P-82 going Bye Bye!! A very sad day at the CAF!

mustangdriver · **Posted:** Wed Mar 11, 2009 9:21 pm

airnutz wrote:

mustangdriver wrote:

kalamazookid wrote:

If I were the USAF, I'd want it back too.

Suppose you (the USAF) lent your friend (the CAF) your rare 19?? sports car (the P-82). This friend proceeded to crash it, and then let it sit in his garage for a number of years because he didn't have the money to fix it. All of a sudden the opportunity comes along for a better car (the P-38 trade), a different one, so he decided he's going to trade the car that's technically still yours for the new one. Would you be a little pissed and want it back? I sure would.

That's how I see this situation. This isn't meant to flame the CAF or anything, just trying to play a little devil's advocate. Would I have liked to see the P-82 fly? Sure. But I can honestly say I see where the USAF is coming from. And it's not like there aren't two other potentially flyable P/F-82s. I'm sure the NMUSAF will find an appropriate place to display it and it will be well cared for.

Hey, pal what are you doing by bringing common sense into this picture. I would have loved to see her fly, but I really do understand where the NMUSAF is coming from. The funny thing is that if these were two private owners, no one would have ever said a thing, but because it is NMUSAF, it is a huge deal. The museum is not taking it because they are doing what the Navy did with the F-14. THey are taking it because they and the court as of right now, believe it is theirs. Anyone here would do the exact same thing with it if it was theirs. ONCE AGAIN, Am I a fan of the decision? NO. But they have a point.

Common Sense? More of your opinion Chris...IMHO!

Suppose you were given a car with paperwork(and left a B-25 to fill the slot in the lot). Everythings fine for 40 years
until you decide to trade your car to another individual. The NEW lot manager calls you and says bring your car
back..it was only a loan! But sir we have the bill of ownership, you say. Sorry bring it back..the old lot manager wasn't
authorized to cede the car to you...Sez Me The New Lot Manager!

At the very least the General could have said, "No the F-82's a loan don't trade/sell it." Solved the owner/loan issue and
still leave the '82 with CAF. But no, he goes for the throat for seizure! :twisted:

For 40 years there was no issue as to who owned the F-82 and the care or damage to it in the crash. When it was publicly
announced 40 years ago about the CAF ownership of the '82..not a peep out of the AF refuting the claim.

The General also seems to be trying to retrofit how things were done back then with the more stringent guidelines of
today. Some of the new attitude appears the USAF is being outright difficult and asinine just because they can to the
very people and public who support them and their history. The General could have picked far more reasonable
alternatives than the path he chose.

Just my .02

It is my opinion. That is all any of this thread is is opinion. The problem I have is that I am on the side of leaving the P-82 with the CAF, but when I even mention that the plane may not belong to the CAF, some jump down my throat. If it is so clear cut that the P-82 is owned by the CAF, and everything else is just me being dumb, then why is it on the way to Dayton? Why did a ruling go in favor of the NMUSAF? Something somewhere isn't being put out there.
And I believe a better and more correct anology would be you lending a friend a car. That friend crashing it, letting it sit, and then trying to sell it. And then at that point you saying, "Gee, I am pretty sure I own that car." And your friend comes back with, "Go f*&% yourself" not once but three times before you proceed.

A2C · **Posted:** Wed Mar 11, 2009 9:21 pm

Quote:

Are you suggesting they should defy the court order while waiting for their appeal to be heard?

Maybe they should have contacted the court, and told them a counter-suit is pending.

RyanShort1 · **Posted:** Wed Mar 11, 2009 9:23 pm

I want to publicly apologize for the tone I took earlier in the thread. I still think it's a loss for the warbird community, but don't want to be rude in the process. I just wish there seemed to be a greater spirit of cooperation and understanding coming from the NMUSAF side. Maybe they're really right on the ownership thing, but even if they are, I don't think it really benefits the country to have this outcome.

Ryan

mustangdriver · **Posted:** Wed Mar 11, 2009 9:27 pm

RyanShort1 wrote:

I want to publicly apologize for the tone I took earlier in the thread. I still think it's a loss for the warbird community, but don't want to be rude in the process. I just wish there seemed to be a greater spirit of cooperation and understanding coming from the NMUSAF side. Maybe they're really right on the ownership thing, but even if they are, I don't think it really benefits the country to have this outcome.

Ryan

Ryan that is how I feel 100%!! I wish that they would work things out together. This is a huge chance for both sides to work things out.

seaknight15 · **Posted:** Wed Mar 11, 2009 9:41 pm

I have a friend that is a locksmith so I would hope he has a really big lock that we can put on the C&P door in Anoka so the air force cannot get in to there 82.

A2C · **Posted:** Wed Mar 11, 2009 9:42 pm

Quote:

I just wish there seemed to be a greater spirit of cooperation and understanding coming from the NMUSAF side. Maybe they're really right on the ownership thing, but even if they are, I don't think it really benefits the country to have this outcome

Ryan, I disagree. You are going through victim denial, and you are caving too. (Victims of rape and other crimes tend to somehow feel that they got what they "deserved".)

The NMUSAF has given itself a terrible reputation. Look at how they handled the Ju-52 sale. They refused to give anybody a Bill of Sale for buying the plane. Just like the TSA, other top heavy bureaucratic agencies they are overstepping and violating private property rights as stated in the US Constitution.

My opinion is when facing these large gov't institutions, one must get some cahones and really fight them until the end. It says in the military that we will fight all enemies to the constitution both foreign and domestic.

We are dealing with domestic enemies, a subversive force originating from within our own country.

JDK · **Posted:** Wed Mar 11, 2009 9:49 pm

I'm glad to see that most of the thread is polite and reasonable, even though there's some strong views to express. Please, remember this is a public forum, with a liability.

While the debate is very interesting, a lot of what it boils down to is paperwork.

jet1 wrote:

Re: and WHO actually PAID for all that stuff..

GOSH it was ME...and YOU. Seems to me if WE paid for it WE should be able to decide what happens to it.

I doubt 'you' did pay for it. It's a nice metaphor, but you can't just pick up nationally-owned equipment because you are a taxpayer - I'm sure the other taxpayers would like to choose their favourite toys.

Do you have a receipt? Then no proof of purchase.

Tim Savage wrote:

I fail to see anyplace where anyone in this threat has personally attacked the General. If you are concluding that I was personally attacking the General you are incorrect. The two times I have met him he has been cordial and friendly. However, some of us are aware of other threats that have been made to the CAF and other organizations based on his policy, which appears to be different than previous administratins of the NMUSAF.

This has been said several times - perhaps also relating to the Collings Foundation Phantom issues. However there's been plenty of (I'm sure reasonable) off record allergations, but without data, no-one can do anything - it's all speculation.

If an official of a national body in the USA makes un-supported allegations about citizens or organisations, I'd presume he or she can be sued for it. Provided the data's there to do it. Or not?

Tim Savage wrote:

It goes farther than the F-82, and it is greater than the CAF. The CAF needs to fight this on behalf of everyone involved, not just themselves.

I agree it's a precedent, but I don't see how that can leverage real action. I also don't assume a precedent guarantees further action on the same lines.

Tim Savage wrote:

...They are spending tax money and common sense rarely prevails when comes to those type of expenditures. They do have, deep, deep, pockets and certainly could just conclude that they could litigate this until the CAF just runs out of money. Whether they are right or wrong. That happens all the time.

Point of order. - We hear a lot about 'common sense' however it's very hard to nail down; one person's common sense is another's barking lunacy. The USAF feels it's worthwhile to pursue the case - the 'deep pockets' cash can well be used elsewhere, in the beanconter's view - someone thinks it's worth blowing the cash on this.

Dan K wrote:

67Cougar wrote:

I just hate to see aircraft that are irreplacable being risked. How would the warbird community feel if the P-82 crashed and was destroyed on its first flight?

The warbird community would feel awful. But maybe not quite as awful as when those dozens of irreplaceable static aircraft were destroyed in the French museum fire. As history proves (and this board has debated ad nauseum), static museum display does not guarantee aircraft longevity.

But the risk is unarguably much greater with active aircraft than static. Nothing's 'guaranteed safe', but despite the losses in museums being trotted out regularly, they don't actually add up to that many - and rarely do they cost any lives or either participants or public.

The lost aircraft in le Bourget IIRC, off the cuff, probably number about as many as one great warbird organisation based in Texas has lost in accidents over the last 40 years. Ouch.

The current CAF are setting a much better standard, and the comparison's unfair to both organisations; but let's not massage the facts for our preference, but look at them square on and accept what they are.

On the specific aircraft, it's unfair to suggest that the CAF didn't do their best (as they continue to do - and I'm sure they'd accept financial help so put up or shut up on that, IMHO). And it's silly to suggest that the CAF breach their requirements set under the current judgement - that would put them in contempt of the court order, and short circuit any further work.

Just some thoughts.

groundbound · **Posted:** Wed Mar 11, 2009 9:59 pm

How can the USAF actually justify taking something back after it was given to another orginization, with supporting paperwork even. Sounds like the judge was a little sympathetic to the USAF. If the person who signed the transfer papers was authorized at that time, it should stand. Can you imagine what decisions like this would do in the private sector? Sorry, we know we gave that to you, and you have the papers to prove it, but tough luck, we want it back. No competent judge would even think of ruling in the plaintiffs favor. They, the USAF, only does this because we let them. Yes, they are here to protect us, and I respect that mission, and the men and women who make that possible. But seriously, the darn plane isn't militarily useful anymore. What is the harm in letting an orginization who has ownership put the plane back in the air? Nothing, that's what. The government is getting increasingly unfriendly towards general aviation, and I can see this as just another piece of evidence towards that. If they can come and take this plane, what's to stop them from saying that all the warbirds in private hands belong to them because the person who sold/gave them to the private individuals wasn't authorized to do so? After this ruling, not a darn thing.
It sets a legal precedent we should all be concerned about.

groundbound · **Posted:** Wed Mar 11, 2009 10:00 pm

Okay, I forgot to unclick the underline button. My bad, sorry.

JDK · **Posted:** Wed Mar 11, 2009 10:05 pm

Groundbound - have a look at the earlier discussion. The CAF had paper they believed and hoped acted as title - The USAF disagreed. The judge found in favour of the USAF.

August, k5054, had a look through the papers, and IIRC, said both sides had a good case - it's not 'open and shut' for either side.

HTH

A2C · **Posted:** Wed Mar 11, 2009 10:06 pm

Quote:

No competent judge would even think of ruling in the plaintiffs favor. They, the USAF, only does this because we let them. Yes, they are here to protect us, and I respect that mission, and the men and women who make that possible. But seriously, the darn plane isn't militarily useful anymore. What is the harm in letting an orginization who has ownership put the plane back in the air? Nothing, that's what. The government is getting increasingly unfriendly towards general aviation, and I can see this as just another piece of evidence towards that. If they can come and take this plane, what's to stop them from saying that all the warbirds in private hands belong to them because the person who sold/gave them to the private individuals wasn't authorized to do so? After this ruling, not a darn thing.
It sets a legal precedent we should all be concerned about.

There's nothing to stop them, and they are testing people out to see if they will stand up to them. No one stands up to them, and so this is what happens. This is subversion! "We the people" is now "we the pushovers" to them. Wait and see this sets a terrible precedent, and they are testing you and me through coercion to see if you'll cave. This is a silent revolution against citizens, and it will be too late very soon. We are already in the 11th hour, mark my words. This is only the tip of the iceberg, and I don't mean for the economy. I mean for personal freedom.

JDK · **Posted:** Wed Mar 11, 2009 10:12 pm

Mod post: OK, A2C, we've got it. Now let's move on.

RyanShort1 · **Posted:** Wed Mar 11, 2009 10:14 pm

JDK wrote:

Groundbound - have a look at the earlier discussion. The CAF had paper they believed and hoped acted as title - The USAF disagreed. The judge found in favour of the USAF.

August, k5054, had a look through the papers, and IIRC, said both sides had a good case - it's not 'open and shut' for either side.

HTH

I also read (ok, some parts I skimmed) the entire brief that was downloadable, and though not a lawyer, I'd have to say that the CAF's position didn't seem watertight, but given the circumstances, it seemed like the USAF was being awful selective about their interpretation of their own documents. Also, some of the stuff I talked to the CAF guys about wasn't even mentioned in the court documents. What bothers me the most is that it seems like IF the USAF is right, then the USAF intentionally turned a blind eye for a LONG time before doing something about it, then some guy came along and decided to enforce the law. I find it much easier to believe that the intention WAS for the CAF to operate the plane (legality of this in question) and the fact that the CAF wasn't forced to report on the plane, as other donations, points to this.
Anyway, it seems the CAF will continue on with the legal side. I hope they come out OK for it. Really, I hope that some good comes out of this for the NMUSAF as well. Honestly!

Ryan

Dan K · **Posted:** Wed Mar 11, 2009 10:44 pm

JDK wrote:

Dan K wrote:

67Cougar wrote:

I just hate to see aircraft that are irreplacable being risked. How would the warbird community feel if the P-82 crashed and was destroyed on its first flight?

The warbird community would feel awful. But maybe not quite as awful as when those dozens of irreplaceable static aircraft were destroyed in the French museum fire. As history proves (and this board has debated ad nauseum), static museum display does not guarantee aircraft longevity.

But the risk is unarguably much greater with active aircraft than static. Nothing's 'guaranteed safe', but despite the losses in museums being trotted out regularly, they don't actually add up to that many - and rarely do they cost any lives or either participants or public.

The lost aircraft in le Bourget IIRC, off the cuff, probably number about as many as one great warbird organisation based in Texas has lost in accidents over the last 40 years. Ouch.

James, I very much respect and appreciate your efforts at moderation here. You do have a gift for it.

But might I point out (tongue-in-cheek :wink:

) that in one paragraph you stated that "the risk is unarguably much greater with active aircraft than static.", but then proceeded to state that "the lost aircraft in le Bourget...probably number about as many as one great warbird organization based in Texas has lost in accidents over the last 40 years." proving the unarguable point that--over the last 40 years--the risk comparison between one large static collection and one large active collection was equal?

Might I then also be permitted to opine, "Ouch"? :wink:

Mark_Pilkington · **Posted:** Wed Mar 11, 2009 10:48 pm

Tim Savage wrote:

.

Mark:

I fail to see anyplace where anyone in this threat has personally attacked the General. If you are concluding that I was personally attacking the General you are incorrect. The two times I have met him he has been cordial and friendly. However, some of us are aware of other threats that have been made to the CAF and other organizations based on his policy, which appears to be different than previous administratins of the NMUSAF. It goes farther than the F-82, and it is greater than the CAF. The CAF needs to fight this on behalf of everyone involved, not just themselves.

As for you point about the USAF not contesting this without a reasonable though of winning: Point taken. However, remember, they aren't spending there own money. They are spending tax money and common sense rarely prevails when comes to those type of expenditures. They do have, deep, deep, pockets and certainly could just conclude that they could litigate this until the CAF just runs out of money. Whether they are right or wrong. That happens all the time.

Tim, I wasn't accusing anyone in particular, or highlighting any so far as particularly offensive personal attacks, but simply raising the concern that they were "starting to come into the debate", which occurred on the previous thread and had seemed to start again here with innuendo and heresay etc, and those tend only to rev up the lynching crowd rather than add any value to logical debate.

In addition I'm sure the commentry here gets some type of review and discussion back in USAF circles and the CAF's interests and objectives would seem best served by the discussion sticking to the facts not emotional interpretations, if people do wish to change the USAF's position and thinking.

While people may dislike his decisions, I expect the General checks off his actions in regards to this issue with his legal staff and ensures he is fully compliant with their advice and the court order.

Yes the USAF have taxpayers money and will likely have deeper pockets than the CAF, but I dont think they would contest the issue if their legal advice wasnt positive? Their legal opinion is now strengthened by the win in the existing court decision, it would be hard to see them not vigourously defending an appeal?

Its the Board of the CAFs' role to decide the value in proceeding with an appeal, and its likely success, however I would be concerned how the CAF could control the exposure of legal costs, (including those of the USAF if it is unsuccessful?)

I'm also not sure the CAF should be "fighting this on behalf of everyone else", unless everyone else is going to stumping up some cash for legal costs?

I also wonder about the long term relationship between the two organisations, which would seem to be heading in the wrong direction if ongoing litigation is to occur.

In the end it is a dreadful situation, I agree the history, documentation and management of the agreement seems poor and the concept of a "conditional donation" and ability to require the donation's return seems ambiguous to begin with, and I can understand the CAF's view that they are in the right, however the court judgement took all of that into account and still found in favour of the USAF.

I can understand the CAF's intial litigation to seek an independant arbitor and decision on the whole mess, I am not so sure I understand the reasons behind not accepting that decision and instead fighting on - obviously that depends on the legal opinions the CAF has access to? and their trust of their correctness and accuracy?

However as I said before, 50% of litigants relying on their lawyers "strong" arguments and "confident" opinions discover they still dont succeed on the floor of the court, and thats usually not due to some great "guvvment" conspiracy, but simply because the lawyers got it wrong.

regards

Mark Pilkington

Warbird Information Exchange

P-82 going Bye Bye!! A very sad day at the CAF!

Who is online