Warbird Information Exchange

Is this Paul Bertorelli aware of all the facts in this matter?

Honestly, sounds like he is talking out his a$$! And I think that this type of wacked out rhetoric is part of the problem instead of the solution.

Do you think anyone would want to get along with someone who keeps throwing dirt in their face and demands something in return? CAF knew the rules and the conditions and because of a few this is the outcome.

It does not matter to ask if the Air Force needs two if they own the dang thing!!

Ok, I am done beating this horse.

deleted duplicate of post below,


hmmm - well that was unsuccessful as its deleted both copies!

This post has been "reconstructed" and the salient points I made in this post were:

having re-read the judgement it seems pretty clear to me, and seems to address the arguments made against ongoing USAF ownership by the CAF, while confirming that USAF ownership prevails.

It has two quotes that may better explain why the USAF have chosen to reject the recent CAF proposal to retain it as a static display, as that proposal openly and honestly foreshadowed ongoing dispute of the judgement through "persuasion"





I can undertand after this long and adversarial dispute that the USAF now wishes to bring the F-82 episode to an end, having the CAF returning the aircraft back to complete the closure of the existing agreement, and leaving it to the CAF to undertake any further litigation to undo/reverse the judgement.

I dont see any precendents flowing to the wider warbird community affecting aircraft formally disposed of as surplus, sold for scrap after WW2, or recovered as wrecks, as has been alluded to by some.

This seems more an attempt by some to whip up public and enthusiast support against the outcome with scaremongering, or simply un-informed opinions extending to the "end of warbirds as we know it", or some great "gum'ment conspiry".

I do hope CAF gets some second opinions on its legal case before spending more on court costs, and certainly avoids being encouraged and egged on by the uninformed hype that seems to be being built up about threats to all former military warbirds etc, and the need to go to court for "everyone else".


The issue seems clearly limited to other aircraft on the same conditional donation agreement, and only risks those not complying with the terms and conditions. - Not a problem for the majority of museums happy to keep their aircraft as intended by the agreement?

Obviously there may be other conditional donation aircraft being flown in contravention of their agreements and it would be a concern if the USAF enforced or cancelled the agreements to cause that to cease, but then they did allow the F-82 to fly, and it was not the cause of this agreement being cancelled in 2002.




regards

Mark Pilkington

(having deleted both posts in one action ,not just the duplicate - I have tried to reconstruct my post as simply as possible by cut and paste of quotes from it, and memory, so as to allow the subsequent posts by myself and others to be read in context!, hopefully I have covered all the same points, without changing their meaning or interpretation of my opinions or statements)

_________________
20th Century - The Age of Manned Flight
"from Wrights to Armstrong in 66 years -WOW!"

Mark-
I was determined to stop posting on this topic and let it die...but...

Some of us that have posted on this topic have first hand knowledge about NMUSAF threats that have been levied against other aircraft. Unfortunately, I am not able to disclose that information. Maybe some of the others will step forward and do so, but I have been asked not to give specifics by those directly involved. Believe me if I could publicize it, you can bet I would.

With all due respect, to indicate that this is purely 'uninformed hype' leads me to believe that you just might be the one uninformed.

Tim,

as seen from my modified post above (not quite sure why my editing resulted in two versions at the same time - and I cant delete the earlier one) I do understand there may be some other aircraft on the same conditional donation agreements.



I am uninformed as to which aircraft/organisations those might be that consider they have contravened their conditional donation agreements, and are at risk from this judgement, and would suggest its best not to openly speculate in any case.



My reference to "un-informed scaremongering" relates to the various comments that relate to all ex-military aircraft being at risk, regardless of the method of acquisition, and more particularly those comments that have implied the USAF had no legal rights whereas the judgement clearly deals with all the arguments put forward against those rights.


Obviously the CAF may have access to good legal advice that the judgement is in error, and perhaps the other owners of conditional donation aircraft can contribute to funding an appeal if they feel threatened by the judgement, but its not the armageddon some have implied, unless most of the flying warbirds are on these conditional donation agreements?

Justing wanting the see an F-82 fly, or just wanting the CAF to be right doesnt make it so, and just because the USAF has 3 F-82's doesnt mean they need to walk away from ownership of this one.


regards

Mark Pilkington

_________________
20th Century - The Age of Manned Flight
"from Wrights to Armstrong in 66 years -WOW!"

I have to be careful what I say here as well, but I can assure you that Tim is correct in the fact that the NMUSAF did threaten to take back another aircraft, ONLY because Gen. Metcalf got reeeeeeal pissed off at the CAF (over a discussion gone bad). I was personally consulted about this, to see if "they had a leg to stand on." Fortunately, at the time, there was absolutely nothing that the CAF was doing wrong with the airplane in question, and the "threats" stopped for that aircraft almost as quickly as they had begun.

It's up to the courts to decide the appeal for this case. None of us on WIX has any real say (unless one of us ends up on the jury). I have my opinions, and others have theirs. But none of that really matters at this point. This is a bad situation for everyone involved, period.

Gary

Thanks for clarifying. I certainly agree with your statement above.

As I have mentioned before, my concern is that there are other aircraft out there with ambiguous paperwork or paperwork signed by the wrong officer from fifty years ago.

The CAF certainly thought the most recent 'donation' paperwork they had was legal. How many others out there are like that?

My concern is that this will embolden military museums to examine the paperwork of other aircraft in private hands to determine if they have ever "i" dotted and "t" crossed. Granted, that may or may not happen. I tend to fall on the side that doesn't trust the government much though

Okay, I really am done on this topic now. I will wait for the appeal to run its course. I think most people who read WD know where I stand on this issue anyway.

Thanks for clarifying. I certainly agree with your statement above.

As I have mentioned before, my concern is that there are other aircraft out there with ambiguous paperwork or paperwork signed by the wrong officer from fifty years ago.

The CAF certainly thought the most recent 'donation' paperwork they had was legal. How many others out there are like that?

My concern is that this will embolden military museums to examine the paperwork of other aircraft in private hands to determine if they have ever "i" dotted and "t" crossed. Granted, that may or may not happen. I tend to fall on the side that doesn't trust the government much though

Okay, I really am done on this topic now. I will wait for the appeal to run its course. I think most people who read WD know where I stand on this issue anyway.

.
Tim / Gary,

I would agree this whole thing is a regrettable mess, largely arising from the very poor title of the agreement as a "conditional donation", where as it seems to me far better described as an indefinate loan.

Unfortunately gentlemen's agreements and practical down to earth solutions often become very complicated when lawyers get involved, and I do wonder if the "conditional donation" as a "donation" is designed to place public liability for injuries etc in the hands of the organisation receiving the "donated" aircraft while its in their care, rather than the ultimate owner - ie the USAF.

Despite any such possible legal concerns it seems to me the whole mess starts with the agreement being called a "conditional donation", and the assumptions that flow from its title rather than its terms and conditions.

Either way I sympathise with both sides, were I on the CAF Board I certainly would have felt the aircraft had been "donated", and be obliged to dispute the USAF demand for its return rather than simply give it up, particularly if records were ambiguous and memories were poor as to what had actually taken place by earlier administrations.

Were I involved in the USAF's management of all of these "conditional donations", and I had many assets being held under those agreements, I would similarly support taking action to defend the rights retained in those conditions in regard to the F-82, to ensure all other agreements were clear.

In the end due to the work invested by the CAF, and the underlying importance and value of the airframe to the USAF, as well as the flow on effects, it was reasonable to have the issue tested in court to resolve it, however it is unfortunate if that has been done so "passionately" that very adversarial relationships appear developed as a consequence.

(There are many close "friends" who litigate to resolve commercial differences and uncertainties while retaining the friendship).

I wouldnt be surprised if heated tempers have resulted in threats etc arising from the long dispute and perhaps personality clashes, I'm glad to hear the threats stopped, and that other CAF aircraft's use was complying with its terms and conditions in any case.

I continue to hope the USAF and CAF can reach/build a long term close relationship, even without ever returning or flying the F-82, as the synergies seem so logical and beneficial to both.

I would hope that the USAF could contemplate allowing (or does now already and knowingly permit) selected duplicate aircraft to be flown on their behalf. (isnt that what was permitted with the F-82 originally?)

In regards to other existing flying warbirds actually operating under similar conditional donation agreements, I still dont see any precedent acting yet to stop them flying.

The CAF flew the F-82 with permission and clear knowledge of the USAF, and that action was not listed as part of the agreement dispute by the USAF.

I assume the USAF know those other aircraft are flying as well, are therefore knowingly and intentionally permitting it, and as yet havent undertaken any formal action to cause that flying to cease, and the ongoing non-action would seem to set its own precidents.


The issues I see arising from all this are:

1. The CAF need to confirm its legal opinions on the ability to overturn the decision on appeal, and decide their own decisions.

2. Others concerned about their own USAF Conditional Donation aircraft need to legally assess their own exposures and either fund some of the CAF's appeal, change their operations to comply with the terms and conditions, re-confirm their current operations with the USAF, or simply keep their head down and hope they aren't of concern to the USAF.

3. The USAF needs to improve their administration of the Conditional Donation assets, so as ensure recepients are aware of their obligations, and understand the conditional "loan" nature of these "donations".

4. The USAF should consider revising their agreement title and documentation to make them more robust and clear, especially for any new "conditional donations" undertaken, and retrospectively with those parties willing to update and clarify their existing agreements.

One aircraft that has already been raised as being caught up in this issue is the F4 with Collings?, with-holding of engines etc, I dont know the details of that, but it does raise the question of the USAF applying more stringuent rules to future "conditional donations" to stop more potent and more recent ex-military aircraft being flown privately.

Perhaps the USAF should rule a line under the current agreements and draft a new and clear document for any future "conditional loans" that make it very clear ownership is retained by USAF, that the aircraft is not made available on loan for flying, if thats what the USAF clearly wish to enforce.


I continue to hold the CAF in very high regard, and my opinions here are not intended to be a criticism of their actions, just an assessment of the situation as it appears to me.


regards


Mark Pilkington

_________________
20th Century - The Age of Manned Flight
"from Wrights to Armstrong in 66 years -WOW!"

Tim's views as well as those of the rest of you are appreciated. We shall let the appeal continue (in that we didn't have much of a choice) and hope for a more favorable outcome.

I believe this affair has not permanently harmed any relationship between the AF and the CAF. We have been transparent in all our dealings and our President, Steve Brown, has developed a good relationship with others at the Museum beyond Gen Metcalfe.

I do wish that the several current or former CAF members who've posted here and bashed the leadership of the organization would have come to Midland during the five plus years of this affair with either the big checks necessary to do something with the airplane or a realistic business plan. To personal knowledge that did not happen. Good intentions are wonderful but what was needed was cold hard cash. Without that, we acted in good faith in arranging the trade for the P-38 and should have contested the AF action at that point. We've continued to try to do the best we could for the airplane and the CAF.

Old Shep

Yes charge them for storage.
For the getting it ready for shipping.
I'd say that is all worth 2 million. And then since CAF is financially ruined by the lost of the aircraft you should also demand a bail out of 5 billion or so. That would help with attorney fees and gas, oil etc. Gosh look how AIG gets to flaunt tax payer money.

hmmm I think I broke WIX - smiles another duplicate post that hopefully deleted without taking the original?

regards

Mark Pilkington

_________________
20th Century - The Age of Manned Flight
"from Wrights to Armstrong in 66 years -WOW!"

I sure hope the USAF doesn't find out about my AT-10. It is much rarer than the P-82, so maybe they want it back and will destroy it so they will have the only one.

The NMUSAF is painted in a pretty bad light in much of this thread. But this is waht I find interesting and have another source on this as well. The NMUSAF said that they still owned the aircraft and wanted to work something out not once or twice, but three times. And all three times the CAF basically said to go get bent. Now it is told as a story of the poor CAF being attacked by the big bad General. Well, that is just not how it was. I wish the P-82 would stay with the CAF and get in the air again, but you can't just tell one side of the story for almost 12 pages. Neither the CAF or the NMUSAF are without faults, and we will all go on to support our favorites. So let's get an end to all of this, once and for all.

_________________
Chris Henry
EAA Aviation Museum Director

can somebody give a condensed version of what's going on?? my eyes are ready top out of my head!!!!

_________________
tom d. friedman - hey!!! those fokkers were messerschmitts!! * without ammunition, the usaf would be just another flying club!!! * better to have piece of mind than piece of tail!!

can somebody give a condensed version of what's going on?? my eyes are ready to pop out of my head!!!!

_________________
tom d. friedman - hey!!! those fokkers were messerschmitts!! * without ammunition, the usaf would be just another flying club!!! * better to have piece of mind than piece of tail!!