Aircraft Recovery and PMR Licence Applications

Yes I`m sure all will benefit from that!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I am hopeful that an up-coming dig on a Stirling crash site will provide more such gems!

[ATTACH]202148[/ATTACH] Totally with you there John,this scrap provided the missing details for getting the projects FN5 together.:diablo:

Couldn’t disagree more; drawings for the Stirling are few and far between, but ‘mangled scrap’ can and has been invaluable in assisting us to progress our project. The smallest item can give clues as to the designers rationale and may even be able to be incorporated into the build. Obviously we’re not restoring an airworthy aircraft, but how else are we to bring the aircraft back to life:confused:

John

Andy, on my two current licences (one been going 5 years+ one 2years plus, obviously with renewals), I was asked to contact the local County Archaeologist to ensure we were not endangering any pre-WW2 archaeological sites. Each time, I provided a comprehensive project definition and execution plan (which they did ask for). I understood that it was not a formal requirement but wanted to make sure I carried everyone with me and kept all parties happy. I did say that we wanted to start digging asap so that they would not take too much time. In each case, everybody has been very helpful (MoD, Landowner, County Archaeologist etc). For the older dig, MoD representatives came along to the first day’s activities.

Both digs have and will take time to complete as we aim to tell the whole story as it were.

I am surprised Snoopy did not take you up on the book offer…I would have!!

Snoopy

Persistence? Possibly! Just trying to get across an alternative slant on the topic for you, but I appreciate your answer and your reasons for declining.

Happy landing to you, too, in 2012.

lol…

Andy Claus,
Top marks for persistence! 🙂 Thanks for the generous offer. I’ll decline however, not out of any churlishness whatever, but sad to say, I already have a large box of books on my to read list and no time to deplete them…! I’ve even stopped taking any magazines now as I was only ever skimming them for one or two specific topics that rarely appeared anyway…!

Happy Landings in 2012.
Snoopy.
__________________________________________________________________

Andy – Tried to reply to this via PM – Your Mailbox is full again!!! You must be popular! 😉

Just bumping this up…in case Snoopy missed his Christmas gift offer!

Also, just to bring the thread back on track – surely it is the case that the MOD require a Project Design submitted to the relevant district archaeologist before a dig commences. Surely, except in the case of National Parks, that is all that is required. It does not seem to be that the local archaeologist must “approve” the PD before work commences – just that it is submitted to him.

I will shortly reply to the various PMs I had on this topic!

Regulations covering the recovery of wartime aircraft wrecks, which most would generally agree to be a ‘good thing’, have been in place since 1986. The purpose of my initiation of this thread was not to question or challenge those regulations but to seek information as to how those regulations are applied, region to region, across the UK.

I tend to agree that “archaeology” might be an overblown term in relation to the recovery of wartime aircraft wrecks, and have always thought so. Clearly, some significant archaeological principles apply but it is a rather different discipline. However, try telling that to English Heritage or to the local/county archaeologists to whom licence applications have to be submitted and for whom full-blown archaeology Project Designs are usually required.

Next, if there is any chance that human remains might be disturbed then a licence will not be granted by the MOD/JCCC and this has been the case since 1986. This includes (obviously) where crew might still be missing or where records indicate that not an entire recovery of bodily remains of the poor souls involved was effected at the time. However, there have clearly been unexpected or accidental discoveries along these lines since 1986 on licensed recoveries.

Last, I think you need to seperate out licensed recoveries (mostly where no casulaties were involved, anyway) with those recoveries conducted to specifically find missing aircrew and where the aircraft wreckage per se is of secondary if not minimal significance – except insofar as that wreckage might help with crew identification. Generally in this context I am talking about recoveries conducted overseas and mostly (though not always) by official agencies.

I think, really, that your comments have been based to an extent upon the misconception that “aviation archaeology” is still the unregulated free for all that it was in the 70s and early 80s. It isn’t. And not by a long chalk, either. Your comments would probably have had more resonance and credibility had they been made in those decades and against the background of what was happening then.

I have certainly never suggested that nobody is permitted to disagree. On the contrary if you look at my earlier comments in this thread. However, that does not preclude the right to debate, argue or present opposing views on the subject – just as we have both done here. We have differing views although, in fact, I think if you take apart the various comments we have made you might rather surprisingly find that our views are closer than you might think.

I am not trying to ‘convert’ you, by any means but PM me your address and I will happily send you a complimentary copy of “Finding The Fallen” (and “Finding The Few” if I have any spare) and then you can have a read and come back to again give us your thoughts. After all, it is the “season of goodwill”. 🙂

It might have been once.

Its a different world nowadays, and that is not always a bad thing.

For example, a significant project I am currently working on actually involves MOD archaeologists, service personnel, MOD/JCCC and a registered (aviation related) charity who will solely benefit from the recovered finds – but the project “ownership” and licence holding will be by a privately organised and funded recovery team comprising those individuals who you criticise.
It always pays, I find, to make pronouncements on such matters from an informed viewpoint Snoopy7422…rather than one where bald and baseless assertions are made.

I’m all in favour of sensible regulations and in this area, as they were lacking in the early days. I’ve been accused here, rather rudely, of things which I didn’t actually say. I’m not against ‘wreckovery’ (Archeology is a somewhat overblown term for such recoveries – even the Time Team, bless them acknowledged that.) per se. I just think it needs good justification. (Hardly a revolutionary concept…!) So do plenty of other people by the way, so I’m far from alone in that opinion. I didn’t mention any individuals either, nor did I even have any in mind. I was talking about a principle. If you disagree, fine. We live in a democracy, – for now at least.

I can understand those wishing to build a facsimile of an extinct a/c for which no records exist, such as the Whirlwind for example, being more keen to acquire rare data. This does not apply to many other types, such as for example, the Spitfire, for which a stupefying amount of data exist, in sufficient detail, should one desire, to build an airworthy example of any one of a myriad of versions. Actually, folks already do. Either way, I still don’t think it’s worth disturbing human remains if there is any risk this may happen. That’s not a ‘pronouncement’, bald or otherwise, it’s a freely-help opinion, from someone with no vested interest, which many others share. Or is no one permitted to disagree? :rolleyes: Either way I think we’ve exhausted the topic now.

It might have been once.

Its a different world nowadays, and that is not always a bad thing.

For example, a significant project I am currently working on actually involves MOD archaeologists, service personnel, MOD/JCCC and a registered (aviation related) charity who will solely benefit from the recovered finds – but the project “ownership” and licence holding will be by a privately organised and funded recovery team comprising those individuals who you criticise.

It always pays, I find, to make pronouncements on such matters from an informed viewpoint Snoopy7422…rather than one where bald and baseless assertions are made.

Yeah, but think of all the eBay sellers that would go out of business without a steady stream of mangled, corroded scrap metal (with authentic BoB provenance, of course ;)) to flog off!

Quite. It’s a cottage industry don’t y’know. Now, where’s my scrap bin……:rolleyes:

Just watch a few episodes of Time Team , then you realise that no one really knows whats in the hole, even cases where others have dug before and that does apply to aviation sites.

a few bits of mangled scrap wont tell you enough, just enough to tease you…:dev2:
Snoopy.

Couldn’t disagree more; drawings for the Stirling are few and far between, but ‘mangled scrap’ can and has been invaluable in assisting us to progress our project. The smallest item can give clues as to the designers rationale and may even be able to be incorporated into the build. Obviously we’re not restoring an airworthy aircraft, but how else are we to bring the aircraft back to life:confused:

John

I I’ve obviously touched on some raw nerves with my comments.
Snoopy.

That’s about the only worthwhile observation you have made in the whole of this thread.

Might I add on the end of it ‘deliberately and provocatively’

Yeah, but think of all the eBay sellers that would go out of business without a steady stream of mangled, corroded scrap metal (with authentic BoB provenance, of course ;)) to flog off!

How else are groups like ourselves going to be able to create an extinct type other then by trying to track down crash sites.In our case with only 118 aircraft actually built and the majority or crash sites under water it is to say the least a challenge and for most of them there is not a great deal of detail on the location and in the case of 5 of them we are having to go through German War time archives.
Recovery of wrecks has its place provided it is done correctly and what is recovered is treated properly if not leave it where it is I would agree as without proper preservation it wont last very long.
Mike E

I sympathise greatly, but if you have drawings, you are sorted. It’s all do-able with enough time and effort. If you don’t, then you are going struggle bigtime, and a few bits of mangled scrap wont tell you enough, just enough to tease you…:dev2: Either way, it’s a huge challenge and good on you for taking it on. I’m working on a/c to fly that were almost unique and with no crash sites at all to fall back on. It’s tough. I’m not criticising recovering a/c per se. Just questioning digging a hole when one already knows what’s in it, when it will add nothing to what is already known. I’ve obviously touched on some raw nerves with my comments.
Snoopy.

County Archaeologist dragged their heels for over eight months, and time ran out.Chris

Good to get this thread back on course – Chris – can I ask – what was the reason behind this? was there a known archaeological site / feature likely to be disturbed?

Chris

That doesn’t surprise me, but you can still re-apply for the licence and the Project Design will still be valid.

Andy,

The MOD/JCCC/Landowners etc were exceptional. Project design was complete, all signed, County Archaeologist dragged their heels for over eight months, and time ran out.

Chris