BluebirdBillI am appalled by this. This appears to be very underhand behaviour on behalf of the FAAM and blame-shifting. But for what purpose?
Because they had an aircraft (sort of) out on site somewhere and uninsured on a handshake that suited everyone perfectly until the new overlords in Portsmouth began to close in and then we had to be brought into line very urgently, but they reckoned without us rejecting the contract on the grounds that we weren’t going to pay their insurance or that we had to retain our volunteer status and the newly emerging horror story had to be swept under the rug in an even bigger hurry…
Here’s something to think about – considering that for two years they have been allegedly trying to negotiate a contract without success.
If a contract was such a show-stopper then it should have been all agreed and signed before any works commenced, but it wasn’t, so someone was obviously comfortable enough to proceed. We built the tail, as everyone knows, then in the middle of this summer, eighteen months into this failed negotiating process, they took the centre section of DP872 into the restoration hangar at Yeovilton and began dismantling the rear half of it.
That aircraft was recovered from the bog and lay untouched for forty-odd years. Every rivet in place where the original builders put them with all the provenance attached, yet they stripped it to nothing, and why? To ship it to us for rebuild, that’s why. Then in late October it arrived and we now have it in the workshop along with all the other pieces of rear fuselage just as the tail was nearing completion – the same tail that Dave Morris can be seen standing beside this summer looking very pleased with the job. At this juncture I must point out that Dave has been great and has done his absolute damnedest to keep the project on track and ought to be applauded by everyone on this forum for his efforts right to the last. But it was at this time that the powers above him began demanding the contract and that’s where it began to come unglued.
So, having committed themselves to six months of dismantling purely on our commitment to put it all back together again, which was likely to take about two years based on the tailplane build, does anyone believe that both sides had been locked in a constantly failing effort to negotiate a contract without which the relationship would be summarily ended?
I’m afraid, Bruce, that your guess at deep-rooted politics appears to be spot on and they haven’t been up front and honest with any of us. All we ever wanted to do was build an aeroplane. We knew nothing about it or any other aircraft when we started but we grew to love the ugly old thing. We’ll find something else, I’m sure, but it won’t be for a big museum.
I took a call from BBC Somerset today as they’ve picked up on it so I’m on their breakfast show in the morning. I’ll just tell them what happened and that’ll do for me.
BluebirdBillI have been asked to post this press release on behalf of the FAAM
BobT
A statement from the National Museum of the Royal Navy’s Fleet Air Arm
Museum regarding the Barracuda restoration project.Graham Mottram, National Museum of the Royal Navy’s Director of Collections, Research, Learning and Access and Director of Fleet Air Arm Museum
The Fleet Air Arm Museum has had aspirations to rebuild a Barracuda aircraft for over 30 years. Unlike other more iconic aircraft of its Second World War era, none were retained for posterity and no complete examples exist today.
Those aspirations began with collecting scrap from various hillsides, an ill-fated and overly expensive dabble in the nineties that gained them the nose section that is largely new-build and cost them a fortune and finally work began for real when they approached us to rebuild the sections one by one.
In 2011 an informal agreement was formed between Newcastle-based engineer Bill Smith and the “Bluebird Project” (BBP) team with Kiltech Vehicle Protection Ltd (KVPL) to progress the project. It is incumbent upon the Trustees of the charity to ensure that their property and resources are being applied within a reasonable framework of controls, and to this extent, required that a contract existed between them and BBP/KVPL. Unfortunately, after two years of trying,
The statement ‘after two years of trying’ is a very serious, defamatory and disingenuous untruth – a blatant lie on the part of the FAAM, which has not mentioned contracts for over two years, made a brief attempt to have us sign one that was completely untenable as detailed earlier then refused to come to the negotiating table. We told them that we would willingly sign a contract, just not the first draft to hit the table, which was very much biased in their favour and sought to deny our status as volunteers, and we also said we would participate in their ‘framework of controls’ but certain compromises would be necessary.
we have been unable to negotiate a satisfactory contract and cannot continue any longer under this agreement.
The project has not been cancelled. It has been an ongoing project spanning many years and work will continue.
When I first saw the Barracuda wreckage it was on pallets and strewn with cargo netting outside in the rain and it was obvious that no conservation work whatsoever had been carried out. Even urgent intervention to prevent dissimilar metal problems had not been attempted. I took many hundreds of photographs of this in order to assess whether the parts would respond to our methods before committing.
The decision to terminate the work being done by KVPL/Bluebird Project was not taken lightly because the Barracuda is not represented anywhere else in the world, and its absence from the aviation heritage collections of Great Britain is extremely significant.
The Barracuda remains are the property of the Trustees of the Fleet Air Arm Museum, whose Trustees are also providing the funding for materials and services for the project. It is the Museum’s intention to remove from KVPL/BBP’s workshops those assemblies which have been magnificently restored, and all other components which have been delivered there.
It is also their intention to remove many sub-assemblies that have been dismantled and partially restored and are in worse condition than when they arrived. We have suggested that work continues to complete these sub-assemblies in order that we can at least put back together all that we have taken apart but this has been denied.
The Museum will continue the restoration work at Yeovilton.
The museum has neither the budget nor the skill-set to continue our work and they have told us this many times.
Anyone who has donated money to the Museum in support (for which the Museum is extremely grateful) may rest assured that their donations have been, and will continue to be, ring fenced for the Barracuda and will be spent on the project as work progresses. We have no knowledge or details of any funds and therefore cannot comment on monies which might have been donated directly to KVPL/BBP.
There is no such organisation as KVPL and we have tried innumerable times to communicate this without result. The landlord that rents a unit to FAAM is KVP Ltd. but it has absolutely nothing to do with the Barracuda rebuild.
We would also like to make it clear that other work on Barracuda parts has been ongoing at Yeovilton at the same time as at KVPL/BBP. FAA Museum’s long term intention was that KVPL/BBP would restore a number of major components and sub-assemblies, enabling final assembly to take place at the Museum, in exactly the same way as other reconstructions like the Albacore has been handled. Once we have recovered the Barracuda material from North Shields we will amalgamate the two elements of the project and continue with it here at Yeovilton.
The Albacore is mostly new-build and is in no way representative nor comparable to the Barracuda build. Nor are there two elements to the project. The FAAM workshop sorts and packs parts for us and we rebuild them. To the best of my knowledge the only piece of Barracuda refurbished in-house by the FAAM is a forging from the end of a main landing gear strut.
The Fleet Air Arm Museum expresses its grateful thanks to the team at KVPL/BBP for the valuable work that they have done thus far.
3rd December 2014.
That’s enough for now. It’s quite shocking, actually, and the untruth that they attempted for two years, or even two minutes, to negotiate a contract is utterly disgusting and a clear attempt to try and shift the blame.
The way it smells to me is that everyone down there is suddenly terrified of whatever is going on in Portsmouth and with their influence blowing through the place we had to be pigeonholed quick as you like. As soon as we said, fair enough, but we need to talk about this, they pulled the plug in a heartbeat. A little speculation there on my part but whaever happened to them they way we have been treated is utterly disgusting when only a few weeks ago they called us friends.
BluebirdBillBeing an occasionally controversial character I have seen lots written about me on various platforms over the years, much of it unpleasant, but that comes with the territory and the only way to treat it is to be dispassionate and have a long look in the mirror. If what you read is rubbish or just plain spiteful it’s safe to disregard it but if you can see that your accuser has a point it’s time to change even if that means spooning down a good serving of humble pie.
Four years ago when negotiations began this was the nation’s aeroplane and a gaping gap in the FAAM collection. Two years ago we’d worked out how to mend it and had the world’s only Barracuda elevator on our bench, and such was the success of that exercise that confidence levels allowed for the tail sections to be shipped north. This summer the success of the tail section rebuild led to a commitment (and dare I say it, a contract in law between us) on the part of the museum to dismantle the fuselage of DP872 based entirely on our commitment to put it all back together again.
Today it’s their aeroplane and that want it back. Never mind the nation or the bigger picture.
We said we’d have a contract – just not the one first put on the table, and if they really want us to insure their aeroplane we can have a whip-round to cover it so the problems are coming out in the wash as these things usually do. Doubtless one or two have been rubbed the wrong way as we’ve proceeded and were I of a mind I could list the insults bestowed upon us over the past few years by an uncaring bureaucratic machine – but, firstly, we’re all grownups and we’re over today’s insult by tomorrow and, secondly, we’re professionals with a responsible mission that ought to transcend any such nonsense.
So we’ll see whether anyone dusts off the mirror and has half an hour in front of it while we’re waiting at this end to resume the thrashing out of the issues as we’d like to continue with clashing the nation’s only Barra’ back together.
BluebirdBillWe had a meeting this afternoon and reached the decision that were we to roll over and simply accept the cancellation of the Barra’ project we’d not be being true to ourselves or our little Barracuda after so much blood, sweat and tears. The decision is fundamentally wrong at so many levels so it will be met with a robust challenge. Wish us luck and we’ll keep you informed.
BluebirdBillHealth and Safety? I must have missed that bit.
Perhaps a red herring from my reference to hi-vis risk assessments. It’s not come to that yet but you can imagine it, can’t you.
Risk – FAAM keeps sending us razor sharp, dusty, potentially toxic metal covered in wartime chemicals…
Remedy – Buy your own space suit and wear it at all times.
BluebirdBillI think its time to pause, and to contact all of those trustees individually and find out what they think. It might be that they have the clout to sort it out.
‘Centralisation of control’ – sounds like b*ll*cks to me….
Bruce
The time has been I’d have been on that already but there’s still some time in hand. They haven’t issued their notice to quit on the unit yet and that’s three months for starters. They also have to reinstate the dividing wall so nothing is going to move for a little while yet. Maybe someone will wake up and sort it out, failing that I’ll make a point of tracking down an admiral or two for a second opinion.
BluebirdBillThis situation sounds like its a byproduct of the recent centralisation of control over all RN museums.
The lunatics have taken over the asylum.
I think there’s little doubt about that and, as Bruce says, what will it be next? Hi-viz risk-assessments? But where are the sane heads to look at this and weigh up what they are getting?
They once wanted us to get behind their fundraising so we asked for a login and password so we could update the content of their Just Giving page because they never have and it was an unused tool we could quickly and effectively turn to the advantage of the project. Had they just said no that would have been fair enough but they said yes. We were going to split the diary and put part of it on their page but it needed precise timing to be effective and that is why we wanted to be able to do it in-house.
A month later they called to say we couldn’t have it at all and the reason given was, ‘procedures’ and surely we had our own procedures. I agreed that we did but that if our procedures started to do us more harm than good it was time to look at them and modify accordingly.
So, I say it again, where are the sane heads, whether at Portsmouth or Yeovilton, to look at the Barra’ project and realise that they are getting a 100% original aircraft with all its provenance from a unique conservation project in double quick time and virtually for nothing?
Google the museum’s trustees and you find that they are all professional people from a range of backgrounds – surely they can’t all think that scrapping their own project is a clever idea.
BluebirdBillThat only solves the first issue, though I will make enquiries and maybe we could have a whip-round, but there’s also the question of us being sub-contractors and all that that entails. We’ve already been told that as sub-contractors there’s a raft of admin nonsense on its way but we’re only volunteers that squeeze bits of tin-bashing between our day jobs and family commitments. Whatever admin work there was has presumably been done at their end for the past two years and we’re not best employed doing it – it’s not what we’re about.
What they really need to do is leave us alone and stop trying to fix that which was never broken.
BluebirdBillIndeed – it smells to me as if they are using this as an excuse, knowing it will stop the project. I think many of us would be happy to support the project financially, but we need to know what is going on.
Bill, do you carry any insurance on the premises as it sits, or any on Bluebird?
Bruce
The fabric of the building is insured but insuring the contents is the responsibility of the tenant. The tenancy agreement provided to the FAAM in 2012 states this clearly so they’ve known for two years that it was their risk.
Regarding Bluebird, we are in the process of negotiating insurance for her because she has to go out in public and run under her own power and that’s a whole new ball game. Once she goes to the museum she’ll be insured as part of their collection. There’s always the question of exactly what risk are we insuring against and considering that there’s no one else qualified to repair any damage, she’s way too awkward to steal and there’s nothing in there that might burn we have up to now, self-insured on that basis.
The greatest risk to the Barra’ would seem to be the scrap man getting loose unsupervised in there but that is highly unlikely considering the security we have on our premises but the FAAM have never specified any risk.
If politics is there game I can’t see how they’re playing it because every indication is that had we just signed on the dotted line they’d have been happy but we couldn’t sign what they proposed and instead we asked to negotiate.
In actual fact, if it’s a contract they want, they already have one because they recently dismantled and delivered the whole rear fuselage section, which was quite a commitment on their part purely on the strength that we were committed to starting work on it and continuing for at least a year yet now they want to breach of that. As I said at the outset – most baffling.
By the way – I did the numbers and their project costs them about £90.00 per week…
BluebirdBillThere are issues here that are not clear to me. For instance, are you in effect working as an independent body informally contracted to do the work (paid or not), or as volunteers under museum supervision? Also, as Bruce says, are you being asked to fork up £50K, or merely insurance to cover that amount (very cheap)?
I’ve answered the insurance question above somewhere. As regards our status, we’ve always worked voluntarily under museum supervision. One of the very early requests was that we sent regular updates for the trustees to digest (which are later reworked into the diary entries) and any difficult decisions are passed upwards for them to make. They even told us once that we were the best project they had because we got things done and were completely maintenance free. Now they want us to be sub-contractors and ‘fit within their framework of control’. If they’d insisted on this at the outset we’d just have politely declined any involvement but to try it on two years down the line when we’ve become firmly established and proven that we know what we’re doing is just crackers. And, on top of that, to refuse to come to the table and just shut the job down… well that’s beyond crackers.
BluebirdBillBill,
Could you clarify please? Are you being asked to provide insurance at 50k to you, or insurance that values the aircraft at 50k?
First one expensive, second one cheap, and could perhaps be reinvoiced back to them under the guise of parts and materials.
Bruce
The exact wording… They want us to,
‘provide insurance of not less than £50,000, for each block of work, to cover the possible loss of original material or post-completion reconstructions’
So, we’re supposed to persuade an insurer to cover a pile of scrap for 50K, pay the premium ourselves then work for free to elevate its intrinsic value from practically zero to whatever the going rate might be for an original Barra’.
There’s other stuff, like being classed as sub-contractors, which entails a load of administrative nonsense, and not volunteers, but we never got past the insurance issue. When you consider that they presumably insure the rest of their collection you have to ask which party is best placed to handle the problem, if indeed a problem exists.
BluebirdBillI can understand a museum’s wish to officialise the association between an outside team and the museum (loaning stuff out on the basis of trust and verbal agreement has meant the loss of artefacts from various collections over the years), but to not even consider meeting with you to discuss things is just crass. Is there anyone we can write to or is there a petition that could be signed? I honestly think it’s a project that needs to be put back on the rails ASAP, so much good work has already been done.
Thanks for all the support and positive messages, everyone. We really appreciate it and we were (and remain) more than willing to sign a contract with the FAAM but we can’t begin to pay their insurance and whichever way you look at it we’re only volunteers. The overwhelming urge is to tell them that we don’t accept their decision and invite them to explain themselves properly. It’s a poor decision on their part and not in the interests of museums or museum conservation generally. We would love to carry on with our work because the whole rear fuselage had just been delivered and, had we mended that, and with what we know these days it wouldn’t have taken long, there’d be enough finished sections to easily stand the complete fuselage on its wheels. It’d only need wings after that but the hard work would have been done.
So do we just roll over and write this down to another triumph of bureaucracy over common sense, or do we kick up a stink and hope that someone listens?
I really don’t know enough about the aviation world to make that call but I do know that we were all enjoying our excursion into it and we felt we were doing something worthwhile.
BluebirdBillSome pen pusher has got it so wrong.
Quote “Doesn’t make a lot of difference to us”. After two years I would make a difference to me I would be well pee’d off!
Not quite how I mean it. Of course we’re all very disappointed but we still have our main project and lots to be going on with.
BluebirdBillBad news… The Barra’ Project is dead – they’ve cancelled it.
In a nutshell, after two years of top work they decided we absolutely must be signed up to a formal contract, which in itself wasn’t a show-stopper, but their opening offer certainly was. It basically labelled us sub-contractors and obliged us to pay to insure their chunks of wrecked aeroplane for £50k so that we could work on it for free! Even had that been a reasonable suggestion, which it clearly wasn’t, how were we supposed to pay for it?
I went to the boss and said it was untenable in that condition but all I got was a message to say that we were sub-contractors therefore we had to comply and that the contract was attached so would I please sign and return it – it was the same contract.
This time I pointed out that they didn’t pay our wages so they couldn’t place conditions on us like that so it was time to meet around the table to thrash out a contract that would suit everyone but instead they said they were coming for their plane… It’s a most baffling situation, that they would destroy their own project to fill such a glaring gap in their collection without trying everything to save it. We know we did nothing wrong and we were certainly up for exploring all options but there you have it.
Doesn’t make a lot of difference to us, the Barra’ crew is now on Bluebird, and once the plane is gone we have a test cell for our Orph’ engines so that was timed rather nicely but it’s quite a sad day for the aviation enthusiasts and everyone who’s granddad flew a Barra’ in WWII.
Anyone who donated to us directly and wants to be reimbursed, no problem, just say the word. Not sure how anyone stands who donated to the FAAM directly, though. Sorry.
BluebirdBillUpdate on the Bluebird Project diary too today.
Sign In
