Fri Jul 13, 2007 4:50 pm
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). but i bet any restorer worth his salt is salivating at the sheer number of VIABLE aircraft. I know several respected museums and collections that have similar salvage yards with comparable aircraft. BTW- that Miles twin tail is not "broken" but merely disassembled. Perhaps because of respnsible space management???~!!!
good evening to you,
Sorry, but photos are not misleading, they are just images and facts. And how could they be misleading if, by just looking at them, you rightly call the storage place of our national museum a "boneyard".
Viable : Yes, hopefully most of them still are but do not forget that when the museum received them they were, with the exeption of a few ex BDR airframes like the F-101, complete and intact.
I also appreciate the humour about responsible space management. Maybe we should also say that the multiple water leakages and accasional flooding of the storage area are done on purpose for better humidity control.
And yes, the Miles is unfortunately broken. anybody who has seen it (including me) will confirm it.
But the most important is that those photos were posted mainly to show the horrific conditions in which the unique collection currently in the Brussels main hall would have been stored if the museum had not been successfully stopped in their unplanned move.
Regarding the other recent posts :
Yes, the museum most important problem is not even budget but incompetent, non motivated staff. But no, its not easily fixed.
Yes, speaking about selling and spreading the collections is total nonsense.
Yes the museum is a wonderful place, the collection among the best in the world and yes, the main building is in need of thourough renovation. We would all have cheered at the news if we knew it would be planned, managed and carried out by the right people. But we know it's not the case and we know it would be a disaster and that's why we have to fight.
Yes, i unfortunately know what i'm speaking about as i've followed this museum for 25 years and worked there for 10 years as a volunteer before finally giving up, disgusted by the museum attitude.
No, i don't know for sure if the Mig 23 has actually been scrapped. I just relayed the info i received from the person who took the photo i posted. I would be very happy to be wrong on that one.
Yes, the role of a museum is to preserve its collections for future generations but no, our museum is currently definitely not up to the task. And our responsability is at least to try to change it.
finally, most people make their opinion about our museum just by having a quick look in the main hall. Wonderful isn't it ! But please, look closer and you will be frightened. Talk to the volunteers that are working there every Saturday and you will hear almost unbilievable but true horror stories about our museum. Request the museum management to let you assess the condition of let's say our spare Tiger Moths, Cups, Austers, Proctor, Bestmann, Prentice, ... that are stored. you will be disgusted.
Laurent
Fri Jul 13, 2007 11:36 pm
Joe Scheil wrote:Some points taken and petition signed...now counterpoint...
Hi Joe,
Thanks for signing.
I'd composed half a carefully thought out response for your interesting comments, but my computer made a unilateral editorial decision and ditched the lot. My dog was rather surprised by the explosion.
I'll have another go later. When the computer's not ready.
Cheers,
Fri Jul 13, 2007 11:42 pm
Laurent,
I meant no disrespect. It could very well be that the conditions at the museum are EXACTLY as you say they are. However, your very first post stated that we should observe the "broken fuselage " of the Miles aircraft. I see no obviously broken aircraft. Only a dissassembled aircraft fuseklage sitting on the pavement. Broken and disaasembled are two distinctly different situations. Since "broken" was offered as proof of ,apparently "Bad" museum practices, I contend that the images AND their discription, as you presented, are misleading.
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.
If you are contending that because a museum maintains a boneyard, and doesnot restore every example it has in storage, is bad managemnt then I don't think you are fu;lly aware of how many EXCELLENT museums have similar projects squirled away, in EXACTLY the same way. Time and money seem to pester even the best museums. But there are other reasons for keeping aircraft unrestored. It is quite common for institutions to trade projects which they deem surplus to their individual needs for some other(s?) which they feel they may need or CAN AQUIRE at some future date.
Again, not saying that you are wrong about the management at Brussels. But the visual proof you supplied does not appear, at least to my satisfaction, to bolster those contentions to best advantage.
Your old Mustang buddy(??)
Charlie
I meant no disrespect. It could very well be that the conditions at the museum are EXACTLY as you say they are. However, your very first post stated that we should observe the "broken fuselage " of the Miles aircraft. I see no obviously broken aircraft. Only a dissassembled aircraft fuseklage sitting on the pavement. Broken and disaasembled are two distinctly different situations. Since "broken" was offered as proof of ,apparently "Bad" museum practices, I contend that the images AND their discription, as you presented, are misleading.
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.
If you are contending that because a museum maintains a boneyard, and doesnot restore every example it has in storage, is bad managemnt then I don't think you are fu;lly aware of how many EXCELLENT museums have similar projects squirled away, in EXACTLY the same way. Time and money seem to pester even the best museums. But there are other reasons for keeping aircraft unrestored. It is quite common for institutions to trade projects which they deem surplus to their individual needs for some other(s?) which they feel they may need or CAN AQUIRE at some future date.
Again, not saying that you are wrong about the management at Brussels. But the visual proof you supplied does not appear, at least to my satisfaction, to bolster those contentions to best advantage.
Your old Mustang buddy(??)
Charlie
Sat Jul 14, 2007 12:55 am
We were approached by museum volunteers who are very concerned at the movement of priceless artifacts to the poor storage facilities, and the possibility that once the Hall was renovated it would not be used to display aircraft at all. I am sure the volunteers know what they are talking about, being that they are there behind the scenes everyday!. What they are most concerned about is the lack of transparency coming from the authorities, and it is because of the petition that 'they' have had to 'front up' to a certain degree at least.
Dave
Dave
Last edited by DaveM2 on Sat Jul 14, 2007 2:30 am, edited 1 time in total.
Sat Jul 14, 2007 2:20 am
The more a read about this topic, the more confused I get.
But first, buying the museum out is no option! It's the only way to preserve these historical valuable birds and keep them public. Maybe some will be restored and back in the air, but most of the private collections are still closed for the public.
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.
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.
Johan
But first, buying the museum out is no option! It's the only way to preserve these historical valuable birds and keep them public. Maybe some will be restored and back in the air, but most of the private collections are still closed for the public.
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.
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.
Johan
Sat Jul 14, 2007 7:59 am
visaliaaviation wrote:If you are contending that because a museum maintains a boneyard, and doesnot restore every example it has in storage, is bad managemnt then I don't think you are fu;lly aware of how many EXCELLENT museums have similar projects squirled away, in EXACTLY the same way.
You forget that this is not meant to be a "boneyard" but a place where aircraft for the museum, not currently on display" are stored. Some of these aircraft FLEW in! A few years later some are heavily damaged.
Some decisions are beyond reason I think. They scrapped a surviving "Slivers" F-104 (BAF demo team). The Red Devils Hunter in the museum is an F4, while the last remaining F6 (correct type for Red Devils) was left to rot. I've seen it. You can put your hand true some of the corrosion holes in it!
Sat Jul 14, 2007 5:55 pm
fouga23, et al
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. 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. 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.
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. 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. 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.
Sun Jul 15, 2007 12:12 am
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, 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.
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.
They are able to solicit support as they wish. They’ve nothing to do with this case.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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).
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.
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.
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?
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?
Good question. Why aren’t there?
Again, I don’t feel the ‘guarentee’ is good. I do agree it’s a great and important collection; it needs better care.
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.
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.
Dumped, not stored.
Were they doing it with fire rather than water, would you see that as a problem?
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.
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.
Hear hear.
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.
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.
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.
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,
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,
Sun Jul 15, 2007 9:55 am
Well, at least someone is reading what I have to say. Thank you even if we do not agree 100%.
In a perfect world there would be no need for museums, would there?
If every one kept his/her aircraft in perfect storage there would be nothing rare or of note. Rarity in aircraft, like art ,is EXACTLY what makes it deserving of being saved.
Now I'm not advocating that treasure should be preserved in the manner shown in the photos. I'm stating that is the fact of the matter for MANY museums and aircraft around the world.
Should it be different at Brussels YES. but that 's the way we'd like to all museums operate. The big picture is that if you feel a need to rail against the powers that be in Belgium, go for it.
Me? I'd rather find those aircraft bonyards and if I can, help rebuild the relics into flyers and museum exhibits.
Charlie
Historic Flight Project
In a perfect world there would be no need for museums, would there?
If every one kept his/her aircraft in perfect storage there would be nothing rare or of note. Rarity in aircraft, like art ,is EXACTLY what makes it deserving of being saved.
Now I'm not advocating that treasure should be preserved in the manner shown in the photos. I'm stating that is the fact of the matter for MANY museums and aircraft around the world.
Should it be different at Brussels YES. but that 's the way we'd like to all museums operate. The big picture is that if you feel a need to rail against the powers that be in Belgium, go for it.
Me? I'd rather find those aircraft bonyards and if I can, help rebuild the relics into flyers and museum exhibits.
Charlie
Historic Flight Project
Sun Jul 15, 2007 10:02 am
Charles,
Thanks. I suspect it's a record length post, and you've concised me out. I agree with your points, and we all do what we can, contributions all needed, I think.
Good luck with your boneyards.
Thanks. I suspect it's a record length post, and you've concised me out. I agree with your points, and we all do what we can, contributions all needed, I think.
Good luck with your boneyards.
Sun Jul 15, 2007 10:21 am
Very good and thought out post JDK. Signed the list.
Sun Jul 15, 2007 10:25 am
Shay wrote:Wait a damn minute!!!.........
I know just the guys for a job like this.......
Click it
http://www.geocities.com/TimesSquare/Maze/3101/sanford.au
PRICELESS!
_____________________________________________________________
Seriously though. It's a crying shame to see aircraft deteriorating like that in the hands of those who said they would take care of them.
I'd love to take the F-84F off their hands. Do they have 2 of them, or just the same one in 2 different pictures?
Shay
_____________
Semper Fortis
Sun Jul 15, 2007 11:04 am
mustangdriver wrote:Very good and thought out post JDK. Signed the list.
Much appreciated, MD. Thank you.
Sun Jul 15, 2007 8:20 pm
Before I will join in a joint call for condemnation, I would like to see the museum's original mission statement. How do we know that they are not living up to the ONLY standard that can be applied??
Face it. Anything else has to be assumption of facts not in evidence, or condemnation of performance standards applied after the fact. Feelings and personal perseptions, in this case, may not even be on the table. As Americans, and other foriegners, we may not even have the right to complain. At best we can only invoke or become part of public outcry. So far, all that's been presented are a few opinions of how bad they are doing. Let's have more facts to back up the accertions. It would be a shame to align ourselves to a misquided but outwardly good intentioned falsehood.
Nothing is black and white, and I would be the first to complain about perceptions I hold about any nymber of aircraft, owners, institutions and/or whatever. But I also have to recognize my complaint without documented facts in support is only an opinion.
BTW- I guess Wally Suplada (spelling?) should be condemed too, for keeping such a dispicable "bone yard" all those years? Oh wait, he didn't have the where withall to keep his planes under better conditions. But I guess he did the best he could with what he had. Kind of reminds me of certain hamstrung air museums/ collections ALL AROUND the World.
If we knew what conditions and restrictions applied (we really need to see thier mission statement) to the Brussels museum we could make a better guess at how badly they actually manged to save the aircarft they did!
Face it. Anything else has to be assumption of facts not in evidence, or condemnation of performance standards applied after the fact. Feelings and personal perseptions, in this case, may not even be on the table. As Americans, and other foriegners, we may not even have the right to complain. At best we can only invoke or become part of public outcry. So far, all that's been presented are a few opinions of how bad they are doing. Let's have more facts to back up the accertions. It would be a shame to align ourselves to a misquided but outwardly good intentioned falsehood.
Nothing is black and white, and I would be the first to complain about perceptions I hold about any nymber of aircraft, owners, institutions and/or whatever. But I also have to recognize my complaint without documented facts in support is only an opinion.
BTW- I guess Wally Suplada (spelling?) should be condemed too, for keeping such a dispicable "bone yard" all those years? Oh wait, he didn't have the where withall to keep his planes under better conditions. But I guess he did the best he could with what he had. Kind of reminds me of certain hamstrung air museums/ collections ALL AROUND the World.
If we knew what conditions and restrictions applied (we really need to see thier mission statement) to the Brussels museum we could make a better guess at how badly they actually manged to save the aircarft they did!
Sun Jul 15, 2007 8:46 pm
keep in mind, this is just my view of it. Walter Soplata got airplanes that were going to be scrapped, and saved them from the boneyard, and placed them at his home. ow we are talking about a museum, that is supposed to be saving these, and they are scraping them, and mistreating them.