted by Brad four pages pack in this thread and pasted below.
The CAF disputed the NMUSAF's ownership rights, rejected the NMUSAF's attempts to negotiate, and the issue went to court, the court upheld the NMUSAF's ownship and the right to require the aircraft to be returned under the terms of the existing binding agreement, the CAF disputed that decision and took it to appeal, the appeal court upheld the earlier decision and enforced the existing agreement requiring the the aircraft to be returned.
Quote:
Word for word off of the court papers.
" Major General (retired) Charles Metcalf, Director of the NMUSAF, learned of the
exchange in the January 2003 issue of the magazine “Air Classics.” (Plt. Mot. Summ. J. Attach
2, Ex. 11.) He then informed Mr. Bob Rice (“Mr. Rice”), the CAF’s Executive Director, in
writing that the attempted sale of the F-82 violated the terms of the Certificate. (Id.) In the letter dated December 2, 2002, General Metcalf indicates that the F-82 was conditionally donated to the CAF Museum and the donation certificate contains the provision that the title of the F-82 would revert back to the USAF, at the Government’s option, if the F-82 was no longer used for the purpose and/or end use for which it was donated or retention was no longer desired. (Id.) In addition, General Metcalf indicates that he considers the information contained in the January 2003 issue of Air Classics as written notice that the CAF no longer wishes to retain the F-82.(Id.) Finally, the letter is considered by General Metcalf as formal notification that the NMUSAF is exercising the option to retain title to the F-82. (Id.) Then, out of an abundance of caution, the CAF cancelled the agreement to trade the F-82. (Cowan Decl. 10.) However, neither the CAF nor the AAHM agree with the Government’s position that the F-82 should be returned. (Id.) From late in 2002 until April of 2006, the USAF, represented primarily by General Metcalf, and the CAF, represented primarily by Mr. Rice, attempted to agree on ownership, possession, and operation of the F-82. The discussions between these individuals did not result in an agreement. The F-82 has not been returned to the NMUSAF and remains with the CAF. (Id.)"
"In an effort to settle this dispute, General Metcalf offered to loan the F-82 to the CAF for
static display purposes only. The CAF has apparently elected to decline this offer.The CAF also argues that forfeiture would be inequitable because the USAF explicitly gave its approval for the CAF to fly the F-82 and had knowledge of the F-82’s flying status and failed to object. In support of this argument, the CAF cites two documents. The first is the 1966 Release and DD Form 1149. This document is titled “Requisition and Invoice Shipping Document” and is merely a record that the F-82 was transferred from Lackland AFB to the CAF pursuant to the April 15, 1966 letter releasing the F-82. It is not any indication of ownership or indication that the Certificate was no longer valid."
The NMUSAF had (according to the court records above) tried negotiations from 2003 to 2006 regarding the aircrafts operation and then offered the opportunity of ongoing static display with that rejected?
Why would you then expect them to now show "generousity"?, "good will"? and try to enter a new "binding agreement" for the CAF to retain the aircraft, when earlier attempts to negotiate the same outcome under the existing agreement had apparantly failed? and it had taken 7 years and two court cases to prove they own the aircraft and to enforce the existing "binding" agreement?
The dispute obviously became very bitter, and perhaps personal (as shown by the attitudes to General Metcalf in this and other threads), its also disappointing that other aircraft on conditional donation were apparantly used in threats? but lets keep to the facts as presented in court? and accept them as truth rather than simply ignore them?, or show documents to prove them wrong, not just opinions?
The NMUSAF probably handled this process with the precision accuracy of carpet bombing, knowing the approach of government bureaucrats and lawyers, but the CAF would also seem to need to take some responsibility for the outcome? after 7 years of attepted negotiation by the NMUSAF?
It seems clear that through to the appeal case, the CAF did not accept the NMUSAF's claims of ownership, or that the conditional donation certificate was still in force, as their case claimed ownership title had transferred and that the certificate no longer applied.Obviously that belief caused the CAF to reject the earlier 7 years attempts to negotiate, or any of the NMUSAF's earlier "offers".
The two court cases showed the CAF to be incorrect in those beliefs, and the conditional donation agreement was still in place, as was the NMUSAF's rights of ownership.
Its easy to understand how successive new CAF administrations came to that belief due to the years that had past, and the opinions that had developed, and unfortunately the poorly documented, and managed situation of those conditional donations.
The CAF headquarters fought against the NMUSAF on the basis of their beliefs of the facts, the court unfortunately proved otherwise.
Its not really fair to keep bashing Metcalf as the "bad guy who took the CAF's aircraft", without accepting the efforts he apparantly made to resolve it? and the NMUSAF's legal ownership, the CAF needs to take its share of the outcome arising from rejecting those earlier efforts.
Accept the outcome, and the court decision, and move on?
regards
Mark Pilkington
Login
Register
FAQ
Search
