Request law info UK Mil air salvage

I am fully aware of all the arguments about sites being memorials and being historical in context. I do not agree with that view unless a real memorial is funded and put on site.

What exactly do you class as a “real memorial”? As far as I’m concerned if the families of those who died in a crash count the site and any remaining wreckage as a memorial,then a memorial it is.

In my view anyone who disturbs a fatal crash site(for any reason) is no better than some yob who vandalises any other grave or memorial.

G.O.

im restoring a PR7 Canberra and im gonna do my best to use orignal PR7 bits but if i have to, i will use any canberra bits i can get my hands on to do a cracking job. Yes its great to see old girls up in the air, but personally as long as the bits didnt come from an airframe of a fatal crash then I say fair game, but I think fatal crash sites & wreckage should really be left. Bex

personally i lean towards original parts as a true sense of the machine cannot be recreated from newly fabricated parts even if the original production techniques are used. However you are right.. i much rather have a recreated piece of history! its always a joy to see the any of the old birds flying around regardless the number of geunine parts used as long as they accurately represent the original.

Thanks zTango, thats certainly opened my eyes and as u say it then opens teh debate on “aircraft originality” but at the end of the day would that matter if we are able to reproduce a piece of history? A prime example is that a group are building a brand new steam engine by making everything from scratch. Bex

Bex… I’ve seen someone use a cnc machine to cut a part for a motorcycle restoration. They didnt even have an old part to get info from.

The used the diagrams/measurements available etc to reproduce the part and within two tries they were able to fit it. and produce more of the parts for other restorations.

In terms of aircraft restorations from wrecks most parts are replaced by fabricated new ones or old airworthy ones.. depending on how bad the wreck was and how much of it could be reused (it leads to the argument that nothing of the original is left but the data plate) This is not to say all restorations are like that.

I guess pretty much everything can be reproduced (and probably is)! and given that original diagrams etc are present they are utilised very well but top restorers around the country to reproduce parts (for Spitfires etc)

and if i havn’t answered your question at all.. sorry! 😀

Now that peace has arrived is there a teeny weeny chance that someone might be to answer my question or shall I just forget it and go back to playing with my canberra? Bex

JDK….If the authorities had time and resources then they could find evidence and prosecute those responsible for removing parts without permission. But they are not interested and quite rightly have much higher priority problems to deal with. The two individuals I knew about were prosecuted about twenty years ago although in both cases the actual charges related to thefts from museums and the parts from crashed aircraft were not considered proven as stolen.

All….My idea of a business was only an idea and the inspiration came from those who recover wrecks in other countries.

Calm down Garry, I do not have any intention of taking this idea any further forward. I am fully aware of all the arguments about sites being memorials and being historical in context. I do not agree with that view unless a real memorial is funded and put on site.

Garry, well said. There are enough cases of “restoration groups” – many of them funded by the taxpayer – taking wreckage away from crash sites which is then never seen again. I’m sure the people involved in these recoveries sincerely believe they’re contributing to the rebuilding of a rare aircraft, but unfortunately there’s a long and winding road between clearing a few twisted bits of alloy off a hillside and displaying a beautifully repainted whole aircraft in a museum. Few organisations have the funds, technical skills and continuity of personnel to see it through.

But Garry’s wider point is even more important. Yes, more people will see a pile of bits if you put them in a museum. But the sense of history, the sense of place, the sense of loss and sacrifice, those are at the crash site. They are a memorial to those who died – and most hill crashes were fatal.

Leave the pieces where they fell.

NS

I thought for a moment this must be a wind up,but apparently not. Scotavia are you seriously suggesting setting up a business to clear all wreckage from high ground sites in the UK? if so I strongly suggest you take a reality check(or seek professional help).

Have you stopped to consider WHY there is still wreckage on high ground? have you considered it could just possibly be because that’s where it belongs?.

Have you thought about the feelings of landowners and,more importantly the feelings of families who lost loved ones in the crashes? I am in contact with several families and they have made it clear they do not want the crash sites disturbing. It is also apparent you intend to do this as a business venture,in other words you intend to profit from clearing these sites,including those which were fatal.Also what gives you the right to decide which wreckage should be preserved and which would be scrapped?

Should you attempt carry out your ill-concieved scheme you would be responsible for destroying an important part of this countries history as you seem to have missed the point that once wreckage is removed from the site(taken out of it’s context) it looses much of it’s historical meaning. You would be denying future generations the chance of finding and studying these sites and you would cause untold distress to the families of the men who died in the crashes.

I have been involved in researching military history,including crashes,for a number of years and I have yet to hear of a high ground site being cleared for scrap,although there are several instances of recovery groups removing wreckage and later selling it for scrap.

Perhaps you would be better spending your time photographing high ground sites in detail,then you would be preserving the sites on film without causing distress to others.

G.O.

Firstly I have very little knowledge on what is being discussed here, however Im very interested in the discussion. I believe wholeheartedly in aircraft restoration (Im restoring a Canberra)& recovery, however my view is that if someone has lost their life the wreckage should not be removed no matter how rare the aircraft is and should be protected by law….. BUT, with the archeaological skills and technology that are available today, surely it should be possible to glean the infomation needed to build parts of the aircraft without total recovery of the part? Now as Ive said Im no expert here and I look forward to hearing others views on my post, especially if I and others in my position can learn more as I consider my view here also to be a question I hope may be answered. Bex

I have to say that your idea was a wholely unworkable one from its very conception.

Firstly anyone wishing to carry out this type of operation would have to apply for a licence for each and every site they wished to remove, this process is taking longer and longer each year. There are people who post on this forum who have been trying to get a licence for single sites and have been made to jump through that many hoops nearly a year has passed since the first application and the arguments are still going on. If someone was to put in several hundred applications (and that is the reality of the number of high ground sites) they would be laughed all the way from Innsworth back to that person.

Secondly from your posts you seem to be under the impression that sites will completely disappear if you or an organisation that you may or may not represent doesn’t disappear them first. This is simply not so, certainly parts from some of the better known sites do vanish (and eventually end up on flea bay) but the majority of sites do not get that many visitors. There are sites that I have visited where there have may been a handful of visitors in that year and there is a large amount of the aircraft remaining and comparing what I have found with photographs taken by earlier visitors shows very little overall change in the sites (in a time scale of years not months).

There is something that stops the local scrapman from just cleaning sites, it is called the Protection of Military Remains Act 1986, ok I will be the first to admit that in relation to aircraft wrecks it is very rarely enforced but the act still exists and should be adhered to no matter how stupid some of its regulations may be. Also landowners consent is always required and this can be difficult to obtain in some cases.

Finally, the state of most wreckage means that it could only ever be used as a pattern for the production of new parts (there was a discussion earlier in the year about how much of a newly restored a/c is original by the time restoration is complete). Once a part has been striped down to become a pattern it may no longer be in a displayable state so once its usefulness is out lived then it goes for scrap. Is that really the best course of action. Also sites do often mark where people have lost their lives and some sites get numbers of visitors each year going there simply to pay their respects to those who have fallen. Does anyone see the complete removal of sites and the generation of profit from them as the best way of remembering the fallen?

Sorry if this offends anyone but I feel as though someone had to say it.

p.s. I am not personally against all recovery, I take part in excavations every year and have on going plans to carry out recoveries my self. However I have not taken plans to the scale of recover everything.

Sorry to give the impression that this recovery idea relates to a secret location. I had in mind a properly organised business to finally clear up the visible wrecks which are mostly on high ground. Although some people regard the remaining wrecks as of no use in restorations this is far from the truth.And what could not be used would be sold as scrap.Doing it properly would ensure all parts are recovered then evaluated. Very little at the moment stops the scrapman from taking items directly from the crash site.

There have been several well organised recoveries as part of projects to restore missing types or very rare types. What is missing is a concerted effort to survey then recover parts before it is to late.Sadly the restrictions on resale make a commercial operation a financial non starter. So good luck to the small number of dedicated museum recovery teams,surely though it could all be done quicker with better finance?

Those who remove parts without permission will in my view never be prosecuted ,its easy to pass off old parts as war souvenirs or salvage yard finds.

😮 you can’t be giving up like that! if it is of any significance then you should proceed with it quickly.If you have decided that its not worth pursuing maybe you should float the idea (without any details) of your discovery and see if any society or individual might be interested in partnering with you.

Thanks for that reply,I see no point in paying money for a recovery then have the MOD claim what they want.Sad as it is the wreck will continue to be robbed by those who have no interest in following the rules.

You should be able to provide data, if you have it, for a prosecution.

Thanks for that reply,I see no point in paying money for a recovery then have the MOD claim what they want.Sad as it is the wreck will continue to be robbed by those who have no interest in following the rules.

Ownership of Recovered Items

The paperwork you receive from MoD on applying for licence explains that MoD retains ownership of all crashed aitrcraft within the UK and the granting of a licence to excavate site does not transfer ownership to the Licencee.

On completion of an excavation MoD (JCCC at RAF Innsworth) will ask you to file a return listing items recovered. In most cases they will then agree to transfer ownership to you but there is a risk (small) they may ask you to hand items over, such as any personal items belonging to crew.