Great aviation museum

"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/wikipedi...reenSR-71A.jpg

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"

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"

"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

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

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

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

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

"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

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