Halifax found at 180m in Trondhjemsfjorden, Norway

From today’s Daily Telegraph and Daily Mail.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/norway/11285380/Students-find-lost-British-WW2-bomber-in-Norwegian-fjord.html

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2868218/British-bomber-sunk-Nazis-raid-battleship-Tirpitz-WW2-Norwegian-fjord-72-years-crashed-bodies-crew-inside.html

Historic sites will always be subject to salvage both legal and illegal. The legal issue of war grave is explained well by Ross. I have been involved in marine archaeology and aircraft research and co ordinating a few recoveries in the Uk . At a meeting of the BAAC at the RAF museum around 1982 I voiced my opinion that recoveries by organised groups and individuals should be approved as soon as possible and not delayed. On land this was because metal detecting was easier and growing as a hobby, high ground wrecks were more likely to be removed by wheeled equipment such as quads and ex mil tracked vehicles. In many cases the high ground wrecks were going for scrap with some parts going to assorted hobby collectors public and private, for example the 80 percent complete P38L on Plylimon Wales was dispersed across the UK since 1970. Some historians such as Malcolm Spaven and Keith Bryers felt that sites should be left alone on high ground as a memorials. Sadly this is not practical and I feel it is time to get the wrecks down and undercover. Sea salvage is very hard to control unless you put a guard ship on site or the site is overlooked by a manned coastguard type location.

Gary Brindle..former researcher for BAAC.

Mark,

The interpretation of the link is incorrect in that it only describes the application to vessels.

The Protection of Military Remain Act is the device that the Sovereign uses to place specific rights onto Vessels and Aircraft in International and UK Waters (note no application to other Sovereign Territorial Waters).

“An Act to secure the protection from unauthorised interference of the remains of military aircraft and vessels that have crashed, sunk or been stranded and of associated human remains; and for connected purposes. [8th July 1986]”

Two specific deeds are proscribed – Designation by statutory instrument (Controlled Place) and Protected by the PMRA Act (Protected Place).

Controlled Place

“(2) Subject to the following provisions of this section, the Secretary of State may by order made by statutory instrument-

(a) designate as a vessel to which this Act applies any vessel which appears to him to have sunk or been stranded (whether before or after the passing of this Act) while in military service ;

(b) designate as a controlled site any area (whether in the United Kingdom, in United Kingdom waters or in international waters) which appears to him to contain a
place comprising the remains of, or of a substantial part of, an aircraft to which this Act applies or a vessel which has so sunk or been stranded ;

and the power of the Secretary of State to designate a vessel as a vessel to which this Act applies shall be exercisable irrespective of whether the situation of the remains of the vessel is known.”

and for Protected Place:

“(6) For the purposes of this Act a place (whether in the United, Kingdom, in United Kingdom waters or in international waters) is a protected place if

(a) it comprises the remains of, or of a substantial part of, an aircraft, or vessel to which this Act applies ;

and

(b) it is on or in the sea bed or is the place, or in the immediate vicinity of the place, where the remains were left by the crash, sinking or stranding of that aircraft or vessel ;”

This is why only a limited number of vessels have designated as Controlled and why all UK military aircraft in international waters are automatically covered as Protected.

As to burial of Human Remains from Military Wreck – this is a complex legal debate which I will not go into but usually distils down to “enclosed space” and the historic use of the sea for commitment of remains as a legal/consecrated/recognised burial ground.

Regards
Ross

The Halifax is below the high tide line and cannot be considered under the same physical and legal constraints as wreck above the high tide line.

The term “War Grave” has no legal definition in Maritime Law only a common understanding.

The Halifax is not in “foreign waters” it is in Norwegian Territorial Waters and as such is administered under Nordic/Norwegian Law.

For maritime purposes all RAF aircraft crashed into the sea in either territorial or international waters are not considered as “abandoned”.

This is a specific term in marine law and denotes that the original owner has not relinquished their legal right to the artefact/vessel.

So the current owner is the British State and these rights are administered by the Ministry of Defence.

The artefact/vessel is located within Norwegian Territorial Waters so it is protected by Norwegian Maritime Law as a wreck that is not abandoned.

Ross

Thanks Ross,

Although it does seem from the link from David that there are distinctions in terms of the level of protection, and that only 60 sea wrecks are considered protected?

Given the large number of military maritime graves around the world, the Ministry of Defence does indeed have a vast job on its hands. There are 60 wrecks designated under the Protection of Military Remains Act, 12 of which are ‘controlled’ – meaning that diving them is strictly prohibited – and 58 which have the lesser designation of “protected”, including the Repulse.

And while the foreign country will respect the original country’s “ownership” the question is will they “enforce it”?

The Malaysian authorities have intervened in the past to stop wrecks being pillaged, but with hundreds of sunken vessels in thousands of square miles of the Pacific to monitor, it faces the same problem.

“We are very concerned to hear that the wrecks are being plundered by scrap metal merchants and I have asked for a plan to be drawn up for a survey of HMS Repulse and HMS Prince of Wales,” Rossid bin Musa, director of the Marine Department of Malaysia, said.

“Our department cannot carry out patrols as we do not have the vessels, but I have asked the Coast Guard and the Maritime Enforcement Agency to provide assistance and to patrol the area,” he said.

But any scavengers who are caught are likely to get off with minimal fines. A charge of violating Malaysian maritime laws and operating without a permit usually incurs a fine of around GBP19,100, according to the Malaysian newspaper The Star, while the cost of stealing from a wreck is just £191.

But I do find it interesting that a wreck on land which may still contain remains or even partial remains (The RN FAAM Fairey Barracoota) or perhaps some of the various wreckology recoveries that the UK or even Europe is known for, can be recovered yet an underwater wreck takes on a final resting place sacredness?

I thought in the UK at least, the remains of crashed service aircraft were considered to still be the property of the DoD? and permission from them to undertake a recovery was required via various permits etc?, wouldn’t an underwater aircraft wreck recovery therefore be rather similar?

Edit :Apparantly they are : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protection_of_Military_Remains_Act_1986#Protection_of_aircraft

Mark,
Coincidently regarding ship wreck war graves in foreign waters, this in today’s Sunday Telegraph makes very sad reading.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/malaysia/11187603/Celebrated-British-warships-being-stripped-bare-for-scrap-metal.html

Yes it is very sad, and clearly while protected “legally” under UK laws and retained in UK ownership, the only real ability to protect them from scavenging is the laws and resources of the nearest Country (within or nearby its territorial waters).

On the other hand, the Ships Bell from the Prince of Wales was apparently recovered in 1992 to ensure it wasn’t scavenged for scrap, and I again personally don’t have a problem with elements of a wreck being recovered by a National Collection to preserve something for posterity and honour the crew on land in a fitting memorial location.

The recent discovery of HMAS Sydney’s wreck of the coast of WA identified some of her shattered life boats sitting on the sea floor, showing their Sydney nameplates, I personally would support one of those being recovered while it still might survive being recovered, to be conserved and displayed in the Australian War Memorial as the reality with anything sitting in the salt water environment must eventually rot to nothing.

While not a war grave, the Titanic is certainly a watery grave of many lost souls, and its slowly rotting away to nothing – even at its great depth. I saw a travelling display of material recovered from the wreck ,along even with small sections of its hull plating, and that exhibition probably does more to bring that tragedy to current generations, than would be the case if those items and material had been left on the floor to rot away?

The dead, however they died, deserve their dignity.

Those who died for their country in wartime deserve to be remembered and honoured by their nation, and where possible, to be repatriated to their home soil and ideally to their living surviving family during their life times.

On that basis I would support recovery of viable aircraft wrecks from the sea, as long as the remains of crew were investigated prior to, and during the recovery, and via approval processes of the governing authorities, and equally I would support recovery of suitable items from wartime shipwrecks for preservation in National museums.

Of course for those wrecks known to have not had a fatality, like some of the PNG Japanese wrecks abandoned on airstrips, or the USN aircraft wrecks in the Great Lakes, policies refusing recovery over the years has actually condemned those wrecks to disintegration rather than preservation, and since the 1970’s publication of Charles Darby’s Pacific Wrecks and where to find them” a number of viable Japanese medium bomber wrecks such as Betty’s and Sally’s have simply vanished due to local scrapping, and hence those types are largely now lost to history, in direct conflict with the stated reasons for halting recoveries from PNG.

It is a pity Japanese museums were not more active in trying to recover some of those rarer types before they were lost fore-ever.

In summary, I don’t consider a wreck that has involved a fatality, and un-recovered remains is sacrosanct, its more what is done with the wreck and the bonafide search for remains.

Overtime, even cemeteries and graves are re-developed as those interned are no longer mourned and visited by immediate family.

Its the issue of the dead, and their remains, being treated with dignity, or for the war dead, being remembered and honoured by their country and their countrymen, for their ultimate sacrifice- thats what really matters, and in my opinion, a preserved object from the wreck, or the preserved wreck itself – is a suitable memorial.

Of course these are very subjective issues, caught up also with religious beliefs and attitudes, and my opinions are simply mine alone.

Regards

Mark Pilkington

The Halifax is below the high tide line and cannot be considered under the same physical and legal constraints as wreck above the high tide line.

The term “War Grave” has no legal definition in Maritime Law only a common understanding.

The Halifax is not in “foreign waters” it is in Norwegian Territorial Waters and as such is administered under Nordic/Norwegian Law.

For maritime purposes all RAF aircraft crashed into the sea in either territorial or international waters are not considered as “abandoned”.

This is a specific term in marine law and denotes that the original owner has not relinquished their legal right to the artefact/vessel.

So the current owner is the British State and these rights are administered by the Ministry of Defence.

The artefact/vessel is located within Norwegian Territorial Waters so it is protected by Norwegian Maritime Law as a wreck that is not abandoned.

In respect to Aircraft/Historic artefacts – Norwegian Maritime Law is similar to many other national laws (UK/US/German etc) and generally follows the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea on the rights of the sovereign owner.

http://www.un.org/depts/los/convention_agreements/texts/unclos/unclos_e.pdf

this means that Norway will administer the British State rights to the wreck on their behalf and will decline any third party action unless it has express instruction by the British State to action.

All sorts of other restrictions and penalties are placed by British Law on British Citizens or British Owned Vessels partaking in unauthorised work in either International Waters or within Territorial Waters other that UK.

Ross

Mark,
Coincidently regarding ship wreck war graves in foreign waters, this in today’s Sunday Telegraph makes very sad reading.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/malaysia/11187603/Celebrated-British-warships-being-stripped-bare-for-scrap-metal.html

If it is, there are more important things to consider than ‘just’ the airframe here. There could be two crew members down there as well…

I would agree, but I’m not sure the status of this or any other aircraft wrecks as formally declared “war graves” in foreign waters as this one is, or in the UK?, or indeed anywhere?, above ground, below ground or in the sea?

I can understand the declaration of ship wrecks as “war graves” to stop salvagers recovering some or all of the structure as scrap metal.

In the case of an aircraft wreck being recovered for preservation, the wishes of the immediate surviving family should be sought and considered, but there would seem to be the opportunity to recover remains and bury them, but also for the preserved outcome to be an above water memorial to those lost in the war?

The Dornier recovery still has that uncertainty surrounding its identity and therefore the fate of its crew?

Then there is Coppin’s Desert wreck P40 and the uncertainty surrounding his fate?

Or the RAAF Spitfire wreckage found in the banks of a French River, and now in the RAAF Museum collection at Point Cook.

Equally there are a number of wrecks recovered from PNG and Russia (Hurricane with pilots remains?) that raise the same issue?

Is an aircraft wreck with possible human remains to be left to the elements (above ground or below sea?) or to have the remains recovered and repatriated and then the wreckage dealt with?

With these wrecks in far off places, is there really the opportunity for close family to go and pay their respects?

I’m not in the situation of having a lost family member from wartime aircraft operations, but a person I know in that situation was very keen to locate and resolve the fate of his family member – surely the recovery and return of the remains is the preference? and if the recovery of the wreck achieves that, it would seem a worthwhile activity, let alone preservation of the wreck to further honour the memory of the fallen?

An important issue to consider, my own personal view would be to support a supervised recovery with examination and search for remains for repatriation by the appropriate authorities, such as the Commonwealth War Graves Commission or JPAC in the US?

Of course this wreck seems well advanced in its deterioration and its likely not to survive a recovery attempt in anycase, and I do think the days of successful Salt Water recoveries for conservation let alone “restoration” are probably coming to a close.

Regards

Mark Pilkington

From the location given, I think its this one.

http://www.archieraf.co.uk/archie/7656tlp.html#april287656tlp

If it is, there are more important things to consider than ‘just’ the airframe here. There could be two crew members down there as well…

Hi All,
Tin Triangle,
Many thanks for the posting:eagerness: Excellent to see another wreck discovered, what amazed me was the size of the Cod/Haddock swimming about when one swam just above the fuselage and it has to be at least 3′ in length! right then see you in a bit I got me kit on and I’m going fishing!:D

Geoff.

In an ideal world, wouldn’t it be great to see this recovered restored for display in the UK, which apart from the YAM recreation, IWM cockpit and the wreck at Hendon is rather short of Halifaxes? As others have said though, it looks like it would come up in fist-sized bits if you tried to raise it.

Interestingly, there was a very brief report in the Handley Page Association Newsletter some years ago of a Halifax apparently down in the sea off the middle of Norway. Now the question is: was that simply a mistake (confused perhaps with other known Halifaxes) or did some people already know something about the present subject back then? And please understand I am only asking the question, I am not trying too imply that there were.

deleted as date incorrect

The Canadians have secured two Hastings wing centre sections to form the basis of a future Halifax restoration from the Irish Sea…….

Not the Irish Sea but north of Ireland in the open Atlantic, which just adds to the difficulties of locating it let alone considering a recovery.

I know that the Halifax Group in Alberta are hoping for the Mk.III that is in the Irish Sea….that would be likely the next recovery if Canadians get involved….

very interesting anyway…..

The Canadians have secured two Hastings wing centre sections to form the basis of a future Halifax restoration from the Irish Sea.

But that wreck is yet to be found and its condition confirmed to be suitable for recovery, and this discovery shows the ongoing deterioration being suffered in 150m of cold sea water, neither will survive much longer.

Perhaps this is a case of one found in the fjord, is worth more than one lost somewhere in the Irish Sea?

Otherwise both might be beyond recovery, let alone restoration if this opportunity isn’t explored over the Irish Sea wreck.

We are fortunate at least that we have two recovered from fresh water and already in preservation, given none were retained after the war for posterity.

But if the Canadians have the capability to undertake and restore a salt water recovery then the clock must be counting down on the viability of such saltwater wreck recoveries.

Regards
Mark Pilkington

Ross,

the depth at 180 Meters is not beyond the ability of commercial / salvage divers…and certainly the divers would NOT have to “carry” all the required supplies of the dive mixtures…it is common practice to set “stages” at the various decompression stops…usually including some form of a rest seat and the required mixes for the stop and the next “leg” to the next stop……

I would definately agree that such a dive is far beyond the ability of the average recreational divers, simply in the required equipment and support……and in all likelyhood, even a commercial effort made to dive on this would be a combination of ROV’s, possibly smaller manned subs and perhaps some free or tethered commercial divers…..and they would all be in full heated and full enclosure dive helmets…the effects of the temps could be nullified for the duration of the dive….it is done fairly regularily by divers on the oil platforms, and there are some of those that are in pretty cold waters, the North Sea and Newfoundlands Grand Banks come immediately to mind……

None the less…..it would be a VERY expensive and extensive operation….perhaps the previously made Halifax Cradles could be reused….but chances are it won;t happen….

I know that the Halifax Group in Alberta are hoping for the Mk.III that is in the Irish Sea….that would be likely the next recovery if Canadians get involved….

very interesting anyway…..

That’s an amazing discovery and in surprisingly good condition.
The broken off nose is presumably due to the forces put on the aircraft while ditching? I seem to remember that NA337 had similar damage.
I wonder if Karl Kjarsgaard is paying attention?

Could be the low cost of side imaging and down imaging sonar units.

There seem to be a few misconceptions of what depths recreational divers can reach being discussed in the above posts.

The general accepted recreational diving limit on air for Sports Divers is approx 40m. Beyond a partial pressure of around 1.4 atmosphere the air becomes toxic.

Factors such as effort and cold which increase the air consumed act to raise the toxic limit towards the surface.

A smaller branch of recreational diving is Technical Diving where gas mixtures are used to replace air components extending the depth that can be reached but this is usually no deeper than 100 to 150 metre.

It needs an extensive amount of specialised kit, access to gas production/mixing plants and training/certification.

The deeper you go the longer you must take to surface to negate another factor of breathing gas at depth.

The real profile for a trimix dive to 60 metre (1/3rd the depth of the wreck) is

Descent to 60m – 4 mins
Bottom time at 60m – 25 mins
Ascent with staged decompression stops between 39m and 3m on Nitrox and Oxygen – 50 mins

So you are looking at a dive in those water temps of approx. 90 mins duration and carrying volume of the various gases necessary for that duration plus safety margin and bale out alternatives for equipment failure.

The video shows ROV telemetry HUD stamp and is most likely source for discovery/inspection of this wreck.

Regards
Ross

It seems according to the link listed above that two men are still missing from this aircraft – having not exited the aircraft after the ditching. I fail to see why people are even discussing the recovery when the wreck must potentially be regarded as a war grave in any case.

From the location given, I think its this one.

http://www.archieraf.co.uk/archie/7656tlp.html#april287656tlp