FIFI Needs Our Help

4763E

Pre-takeoff checklist
Joined
Oct 1, 2007
Messages
371
Location
Westwood KS
Display Name

Display name:
4763E
Many of you may have seen an article from EAA this morning in Indy Transponder about the potential grounding of all military aircraft on loan from the Department of Defense.

The short story is Michael Turner (R-OH) is proposing an amendment, “Title 10” to the House National Defense Authorization Act (H.R. 4310). I am attaching some links that further explain the situation -- the first one is the article from Indy Transponder this morning and the second is a blog post made this morning by Commemorative Air Force president, Steve Brown.

This amendment, if passed, will permanently ground the only flying B-29 in the world -- FIFI. Please contact Michael Turner and also your representative to express your opposition to his actions. Please.

http://www.eaa.org/news/2012/2012-04-18_title10.asp

Warbird Community Rises to Meet Threat

'Title 10 Amendment' could devastate historic aircraft fleet



April 18, 2012 - EAA and the Warbirds of America are joining with the Commemorative Air Force, Collings Foundation, and other warbird groups in opposition of a proposed amendment to the House National Defense Authorization Act (H.R. 4310) that could have a devastating effect on the fleet of civilian-operated historic military aircraft.
The amendment introduced by Rep. Michael Turner (R-OH) would bar the Department of Defense from loaning or gifting any U.S. military aircraft or parts to any entity except those that would put the aircraft on static display, such as in a museum. The amendment would preclude the aircraft from being loaned to private individuals, associations, or museums where there is any intent of flying the historic vintage warbirds, even at air shows or demonstrations of support for veterans.
Military branches such as the U.S. Air Force often do not donate aircraft to private groups outright; they instead "loan" them under a Defense Department provision, Section 2572 of Title 10, to individuals and groups for indefinite periods. These private individuals and groups usually restore and operate the aircraft at their own expense to demonstrate these pieces of flying history to events such as EAA AirVenture Oshkosh.
"The Department of Defense has made numerous attempts through the years to preclude any former military aircraft from being flown in civilian hands," said Doug Macnair, EAA's vice president of government relations. "This view has never been supported by any safety or security imperative and is currently being couched as a move to supposedly 'preserve' rare military aircraft. We can be assured that the U.S. military has neither the funding nor the mandate to preserve these aircraft in flying condition, which would leave the only option for them to be used as static museum displays. That would truly be a tragedy and a loss of our aviation and military heritage."
Rep. Turner's district includes Dayton, Ohio, home of the National Museum of the U.S. Air Force, which has been adamant in its attempts to ground former U.S. military aircraft. Ironically, Dayton is the same site where this week more than 20 B-25 bombers - preserved and flown by private groups and individuals - are gathering in a public spectacle to honor the 70th anniversary of the famed Doolittle Raid on Japan.
EAA and the other warbird groups are working with staff in the House's Armed Services Committee and Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, as well as the House General Aviation Caucus as the Defense Authorization Bill goes into initial committee review next week and to the House floor in early May. Although the exact language of the amendment has not been shared with the aviation community or widely on Capitol Hill, Rep. Turner plans to push the amendment despite initial congressional opposition.
EAA and Warbirds of America recommend that members contact their congressional representatives, urging them to voice their opposition to the Turner amendment and in support of maintaining the private ability to restore and fly these historic aircraft.



Steve's blog post:


http://commemorativeairforce.org/?pa...&cms_page=1267

Some of you may have already seen that EAA has released the story about Rep Michael Turner (R-OH) proposing an amendment, “Title 10” to the House National Defense Authorization Act (H.R. 4310). This is something I have been working on since last week, but since EAA has taken it public, I will give you the details.
The significance of “Title 10” is that it would bar the Department of Defense from loaning or gifting any U.S. military aircraft to any organization which would conduct flight operations with said aircraft. Those aircraft could only be loaned or “conditionally donated” for static display only.
Last week I was contacted by the staff of Rep. John Mica(R-FL) about their concern for this amendment. Rep. Mica is the Chairman of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, which includes 6 sub-committees –notably: Aviation. The staffer told me about the language in the amendment and the Congressman who is proposing it and I smelled trouble instantly - which I explained to Rep. Mica’s staff member. Rep. Turner from Ohio is the former Mayor of Dayton – home of the National Museum of the US Air Force (NMUSAF). As many of you will recall, we were involved in a lawsuit with the USAF (spearheaded by the Museum) over the F-82, which we eventually lost; resulting in us shipping the airplane back to the NMUSAF, where it sits – permanently grounded. The reason we ended up in a lawsuit was due to the confusion over the Air Force’s “donation” of this airplane to the CAF in the early 70’s. The lawsuit went on for several years and we lost the suit and the subsequent appeal. I won’t get into the specifics of why, but it stems from confusion over the Air Force’s definition of “donation.”
While researching and preparing for the F-82 lawsuit, I looked into other aircraft that we have with this type of arrangement. Much to my surprise, this arrangement is similar with our most prized asset…our B-29 FIFI. FIFI is possessed by the CAF as a “Conditional Donation.” This means the airplane is permanently ours as long as we meet certain conditions of care for the airplane. Now this is the same type of language that the USAF uses for all of the aircraft you see on display at static museums around the country. The big difference is that we also have a subsequent agreement to allow the CAF to conduct flight operations with FIFI – and so we have for nearly 40 years. Well, when I was in Washington D.C. a couple of years ago, I met with the Colonel that oversees the history of the Air Force and all of their Museums. I told him that I was afraid that they were going to try to take FIFI away, as they were trying to take back the F-82. He said, “our lawyers have looked at the agreement with the CAF and they think that this agreement is too strong.” As you can tell by that sentence, it said to me….if we could take her back we would, but we think we would lose that legal battle. That was scary, but also comforting…until now. The only way that the USAF Museum could ground FIFI is by changing the law such that it is illegal to fly her.
Go back up and re-read the Amendment bolded above.
So, you will see and hear more from me, more formally and publicly, in the near future.
Steve
 
Who Peed in his Cheerios??

This guy can't find something more important to do?

What an idiot!
 
Who Peed in his Cheerios??

This guy can't find something more important to do?

What an idiot!

I suspect he was motivated by those in charge of the Air Force Museum, which is in his district. I don't like it, but I can't blame a Representative from responding to his constituents.

To a degree (a small one) I agree with new regulation. Every time we fly one of these priceless and unique treasures, we stand the chance of loosing it. If we truly want them preserved for posterity, they should be stationery.

The larger part of me thinks an airplane belongs in the sky, and if you don't see it there you aren't seeing all of it. That said, if we're going to fly them we have to admit to ourselves that sooner or later they'll go static or burn.
 
That said, if we're going to fly them we have to admit to ourselves that sooner or later they'll go static or burn.

So let's pass a law to ground every single one.

Why pass a law? There are plenty of 'static' birds but very few flying birds. That this law is being passed to preserve rare aircraft is ridiculous.
 
Last edited:
I suspect he was motivated by those in charge of the Air Force Museum, which is in his district. I don't like it, but I can't blame a Representative from responding to his constituents.

To a degree (a small one) I agree with new regulation. Every time we fly one of these priceless and unique treasures, we stand the chance of loosing it. If we truly want them preserved for posterity, they should be stationery.

The larger part of me thinks an airplane belongs in the sky, and if you don't see it there you aren't seeing all of it. That said, if we're going to fly them we have to admit to ourselves that sooner or later they'll go static or burn.

I understand your position but I don't agree. The risk of losing one of these restored aircraft is small, and in my opinion, acceptable when the alternative is having them bolted to a pedestal somewhere.

Using your logic, Zoos would be populated with stuffed animals. :nono:
 
I suspect he was motivated by those in charge of the Air Force Museum, which is in his district. I don't like it, but I can't blame a Representative from responding to his constituents.

And I'm sure his constituents are screaming about unemployment and other more important issues, as well... No, He chose this battle... And therefore he is an idiot...:yesnod:
 
I understand your position but I don't agree. The risk of losing one of these restored aircraft is small, and in my opinion, acceptable when the alternative is having them bolted to a pedestal somewhere.

I do not entirely disagree, though I don't call the chances of those things being destroyed small by any means. Jimmy Leeward proved that to me in no uncertain terms. Call mine a devil's advocate argument.

Using your logic, Zoos would be populated with stuffed animals. :nono:

Animals make baby animals, which is a great deal behind the reasoning of zoos in this day and age.
 
I do not entirely disagree, though I don't call the chances of those things being destroyed small by any means. Jimmy Leeward proved that to me in no uncertain terms. Call mine a devil's advocate argument.
/QUOTE]

If its the last of its kind, put it on a pedestal and as Pilawt revealed, hope a tornado doesn't take it out. Otherwise... Fly them...
 
There are those who honestly believe that these machines serve the greater interest safe out of harms way. Problem is that does not come close to doing them justice. The only answer is to build full copies from plans. My buddy Nick's mom down in Aus did a P-40 that way; this is her hangar.
2781161634_59078b8cb4_z.jpg
 
I do not entirely disagree, though I don't call the chances of those things being destroyed small by any means. Jimmy Leeward proved that to me in no uncertain terms. Call mine a devil's advocate argument.



Animals make baby animals, which is a great deal behind the reasoning of zoos in this day and age.

One instance of an airplane, of which 16,000+ were built, where the pilot was doing low level racing is convincing evidence that the chances of an aircraft being destroyed isn't small? :confused:
 
I walked through Ezell's hangar (or what was left of it) the day after the BKD tornado. The entire back wall and everything attached/adjacent was gone, but the recently-restored Red Bull P-38 parked a few feet away was undamaged. Go figure.

Stuff happens. Last week's storms wrecked several historic airplanes on static display in a Kansas museum.
 
One instance of an airplane, of which 16,000+ were built, where the pilot was doing low level racing is convincing evidence that the chances of an aircraft being destroyed isn't small? :confused:
There was a B-17 that went down in a field as well. More than just racing planes get wrecked, thing is, they're flying machines. Their value is in their operational demonstration, not static display. There is always risk inherent in operations. The best insurance is adequate flight time.
 
There are those who honestly believe that these machines serve the greater interest safe out of harms way. Problem is that does not come close to doing them justice. The only answer is to build full copies from plans. My buddy Nick's mom down in Aus did a P-40 that way; this is her hangar.
2781161634_59078b8cb4_z.jpg
Can she adopt me?
 
To paraphrase the sports car mantra... "Fly it like you stole it." A plane belongs flying not sitting still otherwise you end up with a worthless pile of junk.
The worst thing to happen to a plane is a static display. Tires go flat, rust creeps in, damage is done. Unless the museum is like Air and Space, most do not have the money, time, energy, or volunteers to maintain them. At least if they are flying, someone is keeping up with the maintenance. It keeps interest up in them as well thus generating more revenue for the other aircraft in the displays.
It is a loss when any plane goes down but think of the countless generations of kids that looked to the sky when they heard a big radial overhead. Accidents happen or we'd have 2 more shuttles and another Concorde around. That's just life. Flying them shows the public what they are; what they were.
 
My mom and dad were at the receiving end of the 8th, it's the sound they reference.
 
Many of you may have seen an article from EAA this morning in Indy Transponder about the potential grounding of all military aircraft on loan from the Department of Defense.

The short story is Michael Turner (R-OH) is proposing an amendment, “Title 10” to the House National Defense Authorization Act (H.R. 4310). I am attaching some links that further explain the situation -- the first one is the article from Indy Transponder this morning and the second is a blog post made this morning by Commemorative Air Force president, Steve Brown.

This amendment, if passed, will permanently ground the only flying B-29 in the world -- FIFI. Please contact Michael Turner and also your representative to express your opposition to his actions. Please.

Kim,

Let me know what I can do to help. I can and will contact my senator and representative about this. Due to redistricting a good friend of a good friend (who's a pilot) has just become my representative in Congress and I will follow up in that channel.

BTW, I still owe you some pictures from the FIFI flight.
 
I do not entirely disagree, though I don't call the chances of those things being destroyed small by any means. Jimmy Leeward proved that to me in no uncertain terms. Call mine a devil's advocate argument.



Animals make baby animals, which is a great deal behind the reasoning of zoos in this day and age.

And people recover, restore and maintain these planes because they can fly them or see them fly. Few places work to recover and maintain aircraft they can't fly and we loose a lot of history when they are only maintained to look at. We forget how to maintain them and what it takes to fly them.

Brian
CFIIG/ASEL
 
To paraphrase the sports car mantra... "Fly it like you stole it." A plane belongs flying not sitting still otherwise you end up with a worthless pile of junk.
The worst thing to happen to a plane is a static display. Tires go flat, rust creeps in, damage is done. Unless the museum is like Air and Space, most do not have the money, time, energy, or volunteers to maintain them. At least if they are flying, someone is keeping up with the maintenance. It keeps interest up in them as well thus generating more revenue for the other aircraft in the displays.
It is a loss when any plane goes down but think of the countless generations of kids that looked to the sky when they heard a big radial overhead. Accidents happen or we'd have 2 more shuttles and another Concorde around. That's just life. Flying them shows the public what they are; what they were.

Check out the air "museum" at Miramar MCAS in San Diego just off of Miramar Road if you want a good feel about how a government owned museum maintains their static displays. For some reason, you get the feeling those planes will not be around for too many more years.

Going ahead with this plan is much like many bureaucratic propositions that become law without considering the overall consequences. Instead of beautifully restored and maintained airplanes, we will end up with fodder for the bone yards to marvel at.

-John
 
Animals make baby animals, which is a great deal behind the reasoning of zoos in this day and age.

Very apt analogy; the goal of many zoo breeding programs is so people can see these creatures in their natural habitat once again.;)
 
I suspect he was motivated by those in charge of the Air Force Museum, which is in his district. I don't like it, but I can't blame a Representative from responding to his constituents.

To a degree (a small one) I agree with new regulation. Every time we fly one of these priceless and unique treasures, we stand the chance of loosing it. If we truly want them preserved for posterity, they should be stationery.

The larger part of me thinks an airplane belongs in the sky, and if you don't see it there you aren't seeing all of it. That said, if we're going to fly them we have to admit to ourselves that sooner or later they'll go static or burn.
I agree, and if this were the last B-29 I'd say ground it now,

But it isn't so let's keep it in the air so long as we can. The impact of seeing FIFI fly and seeing a parked plane just aren't remotely the same.
 
Send following e-mail to my local Congressman:

Quote:

Dear Representative Hanna,

I just became aware of the Amendment to HR4310 introduced by Rep. Michael Turner (R-OH) that would bar the Department of Defense from loaning or gifting [selling?] any U.S. military aircraft or parts to any entity except those that would put the aircraft on static display, such as in a museum. The Amendment would preclude aircraft from being loaned to private individuals, associations, or museums where there is any intent of flying the historic vintage warbirds, even at air shows or demonstrations of support for veterans.


At this time it is not clear to me what Rep.Michael Turner's motivation is to have crafted such an Amendment, but my guess is that he is paving the way for the Air Force Museum in his district to be the recipient of aircraft that might otherwise continue their life in flying status , being pampered by individuals, aviation organizations like EAA or foundations, like the Collings Foundation.


The thrill of seeing history fly goes beyond words and I am sure that you, as a fellow aviation enthusiast, would like to convince Rep. Michael Turner of the folly of his ways...!


Sincerely,


Herman van Ooijen


Congressional District 24
Member EAA, AOPA

Unquote
 
From Rep. Michael Turner's website:

Quote:

Turner Statement on Military Heritage Aircraft



Related Documents

Department of Defense study on post-1947 military aircraft
Feel Free To Share This Page Google Facebook
Washington, Apr 21 -
Congressman Mike Turner (OH-3) released the following statement on the flying of military heritage aircraft and the FY2013 National Defense Authorization Act:​
“Dayton is home to the National Museum of the Air Force, and has the largest collection of historical military aircraft in the world. I know the value and importance that the facility has in honoring sacrifices of our veterans and as a symbol that freedom isn’t free. The Warbird community plays an important role in bringing WWII era aircraft to our nation’s citizens. These rotary craft are ambassadors of freedom’s price and I do not support grounding any of them.
My concern lies in the potential for military jet aircraft to be transferred to civilians for flight without the same rigorous training and maintenance schedules that pilots and aircraft underwent when they were in service. In fact, the Department of Defense was asked by Congress to conduct a study on post-1947 military aircraft and what concerns the department has with their being flown. In short, the Department both in the report and through their policies does not support these aircraft from being transferred to civilians for flight.
I look forward to working with the Warbird community to see that they continue to stay in the air. Their contributions have inspired Americans young and old, and will do so for years to come.”

Unquote



Have not been able to find the exact text of the Turner Amendment online as it seems to have been carefully hidden from "prying eyes", but it looks like there is not a distinction between aircraft before and after 1947???

PS The Turner website will not accept e-mails from those that are not in his district. Wanted to express my displeasure with his amendment, but the website setup saved him from any arguments from my side why he is mistaken in his pursuit of the amendment.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top