Warbird Information Exchange

From the Summer 2004 newsletter:

"A new Flight Division has been created within the museum organization. Norm Smith has been appointed Aviation Manager and will oversee the certification of museum aircraft, pilot certification as well as the planning of all museum flight operations."

Also, expansion of Yanks at Chino- A third museum building will be constructed.

A few more notes, Yanks has acquired a flyable F-86, begun restoration on the Helldiver, and hung the engine on the Corsair.

Looks like it is getting busy over there!

That's great..

Chris

Oh man this is just totally amazing....and think come May they can add those airplanes to the big air show at Chino....flying not static like they always are. Amazing! Oh and also all those lists that always state Yanks airplanes as "airworthy" (when they really aren't) wont be inaccurate anymore.

John

Very Nice

_________________
www.tailhookstudio.com

I think that their claims of their aircraft being "airworthy" are completely and 100% accurate. They are all restored to an extremely complete state, however the one thing that the airplanes aren't, is "flying". To me there is a huge difference in classification.

Not sure what the rest of you guys think but there are plenty of airplanes out there that fall under the "airworthy but not flying" category.

Ryan

Like the formerly flying Kalamazoo aircraft...

Ah, the good old 'airworthy but doesn't fly' argument.

For me (a personal point of view) if it's not certified, or hasn't flown in the period of certification, then it 'aint airworthy. I'd allow 'airworthy quality restoration', but if it doesn't fly... It's not a flyer.

The Swordfish in the Shearwater Aviation Museum was restored to airworthy condition. It flew twice - once to prove it, once for the press. It is on display now, but it's not airworthy. Two reasons. One: It's missing parts that were loaned for the flight (a carburettor for one) and two because it's not flown regularly, and it's not certified.

When you look at these alegedly airworthy static aircraft, it's ALWAYS more than adding fuel, walkround and takeoff. If someone sold one to you as airworthy and you had to do stuff like change hoses, replace tyres, prop blades, instuments etc, and get it certified, you'd want a refund!

I think the aircraft in Yanks and Kalamazoo are stunning - both as restorations, and as examples of their types. 10 / 10 to the organisations. But airworthy? No. When did they last fly? Hmmmm. Is the paperwork up to date for it to fly tomorrow? Hmmm. Not airworthy.

Your starter for 10!

Cheers

_________________
James K

"Switch on the underwater landing lights"
Emilio Largo, Thunderball.

www.VintageAeroWriter.com

Thank you James, those are the words I wanted to say.

John

James,

How about this situation. There is a plane in a museum that has been maintained in airworthy condition but not flown. It's been on display for many years. It's not registered with the FAA and never has been, therefore it's never had an airworthiness certificate. In fact, this plane has no paperwork except for the logbooks it left the military with and the original bill of sale. It's taken off of display, given an inspection and flown a few times by it's owners. After they have their fun, the airplane is pickled and put back in the museum. No one is the wiser with the exception of the few witnesses.

This happened very recently. By your standards, how should this plane be classified?

That tale reminds me of a certain yellow painted biplane on a certain airfield some 15 years ago. It had been pushed into a museum after its last landing a decade earlier and was in excellent shape. When it was restored for static, it was still quite capable of flying.

Gregory

Hm, Mr Guest - c'mon name, rank, number!

Oh, that one?! & Gregory -

'Airworthy condition, flown illigally' (no paperwork = illegal.)

I'm not a judge, nor am I commenting on the levels of paperwork required - they are at best inconvinient. I leave the readers to make their own judgements as the the responsibility of the actions; let's just run a scenario of an accident involving that aircraft and a bystander or two. In the Warbird biz we are an thin enough ice without giving the 'ground 'em brigade' such useful ammunition.

If it 'aint flown and it ain't got the certification paperwork, it's not (insert = legally) airworthy. If you are happy flying it that's your call. But I don't think that attitude's a great help to the warbird movement. Do you?

Before anyone chucks a teddy at me, I'm not telling people how to behave - I'm just calling 'a spade' 'a bloody shovel'. Clarity rather than obsfication.

Cheers

_________________
James K

"Switch on the underwater landing lights"
Emilio Largo, Thunderball.

www.VintageAeroWriter.com

JDK

A heartfelt thank you for throwing the book at me. Now if someone knocks on my door in the middle of the night I will know who to blame. Obviously discussions on this board are not court filings but only intellectual exercises.

With this caveat, I think you missed the point and overreacted.

Registration, certification and airworthyness are not the same. While there is no doubt that aircraft cannot legally be flown without a Certificate of Airworthyness (or Permit to Fly, or whatever the local regulations prescribe), that does necessarily imply that an aircraft without such documents is technically unfit to fly. (By the way - registration is NOT an authorization to fly. The world's registers are full of aircraft with lapsed CofAs and of projects years away from flight).

I know of a T-6 overhauled by a military unit. The higher-ups never signed the authorization to fly, but it is certainly airworthy, run-up, taxied and the grapevine says air was put under its wings. And in the 1980s a recently renamed US museum had a fully flyable Stearman which was occasionally put through its paces. In both cases, the aircraft are clearly airworthy, and I think that obtaining civilian paperwork would be no monumental undertaking.

And if you want to be legalistic, one might also wonder about the basis for fast taxy runs on certain piston and jet engined UK warbirds. Is merely not taking off enough to put such heavy metal (anywhere between 15 to 100 metric tons) outside air regulations, particularly if anything were to go wrong?

And what about ferry flights? No-one in their right mind would have considered the Duxford B-29 "Hawg Wild" as "airworthy", but the FAA or CAA cleared it for a one-way flight across the cold and unfriendly Atlantic. In this case, legality was way ahead of reality.

And what is the status of a warbird flown in summer 2004 but whose permit will be renewed only in May 2005 in anticipation of the next airshow season?

In conclusion, no one disputes that the only aircraft which can be legally flown are those with a current CofA. But it is also clear that many inactive aircraft are essentially "airworthy" and could be flown at short notice.

Sorry for the rant, but I wanted to clarify my position before being labelled as an irresponsible jerk who advocates breaking the law.

Gregory

Hi Gregory,
No book throwing, no rant, just a point of view! (And I appreciate yours too) I deliberately didn't refer to 'C of A' etc, I was being much more general. The appropriate 'paperwork' is different in different countries, different for military and civil owned or operated aircraft and so on. The case of the Estonian registered, Swedish owned, fully certified but fatally unsafe Ryan NYP replica which crashed in England last year comes to mind. It was legal. It wasn't certified in the UK. If it had crashed on a bystander we would have had worse problems than we did. Another paperwork issue - there are OFMCo a/c which can't be certified (I understand) in the UK because their rebuild isn't fully enough documented for the UK CAA. But they fly, fully legally, in NZ! My points were just two.

1. An aircraft rebuilt to flying condition but does not fly may be regarded as 'airworthy' but if it doesn't fly, it's not a flyer - and we all know how quickly a/c become unairworthy when hangarbound. My (personal) view is that's an 'airworthy quality restoration'. But if you can't push it out, fire it up and fly it, WITH the appropriate paperwork tomorrow, it's not airworthy. Seems simple to me!

2. Paperwork. A challange to my definition by 'Guest'. I thought about it and gave my personal opinion. I agree in the case 'Guest' cited paperwork might seem like a pointles faff; but what if? Sure we should all take a judgement call - if I'd been there, I might have been as keen as the rest, but...

We need only look to Germany to see what effect one accident can have on the aviation scene (Ramstein - Frecce Trecolori). Other times in other accidents, the general press love to mention 'uncontrolled airport' when they can, it gives an impression of irrisponsibility. Because flying old aeroplanes is (sadly) regarded by the majority of the public as foolhardy, we don't need anyone caught doing anything remotely irrisponsible, as it affects the rest of us. Or putting it another way, I don't mind what Joe does, but if Joe gets caught, and there's a crackdown generally on some aspect of aviation, then I mind very much!

I'm not a restorer. I'm a writer, so it's my opinion, and I'm just asking folks to think about the (possible) consequence of such actions. As they say, 'fly safe'.

Cheers!

_________________
James K

"Switch on the underwater landing lights"
Emilio Largo, Thunderball.

www.VintageAeroWriter.com

JDK

I see from the other forum that you will be deported to the Colonies, with the additional benefit of removing you from my wrath. Well, maybe ...

Jokes aside, I agree with the need to be responsible and mindful of consequences to others in general and the hobby in particular.

I would dispute the example you chose, because the Ramstein display was flown in accordance with the regulations then in force. This suggests that legal definitions MUST be adhered to, but also that reality does not fit into "simple" black/white categories.

With just two categories (fish/fowl), we risk concluding that since potatos are not fowl, then they must be fish. Or, in aeronautical terms, that a warbird which flew yesterday but needs a new set of sparkplugs (which will only arrive next Thursday) is the same as a project months (or years) away from its goal.

I would think that within the context of a discussion board (which is not an airworthyness authority), we can use a more pragmatic definition, well knowing that airshow, film or even regular personal use require full compliance with all applicable regulations - and possibly to an even higher standard.

'Nuff said, time to move on to dreaming of new projects coming to fruition, be they static or flying.

Gregory

Hi Gregory,
I can run but I can't hide, eh? Indeed we agree, as ever.

Just to wrap up, I'm not normally that pedantic (I hope) but the precise definitions is where we started.

As regards the tragic Ramstein accident, I only mentioned it because we will do well to bear in mind the repercussions of that accident - I wasn't commenting on the accident itself.

Back to the topic, it's good news from Yanks. More power to a great, great collection.

Cheers!

_________________
James K

"Switch on the underwater landing lights"
Emilio Largo, Thunderball.

www.VintageAeroWriter.com