Aviation Archeology UK Still Alive? (2007 Zombie)

a new mantra…

Hi

Many months behind this thread but why not set a new agenda by stating publically at every occassion/opportunity:

1) The MOD does not represent families of the fallen/lost. Individual families have the right & responsibility in this regard. In their absence, it is right human remains receive an appropriate burial as customary of the time.
2) Buried remains are no longer the property of the MOD or government because:
a) the MOD has had adequate time to find/recover
b) protecting crash sites in law does not constitute (a)
c) “protecting a war grave” is a misnomer (see 1),
d) following the cessation of hostilities and beyond, any financial interest in equipment by the MOD has been written off. The MOD has effectually dumped their property by not recovering it.

You know the more you say things the more they are taken on board…

Also a reminder that we support civil servants and we expect a level of service.

Give them hell!

Er Yes! 🙁 – It was understood when EOD took the guns into their custody that they were going to check them for ammunition and deliver them for deactivation – However it seems that whilst the commanding officer was on leave, some unknown member of EOD took it upon themselves to complete both tasks the easy way – with semtex! 🙁

The results

The situation over here is that we only need to have the consent of the Landowner to recover a wreck. In this case we do it only if the wreck is known not to contain missing crewmembers or live ordnance other than small calibre ammunition. In any other case we contact the local mayor and take it from there. Usually this results in the wreck being recovered by the Dutch Air Force where we cooperate. After the recovery the wreckage is usually handed over to our organisation for sorting out. This works very well to our mutual benefit. We don’t have to have a license from the UK as this is Dutch soil and the aircraft has been struck off charge.

In the past some civil servants have tried to claim that the wreck was still property of the Crown but when we mentioned that we would agree but would send an invoice over for the recovery costs, it became awfully quiet at the other end.

Cheers

Cees

Very interesting Nick! This is not to belittle BAAC in any way, but I do think an organisation with more bite and clout is needed. I am not sure how seriously the MOD take BAAC, but from what I have seen I suspect not very. I am not advocating a confrontational stance, but certainly a very robust one that keeps on the pressure when needed, seeks clarity on policy matters and has an input that is taken seriously by the Ministry. It may be a tough nut to crack, but it needs a body that is taken seriously and listened to, and one that can have a positive input to officialdom as far as the MOD are concerned.

As to the farmer who seems to have carried out an illegal dig, well, if the MOD are to be seen to be impartial then they should act. I suspect they will always shrink from prosecuting a landowner from digging a hole in his own land though!

Andy Saunders

If a man has a right to dig a hole in his back garden, then that right is extended as far as his boundaries.

Nick and I have discussed some of these issues before, but just to reiterate, much of the farm land in england, is in the same family ownership as it was during the war,when these A/C “went in ” who made good the damage to the land at the time? my understanding is that it was left to the farmer to tidy up his field (the RAF being concerned with the recovery of bodies and major wreckage).

The problem for the MOD ,is that in these days of enviromental accountability,a case could be made for the Mod to remove their property from any given field, as contamination is causing harm tothe water table or the crops grown above; the MOD won’t want this, because all the oil and petrol and radioactivety associated with a crash site would necessitate a very thorough clean up(for thorough read expensive).

Some land owners with an eye on the future, might want to sell land for housing, and would welcome just such a clean up (funded by the MOD).

Another way of looking at the scenario of a land owner “digging up” something he shouldn’t is, “imagine all the people” (with acknowledgements to J Lennon!) that go a wandering on private land, armed with a spade and a £5 metal detector digging holes and leaving them like that (I’ve had it) ; when there’s a plane buried in a field everyone knows about it, a landowner, tired of having his fields dug up ,might take it apon him self to remove said A/C so that the digging stops ,(a similiar situation to a landowner demolishing a building on his land, which acts as a magnate for all and sundry.

Deactivation the easy way?

Did the EOD team really blow up the unloaded .50 cals and a very rare remotely controlled turret ???:eek:

Er Yes! 🙁 – We had reservations about EOD being on site for the dig, having heard horror stories from others – However it was compulsory for the Filming peoples insurance + we did have rather a lot of people on site who did not really know what they were doing!!! 😉 so perhaps it was a wise precaution.

We had discussed with TT the liklihood of guns turning up and obviously that we would want to keep them! So we arranged for a gunsmith with the appropriate section clearance to take any that were found and deac them – It was understood when EOD took the guns into their custody that they were going to check them for ammunition and deliver them for deactivation – However it seems that whilst the commanding officer was on leave, some unknown member of EOD took it upon themselves to complete both tasks the easy way – with semtex! 😡

The shattered remains were then delivered back to the museum – breech frames blown apart, one gun blown in two and minus several major parts of the guns and most of the turret – probably as the bits flew too far to warrant picking them up 🙁

blown up machine gun and turrett?

OK could they not have saved the gun and made it safe?? A shame about the turrett as well.

A-26

Local Live shows an excavator digging a large hole at Warton Marsh.

A26 Invader Dig

Did the EOD team really blow up the unloaded .50 cals and a very rare remotely controlled turret ???:eek:

Back on track?

As a member of BAAC, I feel I should probably keep my views on their effectiveness with regard to the MOD to myself for now :rolleyes: Though I am sure it is not for want of trying on their part!

To get back on track a little with reagard to details of recent Aviation Archaeology, I have started on the promised website updates and have just uploaded a proper account of our Time Team dig on the two A-26 Invaders – plenty of pictures too! 🙂 Enjoy!

http://web.ukonline.co.uk/lait/site/Time%20Team.htm

Hi Andy – Yes it was post 1986 – PAM had a licence – I was there for my detecting equipment and knowledege of the use of it to locate the engines – to my knowledge the forms were passed on, but that was the end of it – He had always known the plane was there, but IMO wanted it confirming and locating for him, so he didnt have to dig half his field up – probably the only reason he gave consent – again IMO – The two engines, U/C legs and props are still in his barn – along with a major part of a Meteor (if I recall correctly) that he he excavated from a neighbouring farm, after it was uncovered during drainage work – NO OFFICIAL ACTION WHATSOEVER WAS EVER TAKEN as far as I am aware to date.

Very interesting Nick! This is not to belittle BAAC in any way, but I do think an organisation with more bite and clout is needed. I am not sure how seriously the MOD take BAAC, but from what I have seen I suspect not very. I am not advocating a confrontational stance, but certainly a very robust one that keeps on the pressure when needed, seeks clarity on policy matters and has an input that is taken seriously by the Ministry. It may be a tough nut to crack, but it needs a body that is taken seriously and listened to, and one that can have a positive input to officialdom as far as the MOD are concerned.

As to the farmer who seems to have carried out an illegal dig, well, if the MOD are to be seen to be impartial then they should act. I suspect they will always shrink from prosecuting a landowner from digging a hole in his own land though!

Andy Saunders

Goes to show that some developers can be considerate – excellent effort and thanks for the link to the story

TT

A story about the Milton Keynes Mosquito DD602

http://www.miltonkeynestoday.co.uk/ViewArticle2.aspx?SectionID=415&ArticleID=1954712

DD602

Thank you for your responses.

The developers are acting extremely responsibly. The plan is to erect a memorial plaque at the site and invite relatives of the crew to the unveiling. I am now in contact with both families who are fully supportive.

The developers are also planning to apply for two roads on the site to be 0named after the crew, and to commission a Mosquito sculpture to be erected at the entrance to the complex.

MOD taking action !!!

Nick – if the MOD are going to be even handed on this, and if the dig was post August 1986, (was it?) then they ought to be pressed to pursue the farmer:

a) for excavating it without a licence
b) retaining Crown property without authority and without submitting the PMRA returns pro-forma

They can’t have it both ways….ie expect to pursue or prosecute wreck recovery organisations for indiscretions but turn a blind eye to farmers or landowners. The law applies equally to them, bizarre though it may sound. They ALSO need a licence.

😉

Andy Saunders

Hi Andy – Yes it was post 1986 – PAM had a licence – I was there for my detecting equipment and knowledege of the use of it to locate the engines – to my knowledge the forms were passed on, but that was the end of it – He had always known the plane was there, but IMO wanted it confirming and locating for him, so he didnt have to dig half his field up – probably the only reason he gave consent – again IMO – The two engines, U/C legs and props are still in his barn – along with a major part of a Meteor (if I recall correctly) that he he excavated from a neighbouring farm, after it was uncovered during drainage work – NO OFFICIAL ACTION WHATSOEVER WAS EVER TAKEN as far as I am aware to date.

Developers acting honourably – pah!

We were aware of a P-38 on a proposed development site in Northants, advised the developer who ignored our requests for an excavation, they dug it, smashed the engines up and scattered 20mm and 37mm rounds everywhere – EOD were called, then we were to recover what was left. EOD closed the site for 2 months, cost the developer -Persimmon Homes BTW thousands.

They wouldnt even name a street after the pilot killed in the crash.

We have a small display in the museum relating to him (LT WJ O’Connell)

TT

people are still finding live .50 20 and 37 rounds in their gardens because the backfill was scattered.

anyone who knows anything about AA knows that .50s are usually ok but 20 and 37mils can be nasty.

Still not sure how to respond to the email – perhaps that means I am not calm enough yet! :dev2:

Re retention of material recovered without a licence – I recall a dig by the PAM several years ago on a Halifax – The landowner had always taken a great deal of interest, but has the dig progressed he gradually seemed to takeover (IMO). Both inboard engines were present (Hercules) & in remarkable condition with all pots intact, relatively undamaged finning and most ancilliaries present as well – all with minimal corrosion. We recovered the first engine – so complete it took two machines to lift it, but did not have the equipment to move it, so the farmer offered to store it and we were due to return for it and to recover the second engine the following weekend.

However I believe when DS rang to check the arrangements he was told not to bother as they (landowner and his employees) had already recovered it – in even better condition and c/w prop. Also it was made quite clear that the farmer considered the remains to be his property and had no intention of giving them up.

As I understand it, DS reported the situation to the MOD when completing PAM’s return on the dig – to explain that PAM had only conducted a partial excavation, had only removed limited remains and were not responsible for the additional excavation or items recovered – their response was simply to send an extra set of application and return forms, with instructions that they were to be given to the landowner on our next visit and for US to ask him to complete and return them!!!!

Nick – if the MOD are going to be even handed on this, and if the dig was post August 1986, (was it?) then they ought to be pressed to pursue the farmer:

a) for excavating it without a licence
b) retaining Crown property without authority and without submitting the PMRA returns pro-forma

They can’t have it both ways….ie expect to pursue or prosecute wreck recovery organisations for indiscretions but turn a blind eye to farmers or landowners. The law applies equally to them, bizarre though it may sound. They ALSO need a licence.

😉

Andy Saunders

Interesting! I am also aware of a site where an aircraft is buried and it is now due for re-development. Aircrew remains almost certainly present. Pile driving of the site will also be inevitable. Will the MOD grant a licence I wonder? Or will one not be sought by the developers and the whole matter (literally) covered over? And if they do apply, will one be refused and thus halt a multi million pound development. Maybe the MOD wouldnt want that sort of confrontation. We shall see, although I actually believe the developers will act honourably in this case. Watch this space……

The mossie (DD602) at Milton Keynes was originally dug by the Buckinghamshire aircraft recovery group. Which found one engine, prop and undercarrage. No trace of the cannons or other engine could be found. During recent building work the other engine was uncovered. One of the old BARG members was contacted to see if the engine was of the same aircraft. Also they wanted to know if any human remains at the site. Both crew men have known graves. During the later dig iwas told that the other engine and undercarrage came up. The other prop, plus all four cannon and a few samller parts. This i am told has gone to Twinwoods, where the other engine know is. Dave

Cheers Dave

did hear about the Bletchley thing – it was a real shame as you guys had an amazing collection – the only person I can remember from BARG was a chap called Martin (?) IIRC he owned a Mossie cockpit at one stage, lent it to the ATC and they sold it from under him – is that right?!

TT

Retaining item recovered without a licence

Nick, so you finally got the e-mail from Catterick. It’s brilliant isn’t it.

We’ll just have to hope that the MoD calm down enough from the shock that someone dug a site without a licence to allow the recovered items to be retained. If not it could always be the test case.

Still not sure how to respond to the email – perhaps that means I am not calm enough yet! :dev2:

Re retention of material recovered without a licence – I recall a dig by the PAM several years ago on a Halifax – The landowner had always taken a great deal of interest, but has the dig progressed he gradually seemed to takeover (IMO). Both inboard engines were present (Hercules) & in remarkable condition with all pots intact, relatively undamaged finning and most ancilliaries present as well – all with minimal corrosion. We recovered the first engine – so complete it took two machines to lift it, but did not have the equipment to move it, so the farmer offered to store it and we were due to return for it and to recover the second engine the following weekend.

However I believe when DS rang to check the arrangements he was told not to bother as they (landowner and his employees) had already recovered it – in even better condition and c/w prop. Also it was made quite clear that the farmer considered the remains to be his property and had no intention of giving them up.

As I understand it, DS reported the situation to the MOD when completing PAM’s return on the dig – to explain that PAM had only conducted a partial excavation, had only removed limited remains and were not responsible for the additional excavation or items recovered – their response was simply to send an extra set of application and return forms, with instructions that they were to be given to the landowner on our next visit and for US to ask him to complete and return them!!!!

Exactly Alan! However, I raised this issue with them some while ago and they said “Ah! Struck off Charge doesnt meant we dont own it anymore. It was just an accounting procedure to tidy the books!” That would be an interesting debate in a Court of Law, I suspect. Andy Saunders