Skip to comments.Warbird Community Rises to Meet Threat ..Bill from Rep. Michael Turner (R-OH)
Posted on 04/23/2012 5:34:39 PM PDT by tophat9000
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.
WTH What’s behind the purpose of the act ? What is afraid of what ?
Rhetorical question, I assume.
I’m thinking a knee-jerk reaction to air show crashes?
The museum doesn’t appreciate effort and funding going to flying aircraft.
Aircraft Purposefully Deployed as Artificial Reefs
No coastal states other than Alabama, Florida, South Carolina, and North Carolina are known to have intentionally pursued the use of aircraft as artificial reef material. Florida and North Carolina represent the two major states where surplus aircraft have been intentionally deployed as artificial reefs during the last 15 years. As of 2002, the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commissions database on artificial reefs lists the following known occurrences of aircraft, purposefully placed for use as artificial reefs: one DC-4 off Broward County (1985, 71 foot depth), two Navy F-4 Phantom fuselages off Miami-Dade County (1988, 81 foot depth), three twin engine Martin 404 and one DC-3 fuselages off Collier County (1986-88, 28 foot depth), one DC-3 fuselage off Wakulla County(1988, 23 foot depth), one F-101, one F-102, one Sikorsky helicopter, and one T-33 trainer, all off Bay County (mid-late 1970s, early 1980s, 60 to 70 foot depth, (Danny Grizzard, personal communication), a Boeing 727 jet placed off Dade County (1993, 82 foot depth), placements of approximately 30 Navy A-6 Intruder aircraft fuselage sections in 100 feet of water off St. Johns County in northeast Florida (1995), three Air Force F-106 drone jets with wings still attached and nose cones removed placed off Bay County, northwest Florida (1995, 110 foot depth), 26 A-6 Intruder aircraft off Volusia County, northeast Florida (1996, 135 foot depth), eight A-7 Corsair jets and a T-2 trainer off Jacksonville, northeast Florida (1997, 70 foot depth), and a Lockheed Neptune P2V-3 bomber sunk off Pinellas County, central west coast Florida (2000, 43 foot depth). North Carolina has placed six aircraft for use as artificial reefs at two locations at depths ranging from 53 to 65 feet. These include two C-130 cargo fuselages, two intact F-4 Phantoms (minus the engines), and two A-4 fuselages (Steve Murphey, personal communication). Other aircraft placements include the 1992 placement of an aircraft tail assembly section in 90 feet of water at Alabamas Morisette Reef (Walter Tatum, personal communication), and a South Carolina Deployment in 1995 of one A-7 fighter aircraft in 50 feet of water (Robert Martore, personal communication).
When you forget the heroes of the past, there are none to inspire the future heroes to defend freedom and as it fades from memory, so do our thoughts of liberty until they are just memories as well and forgotten eventually. All that will be left is tyranny and piles of junk that nobody knows anything about.
Same as you said. There isn’t enough crap facing us that is somewhat the actual responsibility and business of Turner?
Just another pusillanimous politician
What is the purpose? Who is afraid of what?
Can’t say for sure, but it has been USAF policy since WWII. Look what happened to the Flying Wing Bombers; not even one saved for the museum.
Maybe they are afraid someone might “re-militerize” the old warbirds and strafe the Pentagon. s/
I think the air museum (CAF? Other?) at Scholes Field in Galveston might have struck a nerve, 20 years ago, when they acquired a B-58 Hustler. I saw it there in disassembly in the 90's, when my helo trips offshore occasionally stopped off for fuel at Scholes.
Our Government does not restore old airframes without an active purpose.
I have long maintained that NO government equipment manufactured with hard earned money contributed by the taxpayers of the United States, should be destroyed before it is offered for sale back to “WE THE PEOPLE”. An exception might be nuclear related stuff that has strict controls for valid reasons.
Otherwise destroying serviceable military equipment should be considered against the law rather than the idea that the people cannot be trusted with what is rightly theirs. I can understand rules that prohibit sale or transfer to foreign interests but the people would certainly be overjoyed at paying salvage value for aircraft, jeeps, humvees, tanks, artillery, etc.
The government would quickly find that much of what is surplus, or obsolete in their world is much sought after by the civilian arm of the United States and more likely to pay much more than salvage value, particularly for planes in flying condition.
Our many and interconnected government bureaucracies have a wealth of rules regs and policies vis a vis things that go boom or can produce one. WHY? I’m sure I’ll get some response to that.
Re Re-militarize.Thanks for an intlligent response I will pray for the others who responded to my query. When I first saw that proposal I thought that’s what this is about. It makes no sence. I used to attend the EAA shw in Oshgost WI and their re-enactments of WWII is a valid historical review particularly to the younger generations who have no idea of what peo[ple experienced during that time.
The B-25 “Panchito” in your picture is based here in my hometown—Georgetown, DE—at the Sussex County Airport.
We hear it all the time flying overhead—it has a sound like no other plane. And see it many times—parked, and in air shows.
It makes one imagine what an entire raid of them would sound like.
Every October is “Wings and Wheels” here at the Airport—it is a fly-in of warbirds and a car show, with about 400 vehicles.
You can ride “Panchito” for about $ 400.00.
Pictures are lovely, scale models help a little, sitting behind the guns is a whole 'nother thing.
Static displays are just not the same, do not sound the same, and well, don't fly the same. I'm glad they cane here, 'cause most anywhere else is a long way from here.
There is just no way to fully comprehend the pucker factor for the Ball Turret Gunner without looking at that orb.
I guess I can claim that I flew a “warbird” when I was in the Arkansas Civil Air Patrol. A far cry from P-51s or B-25s, it was an Aeronca L-16, a former liaison puddlejumper. I never knew exactly how these little planes were “loaned” to the CAP by the USAF. The state CAP wing commander had a Stinson L-5, the local squadrons had either L-16s or Piper Super Cubs (don’t recall their military nomenclature). We mostly practiced search and rescue operations with the high school age CAP cadets. We paid for every gallon of avgas we consumed. Once a year we had a statewide search practice, put on by the USAF, and whenever an airplane, either civil or military, went missing, we would fly searches for real. The cadets got a little classroom work, intended to spur interest in USAF careers. One of mine retired a full colonel at the USAF academy, after getting a commission through ROTC.