Great aviation museum

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.

"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

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

"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

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"

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.

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

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 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