Loch Ness (again)

Elliot,

There is this article that I found.

http://www.divernet.com/wrecks/0402qanda.htm#top

Ali

Please do not use my research and reply on Moray Firth Defiants as your source for the story for a Loch Ness Defiant.

No claim or reference is made either in the heading or the item and as such has no backup for your story.

Ross

Ali,

I’ve left it 12 hrs to cool off my reply on your link post to Elliot.

Have you noticed the last line of the Q&A reply to the diver asking about Moray Firth Defiants?

Ross McNeill

Yes I did but with so many stories going around there’s nothing wrong with going up there and scanning to look see. At least one of two things will happen, we will either find something or we will put the stories to bed. It’s not just the Defiant story that I want to follow up but the story of a Spit in the Loch too.

Ali

Ali,

I’ve left it 12 hrs to cool off my reply on your link post to Elliot.

Have you noticed the last line of the Q&A reply to the diver asking about Moray Firth Defiants?

Ross McNeill

I heard about the Defiant story in a quote from the former curator of the Museum of Flight at East Fortune (who went west to Oshkosh)

I think the large chasm which might be perceived to exist is possibly looking at the information you have posted because the ability to preserve in the U.K is increasingly lagging behind the ability to find aircraft. Without knowing the ‘ins and outs’ of various bits of kit it seems to me that cost of locating aircraft is dramatically falling in terms of man hours and the chance of finding and recovering at greater depth increasing.
These are very exciting times ahead for preservation – certainly the chances of seeing something like a Barracuda in the flesh again must be very real.
As for the legalities of wreck investigation – the people who we need to worry about are those who don’t abide by the rules and seldom post their intentions on internet forums -luckily there are very few of them. If preservation in the U.K can imbrace the new technologies in diving and actually preserve as well as our Canadian and European counterparts we should be able to fill quite a few gaps in our aviation heritage.

I have a friend of mine who is now working with the North East Aircraft Museum and has set up a diving team with them. Their mission is to seek out and the mission of the museum is to get the things out with the help of the divers. This is purely a volunteer operation and will probably a “tented” operation and done on the finest shoestring possible but at least it’s started. There is even talk about setting up a charitable trust for classic aircraft recovery so they have a forum for fund raising from corporates anywhere so lets see how it goes and lets see how it blooms.

Ali

I quite agree David, especially about our ability to preserve. I would still like to see Hendon’s Halifax restored properlly as was originally planned when it was recovered. The Loch Ness Wellingon proves what can be achieved.

Therefore I hope that Ali does find a Barracuda/Whitley/Skua/Stirling or anything else that is missing and that we will one day see it in all its glory.

Lets encourage and help her in her labours.

Steve.

Thanks for the words of encouragement Steve. I have just started up another thread about a Spitfire that went into a lake which I feel is still there but I would like people to check if there is something that I have missed.

Ali

Cool it please.

Moggy
Moderator

OK

As I said in my reply to Ross

SOAPBOX MODE=OFF

Ali

🙂

Ok poor choice of word exchange “legal” for “better”.

Nothing in the posts were intended to suggest that you were doing anything illegal all I was trying to do was show you a group of aircraft wrecks that were more accessable for recovery than the group that you were currently targeting.

This is based on my experience as a diver, author and researcher.

As a diver I have stated why licences have been refused to me for aircraft wrecks in the past.

As an author and researcher I responded to your request for information on the PRU Spitfire, detailed the other known aircraft losses into Loch Ness and gave chapter and verse to clarify the position of the Defiant.

Ross

OK

SOAPBOX MODE=OFF

Ali 🙂

I looked into the Defiant rumour a year ago and found nothing at all to substantiate it. I even contacted the supposed original source of the rumour and he denied ever even seeing the alleged side scan image….

Happy to be proved wrong – does anyone have a copy of it?

Also, Defiants contain magnesium ++++, so just something to bear in mind when pulling one up from the depths. Might need a sieve to get everything.

:p

Elliot,

There is this article that I found.

http://www.divernet.com/wrecks/0402qanda.htm#top

Ali

I looked into the Defiant rumour a year ago and found nothing at all to substantiate it. I even contacted the supposed original source of the rumour and he denied ever even seeing the alleged side scan image….

Happy to be proved wrong – does anyone have a copy of it?

Also, Defiants contain magnesium ++++, so just something to bear in mind when pulling one up from the depths. Might need a sieve to get everything.

:p

I quite agree David, especially about our ability to preserve. I would still like to see Hendon’s Halifax restored properlly as was originally planned when it was recovered. The Loch Ness Wellingon proves what can be achieved.

Therefore I hope that Ali does find a Barracuda/Whitley/Skua/Stirling or anything else that is missing and that we will one day see it in all its glory.

Lets encourage and help her in her labours.

Steve.

Ok poor choice of word exchange “legal” for “better”.

Nothing in the posts were intended to suggest that you were doing anything illegal all I was trying to do was show you a group of aircraft wrecks that were more accessable for recovery than the group that you were currently targeting.

This is based on my experience as a diver, author and researcher.

As a diver I have stated why licences have been refused to me for aircraft wrecks in the past.

As an author and researcher I responded to your request for information on the PRU Spitfire, detailed the other known aircraft losses into Loch Ness and gave chapter and verse to clarify the position of the Defiant.

Ross

I think the large chasm which might be perceived to exist is possibly looking at the information you have posted because the ability to preserve in the U.K is increasingly lagging behind the ability to find aircraft. Without knowing the ‘ins and outs’ of various bits of kit it seems to me that cost of locating aircraft is dramatically falling in terms of man hours and the chance of finding and recovering at greater depth increasing.
These are very exciting times ahead for preservation – certainly the chances of seeing something like a Barracuda in the flesh again must be very real.
As for the legalities of wreck investigation – the people who we need to worry about are those who don’t abide by the rules and seldom post their intentions on internet forums -luckily there are very few of them. If preservation in the U.K can imbrace the new technologies in diving and actually preserve as well as our Canadian and European counterparts we should be able to fill quite a few gaps in our aviation heritage.

^ Someone needs to grow a skin.

It’s fairly clear to me Ross was speaking in general terms, and you’re the one who first mentioned “war grave.”

It’s not a case of not being thick skinned at all and my response wasn’t about the term war grave it was the use of the expression “more legal” which seems to me to imply that what I am doing is illegal which is what I was responding about. Before I started posting here I read most of the forums and have seen a small argument turn into a big bun fight where people just jump in. If someone want’s to attack they seem to think that a web forum is the best place rather than face to face so my attitude is don’t let it start. I have spent many years working for the NHS in A&E departments so how thick skinned do you think I am?

The point I am trying to make is that I am a keep believer in doing it by the book and if someone made that kind of statement to me face to face they would get the same response.

I came on here to share information as there seems to be a very large chasm between the diving community and the aviation enthusiasts and I felt that it should be bridged. Just because an aviation enthusiast is surrounded by aviation books and law books doesn’t mean that they know it all. I have a study that is full of aviation, diving and law books and I don’t know it all either but I don’t go around implying that someone is doing something illegal.

Ali

^ Someone needs to grow a skin.

It’s fairly clear to me Ross was speaking in general terms, and you’re the one who first mentioned “war grave.”

Cool it please.

Moggy
Moderator

And another thing, does picking up the magnetic signature of a ferrous metal object constitute disturbing the wreck? Does picking up a sonar return from a tow fish (which I might add is sound) constitute disturbing the wreck? If firing sound from a tow fish at the bottom and the sound from the tow fish is disturbing the wreck (in your opinion) have you cross posted this onto trucker forums who may be driving past the wreck and their truck vibrations disturb it? Have you mentioned this to pilots who may over fly the wreck site and the sound of their aircraft reach the wreck and disturb it? Have you spoken to boat owners, who have engines that emit more sound than my sonar, and warned them that their route is illegal because the prop noise is disturbing an aircraft wreck and therefore illegal? Is there any symbol on maritime charts that warn mariners to switch off their echo sounders as there is an aircraft wreck in the vicinity?

Please don’t use the expression “more legal use” unless you know what you are talking about. Please don’t suggest on a public forum that I am breaking the law because I don’t go around breaking the law. I have never said that I was going to disturb an aircraft wreck site and if you have any evidence contrary to that please produce it. My posts have always stated lets search for the locations to see if they are still there and I have always said that I would be armed with my video camera. I have spoken to Sue Raftree at RAF HQ PTC on many occasions about the possibility of recovering aircraft from freshwater and the procedures that are followed and I can’t remember talking to you. Perhaps you could give me your extention number there as you may have information pertinent to any project that Sue doesn’t.

I would like to make this quite clear to you I DON’T BREAK THE LAW and as far as I can see accusing someone or even implying that they are when they are not IS against the law. “See Defamation Act 1997”

Ali 😡 😡 😡 😡 😡

Murky waters here.

For aircraft there is no legal term “War Grave” it is common usage for either a Protected Place or Controlled Place under the Protection of Military Remains Act.

All aircraft remains under military service within British Inland or Coastal Waters automatically come under the act regardless of whether or not they contain human remains. It is an offence under the Act to disturb, remove or enter unless in the possession of a Licence issued by the relevant authority, in this case the MoD.

The Act further applies this offence to International waters to deeds carried out by British Citizens.

The only defence for disturbance allowed by the act is accidental discovery.

So if you wish to keep the MoD Plods from the door its a case of only “look and film” aircraft wrecks. Licences are rare since they are usually refused on either human remains or presence of ordinance and since this aircraft was on gunnery training….

A far more legal target for you Magnetometer/Tow Fish/Bottom Profiler is the scuttled lend lease gear in Largs Bay or off Burgh Island since scuttling removes the right to ownership by the UK/US.

Regards
Ross

Hmmm. If you check all the posts that I have posted you will find that on some of them I have mentioned the Protection of Military remains act so I am fully aware of the act. I have also worked with members of a museum who have also recovered remains of aircraft. I have the booklet distributed by the RAF that details the procedure of how to apply for a licence too.

It isn’t illegal to use a Mag or sonar tow fish to search a body of water as a search is always going to be for “anything of interest” and if that target of interest is an aircraft then it’s still not illegal. I have never said I was going to disturb any wreckage and I have always said I would video.

Are you saying that I am breaking the law by using a Mag to search a body of water?

Ali

Murky waters here.

For aircraft there is no legal term “War Grave” it is common usage for either a Protected Place or Controlled Place under the Protection of Military Remains Act.

All aircraft remains under military service within British Inland or Coastal Waters automatically come under the act regardless of whether or not they contain human remains. It is an offence under the Act to disturb, remove or enter unless in the possession of a Licence issued by the relevant authority, in this case the MoD.

The Act further applies this offence to International waters to deeds carried out by British Citizens.

The only defence for disturbance allowed by the act is accidental discovery.

So if you wish to keep the MoD Plods from the door its a case of only “look and film” aircraft wrecks. Licences are rare since they are usually refused on either human remains or presence of ordinance and since this aircraft was on gunnery training….

A far more legal target for you Magnetometer/Tow Fish/Bottom Profiler is the scuttled lend lease gear in Largs Bay or off Burgh Island since scuttling removes the right to ownership by the UK/US.

Regards
Ross

Just checked on the CWGC which says

6 LANGLEY, ERIC AMBROSE Leading Aircraftman 1055142 04/05/1942 20 Royal Air Force Volunteer Reserve United Kingdom Row V. Grave 51. ALFORD CEMETERY, LINCS.

So it’s not a war grave.

Ali