Save the Skyraider

famvburg · **Joined:** Fri Oct 07, 2005 9:41 am **Posts:** 540

My understanding is that the owner paid a certain sum of money to an individual to advise him on the proper steps & his advice wasn't all that correct.

sdennison · **Posted:** Wed May 20, 2009 12:30 pm

Complicated situation for sure. However, everyone knows where the buck stops and unfortunately it is with the owner. I wish him the best of luck in getting this straightened out.

Holedigger · **Posted:** Wed May 20, 2009 12:50 pm

Unfortunately, it is a very complicated thing to do business these days, especially if you step over the border. Dealing with agencies whose rules often contradict and conflict, one has to figure out just whose rule trumps whose! I work with architects, and building anything on the beach is a total nightmare! There are so many entities that have a say in what gets built and how it gets built is just a joke. The rules and regs have been changing so fast that even those in charge of them are not sure of them. Before doing ANYTHING, one must research, hire experts and make sure those T's are crossed and I's dotted. Things happen and it is often expensive to resolve. One way or another, the lawyers WIN! I find it sad that a Federal Agency should threaten to scrap someone's aircraft (if it happened or is it hearsay?) We don't know enough of what really happened. He has a lawyer now to sort the mess out. Brings new meaning to buyer beware! Just because you own it doesn't mean you can do anything you want with it!

Matt Gunsch · **Posted:** Wed May 20, 2009 1:04 pm

It is not like he was trying to hide the plane, he had it registered with the FAA. If it was a paperwork oversight, then he should be able to fill out the missing form. Oh wait, that is too simple, I forgot that common sence does not apply when dealing with the Feds.

airnutz · **Posted:** Wed May 20, 2009 1:27 pm

Holedigger wrote:

We don't know enough of what really happened. He has a lawyer now to sort the mess out.

Yep, it's pretty much wait and see what happens now. Per the EAA news release of 15 May...he's had a lawyer...he's
asked for aid from Warbirds of America member Congressman Sam Graves and the EAA is standing by for
additional support. Nuff said..

Arty163 · **Posted:** Wed May 20, 2009 5:09 pm

Hello,
Mayhaps this will appear inappropriate, I looked at the "save a skyraider" site and I am 100% for saving a Skyraider. It is afterall one of my all time favorite airplanes, but after perusing the site I could find no information about what the problem is, or what is happening. I am encouraged to contact my congressman, which I will happily do, but what do I tell him? I hope they update the site with some concrete information. I know there is a problem... but aside from what I have read on WIX, I do not know what the issue is. With some useful info I could get the word out locally and maybe it'd help some.
Just my ramblings on the subject.

Arty

airnutz · **Posted:** Wed May 20, 2009 5:26 pm

Arty163 wrote:

but after perusing the site I could find no information about what the problem is, or what is happening.

Same here Arty. I'm guessing..but here goes, maybe he threw up the fancy website and got rolling for a
public campaign, but his lawyer told him to grab a cup of shut-the-h3ll-up.

airnutz · **Posted:** Thu May 21, 2009 12:40 pm

No new News on the savetheskyraider.com website yet. AVweb did post a commentary however. They've been making
inquiries regarding this situation but no one knows anything. What I don't understand is, if ICE is the primary
agency involved in this situation, then why are the AVweb reporters asking the TSA what's happening? :shock:

www.avweb.com/blogs/insider/Why_Did_TSA ... 420-1.html

EDIT

airnutz · **Posted:** Thu May 21, 2009 8:22 pm

airnutz wrote:

No new News on the savetheskyraider.com website yet. AVweb did post a commentary however. They've been making
inquiries regarding this situation but no one knows anything. What I don't understand is, if ICE is the primary
agency involved in this situation, then why are the AVweb reporters asking the TSA what's happening? :shock:

www.avweb.com/blogs/insider/Why_Did_TSA ... 420-1.html

EDIT

Oops, apparently Russ Niles, the author of the article I read this morning erred in his original post. He has since
changed it as is noted below the blog in the commentary section.

P51Mstg · **Joined:** Tue Jan 25, 2005 11:36 am **Posts:** 1202

A lot of blame shifting going on here........

I would assume the owner had an expert on customs working on the problem. I would have to also guess that the EXPERT dropped the ball and didn't file the proper ATF form. So.

Facts are simple.

The airplane is a weapon of war (be it an M-1 Garand or a Nuke or a Skyraider)

It was illegally imported into the country (no form filed)

The Govt has seized it (and it took them 6 months to do it).

If it would follow suit as normally happens, the airplane is confiscated and the govt disposes of it. Hopefully they give it to the USN Museum or USAF Museum, who could well "trade" it for something else, put it in their museum or put it on a stick in front of some base to rot. OR Customs could destroy it (chop it up). Its CONTRABAND, just like a KILO of Cocaine.

Next, the Govt prosecutes everyone in sight (virtually no defense here, especially for the owner) and the owner gets a felony on his record and goes to prison, as does the imporation expert, etc. The simple importation of a weapon of war without proper paperwork is a felony. Doesn't require knowledge of the law (need the form); doesn't require any "intent" to smuggle an airplane in or any other excuse here.

Of course if the owner is wise, he makes a deal to avoid prosecution, lets the govt keep the airplane and stays out of jail and keeps his record clean (I'd do that one in a second). He sues the importer, seller, the aircraft broker, the expert who did the paperwork and recovers the money that he spent on the plane plus for his time and trouble too. Then he goes and buys another Skyraider that is already here in the USA.

Of course you can blame the govt for enforcing all of Pres. Bush's laws here or naturally you can blame the lawyers (since we get bashed all the time anyways). Of course if someone consulted a lawyer who did this kind of work and paid him a few hundred bucks, none of this would have happened. You can also blame the owner for being stupid and allowing the Skyraider to be destroyed, etc.

Just being objective here.

Mark H

aseanaero · **Posted:** Fri May 22, 2009 1:29 am

Quote:

sue the aircraft broker

Why is it the French aircraft brokers fault ? If he sells 'as-is , were-is' and has made no representation that it can be imported to the USA why does he have a problem ?

I walked away from 2 deals this year where

1. The aircraft were 'war prizes' from the annexation of East Timor in 1975 and had been operated in Indonesia for more than 30yrs. I was concerned if they left the country they possibly could be claimed by the Portuguese government. I dug deeper into to this as the log books were younger than the aircraft and wanted to go 'back to birth' , the local seller of these aircraft didn't make the history prior to be operated in Indonesia known to me and I'm sure he knew.

2. in another case aircraft had been previously purchased by a US buyer (luckily he registered a lien with the FAA which I found) but never collected 17 yrs later. The people offering the aircraft to me where either unaware of this or were suppressing this info.

In both those circumstances I did my own due diligence to make sure there would be no problem for a potential buyer , and in both cases no clear solution was found so rather than concealing the facts I didn't take those projects on after literally weeks of work digging up the facts. I won't sell an aircraft , heli or parts that I wouldn't be happy to buy myself knowing all the facts.

I'll only sell ex my warehouse (Jakarta) or at the location due to these very problems , if the 'experts' in the destination country can't figure out the correct procedure what chance have I got ?

JDK · **Posted:** Fri May 22, 2009 1:44 am

aseanaero wrote:

Quote:

sue the aircraft broker

Why is it the French aircraft brokers fault ?

No one's suggesting it is. P51Mstg said nothing about a French broker - and, AFAIK from information made public, the aircraft was actually brokered by a well-known American organisation.

The issue isn't original ownership - or indeed anything to do with whose aircraft it is, but about crossing a border with an (alleged) missing piece of paper for a weapon.

aseanaero · **Posted:** Fri May 22, 2009 1:52 am

My apologies JDK , I remember reading that this Skyraider came from France , didn't know all the facts and jumped to the wrong conclusion

Thanks for the correction

Anyway I'm really interested in the outcome of this case so in the future I am aware of the correct procedure now

JDK · **Posted:** Fri May 22, 2009 2:49 am

No need to apologise! My info is just based on what I read - and could well be wrong.

P51Mstg's post seems useful to me from the point of view of someone with some understanding of the law - however, it's interesting that the it appears from what he's saying that an oversight can be acted on with what seems to me disproportionate effort and action - where a fine / slap on the wrist or go-fill-it-out-over-there would make more sense.

It would be hard for those acting to show the owner intended to use the item as a weapon. But again, that's unfortunately not the point.

Nasty.

Ken · **Posted:** Fri May 22, 2009 7:15 am

Certainly not the first Skyraider to return from France - the airplane now marked as "The Proud American" with the Anders' museum is a recent example.

Warbird Information Exchange

Save the Skyraider

Who is online