Heritage Laws Good or Bad when it comes to aircraft

Right,

I am minded to lock this thread, but only as, with one notable exception, a consensus appears to have been reached.

Rob, you asked for a debate, but seem unwilling to see other points of view. I dont (as I have stated privately) believe that the existing laws are perfect, but they do serve a purpose.

My personal belief is that we should have an international listing of airframes that are preserved inperpetuity, and wqually, if national museums have a wishlist, that they have the opportunity to acquire further aircraft as thy become available, and add them to the list.

We are certainly not short of restoration projects throughout the world, and in the majority of cases, these are the sort of things that most museums would balk at. The millions of dollars spent on restoring these craft to flight would cover our own museums costs for many, mny years to come!

Rob, you are quick to condemn Canada for not allowing the import of the B24, but are also quick to condemn the export from the USA of the B24 now at Duxford. There does appear to be a touch of double standards here…

I’m locking the thread for now, but this has been an interesting and valuable discussion. If anyone wants to keep debating it, then drop me a PM, and I’ll consider it!

Bruce

It is hard to address this case clearly without personal reflections that might be taken as attack, but for the record it is worth having a go.

A look for other forum threads will show that the posts & threads of Rob Rohr (Scorpion89 or CrazyMainer) far too often take this course: belligerent overstatements and unjustified claims in caps or in endless oceans of bold, points often incomprehensible behind a fog of slap-dash construction, and slack (or lack of) evidence. Repetitively so.

Despite his long experience, his posts are consistent in their lack of substance but abundance of aggression or abuse. Little or no attempt to develop ideas constructively, let alone any credence given to those of others.

Reasoned argument, documented evidence, polite hints, polite disagreement or polite disbelief: all cut no ice. Warnings, threads locked, bans, decisions made against him: invariably (according to his posts) for “no reason”.

A long, long, trail a-winding back over what, six or seven years? In this and other recent threads here, very considerable latitude has been allowed him (= “cut a lot of slack”). Far too much, in my view. Time to call a halt, I suggest. Whether explicitly stated in the rules or not, his several incitements to illegal acts are quite beyond the pale.

Curious parallel:
Like the “lunar loonies” thread of yore, it is worth the effort to address such nonsense: along the way, a little light gets shed and some things worth knowing get on record, for as long as WWW thread archives can be unearthed.

The world is ever listening, ever remembers, and ever learns: albeit slowly. So may I suggest, don’t delete the thread. Lock it. And let it it stand, as an enduring example of deliberately constructive replies to deliberate aggression and ignorance.

Edited to add that heritage lists, procedures, regulations and so on get made by exchanging ideas and experience, in all the well-publicised public processes and bodies open to all. By people like, on the evidence before us, Mark P, Tom H and JDK, who make the effort. It surely beats repetitive foaming at the mouth here.

Rob,

I dont think anyone is complaining at your responses in regards to politeness, or personal attacks or anything else that would suggest the need to lock the thread.

People may be concerned that you are not conceding any points of argument as is normally done in a debate, but if you cant/wont etc thats fine, you are entitled to your opinion.

So you all think Heritage Laws are good thing great but beside aircraft show me any of the following items listed that the sell of has been blocked in the name of Heritage laws.

Vintage Cars
Vintage Trucks
Vintage and Military Ships and Sailing Craft
Armour Vechiles
Tanks
Guns
Vintage Tractors an Farm Equipment
Vintage Construction Vechiles

Oh thats right Heritage Laws in general don’t stop these sales but hey you want to go and sell a Mossie off well thats going to get the Heritage Police jumping up and down. See this is what I mean Double Standers you can’t have Heritage Laws for man made items, their really isn’t any debate in this till those Governments start using the Heritage Laws for everything you can’t just say well were not going to let the Vintage and Warbirds leave

Rob, havent you read the posts already made in reply to your thread, you were the one who wanted this debated in the first place?

You need to listen/read to the “arguments” put forward from the other side, and reply to them, not simply keep stating the same incorrect generalisations and and un-evidenced arguments from your point of view?.

In regards to those claims highlighted above, the Australian National Heritage Laws apply near enough to everything, and particularly to “man made things”, as detailed in my post of 9th of Feb:

Class B comprises objects that are of cultural significance to Australia and require permission to be exported. The categories are:

Australian Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Heritage
Archaeology
Natural Science
Applied Science or Technology
Fine or Decorative Arts
Documentary Heritage
Numismatics (coins)
Philately (stamps)
Historical Significance

Applied Science or Technology, where “Aircraft” come in to it, are included among the following:

(i) It must fall within one of the classifications described in Part 4. These
classifications include;
agricultural objects;
engineering objects;objects of air transport;
objects of rail transport;
objects of road transport;
objects of scientific interest;
objects of water transport; and
weaponry.

If you so want, I will give you links of the various annual reports that list the various items in the above categories that have been denied export under these laws that ARE not aircraft, and believe me the number of aircraft successfully denied export in Australia due to heritage law can be counted on one hand!!!!!

Many have been assessed (all over 30 years of age HAVE to be assessed) and obviously many of those have not been blocked from export, and are now overseas.

(The ME109 never got that far, it was denied export and impounded due to declaration/description fraud).

The one thing we ask is that you recognise the arguments and information put forward to you in reply, and simply dont ignore it and return to the basic, “you can have my gun when you prise it from my dead fingers” type of argument over private individual and property rights, the rights of government, UNESCO convention and other claims that are clearly refuted by the factual evidence already provided.

many democracies, outside the USA, recognise the Government is controlled by the people, and enacts laws to govern everyone to the benefit of everyone, in Australia at least, we consider ‘we” control government, and throw out those who pass laws the majority dont like, as per November 07.

Many laws limit individual rights, can you fly your aircraft without a licence, can you fly it outside maintenance certification, can you fly it unregistered, can you maintain it without appropriate licences, can you substitute parts without the appropriate certification, can you register some overseas aircraft in another country (Seafuries without Centaurus).

In Australia we control what you can import into our country, even if you own it, we therefore have the right to control what you can export out of our country, even if you own it.

“IF” Australia’s heritage laws existed in PNG, there would seem to be a good basis for recovering many of the remaining wrecks, and exporting them, subject to two being in the PNG National Museum collection? or some equivalent acceptable outcome?

The problem in PNG is that there is no workable or understandable heritage laws at all?

Regards

Mark Pilkington

If the Mods want to lock the thread go right ahead I could care less 😡

Why am I reminded of the belligerent drunk at the end of the bar?

You’re right; ‘there isn’t any debate’ with you. Otherwise there’s been as worthwhile and illuminating discussion with some useful results, so thanks for that, but don’t get mugged by the tree in the pub car park on your way out. 😀

Alright so then let me put it this way then,

So you all think Heritage Laws are good thing great but beside aircraft show me any of the following items listed that the sell of has been blocked in the name of Heritage laws.

Vintage Cars
Vintage Trucks
Vintage and Military Ships and Sailing Craft
Armour Vechiles
Tanks
Guns
Vintage Tractors an Farm Equipment
Vintage Construction Vechiles

Oh thats right Heritage Laws in general don’t stop these sales but hey you want to go and sell a Mossie off well thats going to get the Heritage Police jumping up and down. See this is what I mean Double Standers you can’t have Heritage Laws for man made items, their really isn’t any debate in this till those Governments start using the Heritage Laws for everything you can’t just say well were not going to let the Vintage and Warbirds leave and oh if you own them to bad wrong answer in my book.

Sorry folks you haven’t convince me that Heritage Laws help but I have shown many examples were it has hinder the preservation of vintage/warbirds.

So its safe to say that I’m not going to change your minds ,well I think we all know my stance. But the next time a Grass Fire rages threw the Saw Grass down in PNG and another rare Jap aircraft is lost don’t come crying to me about it. Because I told you what needs to be done. Oh and as far as the Mossie I hope the city loose then I can sit back and start asking when is these other groups going to come forward as I ask in the original thread that got lock because I guess asking the hard question isn’t allowed right. Yea its personal and it should be personal for all who are part of this hobby we are here to preserver and tell the History of these airframes for the next generation and if you don’t understand that then I suggest you find another hobby.

As for me well I’m done with the thread no more reason for me to be part of it unless you want to start thinking like I do which Bl***Y He11 ain’t going to happen.

If the Mods want to lock the thread go right ahead I could care less 😡

The USA is the current wealthy nation which tends draws the world’s heritage to it (aircraft, books, art etc). Britain used to do it but in the future it could be China, Russia or India. Who knows.

Pondskater I would agree, and the “Elgin Marbles” are a good issue to explore to understand National Significance and the relocation of heritage.

The world has seen many “Super Powers” over the centuries (although not called that at the time) relative to their times, the Romans, the Egyptians, the Spanish, the French, the British Empire, for a while Germany and Japan and at the moment the US.

Although I certainly wish no ill-will to the US, and even the rest of our western economies, (but) the emerging asian economies, and India and China in particular, are set on a path to become significant economic, industrial and military powers.

The day then may come when the US is concerned with loosing too many valuable heritage artifacts overseas, Perhaps then Rob may have a different view of the world on heritage laws.

Until then at least it is open slather on aircraft being exported from the US, – anyone want to line up for swaps of any of the remaining B24’s in the States? – smiles.

Regards

Mark Pilkington

Scorpion89

The reason I don’t like to discuss specific aircraft is simple…

Not everyone has the same information…so unless I have all the paper trail, and can share it,I don’t go there. One sided conversations don’t work for me.

As far as regulation on a private owner, everything for business transactions, firearms and many other things are controlled…whats the difference?

As far as the levels of government that have to be dealt with…in the USA the states often have powers that override the federal government…much the same
in many other countries.

As far as your non negotiatble stand on Private ownership…that kind of ends the conversation.

The world is a compromise…we simply find the combination that best suits the needs of all.

Tom H

Its simple folks I don’t like Heritage Laws plan and simple they stimmy the recovery and restoration of aircraft be it a Warbird or Vintage Aircraft

OK but what alternatives are there? How can a country or region protect the aircraft that mean something to them without some version of these laws.

My concern is that, without regulation, objects will simply follow the money. For instance, where is the best Shakespeare collection in the world? Stratford? London? Nope – its in Washington DC (Folger Library). There was a move to do the same with William Wordsworth’s archive and, but for a single inspired individual, it might have left the English Lake District.

The USA is the current wealthy nation which tends draws the world’s heritage to it (aircraft, books, art etc). Britain used to do it but in the future it could be China, Russia or India. Who knows.

What form of Heritage protection would you have?

And yes this is personal for me.

That is why you need to step back a bit and try to be objective.

Most of the contributors to this thread are heading towards a consensus. Rob – do try and see their point of view!

Bruce

Tom,

As far as the 24 I was part of that group I know the ends and out of the deal allot better then what has been reported on hear and other media outlets.

But why don’t you want to discuss indv. aircraft these is where the problem is, as for your example thats the problem if you a have Heritage Laws then ONLY the Federal Government can give permission for the recover and or remove from the Country and as for Private stuff sorry till the Governments start paying the owners Tax’s and bills they have no say what he/she does with there aircraft unless your wanting to go to Communisim.

Sorry folks this isn’t a gray area when it comes to privately owned aircraft unless you all feel that its alright to stpe on one rights then have at it but this is why folks go around the stupid Heritage Laws.

You know looking back at the whole 24 I told tom once that we should have just moved it to Canadian/Maine border and then I would have got it across into Maine and no one would know the difference.

And yes this is personal for me.

Scorpion89

Your story on the B24 is not the same one we get up here, which is why I do not like to get into specifics unless I can track the paperwork. Don’t know which version is the most accurate…when I find the time to chase the paper then I will let you know what it says…till then this is simply an example of why I use hypothetical examples only.

But it also comes back to what I was saying on the Mossie thread:

Lets say you are a New Zealander who wishes to recover an Anson from a remote site in Canada.

1) You would contact the Province or Territory that administers the site to
confirm the rules and regulations, even if it is on private property.
(They do vary a bit from one to another)
2) You would contact Heritage Canada to advise them of your interest.
3) You would advise CAPA of your intent and ask for support.
4) You make applications as required to the Province/Territory and Federal
government have permissions granted and go get your Anson.

If you skip a step…back in the mud

Same applies across the board…buying privately, from a museum etc.

The rules must be followed and the steps taken and your homework done…

Tom H

Mark,

Back to the B-24 Wreck as I stated it was an Ex-RCAF airframe that the owner of the Land try to offer to both the Local and National Museum none want it for what every reason, so when Tom came along and said hey I would like to purchase the wreck he said sure lets talk a price make sure its alright with everyone.

Well Tom contact Ottawa because that is what the local Heritage folks told him to do. He got the correct paperwork and got the permission from Ottawa to remove the airframe and cross into the United States up till the time he had actually removed and got it ready for shipment the Local Museum(s) had nothing to do with it. Then they all got into teezy over it and demand that it stay even though they had refuse to take it the two different times the Land Owner try to give it to them. Now the National Government stated that Tom had permission to removed the 24 the Local Heritage Folks took them to Court and we all see what happen. This is example of why Heritage Laws don’t work when it comes to Aircraft simple the National Laws should over ride anything an Local Laws say when it comes to aircraft

I rather not get into the debate of this or that on Heritage Laws but in my experance Heritage Laws do more harm then good for Aircraft look around the World at stuff being lost each day. As for aircraft that are in private ownership what right does any Federal Government have to tell the owner what he/she can do with said aircraft if they wanted(Museum and Feds) then they need to pony up with the money I could care less if I owned that Last Mossie sitting in Canada and I decide that I want to sell it to a collector in England well I’m going to do that and damn any Heritage Laws they want it then pay my price or start paying my Tax’s and other Daily Bills till then ****** Off.

Its simple folks I don’t like Heritage Laws plan and simple they stimmy the recovery and restoration of aircraft be it a Warbird or Vintage Aircraft, as for stuff being placed of UNESCO sure but that isn’t going to happen he11 here in the United Sates we only have one airframe on the National Historical list and that is the Wright Flyer III . Oh and I feel the same way towards most man made items be it Ships/Cars/Military items. As for Shipwrecks well that falls under another set of Laws called the International Shipwreck Salavage Laws that have been around for quite a long time.And while they might protect certain shipwrecks in general unless they are Warships most Civilian Ships are far game.

Example #2 Oh Mark take note of this one please. I was ask to look into the recovery of the Lincoln that is woods in Canada well after getting verbal agreement from a Canadian Museum I sent a request to Heritage Canada asking permission to recover the Lincoln along with six other airframes. In order for me to fianace the project I need to recover three airframes to sell the other three I was going to offer to two different Canadian Museum in exchange for the Lincoln recover, well at first Heritage was all for the idea but then they decide to change there mind with out giving me a reason. So instead of having Seven airframes recover and being restored for display they still sit in there collective crash sites.

Rob, I obviously can’t comment on why your proposal was rejected, however that does not mean the heritage law is incorrect, or stopping the individual aircraft being recovered fullstop by you or others? under a re-packaged proposal?

The issue in Ottawa and the B24 would seem to have halted half way through a process, surely if Ottawa heritage laws permit the wreck to be recovered, but not depart the state, then the laws are missing a compensatory purchase option? or it has not been invoked or sought?, or alternatively a legal appeal would be assumed capable of releasing the wreck? from the limitation if the state has not proposed another outcome.

The issue of export would then need re-confirmation of the National Law position in relation to the wreck? leaving Canada?

I know a little about the Canadian processes – but not a lot, as I understand it, there are local/state laws that can control a recovery, – regardless of where its intended to go, and by whom – that is generally not a Heritage Law but more often an “Environment” related law in that the wreck is sitting in Government land often in forest or State Parks. (The same can occur in Australia).

However getting beyond that may then encounter a local/state heritage law that considers the wreck is of state heritage significance and intervenes to halt a recovery.

This is because the wreck is historic “as a wreck”, not as a potential recovered and restored museum piece or even airworthy warbird. (in part this is similar to the treatment of a WW2 “wreck” in PNG etc).

That same treatment applies to all historic shipwrecks in Australia, they are protected to remain (and rot away) the system is not “designed” to encourage recovery and refloating of shipwrecks, however to be fair few are capable of having that happen, and the law is primarily to stop salvagers /divers stripping the wreck for scrap or momento sale.

I suspect other countries may have similar laws covering shipwrecks in their Territorial waters.

Beyond that local/State heritage law, is the Canadian National Heritage Law that controls export, and refuses export if the item is determined to be of National Signficance, I do note the Canadian law has a number of differences to the Australian law, I am not aware of a “2 airframe in public museum test”, and it requires as I understand it, for the intended export to be first offered to not-for-profit museums at the intended sale price?

However I suspect the test of significance will be based on UNESCO conventions and other internationally accepted practices.

The above web of various state and National “Heritage” laws might complicate a recovery to overseas, however I dont think it stops it from happening, I am personally aware of some intended Canadian recoveries by an Australian group that have already received local / state Government go-ahead and Heritage approvals without great complication or difficulty.

As I said before Historical Laws are great for certain items but they can’t be used for aircraft. Oh and for the record of the Six airframes two of them were Vintage aircraft from the late 30s.

I still personally cant see why you can support Heritage Laws for all other objects and places, yet draw the line at aircraft, other than because it restricts the warbird market and an open slather on recoveries.

While some wreck recoveries deliver a wreck into preservation, lots of others can end up simply as scrap sources for a few key parts – thats not preservation.

I would personally prefer to see most viable airframes recovered rather than left to rot away, particularly if they are historically significant or of a unique or extinct type, I also would prefer to see a part from a wreck used in a preserved static display or even flying restoration rather than allowed to rot away.

But I dont have a problem with the recovery of wrecks of heritage significance having to jump through some hoops, to avoid important wrecks being lost to everyone, or even just lost to their local nation. SG is an example of that.

I certainly dont have a problem with an aircraft – already in the collection of a museum, (such as the Canadian Mosquito) having to jump through the same hoops to avoid an aircraft of heritage significance being exported and lost to its local nation. The recent Canadian Connie process seems an excellent example.

As I said before Historical Laws are great for certain items but they can’t be used for aircraft.

Why, if we agree that aircraft can be of historical importance and are worth preserving, shouldn’t they be covered by Heritage Laws like everything else? which you do appear to accept?

as said earlier, I believe the Australian system works reasonably well, I can agree heritage laws may need fixing or improvement, but to have none at all is unacceptable and illogical.

Regards

Mark Pilkington

Alright so I’m going to narrow this discussion down a little,

Mark all good points but while I will agree with you on certain aspects of the Warbird movement it still is effect by Heritage Laws and this is where I’m going to go with the discussion.

So lets take the Canadian Heritage laws and look at how they have effect the recovery and restoration of airframes and why they are very bad for Historical Aircraft.

Example #1 The B-24D that was sitting on private land in Labrador. This aircraft went down during WWII and yes it was an RCAF aircraft. The Land owner over a period of 40 Years had offered the aircraft to various Canadian Museum seven different times and not one want it. Tom Reilly heard about the crash site purchase the wreck from the Land Owner got permission from the National Government to remove it from Canada then the local Government step in saying that they had no right(Ottawa) to let said airframe leave, mind you the owner offered the Museum in Labrador the aircraft twice and both times the Museum turned it down.

So what we have now is the wings still sitting out in the woods while the rest of the aircraft is sitting on a dock near salt water in the open just wasting away neither the Labrador Government nor the National Government have step in and sent this aircraft to a museum. Mind you three well know museum have been ask and all three have said that they don’t have the resource to rebuild or even display the airframe.

Example #2 Oh Mark take note of this one please. I was ask to look into the recovery of the Lincoln that is woods in Canada well after getting verbal agreement from a Canadian Museum I sent a request to Heritage Canada asking permission to recover the Lincoln along with six other airframes. In order for me to fianace the project I need to recover three airframes to sell the other three I was going to offer to two different Canadian Museum in exchange for the Lincoln recover, well at first Heritage was all for the idea but then they decide to change there mind with out giving me a reason. So instead of having Seven airframes recover and being restored for display they still sit in there collective crash sites.

This is why I have major problems with Heritage Laws they claim that they are protecting there Heritage but are they really, its just as bad as the United States Navy stance on aircraft which I have been part of the ongoing battle with them for 20 Years.

Now some of you might bring up the State of Alaska law on aircraft wrecks well that one doesn’t stop you from recovering it just makes you go threw allot of paperwork and for the record its the Feds are looking into the Law to see if it goes against the 1st Adm. (not sure how they can do this but its the Feds)

Also here in the States the Dept. of Interior has stated that any aircraft on their lands are protect like the Lake Mead B-29 well under the 1978 Forest Land Protection Act they have the right to say something is Historical but they can’t stop them from being recovered they are about to find this out in a court case that is going to be filed in US Federal Court.

As I said before Historical Laws are great for certain items but they can’t be used for aircraft. Oh and for the record of the Six airframes two of them were Vintage aircraft from the late 30s.

Mark

Thank you for articulating the difference between the Preservation and Warbird movements so well.

I have sat back for a day trying to figure out how to word it, and you have done it so well.

I also agree that this has been a very informative thread that I hope carries on.

When duties permit I would like to contact you for additional advice re: Australian Heritage legislation if that is ok with you.

To all that have participated…thank you

Tom H

Rob,

I just got in from work so I’m going to have to sit down and go over the past few posted. But i will point out this one thing, I never said I was against heritage Laws if you go and read my very first post I make this statement what I’m against and have always been against is the random use of Heritage Laws when it come to aircraft.

with respect, my replies and posts here have been in response to the various comments made by yourself and others, but my reference to your position is based particularly on your opening post and the following:

But first before I lay out my views in details I would like the following statement read in int he public as they would say.” I do believe that Heritage Laws do work for certain area of historical preservation be it Sites like Stonehedge or Gettysburg. I do think the World heritage Sites and UNSECO do wonders and help preserve and protect everyone history“.

Now with that out of the way I would like to explain my reason why I’m against any form of heritage Laws being used for aircraft.

1. While I can agree that historical airframe’s have been preserved under the guise of heritage Laws not one single aircraft is list on any UNESCO Heritage List. if the UN will not list any aircraft then why should there be any aircraft protect under National Heritage Laws.

As discussed in previous posts the role of the UNESCO lists are to preserve only items of World significance, but the role of UNESCO and its conventions is to also encourage member Nations to create their own National lists, those lists are not limited to objects of world significance within the Nation.

UNESCO conventions specifically support export controls, and even return to a country, of objects of National significance.

I am sure the UNESCO will list any airframe submitted by a member country, and determined to be of “World” significance.

And we all agree the Wright Flyer is of world significance and I am sure UNESCO would reach a similar conclusion and finding.

Australia has submitted and had listed a number of natural environments to the World Heritage List, and had its first built heritage place submitted and listed in the last few years, (edit – its not the role of ) the “UN” to search for possible sites and objects to list, it requires a member state to nominate them.

Australia’s heritage laws have been in existance for quite a while and are well developed, I am sure they could be improved, but they do work.

Our Local, State, Commonwealth and National Heritage Lists primarily contain natural and built heritage places at this time, but moveable cultural heritage such as Paddle Steamers, and in deed aircraft are now being considered for entry.

I am sure as member states commence including airframes on their state and more importantly National Lists they will also consider nominating some for world Heritage listing.

In Australia Kingsford Smiths “Southern Cross” and the 1919 Vimy of the Smith Brothers would both be possible contenders.

The UK BAPC National Aviation Heritage Register is obviously a valuable tool in identifying the holdings within that Nation and what airframes are considered significant, (something preservation groups in other countries should consider) this in part reflects the british leadership in the aircraft preservation movement developed after WW2.

Please note the difference between the aircraft preservation movement and the “warbird” movement which perhaps has been lead in development by the US, they have a lot of common interests and are part of an overall area of interest but they have significant differences and drivers.

Preservation groups are typically museums and “not for profit” collectives with altuistic ambitions, warbird operators are typically private individuals with their own satisfaction being the driver for ownership and restoration.

That is not to deny that they may also support preservation and heritage, but their investments are primarily on behalf of themselves and their own enjoyment. (and not that there’s anything wrong with that, and I am pleased they do so, so I can enjoy watching their aircraft at a fraction of the cost they have invested to achieve that.)

Heritage laws are designed to “preserve” historic objects and places for future generations, they do not need to be designed to support and facilitate the warbird industry. That is not to in anyway deny the important role warbirds “can” play in heritage preservation, however not every warbird is an “historic” aircraft of “any” significance (nangchungs/ L-29’s), and in many cases the act of maintaining or restoring an airframe to airworthy standards requires comprises in authenticity and replacement of original parts, and therefore compromises in its overall significance.

The new broom / new handle argument is not preservation, it is restoration, they are two different things.

The Warbird movement is an important supporter of aircraft preservation, its development in the 1950’s 1960’s saved many airframes from scrapping, and have caused many more to be recovered from jungles and wrecks that would never have been recovered and restored just for static display, it has created an economic worth to historic aircraft, and a public awareness and appreciation that then encourages and supports the museums and preservation activities.

Indeed some important museum aircraft have been “retired” from the warbird movement that had saved them.

But “Heritage” is much much more than a borrowed paintscheme and the correct outline re-made in modern metal, despite our enjoyment of it in the air at an airshow, but that debate is outside the objectives of this current thread.

The issue of Canada’s heritage laws is for the Canadians to decide, not unlike gunlaws in the USA,

Hopefully their laws will encourage and permit recovery and preservation/restoration of historically “significant” remaining wrecks locally and permit others to be recovered for export overseas, and also permit export of other airframes that are not considered to be of National Significance. But the decision of what is Nationally “significant” to Canada is best seen through Canadian eyes.

An excellent thread and well done in launching it, and thanks to those who have contributed to a thoughtful, enjoyable and polite debate.

Regards

Mark Pilkington

I just got in from work so I’m going to have to sit down and go over the past few posted. But i will point out this one thing, I never said I was against heritage Laws if you go and read my very first post I make this statement what I’m against and have always been against is the random use of Heritage Laws when it come to aircraft.

Don,

As for UNESCO i work with it everyday so I have a very good understanding of how it is to work and how it really works;) .

Mark,

You and I agree on many areas when it come to Warbirds and we both know that while Australian might have the best system out there other Country’s like Canada Heritage Laws work against the preservation of aircraft.

As for a World list and it being an item that has change mankind well that comes from UNESCO. Any item that has been ask to be part of the World heritage List has to meet that as part of the critera.

Nice discussion let me digest what has been written and I’ll come back.

UNESCO aims and methods

As a sort of tailpiece, thought it might help for future reference to record the aims and methods of UNESCO, which appear to have been comprehensively misunderstood or misrepresented in a number of preceding posts. I’ve drawn upon the comprehensive UNESCO website and my own past experience in dealing (at very low level!) with UN working bodies.

UNESCO site
http://portal.unesco.org/en/ev.php-URL_ID=29008&URL_DO=DO_TOPIC&URL_SECTION=201.html

[INDENT]”The United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) was founded on 16 November 1945. For this specialized United Nations agency, it is not enough to build classrooms in devastated countries or to publish scientific breakthroughs. Education, Social and Natural Science, Culture and Communication are the means to a far more ambitious goal : to build peace in the minds of men. Today, UNESCO functions as a laboratory of ideas and a standard-setter to forge universal agreements on emerging ethical issues.”

“UNESCO participates in this effort through its standard-setting action, serving as a central forum for coordinating the ethical, normative and intellectual issues of our time, fostering multidisciplinary exchange and mutual understanding, working – where possible and desirable – towards universal agreements on these issues, defining benchmarks and mobilizing international opinion.”[/INDENT]
Like the UN and its other agencies, UNESCO operates in a co-operative and transparent way, well-recorded on its website and through a range of discussions and publications. This it does through its General Conference of Member States with other delegates or observers, meeting every two years to discuss, develop and agree upon issues before it in a carefully designed and well-documented sequence…

[INDENT]”[The] standard-setting procedure provides for the following stages: first a preliminary study of the technical and legal aspects of the question to be regulated at the international level. This study must be submitted for prior consideration to the Executive Board, whose responsibility it is to include the proposal for international regulation in the agenda of the General Conference.

The General Conference is then required to decide on the desirability of the regulation contemplated and on the form which such a regulation should take (convention or recommendation).”[/INDENT]
[INDENT]”UNESCO General Conference
Consists of the representatives of the States Members of the Organization. It meets every two years, and is attended by Member States and Associate Members, together with observers for non-Member-States, intergovernmental organizations, non-governmental organizations (NGOs).

Functions
The General Conference determines the policies and the main lines of work of the Organization (article IV of the Constitution): discussing all the issues concerning the general policy of the Organization, and occasionally by focusing on certain major themes.”[/INDENT]

[INDENT]”Standard-Setting Instruments
When, cultural differences and traditions notwithstanding, States agree to common rules, they can draw up an international instrument: an agreement or convention, which are legally binding, a recommendation or a declaration. “[/INDENT]

Movable Heritage and Museums
http://portal.unesco.org/culture/en/ev.php-URL_ID=34324&URL_DO=DO_TOPIC&URL_SECTION=201.html

Conventions – Recommendations – Declarations
General introduction to the standard-setting instruments of UNESCO
http://portal.unesco.org/en/ev.php-URL_ID=23772&URL_DO=DO_TOPIC&URL_SECTION=201.html#

Declaration of the Principles of International Cultural Co-operation
http://portal.unesco.org/en/ev.php-URL_ID=13147&URL_DO=DO_TOPIC&URL_SECTION=201.html

Recommendation for the Protection of Movable Cultural Property
http://portal.unesco.org/en/ev.php-URL_ID=13137&URL_DO=DO_TOPIC&URL_SECTION=201.html

Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict with Regulations for the Execution of the Convention 1954
http://portal.unesco.org/en/ev.php-URL_ID=13637&URL_DO=DO_TOPIC&URL_SECTION=201.html

Convention on the Means of Prohibiting and Preventing the Illicit Import, Export and Transfer of Ownership of Cultural Property 1970
http://portal.unesco.org/en/ev.php-URL_ID=13039&URL_DO=DO_TOPIC&URL_SECTION=201.html

UNESCO World Heritage Committee, Convention and List
http://whc.unesco.org/
The Criteria for Selection
http://whc.unesco.org/en/criteria/
Global Strategy
http://whc.unesco.org/en/globalstrategy/
World Heritage Committee, 2007 – 2009
http://whc.unesco.org/en/comittee/
http://whc.unesco.org/en/committeemembers/
The List
http://whc.unesco.org/en/list

So then, UNESCO is not a dictator operating in a vacuum – nor is its World Heritage Committee. UNESCO is a consultative co-operative forum representing the interests of its member States as expressed by their representatives meeting every other year for the past 60-odd years. UNESCO would in fact, as it is required to do under its Constitution, leave Nations (States) to consider their own functions and needs – and their own National registers of historic artefacts, heritage places and nominations to the World Heritage List – under the UNESCO Conventions and or Recommendations to which they have contributed and agree upon, and which do have some teeth.

Postscript: Each of Mark Pilkington’s posts are models of cool clarity and commonsense with which I fully agree.

Read all of this thread with great interest but the one thing that comes through clearly is the divergent views on what constitutes a heritage aircraft, we see on a regular basis nations claiming provenance of certain airframes yet clearly they have none, bodies organising legal campaigns to retain airframes yet they cannot lay before a court even the most meagre evidence of heritage of any form.

Cyperus,

You are making sweeping statements without any evidence yourself, and without reference to countering information that precedes your post despite apparantly having read it all with great interest?

You also seem to have the same misconception as Rob that an aircraft must be of “world changing” significance to be considered a heritage aircraft, there is no legal basis for that, nor no parallel in the treatment of any other object, or place as being of heritage significance.

I’m sorry but after a thread/ debate this long, I cannot allow you to simply dismiss argument and debate with such generalisations, as an apparant summary, without asking you to elaborate, evidence and defend your counter statements.

In the developed world, and at least in Australia there is well developed legislation on heritage at local government, state government and federal government level, and then there is the UNESCO conventions, none of these are aircraft specific but can easily be applied to them.

I am particularly interested in your claim to support such a position that there are regular examples of nations claiming provenance when they have none, and bodies organising legal campaigns without meagre evidence.

Interestingly I have not seen any examples of those situations of which you speak, and would be keen to know which you are referring to?

A Pacific Nation, holding the wrecks of WW2 on the battlefields clearly have a heritage claim on those wrecks funder the UNESCO conventions, that does not extinguish the parallel claims that can be made by the combatant nations that put them there – this is the basis of the constant arguments that arise on these forums, and is often poorly debated or understood.

Rob and others quite often argue the heritage solely belongs to the combatant nations, this is not correct. There is a shared heritage.

Despite much of the culture and lifestyle of these island Nations being based on their continued isolation and islander lifestyles, WW2, the invading forces, combat and liberation by advancing allies will now always be significant historical events in their culture. The objects associated with those events form part of the Nation’s heritage. The Citizens of a Nation own and inheret the heritage of their Nation even if they themselves were not directly involved in the event, – ie flew the aircraft or were directly engaged in the combat.

Some 50 years after the war, entire generations have grown up with these wrecks in their village, having the stories of the aircraft, combat, troops, ships etc passed down in folk law. For what is effectively a uneducated, unsophisticated primitive society, WW2 burst the 20 century into their stoneage bubble, – I recall the Ben Daniker book “Chariots of the Gods” referring to a Pacific Island tribe that started to worship aircraft as gods, given the technology and culture shock.

For a generation that has grown up with the folklaw and wrecks of the battleground all around them, these are a strong part of their heritage, in “contrast and conflict” with their sustanance heritage of headgear and spears.

The Wrecks are not “rebuildable to airworthy warbirds” to them, they are not “shrines to the fallen”, they are simply links to this great event that has touched them and had an impact on them and their way of life and society. – the simple ingredients for a heritage object.

WW2 brought the “white man” to many deep parts of PNG and islands that had only previously seen missionaries, aircraft, trucks, ships, tanks, weapons, armies of troops, electricity, etc were all injected into their lives, cigarettes, alcohol were introduced by the visiting armies.

A sharp introduction to the 20th century- & certainly probably “world changing” for their world?

(Clearly there is case for some of these wrecks to be preserved in the batteground, and to the benefit of both the local Nation’s heritage, and that of the Combatant Nations. And of course that shouldnt mean viable aircraft for restoration and recovery should not be able to be considered for recovery, and certainly not if their future is simply to rot into the ground. The recent Solomon Island recovery seems to deliver a win win outcome that may be a template for other islands and PNG, the lack of “clear” heritage laws in those countries are inhibiting the preservation in either outcome.)

That is not to deny the combatant Nations, and peoples dont have different Heritage claims to these wrecks, however it is interesting that the Government’s of those Nations are not spending any money recovering them as being significant enough to preserve in their National collections. (I am particularly dis-appointed at the number of extinct Japanese types that could still be recovered and preserved if the Japanese Government got formally involved).

I am not aware of many other Nations that have their provenance disputed when they make a claim? – where are your examples.

In terms of legal battles being made but with no evidence? to place in court, I find that claim particularly strange.

Having made such a legal challenge to the export of a significant Australian aircraft that was subsequently denied export from Australia under those laws, I could not have contemplated legal action without first being able to convince my barrister of the merits of the case? I cannot imagine many others would spend real money to get to court without having to convince their own legal team either, where are your examples?

Regards

Mark Pilkington

The last few post have, in my mind, laid the topic out very well and covered most sides of the coin (cube?)

Cypherus

Makes the academic points of history and “significant” artefacts very well. But moving past the academic points we move to the point of the “passion” of history and ability to tell the story.

An International forum will never be able to wade through the mire of each nations heritage to determine what should be protected.That is way national registers make sense.

Mark and Don, in their posts, have outlined how things work on the other side of the world. While I have ot had time to peruse the Australian Heritage Laws (but I will) they seem to do the job…yet not inordinately block the trade of warbirds.

Which in my mind IS the goal.

Excellent discussion

Tom H