From: Doc Bryant (rbhonk1@cox.net)
Date: Fri Aug 29 2003 - 00:55:19 PDT
Steve:
One thing I should have added in there is that over the years, as our
society changes, so does our government.
I think at some point they decided that given the problems they had with
Mutts in the hands of GI's, it could easily be foreseen that worse carnage
would insue when these vehicles were released into civilian hands. I was in
the Air Force in the mid seventies and recall all sorts of vehicle safety
briefings that usually had the tag line, "Oh well the Army and Marine guys
have it worse, you ought to see the junk they have to drive!"
So, some one decides, nope, these vehicles are going to get rendered into
scrap rather than expose the population to the dangers. And there is always
the thought that after X number of civilians render themselves into compost
that someone will think the thought, "Geeminy Christmas, we are letting our
boys in uniform drive these deathtraps?" Remember the hue and cry raised by
Ralph Nader in his book on the Corvair, "Unsafe at Any Speed." So, the late
sixties brings us all sorts of goodies, and a more safety concerned NHTSA.
Thank you Joan Claybrook. Look to the dealings she and her office did, and
I bet you find out where the Mutts got mashed.
Now, once a government, or a person, for that matter, does a deed once, it's
over the hump. Doing it again reduces the deed to a rubber stamp motion.
"Well, we did it before for this, and it was good (their definition of good,
not yours or mine maybe). So we will do it again."
An issue not raised, but should be for the issue of precedence. The various
agencies concerned, particularly the Federal Aviation Agency clamped down on
civilian use of ex military aircraft after some high publicity (and
unfortunately high loss of life accidents involving war birds powered by jet
engines). One F86 Sabre Jet crashed into an ice cream parlor in California
set the war bird movement back decades. Granted, unlike a Mutt, you can get
a jet warbird flying, and licensed in a limited way. But the restrictions
on them are numerous. Right now, it's easier to bring in a former Soviet
Union jet aircraft and get a "Limited" class license for it than it is to
get a Post Korean War vintage US Military aircraft flying.
I follow the airshow industry quite closely, as I do pyrotechnic displays in
conjunction with airshows. There was a duo flying F-104's, but they're down
to a solo act now, as one of them crashed recently. I think there is one
F-100 Super Sabre flying in true civilian hands. Others exist, but they are
used in special flight services to the military and so do not really compare
to us military vehicle buffs owning a tank or a half track. I know of a
couple of warbirds that were built from bits and pieces of multiple
aircraft. They were bought out of scrap salvage, and with considerable time
and finances, made to fly again. Talk about a circuitous route around the
rules and regulations! Necessity is indeed the mother of invention.
Governmental intervention has severely curtailed ex military turbine powered
aircraft from flying in civilian hands. The safety issue was the main
point. Few civilian pilots can adequately maintain, much less operate
something as capable as even a T-38 Talon trainer. And it frankly scares me
that some fellow with wealth far surpassing his abilities or good sense
should get something like an F-4 or newer aircraft for the purpose of boring
holes in the sky. Linking to the various prohibitions and hurdles against
military aircraft use is also the prohibition against supersonic flight over
much of the United States. The few places where the military can go
supersonic are mostly out in the wide open spaces of Nevada. And you run
out of airspace before you run out of fuel doing it, which is a novel thing
for most F-4 drivers!
Now, let me return to the issue you raised of a double standard or
inconsistent application of the law (or of the reasoning that spawned the
law).
Vehicles that us older folk drove in our youth with mechanical brakes, no
turn signals, no seat belts and such were driven by a great many of the
population. A greater number than the number of military drivers of Mutts,
Humvees, Deuce and a halfs, et cet. A vast knowledge base of the quirks and
foibles of these older vehicles exists. But more importantly, is the still
large number of people out there today who's driving experience included
vehicles with out all the modern safety devices. This great number of people
with recent memory of such vehicles constitutes a loud outcry if the Highway
Safety folk were to decide that your Grandfather's Packard Super Clipper is
unsafe to drive today. Granted some restrictions have been placed on
drivers of antique motor vehicles. These restrictions, combined with
insurance regulations keep the number of miles they are used down. This
lowers the exposure level to the general population to an insignificant
amount. Hence, a very slight risk to the other drivers out there. Also the
cost of finding an old flivver and restoring it is no longer small change.
Fewer people can restore the cars of their youth, or their grandparent's
youth. Again, the level of exposure is lessened. And with the decrease in
exposure comes a decrease in the chance of accidents occuring. Not too many
Dusenbergs are totalled out on a daily basis.
So, the Government decides a vehicle produced for battle conditions (in very
small production numbers compared even to a Yugo) and driven by a specially
trained group of operators will have a very high rate of accidents on the
public highways if it is released from duty to anyone with the money who
wants to own one. I for one can see the logic in that decision. Again,
through the fog and mists of age and poor memory, I do recall that the Mutt
was singled out for being a nasty vehicle on highway for some reason. I am
a little hazy on it, but I think there was a series of TV reports by one of
the big news outfits (pre CNN times) that made great mention of the number
of military highway accidents with them. Rest assured, the military knows
how many vehicles they bust up, and how many soldiers are injured or killed
in accidents involving motor vehicles. And again, the fear of negative
public opinion makes it easy for someone to whisper in the right someone's
ear, "Oh we better pound these vehicles into pancakes, lest we whack too
many taxpayers with them."
The rules involving importation of vehicles produced outside the US is a bit
tougher than you might imagine. There is a level of standards in emissions
and safety equipment installation that has to be complied with or the title
can be revoked and the vehicle can be ordered off the highway. The grey
market industry in foreign exoticars like Ferarris and big ticket Mercedes
Benzes is a good example of that. Bonds guaranteeing compliance with
applicable vehicle regulations must be posted, and they are not cheap.
Failure to comply means forfeiture of that bond. And further consequences
as named above.
Given all the above, I still do not see a backroom deal taking place. More
it was some one in the National Highway Transportation Safety Administration
talking with someone in the military. And those two people decided that we
would be better off without certain military vehicles being sold off for the
proverbial $25 to anyone who shows up at the auction. And it's the product
liability issue that makes the manufacturer of said vehicle trundle up to
those two in conversation and adding his two cents, "Ya, it probably would
be a good idea that these vehicles don't make it out into the streets." Is
that a back room deal? Yes, if you consider it was not held in some public
venue with the news media looking on. But no back room deal if the issue of
safety was driving the argument more than profit for some vehicle maker
based on lowered liability claims and the protection of his military sales
contract.
And a few years later, all of them read about a DUKW load of tourists
sinking and they say in unision, "Damn, I am glad we prevented that kind of
thing from happening with vehicles I am responsible for. It's a good thing
the guy who let them into the public hands is dead, or he would wish he was
today!"
Doc "Far too Winded for this time of the Morning" Bryant
PS My first daily driver was a 36 Ford 3 Window Coupe with hydraulic
brakes....It took nearly a whole zip code to stop from 50 MPH. But it sure
was a hoot to drive.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat May 07 2005 - 20:23:38 PDT