Great aviation museum

[Viperdoc]

Just spent the day at the Evergreen Aviation Museum in McMinnville, OR.
(around an hour SW of Portland)

It is an unbelievable facility, and rivals the NASM in terms of the displays
and collection. The original Spruce Goose is the main feature, but they have
a B-17, B-25, A-26, F-100, F4U, etc. on display. You are able to get a lot
closer to the actual planes than in either of the NASMS.

They have a brand new IMAX theater in an adjacent building, and are
constructing an equally large additional building next door.

Considering it's pretty much in the middle of nowhere except being next door
to the McMinnville airport, it is surprising as to the extent and breadth of
the collection.

Highly recommended for an excellent experience.

[Morgans[_2_]]

"Viperdoc" > wrote

> Just spent the day at the Evergreen Aviation Museum in McMinnville, OR.
> (around an hour SW of Portland)
>
> Highly recommended for an excellent experience.

Too bad that it is such a long hall from NC, but I hope to get there some
day.

The Spruce Goose is totally interesting to me, for the massive scale, and
for the groundbreaking use of new technology. Add to that that I am a
woodworker, and that fills out the trifecta.

Anyone got a link that has a bunch of good articles (or whatever you want to
call the reporting) on the Spruce Goose, and good pictures to go with it? I
goggled for a long while, and never came up with a good web site. I am
primarily interested on how it was made, and how it works.

I still am of the opinion that it did not have enough power to fly out of
ground effect, and Hughes knew it, once he did his test hop. I sure would
like to see it fly one day, if it could. Doubtful (understatement) that it
will ever happen, (due to the enormous cost) sadly.

Thanks for the report.
--
Jim in NC

[Viperdoc]

They had lots of books and models of the Spruce Goose, including some of the
models used in the Aviator movie.

It's amazing to see such a huge wing and fuselage without any rivets! Also,
those 28 cylinder engines were unbelievable (they have a larger engine
collection and display than the NASM), all up close and easy to inspect.


"Morgans" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Viperdoc" > wrote
>
>> Just spent the day at the Evergreen Aviation Museum in McMinnville, OR.
>> (around an hour SW of Portland)
>>
>> Highly recommended for an excellent experience.
>
> Too bad that it is such a long hall from NC, but I hope to get there some
> day.
>
> The Spruce Goose is totally interesting to me, for the massive scale, and
> for the groundbreaking use of new technology. Add to that that I am a
> woodworker, and that fills out the trifecta.
>
> Anyone got a link that has a bunch of good articles (or whatever you want
> to call the reporting) on the Spruce Goose, and good pictures to go with
> it? I goggled for a long while, and never came up with a good web site. I
> am primarily interested on how it was made, and how it works.
>
> I still am of the opinion that it did not have enough power to fly out of
> ground effect, and Hughes knew it, once he did his test hop. I sure would
> like to see it fly one day, if it could. Doubtful (understatement) that
> it will ever happen, (due to the enormous cost) sadly.
>
> Thanks for the report.
> --
> Jim in NC
>

[gatt]

"Viperdoc" > wrote in message
t...

> It is an unbelievable facility, and rivals the NASM in terms of the
> displays and collection. The original Spruce Goose is the main feature,
> but they have a B-17, B-25, A-26, F-100, F4U, etc. on display. You are
> able to get a lot closer to the actual planes than in either of the NASMS.


Sadly, the B-17 has a broken wing spar and is no longer flyable, but I got
to ride around in it on two or three occasions when they were wooing
investors for the museum as well as touring veterans. (My job was to wear a
WWII flight suit, get people strapped in, make sure they didn't yank on the
cables or screw with anything. Afterward, we'd find pop cans and litter and
crap stuck in the ammo boxes, etc.) At one point, removed every machine gun
belt from the airplane, disassembled them link by link, hand-polished them
all with Brasso, reassembled them and threaded them all back into place.
Somebody once asked me "Why?!" Probably doesn't need an explanation here,
but the reason is because I got to spend all of that time more or less alone
in the hangar with the old girl. Was riding in the tail one time and we
nearly had a collision with a commuter on the opposing runway as we landed.
Left brake seized up, tail swung around (I was in bucked in in the tail),
the back end filled up with smoke and then the pilot, Penn, pulled it all
together and taxiied to the hangar like nothing had happened. We
unanimously thought it was the greatest ride ever.

> They have a brand new IMAX theater in an adjacent building, and are
> constructing an equally large additional building next door.

Really?! I knew about the IMAX, but not the other building. They also have
some operable tanks they restored and huge Class II firearm collection.
Before the IMAX was built, some World War II reenactors had displays set up,
Allied and German, with the machine guns, tanks and everything. In the
middle of a battle demonstration (using pneumatics to operate the guns),
Nine-O-Nine arrived in the pattern as if it was part of the reenactment.

That bf109 is Luftwaffe with the original Daimler engine and was supposedly
at Ploesti. It used to be in their main meeting room before the museum was
built. All of the meeting chairs were out of a 707 or something, but it
would have been physically impossible for me to pay attention to a meeting
with a bf109 in the room.

The Blackbird came along later. Can you believe they have the engine on
display? That's a hint of how deeply connected Evergreen is with the
government, which is about all I have to say about that. Lots of stories
about that place, but not all of them favorable. I'll never complain,
though.

> Considering it's pretty much in the middle of nowhere except being next
> door to the McMinnville airport, it is surprising as to the extent and
> breadth of the collection.
>
> Highly recommended for an excellent experience.

Dell Smith got his start mowing lawns in McMinnville, joined the military,
became a helicopter pilot and when he came back, everybody said it was
ridiculous to consider cropdusting with a helicopter, but the community lent
him the money based on their experience with his work ethic.

Also, Bob Hoover's Commander used to be there. Something happened, though,
because when I talked to him a few years ago he didn't have the Evergreen
bird, and spoke rather icily of them. A friend of mine did some training
in the Commander and had an engine fire during a taxi. He said he wasn't
afraid of the fire, just what they'd do him when they found out about it.

-c

[gatt]

"Viperdoc" > wrote in message
t...
>
> Considering it's pretty much in the middle of nowhere except being next
> door to the McMinnville airport, it is surprising as to the extent and
> breadth of the collection.
>
> Highly recommended for an excellent experience.

By the way, they'll bring a shuttle van over to the FBO to pick you up if
you fly in, which is a hell of a lot better than trying to cross the highway
there.

-c

[Viperdoc]

I saw a bunch of planes outside as well, apparently awaiting renovation.
Looked like a Beech starship and an F-15, along with some others.

Driving out we saw some WWII armor, as well as what looked to be a T-76. The
Imax building looked new, and the new building looked just as big as the
existing structure.

What a great treasure in the middle of nowhere.

"gatt" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Viperdoc" > wrote in message
> t...
>>
>> Considering it's pretty much in the middle of nowhere except being next
>> door to the McMinnville airport, it is surprising as to the extent and
>> breadth of the collection.
>>
>> Highly recommended for an excellent experience.
>
> By the way, they'll bring a shuttle van over to the FBO to pick you up if
> you fly in, which is a hell of a lot better than trying to cross the
> highway there.
>
> -c
>

[gatt]

"Morgans" > wrote in message
...

> The Spruce Goose is totally interesting to me, for the massive scale, and
> for the groundbreaking use of new technology. Add to that that I am a
> woodworker, and that fills out the trifecta.

Trivia: I overheard an Evergreen volunteer say that the reason you can't
access the cockpit is because it's not handicap-accessible and they don't
want to either get sued or modify the airplane to put in an elevator. Got
to run around (you don't crawl in the Goose) inside before it was put back
together. They asked for volunteers to peel off the white fire-proof
coating since they couldn't pressure wash it or steam it off without
damaging the wood.

Seemed like a great idea. I peeled a little for a minute and only then did
I really start to understand how big the airplane is. It would have been
worth it, but if I'd have started in 1997 by myself in my spare time I'd
still be doing it.

Right now, it has an SR-71 sitting under the right wing. The blackbird
looks tiny.

-c

[gatt]

"Viperdoc" > wrote in message
et...
>I saw a bunch of planes outside as well, apparently awaiting renovation.
>Looked like a Beech starship and an F-15, along with some others.

The F-15 was the first to end up in civilian hands and he got his because
his son was a '15 pilot (the museum is named after him.) The son retired
from the USAF iirc, became a police officer and was killed in a motorcycle
accident.

> Driving out we saw some WWII armor, as well as what looked to be a T-76.

Yep. I'm pretty sure it runs. I've never seen the IMAX, and you described
the Goose engine in a previous post. I'm pretty sure that's a new display
too. Very cool! Took my father-in-law there for father's day a couple of
years ago and he got a little misty-eyed (I imagine that happens a lot
there) because the UH-1 out front was the first bird to which he was
assigned.

Other trivia is that the C-47 with the Normany stripes used to be at the
Oregon Museum of Science and Industry...as a UAL DC-3 that you could walk
around in. At some point there was talk of trying to restore it to flying
condition, but then I think they discovered that it had actually
participated in D-Day, and that made it worth too much to risk flying so
they returned it to its original livery and configuration. That place
really is amazing for being out in the middle of nowhere.

> What a great treasure in the middle of nowhere.

I did my IFR training around there and one time while I was under the hood
outbound for the procedure turn my instructor says "Wow! That's a big
airplane." I couldn't look. Then she goes "WOW! LOOK!" It was
Nine-O-Nine, coming in over the river beneath us on the ILS. It looked
magnificent in its OD paint and red tail against the farmland below. I
never imagined I'd look down at a B-17 in flight and I only hope that my
grandfather was able to look down from much higher and share in my
excitement.

Pretty much shot my concentration for the day. There was no way I could go
back under the hood, because the B-24 was still out there somewhere.

-c

[Jon Woellhaf]

On 4 Jun 02 I visited the museum and was told I couldn't visit the flight
deck for the same reason. It had just recently been closed to the public.
They said they soon expected to make it accessible. Guess they changed their
minds.

"gatt" > wrote in message
...
>
> Trivia: I overheard an Evergreen volunteer say that the reason you can't
> access the cockpit is because it's not handicap-accessible and they don't
> want to either get sued or modify the airplane to put in an elevator. ...

[Margy Natalie]

Jon Woellhaf wrote:
> On 4 Jun 02 I visited the museum and was told I couldn't visit the flight
> deck for the same reason. It had just recently been closed to the public.
> They said they soon expected to make it accessible. Guess they changed their
> minds.
>
> "gatt" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>Trivia: I overheard an Evergreen volunteer say that the reason you can't
>>access the cockpit is because it's not handicap-accessible and they don't
>>want to either get sued or modify the airplane to put in an elevator. ...
>
>
>
Putting in all the stuff to make it accessible is EXPENSIVE and most
museums don't have much $$ (if any).

Margy

[Viperdoc]

One thing I did notice was the B-25, which was bare metal. There were some
polishing marks under the wing, where it looked like there was some overly
aggressive paint removal. Also, not unexpectedly, there was a fair amount of
filliform corrosion on the undersurface as well.

They also had a windshield wiper on the bombardier's window in the nose, but
not on the B-17- first time I noticed this up close.

Overall, a memorable day.


"gatt" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Viperdoc" > wrote in message
> et...
>>I saw a bunch of planes outside as well, apparently awaiting renovation.
>>Looked like a Beech starship and an F-15, along with some others.
>
> The F-15 was the first to end up in civilian hands and he got his because
> his son was a '15 pilot (the museum is named after him.) The son retired
> from the USAF iirc, became a police officer and was killed in a motorcycle
> accident.
>
>> Driving out we saw some WWII armor, as well as what looked to be a T-76.
>
> Yep. I'm pretty sure it runs. I've never seen the IMAX, and you
> described the Goose engine in a previous post. I'm pretty sure that's a
> new display too. Very cool! Took my father-in-law there for father's day
> a couple of years ago and he got a little misty-eyed (I imagine that
> happens a lot there) because the UH-1 out front was the first bird to
> which he was assigned.
>
> Other trivia is that the C-47 with the Normany stripes used to be at the
> Oregon Museum of Science and Industry...as a UAL DC-3 that you could walk
> around in. At some point there was talk of trying to restore it to flying
> condition, but then I think they discovered that it had actually
> participated in D-Day, and that made it worth too much to risk flying so
> they returned it to its original livery and configuration. That place
> really is amazing for being out in the middle of nowhere.
>
>> What a great treasure in the middle of nowhere.
>
> I did my IFR training around there and one time while I was under the hood
> outbound for the procedure turn my instructor says "Wow! That's a big
> airplane." I couldn't look. Then she goes "WOW! LOOK!" It was
> Nine-O-Nine, coming in over the river beneath us on the ILS. It looked
> magnificent in its OD paint and red tail against the farmland below. I
> never imagined I'd look down at a B-17 in flight and I only hope that my
> grandfather was able to look down from much higher and share in my
> excitement.
>
> Pretty much shot my concentration for the day. There was no way I could
> go back under the hood, because the B-24 was still out there somewhere.
>
> -c
>

[Neil Gould]

Recently, Morgans > posted:
>
> The Spruce Goose is totally interesting to me, for the massive scale,
> and for the groundbreaking use of new technology. Add to that that I
> am a woodworker, and that fills out the trifecta.
>
> Anyone got a link that has a bunch of good articles (or whatever you
> want to call the reporting) on the Spruce Goose, and good pictures to
> go with it? I goggled for a long while, and never came up with a
> good web site. I am primarily interested on how it was made, and how
> it works.
>
ISTR a History Channel documentary on Howard Hughes that spent a good
amount of time covering the Spruce Goose.

Neil

[Al G[_2_]]

"gatt" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Morgans" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>> The Spruce Goose is totally interesting to me, for the massive scale, and
>> for the groundbreaking use of new technology. Add to that that I am a
>> woodworker, and that fills out the trifecta.
>
> Trivia: I overheard an Evergreen volunteer say that the reason you can't
> access the cockpit is because it's not handicap-accessible and they don't
> want to either get sued or modify the airplane to put in an elevator.
> Got to run around (you don't crawl in the Goose) inside before it was put
> back together. They asked for volunteers to peel off the white fire-proof
> coating since they couldn't pressure wash it or steam it off without
> damaging the wood.
>
> Seemed like a great idea. I peeled a little for a minute and only then
> did I really start to understand how big the airplane is. It would have
> been worth it, but if I'd have started in 1997 by myself in my spare time
> I'd still be doing it.
>
> Right now, it has an SR-71 sitting under the right wing. The blackbird
> looks tiny.
>
> -c

My wife and I visited a couple of weeks ago. Terrific Museum. The SR71
IS small. I'd never seen one up close. The RAM was held on with sheet metal
screws and washers. They have their own vineyard, and produce a very good
wine.

Al G

[Sylvain]

Margy Natalie wrote:
> Putting in all the stuff to make it accessible is EXPENSIVE and most
> museums don't have much $$ (if any).

they could easily save the money by removing and stop maintaining all
these female bathrooms; do you actually imagine how EXPENSIVE it is
to accommodate women in public places like museums (with limited funds
and all)? I mean, I'd understand if it were a museum about cooking
or child rearing and the likes, it's not as if they'd be interested
in stuff like aviation or other technical stuff like that.

(do I actually need to specify that the above is sarcasm? do you
actually get the point?)

--Sylvain

[John Theune]

Sylvain wrote:
> Margy Natalie wrote:
>> Putting in all the stuff to make it accessible is EXPENSIVE and most
>> museums don't have much $$ (if any).
>
> they could easily save the money by removing and stop maintaining all
> these female bathrooms; do you actually imagine how EXPENSIVE it is
> to accommodate women in public places like museums (with limited funds
> and all)? I mean, I'd understand if it were a museum about cooking
> or child rearing and the likes, it's not as if they'd be interested
> in stuff like aviation or other technical stuff like that.
>
> (do I actually need to specify that the above is sarcasm? do you
> actually get the point?)
>
> --Sylvain
And what exactly is your point? The OP was asking about access to the
cockpits of some of the A/C and Margie said there is no money to make
them accessible so they are closed to all.

[Morgans[_2_]]

"John Theune" > wrote

> And what exactly is your point? The OP was asking about access to the
> cockpits of some of the A/C and Margie said there is no money to make them
> accessible so they are closed to all.

Yet another example of the government's rules, with no flexibility allowed.
Instead of getting access for the handicapped, it has resulted in getting NO
access for anyone.

There should be a grant process (for all I know, there is one) so that
historic (and perhaps other uses) items like the Spruce Goose could get some
monetary help in installing the equipment needed, so that all could enjoy
and learn about our history.
--
Jim in NC

[Ron Wanttaja]

On Wed, 6 Jun 2007 17:23:25 -0400, "Morgans" > wrote:

>Yet another example of the government's rules, with no flexibility allowed.
>Instead of getting access for the handicapped, it has resulted in getting NO
>access for anyone.
>
>There should be a grant process (for all I know, there is one) so that
>historic (and perhaps other uses) items like the Spruce Goose could get some
>monetary help in installing the equipment needed, so that all could enjoy
>and learn about our history.

Unfortunately, it's probably not just a money issue. If access to the flight
deck is currently by hatchways and narrow stairs, then the museum will have to
cut the hatchways larger and install ramps or an elevator.

Not the thing you want to do to an historic aircraft....

Ron Wanttaja

[Jay Honeck]

> There should be a grant process (for all I know, there is one) so that
> historic (and perhaps other uses) items like the Spruce Goose could get some
> monetary help in installing the equipment needed, so that all could enjoy
> and learn about our history.

IMHO there should be a regulatory process whereby stupid laws that
result in unintended results (like banning access for EVERYONE, in
this particular case) shall be repealed, or at least waived in special
circumstances.

There are certainly plenty of places in the national park system that
are not handicapped accessible -- yet they are still open to the
public. How do *they* get around the ADA?
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Jay Honeck]

> > Right now, it has an SR-71 sitting under the right wing. The blackbird
> > looks tiny.
>
> My wife and I visited a couple of weeks ago. Terrific Museum. The SR71
> IS small. I'd never seen one up close.

Um, the SR-71 is bigger than a World War II bomber, and almost as big
as a modern airliner.

"Small" it is not.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Jose]

> IMHO there should be a regulatory process whereby stupid laws that
> result in unintended results (like banning access for EVERYONE, in
> this particular case)...

That may not be an unintended result.

Jose
--
There are two kinds of people in the world. Those that just want to
know what button to push, and those that want to know what happens when
they push the button.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[John Clear]

In article om>,
Jay Honeck > wrote:
>> > Right now, it has an SR-71 sitting under the right wing. The blackbird
>> > looks tiny.
>>
>> My wife and I visited a couple of weeks ago. Terrific Museum. The SR71
>> IS small. I'd never seen one up close.
>
>Um, the SR-71 is bigger than a World War II bomber, and almost as big
>as a modern airliner.
>
>"Small" it is not.

It looks small due to the narrow wingspan and small fuselage. The
wingspan of an SR-71 is only 20ft more then a Cherokee (55ft vs
35ft). Length is about the only measurement it isn't small in.
I remember walking around the one at the Air Force Museum and
thinking how small it looked.

For comparison:

SR-71 B-17 PA-28
----- ---- -----
Wingspan 55ft 7in 103ft 9in 35ft
Height 18ft 6in 19ft 1in 7ft 4in
Length 107ft 5in 74ft 4in 23ft 10in

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SR-71_Blackbird
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B-17_Flying_Fortress
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pa-28 (I've actually flown the Warrior
pictured in the article. I guess that's worth 15 seconds
of internet fame. ;)

John
--
John Clear - http://www.clear-prop.org/

[Sylvain]

Jay Honeck wrote:

> IMHO there should be a regulatory process whereby stupid laws that
> result in unintended results (like banning access for EVERYONE, in
> this particular case) shall be repealed, or at least waived in special
> circumstances.

Jay, NOWHERE in the ADA does it say that if something is not
accessible, that it should be closed to everyone. NOWHERE. There
are however plenty of mentions of 'reasonable accomodation' (the
thing is so full of loophole it is incredible that such issues
are still popping up); The ADA became law in 1991 if I am not
mistaken, that gave your museum over a decade and a half to do
something about it. There are numerous grants available to help
them do so. What seems to have happened is that as good as the
museum might appear, they failed to do their job, and are failing
to understand what the law actually says, and think they are covering
their asses by closing the exhibit altogether, blaming people with
disabilities for their own failing in the process. It is called
scapegoating by the way, and I find it rather sad that someone
otherwise reasonably smart like yourself is falling for it.

I tried to explain it using a silly analogy in a previous post,
but apparently it really didn't get through. Handicapist
prejudices are running too strong it seems.

--Sylvain

[gatt]

"Viperdoc" > wrote in message
. net...

> One thing I did notice was the B-25, which was bare metal.

Wow. Last time I was out there they didn't have a B-25. There's a guy
that owns a log truck company in Oregon who has a B-25. He's larger than
the average airman, so he used the top turret out of a Liberator so he could
make his way to the pilot seat. That bird has yellow cowls and is restored
immaculately. Really neat buy, but I gotta wonder how hard all the timber
economy is really doing out here if a trucking owner can afford a B-25!

> They also had a windshield wiper on the bombardier's window in the nose,
> but not on the B-17- first time I noticed this up close.

When the '17 was flying they had all kinds of equipment such as the chin
turret controls and things that they left out for weight. I wonder if
they've put it all in. The FAA made them install passenger seats in the
waist in order to carry passengers, which looked ridiculous. Trivia about
that bomber is that there's doubt that the serial number is original; the
airplane's logbook had entries blacked out by the military because it was
carried some sort of secret radio equipment after the war. Apparently,
it's in a James Bond movie too but I have no idea which. I have an old
post-war photo of it when it was assigned to the Japanese defense force or
whatever it was. Whatever its real designation was, it was one of the
last B-17s ever made. The manual bomb bay opening crank is located opposite
that of just about every other B-17 built.



-c

[gatt]

"Margy Natalie" > wrote in message
...

> Putting in all the stuff to make it accessible is EXPENSIVE and most
> museums don't have much $$ (if any).

Yeah, but I wonder if it's necessary. OMSI has the submarine Blueback which
is open to the public, but there's no way that's wheelchair-accessible.
It's a submarine. Similarly, when the warbirds come to town and let people
tour them, I don't see wheelchair ramps, nor could I imagine some old vet
fitting a walker on a B-17 catwalk.

Hmm. Is it really necessary?

-c

[gatt]

"Morgans" > wrote in message
...

> There should be a grant process (for all I know, there is one) so that
> historic (and perhaps other uses) items like the Spruce Goose could get
> some monetary help in installing the equipment needed, so that all could
> enjoy and learn about our history.

Well, the government gave them an F-15, and a freakin' SR-71 Blackbird...
it's conceivable!

-c

[gatt]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
ups.com...
>> > Right now, it has an SR-71 sitting under the right wing. The
>> > blackbird
>> > looks tiny.
>>
>> My wife and I visited a couple of weeks ago. Terrific Museum. The
>> SR71
>> IS small. I'd never seen one up close.
>
> Um, the SR-71 is bigger than a World War II bomber, and almost as big
> as a modern airliner.


At the Boeing Museum of Flight they have a Blackbird cockpit that you can
sit in.

All the kids hover around the F-16 cockpit while their fathers sort of stare
at the other in something like teary-eyed wonder. I wonder how many
fully-grown adults throw tantrums when their wives tell them it's time to
get out and let the next guy play.

-c

[Sylvain]

gatt wrote:

> Hmm. Is it really necessary?

No. The guy at the museum was pulling Jay's legs (both of them),
and Jay bought it hook, line and sinker.

--Sylvain

[Al G[_2_]]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
ups.com...
>> > Right now, it has an SR-71 sitting under the right wing. The
>> > blackbird
>> > looks tiny.
>>
>> My wife and I visited a couple of weeks ago. Terrific Museum. The
>> SR71
>> IS small. I'd never seen one up close.
>
> Um, the SR-71 is bigger than a World War II bomber, and almost as big
> as a modern airliner.
>
> "Small" it is not.
> --
> Jay Honeck
> Iowa City, IA
> Pathfinder N56993
> www.AlexisParkInn.com
> "Your Aviation Destination"
>
>

It may be as long as the B17 parked behind it, but no where near as
wide. The wing is THIN, maybe a foot? The B17 probably has more internal
space in 1 wing than the SR has total. I had never seen one on the ground,
and I thought they were 1/2 again as large.

Al G

[Montblack]

("Sylvain" wrote)
> No. The guy at the museum was pulling Jay's legs (both of them), and Jay
> bought it hook, line and sinker.


Ouch! That's brutal.

Either go with: "He took the bait, hook, line and sinker" or run with
something (anything) like: "He doesn't have a leg to stand on."

Please, please, please, DO NOT mix them!

Like I said ....Ouch!


Montblack :-)

[Sylvain]

Montblack wrote:

> Please, please, please, DO NOT mix them!

ok, give me a break, I am learning :-) (what's fun is mixing litteral
translations of colloquial expressions from different languages.)

--Sylvain

[Jim Logajan]

"Al G" > wrote:
> It may be as long as the B17 parked behind it, but no where near
> as
> wide. The wing is THIN, maybe a foot? The B17 probably has more
> internal space in 1 wing than the SR has total. I had never seen one
> on the ground, and I thought they were 1/2 again as large.

Here's a picture of the D-21 at Evergreen (you can just see the nose of the
B-17, which is behind the SR-71 in this photo, the D-21 to the right and in
front of the the SR-71's left wing, and part of the trailing edge of the
right wing of the Spruce Goose at the top of the picture frame):

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/d/d1/EvergreenSR-71A.jpg

[Jay Honeck]

> Jay, NOWHERE in the ADA does it say that if something is not
> accessible, that it should be closed to everyone. NOWHERE. There
> are however plenty of mentions of 'reasonable accomodation' (the
> thing is so full of loophole it is incredible that such issues
> are still popping up); The ADA became law in 1991 if I am not
> mistaken, that gave your museum over a decade and a half to do
> something about it. There are numerous grants available to help
> them do so.

Have you read the other responses? No one is going to use grant money
to cut a hole in the Spruce Goose (or the Enola Gay, or any other
historic aircraft) so that someone can roll a wheelchair inside.

Nor should they.

If that's "handicapped prejudice" on my part, well, I guess I'm guilty
as charged.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Jay Honeck]

> No. The guy at the museum was pulling Jay's legs (both of them),
> and Jay bought it hook, line and sinker.

You have mistaken me for the OP. Sadly, I've never been to that
museum.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Morgans[_2_]]

"Ron Wanttaja" > wrote

> Unfortunately, it's probably not just a money issue. If access to the
> flight
> deck is currently by hatchways and narrow stairs, then the museum will
> have to
> cut the hatchways larger and install ramps or an elevator.
>
> Not the thing you want to do to an historic aircraft....

I agree, in that I would not want to see a historic airplane cut up. Adding
a small chair lift, onto the side by the stairs (or ladder) might be
possible, depending on the individual case.

If it could just bolt on, somehow, I would be willing to accept the
tradeoff. Without it, I'll never be able to see the historic cockpit. What
good is a historic cockpit, if nobody can see it?

Still, there needs to be some kind of allowance made for some cases, about
not making everything handicapped accessible. It is not realistic. Case in
point is the case we are discussing, in the Spruce Goose.
--
Jim in NC

[Margy Natalie]

Sylvain wrote:
> Margy Natalie wrote:
>
>>Putting in all the stuff to make it accessible is EXPENSIVE and most
>>museums don't have much $$ (if any).
>
>
> they could easily save the money by removing and stop maintaining all
> these female bathrooms; do you actually imagine how EXPENSIVE it is
> to accommodate women in public places like museums (with limited funds
> and all)? I mean, I'd understand if it were a museum about cooking
> or child rearing and the likes, it's not as if they'd be interested
> in stuff like aviation or other technical stuff like that.
>
> (do I actually need to specify that the above is sarcasm? do you
> actually get the point?)
>
> --Sylvain
Yes, but you seem to be missing the point, it is perfectly legal to deny
access to all rather than to some. So when the dollars are slim, they
close up the planes. I've been to public parks where there are no
bathrooms and I'm sure it's for the same reason, cost. I've taken
handicapped kids to places that were not required to be accessible, but
I'll be damned we went everywhere and I didn't tip that wheelchair once
(came real close a few times).

At NASM downtown there is a plane downtown they put up on a platform and
built a lift to it, etc. When I got one to put in at Hazy we decided if
we kept it on the floor we would have to put pipe insulation on the
trailing edge. I think anyone in a chair could manage to get into it
with a bit of assistance.

I've always wondered if it would be acceptable to provide a stair-chair
rather than install a lift. Having a stair-chair available would make
access to multiple aircraft affordable.

Margy

[Margy Natalie]

Sylvain wrote:
> Jay Honeck wrote:
>
>
>>IMHO there should be a regulatory process whereby stupid laws that
>>result in unintended results (like banning access for EVERYONE, in
>>this particular case) shall be repealed, or at least waived in special
>>circumstances.
>
>
> Jay, NOWHERE in the ADA does it say that if something is not
> accessible, that it should be closed to everyone. NOWHERE. There
> are however plenty of mentions of 'reasonable accomodation' (the
> thing is so full of loophole it is incredible that such issues
> are still popping up); The ADA became law in 1991 if I am not
> mistaken, that gave your museum over a decade and a half to do
> something about it. There are numerous grants available to help
> them do so. What seems to have happened is that as good as the
> museum might appear, they failed to do their job, and are failing
> to understand what the law actually says, and think they are covering
> their asses by closing the exhibit altogether, blaming people with
> disabilities for their own failing in the process. It is called
> scapegoating by the way, and I find it rather sad that someone
> otherwise reasonably smart like yourself is falling for it.
>
> I tried to explain it using a silly analogy in a previous post,
> but apparently it really didn't get through. Handicapist
> prejudices are running too strong it seems.
>
> --Sylvain
I would hope no one really blames individuals with disabilities for for
the legal process.

Margy

[Margy Natalie]

Sylvain wrote:
> gatt wrote:
>
>
>>Hmm. Is it really necessary?
>
>
> No. The guy at the museum was pulling Jay's legs (both of them),
> and Jay bought it hook, line and sinker.
>
> --Sylvain
The best is for some reason unknown to me the architect of the Hazy
Center designed these really cool ramps that are NOT ADA compliant, so
we have these really cool ramps that aren't legal. So, the ramps are
labeled "not handicapped accessible" and say where the elevators are.
I'm not sure what security is doing now, but they left me alone when a
few of my former students showed up and we blew right past the signs and
up the ramp (high school students in chairs are just as wild as
ambulatory kids if they have the right teachers/parents). The ramps
have the correct pitch, but they don't have the appropriate flat areas.

Margy

[Sylvain]

Jay Honeck wrote:

> Have you read the other responses?

have you actually read the law? as the owner of a business that
accommodate the public I would assume that you'd have memorized
title 2 (of the ADA) by now.

> No one is going to use grant money
> to cut a hole in the Spruce Goose (or the Enola Gay, or any other
> historic aircraft) so that someone can roll a wheelchair inside.

Nobody has asked for holes to be cut into any aircraft. You are
making things up as you go along.

> If that's "handicapped prejudice" on my part, well, I guess I'm guilty

and here is the reason...

--Sylvain

[gatt]

"Sylvain" > wrote in message
t...
> Jay Honeck wrote:
>
>> Have you read the other responses?
>
> Nobody has asked for holes to be cut into any aircraft. You are
> making things up as you go along.

If the museum's docents are correct, the only way that the flight deck of
the Goose would be wheelchair accessible (mother of all ironies) is with an
elevator or some other accomodation, which would require alterations to the
airplane.

That's where the part about cutting holes in the aircraft come from.

Now, the thing about Evergreen is, having seen the place it's ironic to hear
the suggestion that they're short on money. Nevertheless, last time we were
there they had a wish-board asking people to donate VCRs (specifically four
head, stereo), projectors and other odds and ends. Rather ironic when
you're in line to pay $12 to see the Goose, an SR-71 and a bf109, an F-15,
tanks, jets, a Titan missile, they're building an IMAX theater, and they're
asking for donations.


-c

[Sylvain]

Margy Natalie wrote:
> I've always wondered if it would be acceptable to provide a stair-chair
> rather than install a lift. Having a stair-chair available would make
> access to multiple aircraft affordable.

at least you wondered about it.

Some prefer to make assumptions based on whatever preconceived ideas
they may have. Note that stair chairs and such can be another can
of worms: how does the person transfers to it? if helps is needed
who provides it (who is qualified to do so? who is liable in case
of a snag, etc.)

back to the museum thing:

from title 2:

"...II-3.6100 General. A public entity must reasonably modify its policies,
practices, or procedures to avoid discrimination. If the public entity can
demonstrate, however, that the modifications would fundamentally alter the
nature of its service, program, or activity, it is not required to make the
modification. ..."

it's all there is to it. That has been used over and over for historical
buildings and ships and such. No need to cut holes through Elona Gay or
the Spruce Goose (by the way, Hughes would be quite upset that we keep
referring to his aircraft as such -- probably just as upset as if holes
were cut into it :-) );

--Sylvain

[Sylvain]

Margy Natalie wrote:

> we have these really cool ramps that aren't legal. So, the ramps are
> labeled "not handicapped accessible"

as an additional technical point: ramps are *wheelchair* accessible;
only a minority of handicapped folks use wheelchairs; accessibility
requirements between handicaps vary and can actually be mutually
incompatible: I hate ramps, they make my life more complicated and
dangerous, and I always go for the stairs to the consternation of
whoever is in charge (I used to do that when using a wheelchair too,
as it is generally faster / shorter); and unless they are MDs with
the proper qualifications -- and even then -- who are they to say that
your students or I are handicapped anyway? use the darn ramps if they
work for you.

--Sylvain

[Morgans[_2_]]

"Margy Natalie" t> wrote

> I've always wondered if it would be acceptable to provide a stair-chair
> rather than install a lift. Having a stair-chair available would make
> access to multiple aircraft affordable.

Based on the fact that there was an auditorium added to our school only two
years ago, and they used a stair char to change floor levels of about 6
feet, I would say yes.
--
Jim in NC

[Margy Natalie]

Sylvain wrote:
> Margy Natalie wrote:
>
>>I've always wondered if it would be acceptable to provide a stair-chair
>>rather than install a lift. Having a stair-chair available would make
>>access to multiple aircraft affordable.
>
>
> at least you wondered about it.
>
> Some prefer to make assumptions based on whatever preconceived ideas
> they may have. Note that stair chairs and such can be another can
> of worms: how does the person transfers to it? if helps is needed
> who provides it (who is qualified to do so? who is liable in case
> of a snag, etc.)
>
> back to the museum thing:
>
> from title 2:
>
> "...II-3.6100 General. A public entity must reasonably modify its policies,
> practices, or procedures to avoid discrimination. If the public entity can
> demonstrate, however, that the modifications would fundamentally alter the
> nature of its service, program, or activity, it is not required to make the
> modification. ..."
>
> it's all there is to it. That has been used over and over for historical
> buildings and ships and such. No need to cut holes through Elona Gay or
> the Spruce Goose (by the way, Hughes would be quite upset that we keep
> referring to his aircraft as such -- probably just as upset as if holes
> were cut into it :-) );
>
> --Sylvain
Don't worry about the Enola Gay, no one will touch it. It even has a
plastic barrier so you shouldn't be able to throw coke bottles with
paint in them at her again.

Margy

[Margy Natalie]

Sylvain wrote:
> Margy Natalie wrote:
>
>
>>we have these really cool ramps that aren't legal. So, the ramps are
>>labeled "not handicapped accessible"
>
>
> as an additional technical point: ramps are *wheelchair* accessible;
> only a minority of handicapped folks use wheelchairs; accessibility
> requirements between handicaps vary and can actually be mutually
> incompatible: I hate ramps, they make my life more complicated and
> dangerous, and I always go for the stairs to the consternation of
> whoever is in charge (I used to do that when using a wheelchair too,
> as it is generally faster / shorter); and unless they are MDs with
> the proper qualifications -- and even then -- who are they to say that
> your students or I are handicapped anyway? use the darn ramps if they
> work for you.
>
> --Sylvain
That was my feeling :-), but the law states something like 12" per 2"
rise with a level area every XX (can't remember) feet. Everyone was
using them and having a great time until someone (not sure if otherly
abled or not) decided to inform the museum they weren't "up to code"
with ADA so the signs went up.

I'd love to chat with you about possible accomodations off line some
where, just use my first name at my first and last names.com

Margy

[Margy Natalie]

Morgans wrote:
> "Margy Natalie" t> wrote
>
>
>>I've always wondered if it would be acceptable to provide a stair-chair
>>rather than install a lift. Having a stair-chair available would make
>>access to multiple aircraft affordable.
>
>
> Based on the fact that there was an auditorium added to our school only two
> years ago, and they used a stair char to change floor levels of about 6
> feet, I would say yes.
stair chair or stair lift? By my definitions the lift is permanently
installed and the chair is more like the ones used to get folks in and
out of commercial planes where there is no jetway.

Margy

[Morgans[_2_]]

>> Based on the fact that there was an auditorium added to our school only
>> two
>> years ago, and they used a stair char to change floor levels of about 6
>> feet, I would say yes.

> stair chair or stair lift? By my definitions the lift is permanently
> installed and the chair is more like the ones used to get folks in and out
> of commercial planes where there is no jetway.

By your definition, a chair lift, but you might want to goggle for the exact
definition.

I looked at a commercial disability product site, and they were selling
attached tracks with a powered chair that went up and down, and they called
that a stair chair. They called a chair lift, more like an elevator
platform. I have no idea what you are talking about, which I take that you
mean a human powered hand truck type of device that has a seat on it.

So, I don't know who is right or wrong, but it matters not to me.

Ours is a permanently mounted track which a motorized chair folds out of, to
lift the seat up and down the stair.

I could still see a compact version of this type of device work for a large
aircraft like the HK-1.
--
Jim in NC

[Morgans[_2_]]

"Margy Natalie" > wrote

> That was my feeling :-), but the law states something like 12" per 2" rise
> with a level area every XX (can't remember) feet.

For new construction, every 12 inches can rise no more than 1 inch. No ramp
may rise more than 30 inches, without a landing.
--
Jim in NC

[Jay Honeck]

> Nobody has asked for holes to be cut into any aircraft. You are
> making things up as you go along.

Really? I believe the example in question was providing wheelchair
access to historic aircraft and their cockpits.

You got another way of rolling/lifting a wheelchair inside the flight
deck of the Spruce Goose *other* than cutting a bigger opening?
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Jim Logajan]

Jay Honeck > wrote:
>> Nobody has asked for holes to be cut into any aircraft. You are
>> making things up as you go along.
>
> Really? I believe the example in question was providing wheelchair
> access to historic aircraft and their cockpits.
>
> You got another way of rolling/lifting a wheelchair inside the flight
> deck of the Spruce Goose *other* than cutting a bigger opening?

Take a look at this photo and several areas seem plausible places to make
an entry without extra cutting:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a9/Spruce_goose_evergreen_aviation_museum_triddle.jpg

The other side:
http://www.tumtum.com/flight/images_full/flt_040912_mmv/flt_040912_15.jpg

Inside the cockpit:
http://www.ancilnance.com/images/goose21.jpg

[Ron Wanttaja]

On Thu, 07 Jun 2007 19:25:55 -0700, Jay Honeck > wrote:

>> Nobody has asked for holes to be cut into any aircraft. You are
>> making things up as you go along.
>
>Really? I believe the example in question was providing wheelchair
>access to historic aircraft and their cockpits.
>
>You got another way of rolling/lifting a wheelchair inside the flight
>deck of the Spruce Goose *other* than cutting a bigger opening?

I think Sylvain's claim is that the ADA does *not* require the museum owner to
give equal access to handicapped folks.

I'd heard the "We'd give access to the cockpit, except for the ADA" excuse from
the Evergreen Museum before. But another poster mentioned the SR-71 cockpit
that's open to the public at Seattle's Museum of Flight. It *definitely* is not
set up for handicapped access, nor is the YF-17 cockpit mockup (incorrectly
described as an F-16). However, both are available for *viewing* by someone in
a wheelchair.

Setting up the Spruce Goose for public tours of the cockpit would either destroy
the aircraft or require extensive modifications, anyway. I suspect the cockpit
interior, including the floor, is wood. Do you want 50,000 people per year
traipsing across it? Kids carving at the stanchions with coins? Slipping on
steep stairs, tripping over hatchways, filing lawsuits?

In any case, it'd be bad PR for them to get sued by someone in a wheelchair that
was denied access. Even if the law itself doesn't require them to provide
access, they'll look bad and will have to pay for defending the suit.

*Not* providing access at all is a no-brainer. Providing public access would
cost them money, would lead to wear-and-tear on an irreplaceable aircraft, would
require extra security, and, unless they provided the appropriate handicapped
access, may lead to a nuisance lawsuit. And to balance that...what? Are there
people who would come visit the Spruce Goose *only* if cockpit access is
allowed? Sure, there'd be a temporary spike from locals re-visiting the museum
once access is allowed, but that would soon end.

Ron Wanttaja

[Viperdoc]

It might have been possible to build a scaffold up to the cockpit without
too much difficulty or damage. The thing was huge.

Have you ever looked at a control tower? They all have wheelchair accessible
elevators and access, yet there are likely few, if any wheelchair dependent
controllers. How much money was spent on this?

Reminds me of a time when I was coming back into the States from an overseas
deployment for the Air Force, with a bout of giardia (fevers, chills, and
frequent nasty episodes of particularly foul diarrhea).

After enduring this for niine hours over the ocean, I was in the home
stretch, waiting in Dulles for the commuter flight back to Wisconsin. The
waiting area looks like Ellis Island.

As we're finally getting ready to board, a large lady in a scooter rolls to
the front of the line. In order to accomodate her, the ground crew brings
out a complex folding ramp. After around 20 minutes, they realize that they
can not open the ramp without moving the plane, ground equipment, baggage
carts, etc.

A tug shows up with a tow bar, and they push the plane back four feet, after
shuffling all of the ground equipment. This was followed by another twenty
minutes of moving the ramp around, only to realize that they still had to
move the plane again! It looked like a Keystone Cops routine.

I, on the other hand, was nead to death, with a fever, and debating to run
back to the terminal to use the bathroom again.

Finally, the ground crew gives up, and we board the plane, only to have the
lady walk up the three steps as well as any other healthy person. In other
words, the ground crew and passengers were all inconvenienced by this, and
she could have walked on board with the rest of us! You can imagine all of
the dirty looks she got from the other pax!

I see this all the time- people want handicapped stickers when they don't
want to walk ten more feet to go into the Walmart, when in fact they should
be walking more to lose weight and get stronger.

It' no wonder that America is a country of overweight and out of shape
individuals. Just make a trip to Europe some time to see the difference (MX
excluded).

[Gig 601XL Builder]

Margy Natalie wrote:
> Don't worry about the Enola Gay, no one will touch it. It even has a
> plastic barrier so you shouldn't be able to throw coke bottles with
> paint in them at her again.
>
> Margy


Someone did that?! Were they arrested and or shot?

[Sylvain]

Viperdoc wrote:

> Finally, the ground crew gives up, and we board the plane, only to have
> the lady walk up the three steps as well as any other healthy person. In
> other words, the ground crew and passengers were all inconvenienced by
> this, and she could have walked on board with the rest of us! You can
> imagine all of the dirty looks she got from the other pax!

scapegoating again: it is so convenient to blame that woman: everybody,
including that lady, who probably didn't enjoy being singled out in
such a way, were all inconvenience by the *incompetence* of
the crew; they most probably knew in advance -- they had to, the
lady wouldn't have been allowed to board at all otherwise -- about
the handicapped lady yet -- from your description -- did nothing
ahead of time to accomodate her. The fact that she might or might not
have been able to walk the few steps is irrelevant actually (she
may not have been given the choice; e.g., when being pushed in
a wheelchair in Heathrow, I was yelled at by the
security because I tried to get out of it to speed up the process);

Note that the same happens regularly with these so called wheelchair
accessible buses, which elevator either doesn't work, or is not
operated correctly by the driver who more often than not doesn't
know how to do it. A procedure that should not take more than 2mn
can take hours when sufficiently mishandled. The end user, not having
any control over this, finds himself singled out as the source of
the problem when in fact the personnel doesn't do its job.

The dirty looks should have been directed at the crew. But then
again, handicapism is still so widely spread that it apparently
clouded the judgment of the passengers, yourself included.

--Sylvain

[Viperdoc[_4_]]

The point is that she was not handicapped, and walked perfectly well. She
used the scooter as a matter of convenience, not necessity.

She easily could have said she was capable of walking up the three stairs
without difficulty, which she did. It would have saved everyone a lot of
trouble and inconvenience. This is not the fault of the crew- it is about
taking responsibility.

[Sylvain]

Viperdoc wrote:

> The point is that she was not handicapped, and walked perfectly well. She
> used the scooter as a matter of convenience, not necessity.

how the heck do you know that? Are you a MD? do you have the proper
qualifications? are you deeply familiar with her medical records? have
you personally examined her?

For many who can walk, a wheelchair in an airport is not a matter
of convenience but of necessity: airports are *vast*, and require
walking long distances which can be far in excess to someone's
ability; whether due to a visible or non visible disability (e.g.,
heart problems, pain, etc.).

> She easily could have said she was capable of walking up the three stairs
> without difficulty, which she did.

As I explained in the previous email, you do not know that either; She
might very well have said it. Once sitted in a wheelchair, nobody listens
to you, it is as if you no longer exist. I have found myself in a similar
situation in an airport (Heathrow) where I was explicitly *forbidden* to
leave the wheelchair by security even though it would have saved a
considerable amount of time to myself and everybody else.

> It would have saved everyone a lot of
> trouble and inconvenience. This is not the fault of the crew- it is about
> taking responsibility.

From your description, the crew messed up, they were grossly incompetent.
That's what inconvenienced you.

If it makes you feel better to blame the victim, go ahead. After all, gimps
are the last minority you can scapegoat with impunity nowdays, might as
well enjoy it while it lasts.

--Sylvain

[Viperdoc]

As a matter of fact, I am an MD, and specialize in orthopaedics. So yes, I
am qualified to talk about her gait. Plus, she was in a scooter, not a wheel
chair, and yes, she walked up the stairs and down the aisle without any
assistance at all.

This was not the fault of the crew, who did their best. She could have
averted all of the trouble by telling people she didn't need the assistance.

It is about taking responsibility- just like the people I see who walk just
fine, but request handicapped stickers simply for a matter of convenience.

I am very sensitive to the needs of the handicapped, since I see and work
with them on a daily basis. Get the chip of your shoulder.

[Sylvain]

Viperdoc wrote:

> As a matter of fact, I am an MD, and specialize in orthopaedics. So yes, I
> am qualified to talk about her gait.

Oh I see. So you know things by osmosis. You can make instant diagnosis
by just looking at someone from a distance. Cool.

Oh, and I am a doctor too by the way, and it is not just a courtesy
title common in your profession. I don't believe however that it gives
me instant competency in any subject.

> Plus, she was in a scooter, not a
> wheel chair, and yes, she walked up the stairs and down the aisle without
> any assistance at all.

Again, reread my message. You do not know anything about her condition;
you do not know anything about the actual circumstances.

> This was not the fault of the crew, who did their best.

They indeed made a big show at it. Incompetent people tend to do that.

> I am very sensitive to the needs of the handicapped,

...and your very best friend is a physically challenged (tm) person, I bet.

> Get the chip of your shoulder.

yep, all gimps have chips on their shoulders. That's the root of all
their problems. Everybody knows that.

--Sylvain

[Stealth Pilot[_2_]]

On Fri, 08 Jun 2007 12:07:12 -0700, Sylvain > wrote:

>Viperdoc wrote:
>
>> The point is that she was not handicapped, and walked perfectly well. She
>> used the scooter as a matter of convenience, not necessity.
>
>how the heck do you know that? Are you a MD? do you have the proper
>qualifications? are you deeply familiar with her medical records? have
>you personally examined her?
>
>For many who can walk, a wheelchair in an airport is not a matter
>of convenience but of necessity: airports are *vast*, and require
>walking long distances which can be far in excess to someone's
>ability; whether due to a visible or non visible disability (e.g.,
>heart problems, pain, etc.).
>
>> She easily could have said she was capable of walking up the three stairs
>> without difficulty, which she did.
>
>As I explained in the previous email, you do not know that either; She
>might very well have said it. Once sitted in a wheelchair, nobody listens
>to you, it is as if you no longer exist. I have found myself in a similar
>situation in an airport (Heathrow) where I was explicitly *forbidden* to
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>leave the wheelchair by security even though it would have saved a
>considerable amount of time to myself and everybody else.
>
>> It would have saved everyone a lot of
>> trouble and inconvenience. This is not the fault of the crew- it is about
>> taking responsibility.
>
>From your description, the crew messed up, they were grossly incompetent.
>That's what inconvenienced you.
>
>If it makes you feel better to blame the victim, go ahead. After all, gimps
>are the last minority you can scapegoat with impunity nowdays, might as
>well enjoy it while it lasts.
>
>--Sylvain

ahhh so now we find out why you have such a nonsense position on
wheelchairs. you are in one.
I suppose you'd expect the world to bend to a desire to take up
parachuting or scuba diving as well.
sad to say it is called a disability because it disables you from
undertaking some activities.

try not to wear your heart on your shoulder all the time. it makes you
a pain in the arse to people who have had nothing to do with your
disablement.

Stealth Pilot
Australia
(who knows a few people in wheelchairs that are *never* pains in the
arse)

[john smith[_2_]]

In article >,
Sylvain > wrote:

> Oh, and I am a doctor too by the way,

What kind? MD or PhD? What field?
There are different qualifications, so you need to be specific.
For all we know, you stayed at a Holiday Inn last night.

[Jim Logajan]

"Viperdoc" > wrote:
> As a matter of fact, I am an MD, and specialize in orthopaedics.

On a scale of 1 to 10, where 10 is excruciating pain that causes collapse,
what level of pain was the woman in when she walked those 3 steps, and how
does one determine such a thing?

[Viperdoc[_3_]]

She walked up the stairs and narrow aisle without any help. She did not use
a cane,crutches, or any other ambulatory aids. She did not limp. She did not
exhibit any other pain behaviors such as facial grimacing, etc. , and in
fact she was smiling as she walked up the row.

Pain is entirely subjective, and she did not show any overt evidence of
being in pain. Contrary to what was suggested, I do have a profession of
working with and assessing people in pain on a daily basis. In my
professional opinion, she did not appear to have severe or even moderate
pain.

You'd be surprised how many people request prescriptions for scooters and
handicapped stickers, when in fact their health would be dramatically better
if they did some walking and exercise.Of course, there are also many that
need these aids just to survive in their daily existence, and for them we do
everything we can to get them the help they need.

The lady I described did not fall into the latter group.

[john smith[_2_]]

In article >,
"Viperdoc" > wrote:

> You'd be surprised how many people request prescriptions for scooters and
> handicapped stickers, when in fact their health would be dramatically better
> if they did some walking and exercise.Of course, there are also many that
> need these aids just to survive in their daily existence, and for them we do
> everything we can to get them the help they need.

Isn't interesting that those scooters just happen to cost the maximum
amount that Medicare will pay? And you can get a doctor that works for
the scooter maker and has no knowledge of your medical history to sign
you off as actually needing the thing!

[John Ousterhout[_2_]]

Viperdoc wrote:
> Just spent the day at the Evergreen Aviation Museum in McMinnville, OR.
> (around an hour SW of Portland)
>
> It is an unbelievable facility, and rivals the NASM in terms of the displays
> and collection. The original Spruce Goose is the main feature, but they have
> a B-17, B-25, A-26, F-100, F4U, etc. on display. You are able to get a lot
> closer to the actual planes than in either of the NASMS.
>
> They have a brand new IMAX theater in an adjacent building, and are
> constructing an equally large additional building next door.
>
> Considering it's pretty much in the middle of nowhere except being next door
> to the McMinnville airport, it is surprising as to the extent and breadth of
> the collection.
>
> Highly recommended for an excellent experience.

I've been to the Evergreen Museum a half dozen times and I'm looking
forward to visiting it again.

For those of you contemplating making a trip to OR, the Tillamook Air
Museum (30 nm by air, 60 miles by road from McMinnville) is also worth
seeing. http://www.tillamookair.com/

BTW - IOWA is the middle of nowhere.
McMinnville, OR is near the left coast of nowhere.

- John Ousterhout -
Salem OR,
FORMER Iowa resident

[Margy Natalie]

Gig 601XL Builder wrote:
> Margy Natalie wrote:
>
>>Don't worry about the Enola Gay, no one will touch it. It even has a
>>plastic barrier so you shouldn't be able to throw coke bottles with
>>paint in them at her again.
>>
>>Margy
>
>
>
> Someone did that?! Were they arrested and or shot?
>
>
Arrested and convicted. I forget the exact charge, but it was something
like destruction of federal property. People forget the Smithsonian is
"The Nation's Attic" and a federal agency. It wasn't pretty.

Margy