The dark side of aircraft salvage

Rob Greinert has been given a very bad press, but as Elliot and Mark have pointed out, this slightly redresses things:

http://www.news.com.au/dailytelegrap…001021,00.html

A few years ago I saw extracts from the CILHI report after a team visited the P-47 crash site (twice I think?) when the wreckage was in situ. It made clear that no trace of the pilot, Lutes, was extant on site – either in the aircraft or nearby. It was concluded that he had either survived and walked off into the jungle and been lost, or else had been taken away from the site and died elsewhere. The possibility of wild animals having some part to play was also suggested as I recall. Either way, his remains were not associated with the aircraft or immediate crash site. Period.

Unfortunately the truth is not such a good story as “grave robbery”.

BUT only if he has His Name on the planes’ V5 owners car Log book.”
joke’
terry

Rob Greinert has been given a very bad press, but as Elliot and Mark have pointed out, this slightly redresses things:

http://www.news.com.au/dailytelegrap…001021,00.html

A few years ago I saw extracts from the CILHI report after a team visited the P-47 crash site (twice I think?) when the wreckage was in situ. It made clear that no trace of the pilot, Lutes, was extant on site – either in the aircraft or nearby. It was concluded that he had either survived and walked off into the jungle and been lost, or else had been taken away from the site and died elsewhere. The possibility of wild animals having some part to play was also suggested as I recall. Either way, his remains were not associated with the aircraft or immediate crash site. Period.

Unfortunately the truth is not such a good story as “grave robbery”.

Just to add the other side of the coin to the Boston Globe piece. I am sure Rob Greinert would not mind me posting a paragraph of a recent email to me.

Mark

Lutes got out of the wreck and walked off into oblivion

Everyone including the US Ambassador in Port Moresby knew what was happening.

The wreck site was visited four times by the US Military. On the last visit the combined CILHI team and PNG National Museum staff
jointly concurred that Lutes had walked off and was not in the vicinity of the wreck.

Permission to recover was granted by the PNG Government via the National Museum Director.

But never let the truth get in the way of a good story

Elliott has posted this link in a new thread, but I think it is worthwhile placing it here to answer the Boston Globe story and link that commenced this thread and debate.

http://www.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/story/0,,25558504-5001021,00.html

Its good that Rob has been given the opportunity to respond to the implied accusations made in the recent Boston Globe article, it is a pity its authors didnt seek and provide a right of reply in their own article?

the salient points in answer to that other article at Boston.com are:

World War II hero Marion Lutes is believed to have perished in the jungle after surviving the wreck of his P47D Thunderbolt in April 1944.

When locals found the aircraft on a 60-degree slope decades later, the cockpit harness was unlocked and there was no sign of the pilot.

Lutes is still officially listed as missing in action but his Thunderbolt, pulled from the jungle several years ago by Australian salvager and restorer Robert Greinert, is rising phoenix-like in a cavernous hangar at Illawarra Regional Airport, south of Sydney.

While the brave pilot is gone, his memory and that of others who lost their lives defending this country are being kept alive by dedicated Australian enthusiasts.

But Mr Greinert and his Historical Aircraft Restoration Society are incensed by US criticism their work may have compromised the recovery of human remains.

Despite numerous sweeps of the site before the salvage operation, it is understood that the Pentagon has not given up hopes of recovering Lutes’ remains.

“It (salvaging aircraft) has been presented as evil grave-robbing, which is just not correct,” society spokesman Ben Morgan said.

“It doesn’t happen that we storm in, grab this stuff and run. It (the imputation) is very hurtful.

“This is highly insulting to individuals who have devoted a large part of their lives and their personal resources to preserving historic aircraft.”

Mr Greinert, who has been recovering and restoring wrecks for three decades, received clearance from PNG authorities and maintains he never touches any site where there are MIA issues.

The Pacific Wrecks website seperately confirms the wreck was subject to a number of MIA searches well before the wreck was recovered.

Wreckage
The wreckage was first located at at about 8,200′ near the villages of Nando and Tauta by a group of students ‘Operation Drake’ in 1979. They discovered the cockpit closed, and no remains were seen.

Although surveyed by US Army CILHI on three occasions, the site was never the subject of a dedicated MIA search for remains of its MIA pilot, and is list as an open MIA cases.

Rachel Phillips, JPAC adds:
“In 1990, a CILHI team surveyed the site. They did not find remains or personal effects. In 1999, there were two CILHI teams that visited the site associated with this case. Neither team found remains or personal effects.”

The wreckage remained in situ until October 2004.

Its good to see Rob confirming he doesn’t resort to a “crude” approach in his aircraft recoveries, and does’nt touch / recover wrecks with MIA issues or that may be troubled by a bunch of old bones.

Hopefully others involved in wreck recovery and restoration will adopt and agree with his views and attitudes.

Regards

Mark Pilkington

[QUOTE=Proctor VH-AHY;1414308]I don’t remember saying to treat the remains with disrespect. I did say they could be just a pile of crumbling bones.

Lets stick to what was actually said in the various postings. I DID make the point that in a practical sense that a living ongoing memory invoked by seeing and flying the restored aeroplane is BETTER than having a deteriorating wreak buried in the jungle of New Guinea or on some Pacific island – one that is never or only very very occasionally visited.

I did say that within the next not-so-many years that anyone who knew the deceased would also be deceased, and likely the next generation as well.

I pose the question, when did you last visit the grave of your great-great-grandfather and be honest with your answers.

I have noticed a tendency on this forum for people to make long-winded answers and to attribute attitudes and inferences that in fact weren’t made.

Please read and assimilate what was actually said. I am not talking about Tangmere 1940 here

Paul – its just a statement of fact – they are “old Bones” it is the context and the memories associated with the bones that are important. My view is that the restored aeroplane serves as the focus for the memory. Here is a suggestion – get some of the personal effects and build them into the restored aeroplane as a on-going tribute to the original crew. Don’t think it has been done but it really make the connection between the past the contemporary

FROM TANGMERE1940

Note – something very strange happened when I tried to post the following reply. It failed to seperate out into two boxes; ie the quote and my reply. For some reason it has merged together and any attempt to edit meets with failure saying message is too short. Help! (???) Here is my reply:

Did I say that you suggested the remains should be treated with dis-respect? I didn’t think I did – but I will have to re-read what I have written again. I cannot see that I suggested that. I said that your stance was that the remains didn’t matter. That, I believe, was/is where you are coming from.

When did I visit my great-grandfathers grave? Just before Christmas, actually. I have a sense of history – like most on this forum – and I also visit my grandfathers and fathers graves from time to time although not, I admit, frequently. But that is not the point, is it? I would like to visit my paternal grandfathers grave, but I cannot. It is lost somewhere in the fields of Paschendale.

I don’t remember saying to treat the remains with disrespect. I did say they could be just a pile of crumbling bones.

Lets stick to what was actually said in the various postings. I DID make the point that in a practical sense that a living ongoing memory invoked by seeing and flying the restored aeroplane is BETTER than having a deteriorating wreak buried in the jungle of New Guinea or on some Pacific island – one that is never or only very very occasionally visited.

I did say that within the next not-so-many years that anyone who knew the deceased would also be deceased, and likely the next generation as well.

I pose the question, when did you last visit the grave of your great-great-grandfather and be honest with your answers.

I have noticed a tendency on this forum for people to make long-winded answers and to attribute attitudes and inferences that in fact weren’t made.

Please read and assimilate what was actually said. I am not talking about Tangmere 1940 here

Paul – its just a statement of fact – they are “old Bones” it is the context and the memories associated with the bones that are important. My view is that the restored aeroplane serves as the focus for the memory. Here is a suggestion – get some of the personal effects and build them into the restored aeroplane as a on-going tribute to the original crew. Don’t think it has been done but it really make the connection between the past the contemporary

regards

Ross,

As you are obviously referring to my own “long winded reply’s and suggesting I am attributing attitudes and inferences that were’nt made”, I would like to make it clear I’m not arguing that wrecks should be left in place indefinately, as you seem to be drifting the debate to above, the issue in this thread, and the article it refers to in link in the first post, has been the recovery and respect of the “old bones” before recovery of the parts, and treating the remains with respect.

Lets stick to what was actually said in the various postings

Below are your own words that I have responded to in my earlier posts:

Increasingly people are cremated as opposed to burried. Graves are unvisited the ashes of the dead pose a problem for the survivors and are often “thrown to the winds”. In western cultures at least, most people these days put very little value on the graves of their anticedents.

Yet when it comes to military graves its a different story and I don’t need to elaborate.

My opinion is you can identify the aeroplane and it is rebuilt to flying and that history made a living thing, that is a lot better than getting to troubled about a bunch of crumbled bones. A crude approach I am sure, but as I often say “I am a fully paid up member of the human race and entitled to a view”.

There is too much political correctness comming into this issue. The people concerned died over 60 years ago in tragic circumstances in another 40 years anyone who ever knew them will be well and truely dead.

Nothing will remain but a memory (and maybe a few old bones), the memory will not be of smiles, laughter and personal contact, rather just a bit of writing somewhere, maybe a name and some details in some history book.

Sorry not enough for me, give me a live breathing aeroplane and all the feelings that envokes. I sometimes sit in the seat of my Tiger Moth (RAAF A17-300) and dream of who has sat there before, what did they do during WW2 – that is a living memory and I am sure that those in the future who sit in that same seat will have similar day-dreamings

.

So correct me if I am wrong (which I invited in my first post if I had mis-interpreted your view?), but the two quotes above seem clearly to suggest you consider the aircraft wreck should be recovered without interest in, or effort to resolve that there are human remains present, or that the wreck is effectively a war grave?

ie recover the aircraft remains without being troubled about a bunch of crumbled bones?, particularly given the age of the wreck and the assumption the immediate family and decendents have no interest in the fate of, recovery of their family members remains?

Again I am sorry if you think I attributing an attitude to you that isnt correct? as I am only responding to what you have posted.

(although to be fair to you. in some cases I include a reply to other comments of those who have replied to me)

For clarity my position was explained at the end of my first reply to you, and at no stage have I suggested a wreck might never be available for recovery? the point you now seem to be arguing?

I personally think we should recognise the significance of “fatality” wrecks, and not treat them as simply a pile of spare parts for wreckology or museum collections, Ebay sales, or other restorations and data plate rebuilds – that may limit, complicate or simply slow the recovery of some airframes or wrecks- but so be it!, I have voiced this position in other KP posts and threads regarding UK Defence permits for “digs” by “wreckologists”.

It is a reasonable compromise to allow the MIA inspection and recovery of a “bunch of crumpled bones” process to do its work and declare the wreck clear of remains and available for salvage, far better than simply a “crude” approach.

I understand a number of wreck recoverers in remote areas undertake their own serious inspection and recovery processes and return the remains to the MIA authorities, and perhaps there should be a formal training and accreditation process to permit those proffessional recoverers to undertake such work formally? on behalf of the authorities?

I have read the article that launched this thread, and am dis-appointed the authors have focused on a couple of individuals, including using them in the headline photos, without seemingly getting their approval or giving them the right to reply or be interviewed for their position on the general “accusations” made in the article.

Again, I’m sorry if I am mis-representing or mis-interpreting your view above, but it is based on the impression I get of your “crude” approach , “logic” and “view” expressed in your post above?

By the way, in your new “suggestion” above in your latest post, I assume you intend that the non-existant / non interested family and decendents of the crew that have rotted now to be “just a pile of crumbling bones” and who dont have an interest in the remains while they are in the wreck, will instead now be approached for permission before the “personal effects” of the deceased crew are removed from the crash site as well, and built into the restored aircraft???

(as “personal effects” are you really?? suggesting the “pile of crumbling old bones”???)

As we have both pointed out, we have vastly differing views, your entitled to yours, I’m entitled to mine, and certainly also entitled to comment and criticise if we do not agree, even via a long winded reply.

You openly described your view and attitude as a “crude approach” in your first post, If I have mis-represented your attitude above please explain where?

regards

Mark Pilkington

A view from the ‘other side’ of the Globe article……

http://www.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/story/0,,25558504-5001021,00.html

There must have been instances where the recovery efforts of aircraft salvers led directly to the discovery and recovery of aircrew listed as MIA; I wonder what the balance of these cases compared to the cases of salvers hindering the search for MIA aircrew is?

The other thing that occurs to me is that probably very few of us could say that our interest in historic aviation was sparked by a desire to honour the fallen and protect their final resting places?

It was the aircraft that we liked first.

As we matured (hopefully) our thoughts turned towards the human sacrifices but the influence of preserved, recovered and restored airframes should not be underestimated. If in 100 years the fallen are to be remembered with the respect that they deserve then the young of today have to experience the same spark of interest that we did, and today there is a lot of competition, Power Rangers, the Clone Wars, Skins, Twitter (whatever that is?)…

I’m certainly not saying that the fallen shouldn’t be treated with the utmost respect or that the investigation (but not necessarily the recovery) of MIA personnel shouldn’t be given absolute priority but it is a complex (and emotive) issue and there are many sides to it.

Proctor VH-AHY.

Personally, I do not in any way disagree with your notion that restoring these warbirds to flight is anything other than a “good” thing. However, that is a long way removed from your notion that, at the same time, the mortal remains of those who died and the proper memorialisation/recovery/burial of those individuals doesn’t matter. In my view it matters greatly. I suspect your view is very much in the minority. But, as you say, you are entitled to that view.

I don’t remember saying to treat the remains with disrespect. I did say they could be just a pile of crumbling bones.

Lets stick to what was actually said in the various postings. I DID make the point that in a practical sense that a living ongoing memory invoked by seeing and flying the restored aeroplane is BETTER than having a deteriorating wreak buried in the jungle of New Guinea or on some Pacific island – one that is never or only very very occasionally visited.

I did say that within the next not-so-many years that anyone who knew the deceased would also be deceased, and likely the next generation as well.

I pose the question, when did you last visit the grave of your great-great-grandfather and be honest with your answers.

I have noticed a tendency on this forum for people to make long-winded answers and to attribute attitudes and inferences that in fact weren’t made.

Please read and assimilate what was actually said. I am not talking about Tangmere 1940 here

Paul – its just a statement of fact – they are “old Bones” it is the context and the memories associated with the bones that are important. My view is that the restored aeroplane serves as the focus for the memory. Here is a suggestion – get some of the personal effects and build them into the restored aeroplane as a on-going tribute to the original crew. Don’t think it has been done but it really make the connection between the past the contemporary

regards

True.. but we will have to wait a while…

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Finding-Few-Outstanding-Mysteries-Investigated/dp/1906502552

“This title has not yet been released.”

That might be something to do with the fact I have only just finished writing it……:D

I was just being a bit cheekily previous, Paul!

The only people who know what really matters in these cases are the ones who have first hand experience not only with recovery of aircraftwrecks but also dealing with next of kin, survivors etc. They know the feelings, the emotions, the fight against ignorance or even hostility from the official authorities, and yet they go on. Robert greinert is a man of great integrity, and really knows what he is doing.

On the other side are those with an opinion based on bias, nothing more, nothing less.

Just my opinion,nothing more, nothing less

Cheers

Cees

🙂 I think we have two issues here,
1,recovery of the planes ,i am all for it and they should be bought back as a memorial to those that did die BUT only WHEN
2, The human remains where still around MUST be responsibly recovered and treated with utmost respect.
By all means this should be a win /win situation for all parties,however as humans we make things much too difficult.

Hi all,

I have to agree with Trumpeters comments.

Yes get the planes back and restored if possible, but respect must be made for the remains of the crew and the sacrifice they made.

My mother lost her only brother who was a Flight engineer on Halifaxes. He was reported missing with the family having no information about him until his body was found six months after the war ended. She has often told me how awful it was not knowing anything, and even though he now has a resting place she still misses him and so having been robbed of an Uncle so do I.
From a personal point of view having lost my eldest son a grave to visit is some point of contact and help for the memories so yes some councils may remove some cemeteries but there are many more well kept and tended ones. A place to visit and reflect.

I would suggest visiting places such as the Reichswald Forest War Cemetery. It is a very, very sobering place.

I cannot subscribe to the shallow view that the sacrifice made by those who have gone before us should be regarded as just a “pile of old bones”, and applaud the aviation archaeologists who take the time to remove remains carefully and with the respect they deserve.

Paul.

You might find another view here…..

True.. but we will have to wait a while…

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Finding-Few-Outstanding-Mysteries-Investigated/dp/1906502552

“This title has not yet been released.”

Well said Trumper!!

🙂 I think we have two issues here,
1,recovery of the planes ,i am all for it and they should be bought back as a memorial to those that did die BUT only WHEN
2, The human remains where still around MUST be responsibly recovered and treated with utmost respect.
By all means this should be a win /win situation for all parties,however as humans we make things much too difficult.

Proctor VH-AHY.

Personally, I do not in any way disagree with your notion that restoring these warbirds to flight is anything other than a “good” thing. However, that is a long way removed from your notion that, at the same time, the mortal remains of those who died and the proper memorialisation/recovery/burial of those individuals doesn’t matter. In my view it matters greatly. I suspect your view is very much in the minority. But, as you say, you are entitled to that view.

IIt seems fair game to desecrate cemeteries….St Pancras in London being one of many that got the Victorian equivalent of bulldozing.

Happens all the time. In Brisbane Lang Park, the major Rugby League venue is built over a former cemetary, Hales Street, a major thru road was recently build thru a cemetary – the list goes on. As I understand it, you do not have an indefinite right over a grave plot.

Marking long postings doesn’t add weight to an arguement – to me having an aeroplane restored and flying and people recounting its history including its last wartime flight and remembering who piloted that flight has a lot more significance and is TRUELY remembering them, than having a slowly deteriorating wreck in some obscure place that is never or only very occasionally visited.

Dead is dead – nothing left but the memories, the memories are the enduring aspect of a persons life.

cheers

Yes the attitudes displayed over “remains” are very interesting, and you are entitled to a “view”, however its certainly not one I share, and in fact find it somewhat offensive.

I’m sorry if I am mis-representing or mis-interpreting your “view” below, but it is based on the impression I get of your “crude” approach, “logic” and “view” expressed in your post above?

You are entitled to choose to donate your remains to science, the school heating boiler, or the local pet food processor if you wish, however you dont have a right to determine the appropriate or acceptable treatment of someone elses remains, or apply your own “crude” approach and “logic” to them.

If someone “chooses” to be cremated and have their remains scattered at a pre-determined location selected by them or their family, that does’nt set a precident or “attitude” that allows your logic and “crude” approach to condone a wreck “recoverer” to arrive, shovel up the “bunch of crumpled bones” place them in the camp fire, and then spread them around the surrounding bush, while speaking the “lords prayer”! all at his choice and discretion, before dragging off his “treasure find”.

While some wrecks are the last surviving examples of their type and sought by National and public museums to fill an extinct place in International Preservation for future generations, most are simply “financial” or “enthusiast” opportunities for someone, and neither of those “values” should be placed above the “value” of the human lives and remains involved in the wreck.

We can respect the machine and its remains, but not without first respecting the human remains.

The “rebuilt” aircraft is not the “living thing”, the dead crew were the “living things” – its akin to lamenting the recent loss of a crashed vintage Tigermoth or warbird, but considering its pilot was more easily replacable? and therefore less or even “un” important?, an extension of your logic and “crude” approach would seem to be condoning restorers to be rushing in to claim the still smouldering remains (of an aircraft) for urgent rebuild or re-use, while pushing the corpse crudely out of their way? and telling the family and friends “at least the aircraft will be rebuilt and living”!

Given you have apparantly lost some friends in aircraft crashes I do wonder if you have a different attitude and view to those pilots and their wrecks, than the anonomous crews of older wartime wrecks?

I personally think we should recognise the significance of “fatality” wrecks, and not treat them as simply a pile of spare parts for wreckology or museum collections, Ebay sales, or other restorations and data plate rebuilds – that may limit, complicate or simply slow the recovery of some airframes or wrecks- but so be it!, I have voiced this position in other KP posts and threads regarding UK Defence permits for “digs” by “wreckologists”.

It is a reasonable compromise to allow the MIA inspection and recovery of a “bunch of crumpled bones” process to do its work and declare the wreck clear of remains and available for salvage, far better than simply a “crude” approach.

I understand a number of wreck recoverers in remote areas undertake their own serious inspection and recovery processes and return the remains to the MIA authorities, and perhaps there should be a formal training and accreditation process to permit those proffessional recoverers to undertake such work formally? on behalf of the authorities?

I have read the article that launched this thread, and am dis-appointed the authors have focused on a couple of individuals, including using them in the headline photos, without seemingly getting their approval or giving them the right to reply or be interviewed for their position on the general “accusations” made in the article.

Again, I’m sorry if I am mis-representing or mis-interpreting your view above, but it is based on the impression I get of your “crude” approach , “logic” and “view” expressed in your post above?

regards

Mark Pilkington

on a Note a jap zero or oscar fighter was found in jungles some years ago.
they recovered it.for Display.near by”’ what they knew was it was a WAR GRAVE”’ the pilots was still there.somewere”in ashes that they fondly walked over him. but choose to recover the tailend .that was left.wings too..
talk of walkin over the Dead’
terry

Mark12 Just to add the other side of the coin to the Boston Globe piece. I am sure Rob Greinert would not mind me posting a paragraph of a recent email to me.

Mark

Lutes got out of the wreck and walked off into oblivion
Everyone including the US Ambassador in Port Moresby knew what was happening.
The wreck site was visited four times by the US Military. On the last visit the combined CILHI team and PNG National Museum staff
jointly concurred that Lutes had walked off and was not in the vicinity of the wreck.
Permission to recover was granted by the PNG Government via the National Museum Director.
But never let the truth get in the way of a good story

Thanks for that Peter,

I recall being shown photos of Lutes aircraft at slide nights at Ian Whitney’s house in the 1980’s from his own time in PNG and of discoveries by others.

I recall the same comment being made about Lutes walking away, of no remains being found in the cockpit, including slides that showed the empty cockpit?, long before anyone thought or planned its recovery, I do think Rob has been unfairly treated by those authors.

As I said in my first post above, I have read the article that launched this thread, and am dis-appointed the authors have focused on a couple of individuals, including using them in the headline photos, without seemingly getting their approval or giving them the right to reply or be interviewed for their position on the general “accusations” made in the article.

I understand a number of wreck recoverers in remote areas undertake their own serious inspection and recovery processes and return the remains to the MIA authorities, and perhaps there should be a formal training and accreditation process to permit those proffessional recoverers to undertake such work formally? on behalf of the authorities?

My own posts here are not in response or support of that article, but in direct response to a point of view, logic and “crude” approach proposed here in posts above, that a “bag of bones” should not stand in our way of recovering the wreck for restoration and profit.

Regards

Mark Pilkington

Are we to presume, that if there is a chance there are living relatives, that graves/crash sites/battlefield cannot be touched?
Or are we actually concerned with the deceased person themselves, and how they would have felt?

I would have thought that depends if there are human remains present, and what is done to deal with them being there, obviously there are many fatal accidents and battlefields where the remains are removed, the site is not then a grave, war grave or otherwise.

There are many cemetaries later built over, many bodies in the bombing of London entombed in the building rubble and later built over by reconstruction, the WW1 fields with mass graves obviously was farmed and perhaps cultivated for the last 100 years, the recent road making at Anzac Cove uncovered bodies during the process.

I’m not religious and am not concerned with the deceased person themselves and how they might “feel”, I dont think they will be “floating around on a cloud” concerned how their mortal remains are being treated. I’m not even concerned that this respect needs to rely on an identifiable and concerned next of kin.

Instead to me its a measure of civil society that we respect the remains and grave of a fellow human being. Otherwise we could simply accept use of skulls for street football and candle holders, and find other worthwhile uses for the body parts, and degenerate to that level in many other ways. ie Why not recover the gold teeth of the dead before they are buried, better still why not gas them to death to hasten the supply? (hmm I think someone tried that and it didnt get popular support? – damn that political correctness!)

I dont think I have said graves/crash sites/battlefields cannot be touched?, I am referring to the instances where remains are known to exist, or discovered to exist, and suggesting some level of respect and process to identify and recover the remains should exist, (and most cases such processes do exist, it is the notification and access to do so that is being debated in the article that launced this topic) or in some cases there is the firm decision to leave the remains and wreck in situ which seems to be accepted and general treatment of ships as war graves (ie the recent discovery and declaration of the wreck of HMAS Sydney , despite the lack of identifyable remains).

In the main however I am responding to a point of view that a “bag of bones” should not stand in our way of recovering the wreck for restoration and profit.

regards

Mark Pilkington

Ross,

Otherwise we would consider it fair game to simply desecrate church graves and cemetaries once the last occupant has been buried for 100 years or more. While cementaries might reclaim burial plots over time, I am certain it is done with a due process and certain respect for any recovered remains.

Mark Pilkington

IIt seems fair game to desecrate cemeteries….St Pancras in London being one of many that got the Victorian equivalent of bulldozing.

As for the removal/disturbance of human remains, where would the cutoff point lie?
Is it OK to disturb WW1 fliers?
What about graves from the Crimea?
Excavations that uncover Roman remains whilst digging foundations for buildings in London?

Are we to presume, that if there is a chance there are living relatives, that graves/crash sites/battlefield cannot be touched?
Or are we actually concerned with the deceased person themselves, and how they would have felt?