Removal of 2 CAF General Staff Members

[Bill Greenwood]

Hard as it may be for you to believe, there are older white guys who do see the value of diversity, and especialy that of younger people if the CAF is to have much of a future.

[Scott Apple]

Lets stay on task fellas! Here's another article: http://mywesttexas.com/articles/2010/01 ... museum.prt

[Enemy Ace]

I'm all for diversity. In addition to Blondes I like Redheads and Brunettes too!!!

[Dan Newcomb]

I joined the CAF many years ago because it was my understanding that the “Prime Directive” of the organization was to fly and maintain war birds. If I wanted to join a non-flying aviation museum I could have done so. A similar situation occurred at our wing a few years ago.

Our wing has two hangars one of which is solely for maintenance. The other hangar has spaces dedicated to displays of memorabilia and other historical collections. Aircraft not undergoing maintenance are also displayed in this hangar. We refer to this hangar as the museum hangar and the other as the maintenance hangar. The museum hangar is open to the public whereas the other hangar is restricted due to liability issues and local fire and safety codes.

Unfortunately in some respects having two separate hangars has created over the years a condition that for some gives the impression of pilots and mechanics versus museum personnel and docents. I personally do what ever I can to combat that feeling of separation but it exists.

A few years ago my wing had a mini revolt when funds originally earmarked for our collections and expansion in the museum hangar were needed for urgent repairs to one of our flying aircraft. Our staff voted to spend the money on the new engine. And when it was pointed out that our mission is to “maintain and fly” these aircraft and NOT to sustain a museum we lost a couple of members who disagreed.

As it now stands the CAF is a flying club. The four separate branches were created for business reasons. The General Staff is elected by the membership and should have over all authority. If you disagree than vote them out. As for me I say that anything that places our flying status in jeopardy must be dealt with and so far from what I have read and been told I agree with the General Staff’s actions.

Dan

[RareBear]

Bill Greenwood wrote:

You can know someone through aviation and not know them well, and come to find out later they might have an Aggie diploma in their closet, or pictures of nosewheel airplanes on the wall, might even own a poodle.

Now that's funny. I'm the same way about the University of Georgia.

Walt
Georgia Tech "67

[EDowning]

Scott Apple wrote:

Lets stay on task fellas!

And what EXACTLY is the task here?

[Scott Apple]

Just trying to get some discussion/opinion on what is going on in Midland. Not trying to side one way or the other. I just didn't know staff memebers could be removed like that. Guess you learn something new every day?

[Young Shep]

I'm sure there is some clause that allows for the GS to remove members for various reasons. The boards I serve on have such clauses. I don't think the GS could act in such a way if the bylaws did not allow for it. It doesn't seem like a case of creating new rules...

[Obergrafeter]

In learning more about this I still have questions. I just don't know if what the offending members were trying to do reaches the definition of "Malfesance"

[CAPFlyer]

Well, if what Steve alleges happened is true, then they did do things that I would definitely consider to be against the interests of the CAF as a whole and while I may not call it "malfeasance", I would call it "highly suspicious" and very much warranting serious consideration by everyone involved.

[mustangdriver]

I joined the CAF many years ago because it was my understanding that the “Prime Directive” of the organization was to fly and maintain war birds. If I wanted to join a non-flying aviation museum I could have done so. A similar situation occurred at our wing a few years ago.

Our wing has two hangars one of which is solely for maintenance. The other hangar has spaces dedicated to displays of memorabilia and other historical collections. Aircraft not undergoing maintenance are also displayed in this hangar. We refer to this hangar as the museum hangar and the other as the maintenance hangar. The museum hangar is open to the public whereas the other hangar is restricted due to liability issues and local fire and safety codes.

Unfortunately in some respects having two separate hangars has created over the years a condition that for some gives the impression of pilots and mechanics versus museum personnel and docents. I personally do what ever I can to combat that feeling of separation but it exists.

A few years ago my wing had a mini revolt when funds originally earmarked for our collections and expansion in the museum hangar were needed for urgent repairs to one of our flying aircraft. Our staff voted to spend the money on the new engine. And when it was pointed out that our mission is to “maintain and fly” these aircraft and NOT to sustain a museum we lost a couple of members who disagreed.

As it now stands the CAF is a flying club. The four separate branches were created for business reasons. The General Staff is elected by the membership and should have over all authority. If you disagree than vote them out. As for me I say that anything that places our flying status in jeopardy must be dealt with and so far from what I have read and been told I agree with the General Staff’s actions.

Dan

I won't talk of the CAF events because I don't know anything about it, but I wanted to comment on this. I worked at a museum where people forgot that the aircraft and the museum work hand in hand. they need one another, and one is not more important than the other. It doesn't matter what your goals are. I'll give you my example. We had a museum that had several warbirds under restoration. We were a small museum that had about 8 aircraft on display. We struggled for money and even more so in the early years of the museum. We at somepoint would pitch in our own money to get our news letters out. Every penny we got we put toward the aircraft with little extra bits going to the upkeep of the museum and gift shop. Then one day the museum got a C-123. and this split we are talking about took place. Every bit of money that the plane made was supposed to go to the museum, and the funds would be used for all of the expenses of the museum including upkeep and maint. on the 123. The problem was that everytime we got money, that money was used to support this now flying club and they would go out and fly the C-123. They called it training everytime they went out, but there was some doubt. Then they decided that all of the money that the C-123 makes should go into a private C-123 only fund. Why I am not sure as it is a museum that supports the plane, and the plane needs to make funds for the museum. So there you are sitting there trying to put an P-39 back together, you need paint but we can't afford it this month, but the C-123 guys would go out for flights just saying well we have money in the C-123 account. Long story told, that museum is now a shell of what it used to be. The museum used to have about 100 or more turn otu for the work nights and days on the weekends. now they get maybe 10 or 15 because of this. A flying club is a place for Pipers, and Cessnas, not warbirds.

[wwiiaviator]

As a CAF member, I agree wholeheartedly with the decision made. Pretty sketchy actions by the accused. The decision was made by a majority with just cause.

Ryan

[EDowning]

Mustangdriver wrote:

I won't talk of the CAF events because I don't know anything about it, but I wanted to comment on this. I worked at a museum where people forgot that the aircraft and the museum work hand in hand. they need one another, and one is not more important than the other. It doesn't matter what your goals are. I'll give you my example. We had a museum that had several warbirds under restoration. We were a small museum that had about 8 aircraft on display. We struggled for money and even more so in the early years of the museum. We at somepoint would pitch in our own money to get our news letters out. Every penny we got we put toward the aircraft with little extra bits going to the upkeep of the museum and gift shop. Then one day the museum got a C-123. and this split we are talking about took place. Every bit of money that the plane made was supposed to go to the museum, and the funds would be used for all of the expenses of the museum including upkeep and maint. on the 123. The problem was that everytime we got money, that money was used to support this now flying club and they would go out and fly the C-123. They called it training everytime they went out, but there was some doubt. Then they decided that all of the money that the C-123 makes should go into a private C-123 only fund. Why I am not sure as it is a museum that supports the plane, and the plane needs to make funds for the museum. So there you are sitting there trying to put an P-39 back together, you need paint but we can't afford it this month, but the C-123 guys would go out for flights just saying well we have money in the C-123 account. Long story told, that museum is now a shell of what it used to be. The museum used to have about 100 or more turn otu for the work nights and days on the weekends. now they get maybe 10 or 15 because of this. A flying club is a place for Pipers, and Cessnas, not warbirds.

Curious? Are you suggesting that the CAF is in effect a "Flying Club"? As you know from some of my previous posts, I'm not the biggest fan of museums in general, but it's just a personal preference, I recognize that they serve a historical function. I just don't quite see the parallel in this situation. Each of these entities should be self supporting.

[JDK]

Eric, Mustangdriver was responding to Dan Newcombe, who stated '...As it now stands the CAF is a flying club....'

[EDowning]

JDK wrote:

Eric, Mustangdriver was responding to Dan Newcombe, who stated '...As it now stands the CAF is a flying club....'

Thanks, somehow I missed that. I only responded because I didn't make the connection between the two posts. I am a Life Member of the CAF, but I don't have enough involvement or understanding of the day to day to be informed enough to have a strong opinion. That's why I pay attention to the general staff elections and trust them to represent my over all interests in this little "flying club".