Gentlemen,
An interesting range of legitimate responses, questions and concerns. I have no mandate with the museum in question, but I do think it important that certain assumptions and standards are outlined here. I’m happy to debate the topic as well, however, much of the knowledge and research I’ve brought to bear is either my own work over many years, worldwide, or easily obtained knowledge with a little research. You too can do the latter, and I’d be interested in any other specialised input a well.
Apologies that this is a long answer, but this is a simple question surrounded, I believe with a lot of smoke and distraction – which only serves to hide the utter failure of the museum’s management. Bear with me, and feel free to discuss.
I’d like to present the museum management’s point of view, or case. However despite several successful contacts, they have not responded to me, while I stated I wished to hear their version, that I would be writing it up in aviation magazines, and that I had an open mind on the matter. I didn’t even get the courtesy of a ‘no comment’. Several other aviation journalists have received no response, despite repeated requests. The only comment from the museum has been the PDF presented earlier, which it is clear shows that there are gaps in the ‘plan’, no finish date, several inaccuracies from pictorially documented happenings, and comments regarding the feelings of the senior staff. In no-way can that attitude or approach be regarded as acceptable.
Firstly we are talking about a museum that is owned and operated for the people of one of the more stable and prosperous nations in Europe; not, for instance, a private collection or one in a place where cash or political stability is a problem.
If we would like aviation history to be taken seriously by the general public, or people interested in history, then we need out public institutions to achieve an equal standard of performance and quality as art galleries, museums and government archives. While a western democracy can operate its national aviation museum as a dusty, badly run junkyard it reflects on all of us.
There is no reason the Belgian Aviation Museum cannot operate in a similar manner to the Smithsonian, London’s Science Museum, the Louvre or Musée de l'Air et de l'Espace in Paris, or the National Museum of the United States Air Forces or USN Aviation, respectively; the museum’s location and building are excellent; it is in one of the world’s most important and tourist-orientated cities, equivalent in some ways to Canberra, Washington DC, or Ottawa as the centre of a Europe becoming more federal. Were the Australian War Memorial, Smithsonian, or Canadian Aviation Museum in such a crisis of management of most basic of museum standards, it would be an international disgrace – and I would expect action.
All accredited museums, particularly national collections, have to achieve set standards in preservation, presentation and entertainment. They need to be publicly accountable, able to present a plan of operation when reasonably requested, otherwise they should be stripped of their accreditation and the management held to standards or fired.
Onto some of the comments:
Joe Scheil wrote:
Some points taken and petition signed...now counterpoint.
" The gap is appalling management - relatively easy to fix. "
What organization with bad management was easy to fix?
Joe, Thanks again for signing. Any organization with bad management is easy to fix – the management are held to standards or fired by the board, shareholders or stakeholders. Perhaps it would be better to say one big but simple change is required – either of performance by the current management or by their replacement. There is no good alternative.
Joe Scheil wrote:
A further point, this is a "public" non flying static house of stuffed planes. How hard is that to maintain?
Very difficult, and it requires significant effort and investment, thus fundraising to do. However it’s done by major museums all over the world, and in Belgium, without fuss.
Your ‘stuffed planes’ remark implies a favour for airworthy aircraft – no problem with that, we need both flying and static collections. No one would advocate flying or burning the Wright Flyer.
Joe Scheil wrote:
There are flying collections privately owned in the UK and Europe that need support.
They are able to solicit support as they wish. They’ve nothing to do with this case.
Joe Scheil wrote:
The motive should be to remove aircraft from public "charnel houses" and disburse them to private individuals and entitys. That Piper Cub, an afterthought to the Museum would be cherished by any amount of enthusiasts in the UK. Why not push for that?
The aircraft belong to the people of Belgium, not someone with a junkyard. Again, I don’t see that dispersing the Smithsonian’s collection to, say, Paul Allan, Kermit Weeks et al is a good idea. That is the level we are considering.
I absolutely agree that some aircraft could be sold off and used as fundrasers for the rest. There are many aircraft in the collection which will never fly again. Zeppelin goldolas, an LVG C.VI et al should be cared for as carefully as a Leonardo or Edison’s lightbulbs.
However, it is clear that the museum’s ‘plan’ is to put these delicate and irreplaceable aircraft into a store that does not fit the description. It is clear that they will not be properly stored, in climate controlled environment, but dumped in puddles. They will not come out of there – they will just be lost. There is no way that a plan to ‘sell off’ the collection could come to fruition – although if there was one, it would be better, I agree than what we face.
Joe Scheil wrote:
"Of particular interest is the Mig 23 that has also been scrapped since this photo was taken. It arrived intact and complete a few years ago but was not displayed in the main hall as there was already one there. So, it was sored in the "reserve" where museum staff gradually, and without any reason, removed and lost parts and damaged it when they had to move it. So, in the end, the museum took the "logical" decision to scrap it as it was incomplete (thanks to them) and damaged (thanks to them)."
Then its unclear regarding if the plane actually was scrapped. The Loco was apparently.
The locomotive was scrapped. The very solid MiG-23 was seriously damaged while in the care of the museum – probably scrapped. It is hardly a satisfactory state of affairs, and the difference between damaged and scrapped is unimportant, in the context of a failure of the management.
Joe Scheil wrote:
There was a petition, and the thing seems to upset them due to its political nature. So much for the idea of preservationists running anything or the responsibility to history and learning.
The museum management were upset by being called to be accountable for their actions, and are blowing smoke to cover their failure. I don’t see what the general remark about ‘preservationists’ is trying to say.
Joe Scheil wrote:
The Brussels Museum should know that the only interest most have in it is of a forensic nature, and weather or not they will fail tommorrow or next week. I believe its important to look at the organization and its goal as well as its visible evidence of pursuing those goals. If a museum cannot keep our faith, regardless of the general public's desire to visit the resturaunt there or whatever, then those in the know should be publicising the neglect and boycotting the organization. Management changes that way. It seems that management is not alone, hovwever, for as a museum grunt, there is evidence that less is being done on the front lines regardless of the motives of the general staff. The 90 percent that is good unfortunatly in my mind is effected by the damage incurred by the unlucky 10 percent. The fact that they would rather destroy than let other save what they could is tantamount to treason when viewed in a historical context. Learning about the locomotive's fate and the vain efforts to save it coupled with other issues of taliban like destruction, perhaps Brussels is best left to rot.
Apart from your fatalistic ‘collapse is inevitable’ I entirely agree. Why must we be fatalistic?
What we face here is the destruction through accelerated neglect of one of the world’s great aircraft collections. The management cannot, and will not, sell or disperse the collection overseas. They could, if they wish rationalise it.
Joe Scheil wrote:
Perhaps the Berlin Museum could add a WW I wing!
Perhaps the wings of the W.W.I aircraft could be sent to Krakow, where the Poles need them on their W.W.I fuselages. It’s not going to happen like that. Either the collection is saved, and a proper plan develops, or we lose the lot.
Chris Schaarden wrote:
I find the comments made on this board about the Brussels Air Museum very negative!
I think a few people are judging a place they have actually never been to!
I have visited it, but not the stores. I have also visited the Musée de l'Air et de l'Espace in Paris, and it’s store at Le Bourget, over the far side. I have been to the National Military Aviation Museum in Holland, and their store and restoration centre. I have been to the National Aviation Museum in Ottawa, Canada, and toured their store, the Australian War Memorial and their store, as well as many other museums of equivalent status, as well as many others of lesser status.
I have never seen or heard of anything this appalling in an equivalent museum. I have been talking to museum conservators, directors and staff, and they find it amazingly appalling.
Chris Schaarden wrote:
The reason the Brussels Air Museum is planning to refurbish the museum is because the beautiful building it is in needs a renovation.
It is a beautiful building but is leaking and just needs a lot of work done on it, this is in the best interest of the collection housed inside.
Absolutely, there is no argument with that. In fact, I’d say it is one of the most beautiful and impressive aviation museum buildings in the world (as well as one of the oldest).
Chris Schaarden wrote:
Renovating a building this size means some material will have to be moved!
That is arguable, as equivalent buildings of greater historic difficulty have been restored with items like tapestries and priceless furniture and display remaining in situ.
Chris Schaarden wrote:
Yes, there store might not be a good place for long term storage, but the reason for refurbishing the main museum is to offer the collection better protection.
Indeed – but if the temporary store is so utterly inadequate, that’s not good enough. (an any equivalent museum’s mandate will state.) Another concern is that there is no planned finish for the referbisment – in fact there’s no access to a plan at all. I’d say that’s not acceptable.
Chris Schaarden wrote:
The Brussels Air Museum is one of the best aviation museums in Europe.
There is hardly any other country in Europe that has its aviation heritage so well documented in one place (considering the size of the country and its aviation history).
Comments about transferring the collection to other groups are total nonsense.
Why are there no petitions about the scrapping of aircraft by the Imperial War Museum, RAF Museum????
Because those are different topics. It is a great collection, it needs better care. I’d not trust the management, by their actions and (sole) statement with the proverbial whelk stall. Would you?
Chris Schaarden wrote:
Have any of you ever seen to storage at Duxford?? Right, it does not exist! They have scrapped more stuff than the Brussels Air Museum.
Actually, it does exist, I’ve been there, and it’s very interesting. (It’s on the northern side of the A505.) Duxford have indeed scrapped a number of aircraft trader others – with arguable issues. But they aren’t dumping their aircraft in wet, unsecured hangars, and they will explain their actions in public.
It is well worth mentioning here that the IWM Duxford started out as the Brussels store is today, as a reserve storage facility for the city centre museum. Looking at Brussels’ store, Vissenaken, today is a bit worse, but similar to Duxford in the early 1970s. This shows how far we’ve come in thirty odd years. Could Brussels’ aviation museum have an equivalent to Duxford as Vissenaken in 2037?
Chris Schaarden wrote:
Why are there no petitions about the failure to safeguard many important archives?
Good question. Why aren’t there?
Chris Schaarden wrote:
National Museum might be poorly funded and very bureaucratic, and not all the people might be interested in what they are doing, but they are the only guarantee that the material is being kept for future generations, private collections do not achieve this!!!
Again, I don’t feel the ‘guarentee’ is good. I do agree it’s a great and important collection; it needs better care.
Chris Schaarden wrote:
Gentlemen get your facts right!
If you feel so strongly about it, why don't you offer them help
I have got my facts right, as far as is possible (I’d be delighted to be proven wrong by a statement and evidence from the management. But I’m not holding my breath.) And I am trying to help, with promoting a radical change.
visaliaaviation wrote:
I have to laud Chris Shaarden's observations. Photos of the "deplorable" artifacts is not any indication of bad management. In this case, I believe them to overtly missleading.
It looks exactly like our boneyard (Ok so we has fewer and decisively less exotic artifacts).
Hi Charles,
But it’s not a ‘boneyard’, but a national museum store! The artifacts should, ideally, be in climate controlled condition, supported correctly on custom made jigs, with vulnerable parts protected or conserved. This is unarguable as a requirement to prevent decay in pre 1939 aircraft. If you regard this an an acceptable way of storing (not holding for parts, sale or trade) W.W.I aircraft, trust me, you aren’t getting my aircraft.
If you are happy to put carefully restored aircraft into these conditions with this level of protection for a year, or two, or maybe five – ten, I’m amazed.
And no, they’re not for sale, and the scrap won’t be either.
visaliaaviation wrote:
BTW- that Miles twin tail is not "broken" but merely disassembled. Perhaps because of respnsible space management???~!!!
Dumped, not stored.
visaliaaviation wrote:
By all means, there are several institutions that should get and are deserving of support from the aviation public. But on the strength alone of the images posted, the sky is not OBVIOUSLY falling at the Brussels.
Were they doing it with fire rather than water, would you see that as a problem?
visaliaaviation wrote:
In re-examining the photo of the stored aircraft, I can see that it still retains its original (as delivered to the museum) paint. Someone has done a very credible job of preserving the aircraft. Well, at least as far as one can tell from a photo! And leaky storage is better than no protection.
Hi Charles,
You are quite right that leaky storage is better than no protection. And my statement about climate controlled environment is an ideal, rather than a standard; however, there are levels below acceptable, and this is, clearly to me if not you, below acceptable.
Johan wrote:
The more a read about this topic, the more confused I get.
You aren’t alone – hence my remark that change at the top will be a way forwards. No change at the top, or pursuing the current ‘plan’ (as far as is public) will destroy a priceless and irreplaceable collection. That’s the nub, I believe.
Johan wrote:
The pictures from the reserve facility are indeed horrifying. I can assume that they dismantle some of these planes, due to a lack of storage, but the way parts are scattered all over is certainly not the way it should be. there are much easier and not so expensive ways to store, even for such big parts . and I knwo what I'm speaking off. Working in parts and machines distribution for almost ten years for the worlds leading brands. I dare to say that with a minimum of effort, we can protect and preserve these artifacts much better, even in the open.
Hear hear.
Johan wrote:
So I, once again ,reconsider my above opinion. I was thinking of joining the volunteers at the museeum, and then was disgusted by the way they tread there people and exhibits at the museeum. But then...
I live by the rule that if you think you can make a difference, you have to go for it. And this case is a true example of where i can make the difference.
I'm not the begging type and I do not have the intention to beg the staff to except my help. But if they're willing i offer them some of my free time to help them in finding better storage ways for these birds.
Contact me whenever you like. I'm one of the best, persistent, totaly free and very modest.
Clearly the museum needs motivated and interested volunteers, like Johan. But would you work for the current management? Should they be allowed to continue? Surely not.
visaliaaviation wrote:
Time and the elements (in that order) are the enemy to any aircraft. Every aircraft either brand new or recently restored to like factory new condition begin an immediate journy to return to dust. It matters not weather it was flown to the museum site or not.
Which is why museums employ conservators, not restorers, to moderate, stop or slow that decay. Puddles and the wind have a place in some conservation regimes, but not here. Theft from unguarded property does not anywhere. Museum’s can keep a ‘delivered’ aircraft airworthy for 70 years, flown regularly, if that’s the policy. But here we have aiming low and failing to achieve even that.
visaliaaviation wrote:
Sure, conditions of storage, handling, and display can heavily influence how well an artifact withstands the encroachment of decay, but it is not always an indicator of official policy, or even a lack of it.
I’ve found in my management career that watching what people do a better indication of capability and intent than listening to what they say.
visaliaaviation wrote:
Where many see outright neglect and horrorifying results, others see the positive effect that someone cared enough to keep things for the future, which is the most important thing, even if we do not happen to like the way a particular museam has handled the objects in their care.
Dumped in a hangar full of puddles with parts scattered about, holes in the walls, no attempt to place items off the ground, aircraft on the rims with deflated tyres etc? You are kidding, right?
If a few tarpaulins had been thrown over, or things neatly lined up, I’d see evidence of intent to try with inadequate resources, but no, that’s a dumping ground, and no place for W.W.I aircraft, let alone W.W.II types. (I know what any decent Sergent would say to your comment above. “Get that lot cleaned up, lad!”)
Apologies for the length of the post, and I do appreciate ALL the input. I’d like to be proven wrong, but it certainly looks and sounds like a slow accident of the wost kind. What harm can trying to help do?
Regards,
Login
Register
FAQ
Search
