FAA Museum Barracuda on EBAY!!! :-(

Lol – that’s would be going a bit too far 😉

Yes, I certainly wasnt suggesting that the law be by-passed Elliott but I may draw the line at getting a licence to do my gardening!! Andy

Yes, I certainly wasnt suggesting that the law be by-passed Elliott but I may draw the line at getting a licence to do my gardening!! Andy

That’s true, but I have found that if you point out any relevant details such as those in Andy’s case the PMA will attempt to accommodate you and you may eventually get your licence. They will listen to properly presented cases.

No one likes beurocracy, but digging up military aircraft remains needs to be regulated for 1) human remains and 2) ordnance. Any attempt to bypass the system is irresponsible to say the least.

That sounds about right.

They do no research at all into the accident, simply get out the relevant casualty files. So in this case if they had done a bit of basic research they would have had no reason to reject the application. Either way there are ample grounds for an appeal.

Also the notes for guidence state that a licence will not be granted for preliminary work, ie metal detecting, only full excavation / recovery.

Red Tape & jobsworth!

As an aside, but kind of relevant, I just heard from a local “detectorist” who is not into aviation at all and wanted to detect a field where a Do.17 crashed (forced landed) during September 1940. The aircraft was intact, but I suppose there could be a few shards there for him to find. Anyway…he knew about licences so applied but was astonished to be turned down for a licence on the grounds that one of the crewmen was missing. Indeed, that was the case….but…the missing man baled out over the sea, drowned and was never found while the aircraft turned inland, crashed and the remaining three taken PoW as they stepped from the aircraft! But the MoD threatened him with dire consequences if he detected or dug with 100metres of the site….which, as it so happens, takes in my garden!! Well…that gets me out of the gardening this weekend then. No doubt the spy satelite is checking the end of my garden for signs of disturbance as I write this and the Mod-Plod cuffs are at the ready!! Andy Saunders :diablo: 😀

As everyone says soon its going to get to the point where we start saying stuff it and go ahead without even informing the MoD.

They are incapable of making a rational decision and then start dragging their feet.

How many people (beyond you Nick) are suffering long waits to even hear from them with applications and returns forms?

Contamination of land could come back to haunt the MoD and for that matter anyone who digs on sites. All you have do is read Part IIA of the Environment Act 95 (and the multitude of supporting documents) to see that. Just don’t let the local council find out or the environment agency for that matter and you should be ok.

Abandoned remains etc!

Nick thats all interesting stuff! I think, but am not sure, that the claims on US wrecks relate to cases mostly in the States of USN wrecks. Seems that the USN and USAF are running by different rules. As you say, nobody wants to go to court over it but I suppose the situation could arise where the MOD lay claim to something that has been brought into the UK from, say, Russia. Andy Saunders

Hi Andy – Now I think about it, you are quite right, I’m pretty sure the cases I was thinking of were USN airframes and I hadnt considered the differing views of the different departments. I do know that when I was having difficulty obtaining a couple of permits for US aircraft for my Time Team dig, I got someone to check with the appropriate dept in the US and was told that permission had already been granted several weeks before.

Re abaondoned aircraft I am still unsure how these will be viewed – I have a lead on major parts from a US crash site that were removed at the time and re-used close to the crash location and perhaps more interesting – a lead on a Hurricane wreck that was removed from a crash site, only to be disposed of on a local domestic rubbish tip – I can see potential problems with both of them 🙁 Though from a technical point of view the Act does seem to protect the crash site only?

On a lighter note I did ask a few years ago, when having some particularly frustrating application problems, whether I would need a permit to recover parts from a Fiesler Fi 103 – I seem to recall the answer was probably! 😮

Nick thats all interesting stuff! I think, but am not sure, that the claims on US wrecks relate to cases mostly in the States of USN wrecks. Seems that the USN and USAF are running by different rules. As you say, nobody wants to go to court over it but I suppose the situation could arise where the MOD lay claim to something that has been brought into the UK from, say, Russia. Andy Saunders

Continued discussion

Well I am glad to see that this thread continues to promote discussion and note some very interesting points raised by Andy. I am aware of the rather tenuous validity of the MODs claims to ownership – but as I and others have said – no one is prepared to go to court over it if they don’t have to. I was not aware of the issues regarding US wrecks as I thought that they did claim title and have seen several cases in recent years of the US authorities claiming ownership of recovred aircraft. From what I understand the MOD do request permission from the US authorities in each case and will not issue a licence until this has been granted?

I have also heard that the MOD are considering pursuing claim on their wrecks abroad, apparently in response to the number of digs now going ahead in France, Belgium and Germany.

Re the peice that originally started this thread – I will only say that it was definitely recovered post 1986 – However in view of a rather unpleasant communication from the seller and threatened legal action I have to say I feel it prudent not to comment any further on this matter 🙁

Absolutely, although a clear policy statement from the MOD would probably only reflect the “we own it all” stance they consistently maintain. Fact is, I saw some documents some while back that indicated the MOD legal dept were far from confident about winning any contest in respect of ownership should that issue arise. Andy Saunders

Well said Andy, I think you were at that meeting at the RAF Museum of the first BAAC and as I recall you were the only person to bring up this series of points way back then.

A large percentage of the uK population are unaware of the many laws in this land until WHAM they are charged with breaking an obscure hitherto unenforced law. This could easily happen to any of the hundreds of photographers who take pics at military bases in the UK over the fence for example.

It is time for the MOD to make a clear policy statement on these matters. As you say the Swamp Ghost affair shows what might happen . If the MOD behaved like the PNG govt the effect on the restoration recovery business would be very bad.

That may be the case, but it does not mean they are above the law. If the Police want to search a house they need a Warrant, if they want to tap your phone or exhume a body from a grave if foul play is suspected then it has to be under licence. Surely the authority that grants the licence (in this case the MOD) is not exempt from that law? It cant be. Another element here is that if the MOD want the MOD Police to enforce the law then the MOD Police under the MOD Police Act are ONLY empowered to arrest civilians if there has been a theft of Crown property. Thus, if this isnt Crown property they are ******** and it would become an unlawful arrest. There are lots of little ramifications and sub-plots to this whole ownership thing. Andy

But, isn’t it the MOD that issues the licence? whereas DVLA, aren’t connected with the police force.
I think its interesting, that the MOD have changed their minds re ownership several times over; it maybe now, with the current firearms laws, that they have developed a “responsibility”,for the weaponary nearly always associated with these type of A/C, not to mention the potential for soil contamination but fuel and oil etc.

Licenced recovery?

Just to put the record straight, when the Seafire was rejected in the 70’s the FAAM was still run by the Royal Navy, not by the charity that runs it now and we firmly believe that at the time the people concerned acted in the best interests of the FAAM however strange it might seem today. As for the Barra item, if I remember correctly the recovery was undertaken by a naval team who collected the items up and then 819NAS airlifted them to the nearest road from where they were taken by road to FAAM. Being on leave this week I have not heard about this but no doubt I will on Monday morning when I go in, if there’s anything new to report I will post it

If this was recovered by the Services then it begs the question; was it licenced under the Protection of Military Remains Act 1986? May sound silly, and nit picky, but I know of several cases where RAF teams etc have recovered items post the 1986 Act and I am certain licences were not issued for such recoveries. If you look at the Act (and I have…LOTS!!) then you will see there are no exemptions – ergo any persons interfering or disturbing such remains would need a licence. Just because the MOD “claim” ownership (which is doubtful anway!) doesn’t give them a free hand to recover stuff sans licence! It is the site that is protected primarily, not the material there and thus they dont have a right to recover property they claim to be theirs by disturbing the protected place without a licence. You might as well say a Police Officer doesn’t need to have a driving licence! You might say does it matter? Well, nobody is above the law. They cant have it both ways. Andy Saunders

True. But the point has MUCH wider implications in the warbird/museum/dealer/restorer/collector field as I pointed out on the Swamp Ghost thread. Nobody wants to rock the boat, for sure, or get taken to court over the issue of ownership, and within the UK – if one follows the PMR Act and just goes along with the MOD ownership claim – then it is not going to be a problem. But the implications COULD be huge for museums, collections etc if the MOD/Crown suddenly decided to exercise a claim or rights over certain items that were recovered pre 1986? I was at a meeting with the MOD and museums etc in the early 1970’s when the MOD claimed that all recovered items still belonged to the Crown. In respect of this Baracuda piece for example, what if it had been recovered pre 1986? And what about “souvenirs” taken during the war which frequently turn up and which were effectively “stolen”? The MOD would retrospectively seem to have a claim there, too. OK, so it is not likely they would exercise such claims but the principle is the same it seems. It is an issue of particular importance to those finding wrecks in other countries and bringing them into the UK. I was involved in getting back a Hurricane in 1990 for Rick Roberts from a French beach. Then, the MOD said it was out of the UK and they had no claim or interest but recently the MOD seem to be changing their tune their, too. Andy Saunders

Yes Andy, but who wants to go to court over it?

No thanks!

The protection of Military Remains Act 1986 is entirely silent on the issue of ownership or title. The MoD merely CLAIM, as a condition of the licence, that ownership rests with them. This conveniently overlooks/overturns the fact that in the 1970’s (I still have the letters!) the MoD said they no longer owned or had any interest in these wrecks and had “abandoned all claim to them in favour of the landowners where they lay.” In the case of RAF wrecks there is also the issue that they have been formally “Struck off Charge”. I also contend that the MoD’s claim to German wrecks in the UK as “captured enemy property that has been surrendered to the Crown” is no longer the case. The German Embassy in London now say that such wrecks have reverted under international treaty to “…the Federal German Government as the legal successor to the Third Reich” and I have letters from the USAF stating that all aircraft (USAF/USAAF) lost before 1962 are no longer the property of the US Govt and they no longer have any claim on them. This is directly and wholly at odds with what the MOD here say, but they have a vested interest in making us believe what is convenient for them. Certainly, the position relative to German and US wrecks is as described above, and the MOD claim on RAF aircraft lost in WW2 is both tenuous and untested. I suspect they would have great difficulty now in establishing ownership in a Court of law, given the past history of this matter, statements they have previously made, laws on abandonment etc etc. Just because the MOD says thats the way it is doesn’t mean it really is. But they would like us all to think so! Andy Saunders

Ownership!

Actually the Protection of Military remains Act covers “disturbing” wrecks, not just recovering them so thay have probably got just about everything covered – though I doubt they would prosecute in the case you mention, as they would be scared of adverse publicity & the outcome would probably be far from certain – though I would’nt like the legal cost of challenging the MOD 😮

Re the German wrecks – Yes they are Crown property as they are considered captured enemy equipment! US aircraft actually still belong to the US government, but the MOD as some sort of custodial rights to protect them as well – or so they say!!! :rolleyes:

The protection of Military Remains Act 1986 is entirely silent on the issue of ownership or title. The MoD merely CLAIM, as a condition of the licence, that ownership rests with them. This conveniently overlooks/overturns the fact that in the 1970’s (I still have the letters!) the MoD said they no longer owned or had any interest in these wrecks and had “abandoned all claim to them in favour of the landowners where they lay.” In the case of RAF wrecks there is also the issue that they have been formally “Struck off Charge”. I also contend that the MoD’s claim to German wrecks in the UK as “captured enemy property that has been surrendered to the Crown” is no longer the case. The German Embassy in London now say that such wrecks have reverted under international treaty to “…the Federal German Government as the legal successor to the Third Reich” and I have letters from the USAF stating that all aircraft (USAF/USAAF) lost before 1962 are no longer the property of the US Govt and they no longer have any claim on them. This is directly and wholly at odds with what the MOD here say, but they have a vested interest in making us believe what is convenient for them. Certainly, the position relative to German and US wrecks is as described above, and the MOD claim on RAF aircraft lost in WW2 is both tenuous and untested. I suspect they would have great difficulty now in establishing ownership in a Court of law, given the past history of this matter, statements they have previously made, laws on abandonment etc etc. Just because the MOD says thats the way it is doesn’t mean it really is. But they would like us all to think so! Andy Saunders

I am by no means dismissing the potential hazard, but out of interest, have there been many instances of WWII ordinance exploding, either through disturbance or deterioration, in the UK or Europe in the last 20 or so years?

Martin,

IIRC a few years ago during construction work, in Berlin I believe, a WWII bomb exploded killing three people.
Cees

Stuart,

I have to disagree with the above statement, among other things the applicant must be able to prove that the target aircraft is safe to recover.

Some years ago we applied to do a recovery on a crashed Battle; the permit was refused on the basis that the available records stated that the aircraft had been on a War patrol. Those two words sank us without trace, the MOD took the line that the aircraft may have been fully armed and consequently the site may have contained unexploded bombs, we could not prove otherwise.

Regards

Eric

Were’nt all of the BoB A/C that have been dug/recovered “on patrol” or armed? what about all the bombers from all major protagonists, most of them will have their guns armed if not bombs aboard.

With hindsight the use of the word “formality” in connection with any form of beaurocracy was wrong, but if I can remember back half a year, I think the thrust of my argument,was, that if ownership lies with anyone else other than the MOD, it lies with the landowner,permit or no permit.

Very true, but it’s the ‘Big Brother’ thing, the system says that the aircraft might have had ordinance on board, you must prove otherwise.

Many years ago a colleague told me of a hangar not far from my home which had been constructed on reclaimed land after World War 2, by all accounts a UXB lay undisturbed beneath it. The offending item was buried so deep, it was not regarded as a hazard!

The general rule is that ordinance will only be removed if:-

1> They know it is there.
2> In the opinion of the authorities it poses a specific and immediate risk.

Cheers

Eric

I am by no means dismissing the potential hazard, but out of interest, have there been many instances of WWII ordinance exploding, either through disturbance or deterioration, in the UK or Europe in the last 20 or so years?