Warbird Information Exchange

Is there some additional context needed? This section mentions
Is there any resource where we can see what is eligible for or on the register?

_________________
Dan Johnson

I don't know the context but the FAA DC-3, N34, is on the National Register of Historic Places. It was added in 1997.

so aircraft aren't objects?

mind you being a firm subscriber to animism of objects I can sort of understand the viewpoint of them not being objects though.

My unfamiliarity with Section 106 or any other US law makes it difficult for me to understand just what it is that Rob deduces from the quoted passage. Therefore, I apologise if I have misconstrued the point of his posting.

In any case, my experience is mainly with Italian law on "Beni culturali", which translates loosely as "national heritage" or "patrimoine culturel", uses similarly vague terms. There is no specific protection for aircraft, but the law borrows a EU definition of "means of transportation".

In an attempt to expand protection of historic aircraft from a number of threats, I have always argued (with varying success) for an inclusive rather than exclusive reading of that rather narrow wording. Under a strict reading, for instance, the Schneider Cup racers would not be considered "means of transportation" and would therefore be denied protection (they have it under other categories, but for the sake of argument I will ignore that). I believe that most of us agree that would be an undesired outcome.

In summary, if arguing that aircraft are NOT protect as historical "objects" or "structures" might ease some recoveries, it might make it more difficult to obtain grants, funds and other assistance for aircraft which are already recovered but need a lot of attention.

Therefore, I think that as preservationists we should argue that aircraft are (or should be) protected by USC 106. In the long run, it will be a better investment.

Gregory

I am sorry to say this but .... I had a lot of trouble decyphering The Secret RR Encryption System. Let's see if I got it straight.

1. The law is vague, but in some cases individual aircraft have been listed as Historic (Flyer, Spirit of St Louis etc).

2. The HPA will not list generic aircraft as historic but only individual airframes with a specific history (maybe "Memphis Belle", Enola Gay but not Fifi).

What I don't understand is whether you want HPA to rule the TBD
(a) is historic to force someone (Navy or not) to recover it.
(b) is not historic, so that the NHC will not be able to block the recovery.
(c) does not come under section 106, thereby eliminating one layer of bureaucracy.

Gregory

The HPA is like a Seal Team, very restrictive as to what it covers and can do, but the Navy has tried to convince everyone it's the entire Pacific Fleet and will do what it wants, even if it's wrong. Sort of a weird analogy, but hope it helps...

You've lost me.

Gregory

Maybe I am misunderstanding...

In the US you have aircraft owned by the government (USAFM, NASM, etc.), publically owned aircraft (non-profit museums), and privately owned aircraft.

It is likely (in the US) that a historically significant aircraft would get restored much more quickly if it was not government owned. They are funded by political fiat, although many are now beginning to follow the non-profit museum model (out of necessity since government funding has dried up). Typically, private collectors and non-profit museums (like Planes of Fame, Yanks, & Seattle MOF) have better funding sources available (like air tours and air shows) and more energetic volunteers. They have done a lot more to keep the warbird movement alive in the US, whether with flying aircraft or static displays.

Government (cash) grants are not to my knowledge used to restore airplanes owned by non-profit museums. In any case, they would have far too many strings attached (like you can't fly them becuase the government could be sued for funding the restoration). Also, I am not aware that the US government flies any historic aircraft (with maybe the exception of the FAA DC-3).

In short, I don't think that a the lack of government grants are holding up any private collectors or non-profit museums from recovering or restoring any aircraft, only government approvals for recoveries. Grants have never been available, so other funding methods are relied upon.

This is all based on my limited knowledge and terrible memory, so if anyone knows anything different please feel free to correct me.

OKay, here's a few I caught on fast reading but I'm sure you've already run across them Col.

first set: they have put in place a policy whereby the historic property they are laying claim to is being destroyed by their actions which I believe is against this clause if not against the law according to it. reason for it being an against the law policy is the second bit I quoted. this means that if they are going to allow degradation of the artifacts then they havew to document everything about them and their destruction. now can you imagine them trying to do that with just airframes off the aussie coast alone? it'd cost them millions just for that lot.

as for the third bit, Rob, I reckon if you amd mike can pull this off and get the garbage ( "it's ours and we'll let it turn to sh*t before you can have it" ) policy changed then you two ought to be putting up a certain some-one from the navy for agreeing to even sit down and listen to the possible changes for the annual preservation awards thingy as by taking that first step I reckon he deserves it. Besides, can you imagine the advertising value of letting people from the media know what has happened along those lines?

BDK

I agree with you that the government is unlikely to fly its historic aircraft, and quite frankly I don't see that as a problem.

On the other hand, I think it is wrong to characterize Federal and state museums as ruled by political fiat and private ones as wholly independent.

Tax breaks for private collections with a museum sign on the hangar are in essence political decisions - not a natural right. Being a 501 (c) organization depends on several factors, including IRS scrutiny. I am no expert, but I would imagine that the legitimate purpose etc feature in the equation.

Often, cities will donate land or incentives to attract major museums. This certainly was the case when NASM was selecting the site for its new facility (now at Dulles) but I seem to remember also with the CAF at the time it was pondering leaving Harlingen. Again, this is government/state (and certainly non-private) assistance.

The thousands of hours and dollars volunteered/donated by military units, often in terms of "valuable training" in dismantling aircraft etc, should also be counted in.

And in terms of grants, I seem to remember that the ill-fated Red Tail P-51C received a grant (cash) from the state of Wisconsin (?), Minnesota (?) or wherever it was based. There are probably more cases.

Finally, it is all too easy to laud private collectors for saving the umpteenth P-51D. I just don't see that many people lining up to save the likes of the only XC-99, and I am very happy that Dayton stepped in.

Gregory

I think I said "funded" by political fiat. Government contributed budgets for government museums have been reduced, they now rely more and more on private funding. This more closely follows the non-government museum model rather than one in China for instance, where the military museums are nearly 100% government funded.

My opinion is that a tax break (not collecting money) is different than actually giving money, much harder for the government to do. Maybe we should look to Airbus and Boeing to resolve the issue of subsidies for us!

This is true, but strings are attached. Could the CAF then sell this property and move somehere else? The government claims that people are attracted to the area by these entities, whether it is the CAF, Disney, or Boeing. Sometimes these things don't work out as intended. I can think of two locations just in Southern California where the city or county government provided land and new hangars to private industry. In one, the business faltered, regrouped and moved away. The hangar has been vacant for over a year on prime property. The other, a better offer was later made elsewhere so they moved. That property has remained underutilized since then. I'm talking tens of thousands of square feet here. My tax dollars were wasted on something that never would have been commercially viable.

And there are plenty of examples of where they made things worse because they were training and made serious mistakes...

Didn't know that. I would like to hear more details if anyone has them.

I am happy that Dayton took on the XC-99 as well. That aircraft is interesting, but we can argue whether it is a historically important aircraft or not. As a government owned aircraft though, it was not available for private recovery as far as I know. There are naturally exceptions, but the private sector can also restore and maintain Short Sunderlands, recover and restore P-38's and B-17's, and Constellations. The private sector even recovered the elusive Buffalo for the US Navy.

I don't want to turn this into a private vs public debate, particularly because I have worked with both and found good and bad things (and people) on both sides. I will just make two short comments.

I do think that diversity is a goal in itself, and I am grateful to all museums that attempt to save the strange, the unusual, the unobvious types. If every museum had the same collection policy, they would all be the same.
You will never hear me complain because a collector saves another B-17 or C-47, but if I were operating with government money they would be a very low priority in my budget.

From what little I have heard, the Buffalo story is too convoluted for bystanders to comment on. But it is interesting that at the end of the day the private sector recoverers sold/traded it to the public sector museum. Was it too expensive? Did it lack the appeal of the P-38?

Gregory

I'm happy they stepped in for this one off airframe too Gregory, and I agree there weren't many people trying to save the XC-99 but considering the size area required even to store such an airframe even in pieces then that alone would put it beyond the capability of most, but maybe not all, private collectors. About the only ones I can think of that would stand even a ghost of a chance to have done anything for it would have been Kermit Weeks and Paul Allen. Even those two names would have amounted for nothing if the airframe still belonged to the USAF though.