Great aviation museum

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

"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

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

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

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

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

"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

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"

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/wikipedi...um_triddle.jpg

The other side:
http://www.tumtum.com/flight/images_..._040912_15.jpg

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

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