Struck off charge; Before, during or after scrapping?

So, what is the situation regarding wrecks of allied aircraft?
If it is a USAAF machine that crashed in Britain will your MoD claim ownership? Or do you have to apply to the US Embassy? Or do the Yanks not give a damn?
And how about the exiled air forces? The Polish, Dutch and Norwegian governments actually paid for the equipment of their exiled air forces (I’m not sure about the Czechs and Free French). So if you recover the wreckage of a 303 Sqn Hurricane you should apply to the Polish MoD, not the UK one, I presume?

All military aircraft crash sites in the United Kingdom (UK), its territorial waters, or British aircraft in international waters, are controlled sites under the Protection of Military Remains Act 1986. It is an offence under this act to tamper with, damage, move or unearth any items at such sites, unless the Ministry of Defence has issued a licence authorizing such activity. As such, anyone wishing to recover a military aircraft, or excavate a military aircraft crash site in the UK is required to obtain a licence

So, what is the situation regarding wrecks of allied aircraft?
If it is a USAAF machine that crashed in Britain will your MoD claim ownership? Or do you have to apply to the US Embassy? Or do the Yanks not give a damn?
And how about the exiled air forces? The Polish, Dutch and Norwegian governments actually paid for the equipment of their exiled air forces (I’m not sure about the Czechs and Free French). So if you recover the wreckage of a 303 Sqn Hurricane you should apply to the Polish MoD, not the UK one, I presume?

Thanks. Have replied Andy!

All interesting stuff….but I will come back on the last two posts, if I may, when I get the chance to.

Meanwhile, Wyvernfan check your e-mails old chap!

S.O.C

As with all Service equipment someone will have an aircraft on inventory and be accountable for where that equipment is.
In my days I have held the inventory for a Vulcan which ‘went missing’ at Waddington in the 1970’s. Operations thought it was on the Unit till I pointed out it had flown off to an MU for modifications
When an item is S.O.C. it, no matter what it is, becomes no longer an inventory item. That does not mean the Service has relinquished any rights of ownership. Only when it is offered for disposal and purchased by a third party does it become someone else’s property.
Most crashed aircraft are SOC the day after the crash or the day they are declaired unrepairable (CAT5)
Rights to the wreckage on crash sites remains with the MoD in perpetuity; however rights to access that wreckage can lie with the landowner. If the wreck includes unrecovered human remains from wartime that site is classed as a war-grave with all the protection against disturbance that it rightly deserves.

[QUOTE=Seems a bit of a mine field if you ask me[/QUOTE]
Clearing a mine field may need a licence!:D

Not so, Gareth.

The PMR Act is not based upon ownership at all. It is entirely silent on the issue of ownership! It merely places an obligation on those wishing to investigate/recover wrecks to obtain a licence to do so. You need a licence because the law says that you must have one. It does not say you must have one because the MOD own the wrecks. The matter of “ownership” only becomes an issue post excavation when the MOD “gift” (or not) the recovered artefacts to the licence holder, and although the note of guidance states that the MOD own these wrecks the ownership status is not mentioned within the legislation.

Sorry Wyvernfan. I honestly didn’t intend a hi-jack and I appreciate this is drifting away from your original point – although in mitigation it is still linked to SOC.

Yes i agree, however it states that It is an offence under this act to tamper with, damage, move or unearth any items at such sites, unless the Ministry of Defence has issued a licence. In essence what you are saying if they dont own it they are issuing a licence to tamper with somthing that does not belong to them:rolleyes:

Surely its based on the assumption that they claim ownership even if in reality they might not, however i can see the need for licencing and restrictions of certain sites, but in essence by applying for the licence you agree with the PMA 1986 so therefore ownership is transfered from yourselves/landowner via a signiture to the MOD. It would appear they have covered all angles with regards to a licenced recovery, ownership of an un-licenced dig pre 1986 might be a diffrent matter

Seems a bit of a mine field if you ask me

There might be some confusion here, and I can’t get my head around the crash excavation issue, but SoC dosen’t mean the aircraft is sold or passed on to civilian/contractors hands from the military. There are also various disposal treaties and papers involved, SoC just means the aircraft is struck off official charge or ‘off the books’, which has to happen before scrapping, donation, or selling etc.

No apology needed, as its an interesting subject that i may need to refer to at some point in the future.

Having said that i wonder just how many individuals have invested their own money into excavating a crash site, only to lose their haul of parts to a recipient of the MOD’s choice?

Not so, Gareth.

The PMR Act is not based upon ownership at all. It is entirely silent on the issue of ownership! It merely places an obligation on those wishing to investigate/recover wrecks to obtain a licence to do so. You need a licence because the law says that you must have one. It does not say you must have one because the MOD own the wrecks. The matter of “ownership” only becomes an issue post excavation when the MOD “gift” (or not) the recovered artefacts to the licence holder, and although the note of guidance states that the MOD own these wrecks the ownership status is not mentioned within the legislation.

Sorry Wyvernfan. I honestly didn’t intend a hi-jack and I appreciate this is drifting away from your original point – although in mitigation it is still linked to SOC.

Intersting, the PMA is based upon ownership and if they dont own the wreck why do we need a licence to recover with something that does not belong to them?

Possibly so!

Unfortunately, each time since the 1970s that the MOD have been asked to clarify this a different answer is provided.

Once (and I need to find the exact quote) HM Treasury Solicitor implied that after it had been lost and abandoned it had no ownership or title in law, and that position only changed once it fell into the hands of whoever found it and had it in their possession – but with the proviso that it didn’t mean that party owned it!

By the way….sure I owe you a reply to an e-mail but cannot find it.

Can you re e-mail me via the link at bottom of my posts?

Are you sure it’s “‘struck off the books’ for accounting purposes” and not “struck of the list of usable military equipment so that we can ask the ministry to supply another one like this”?

True. But my point is in incosistency….if that makes sense?

The act of striking off charge, surely, has some impact upon ownership?

SOC = ‘struck off the books’ for accounting purposes, does it not? Ergo; no longer owned by the MOD.

The only difference between SOC and scrapped airframes as opposed to those that have crashed and then been SOC is that the latter have not been sold. Just removed from the books and abandoned.

Is there a difference in law, I wonder?

in the case of crashed aircraft (at home or overseas) that have been struck off charge, either at the time or retrospectively, then surely no ownership rests with the MOD or Crown?
…
other airframes that have been SOC and then sold for scrap

Andy, I feel there is some incosistency in your argument.
I those other airframes have been SOC first, and then sold, that probably means that the act of “SOC” does not affect ownership, does it? If it does, they wouldn’t be able to sell them after they SOC them?

Sorry…unintentional thread drift but it is a question very much tied to SOC issues.

As to the second part of your post, there is a view that the Crown cannot “abandon” materiel, apparently. That said, I’d have thought it was a different matter if the Crown had struck something off charge and then abandoned it, wherever that abandonment may be. Surely, that it is a clear indication of intent that the Crown no longer owns it, no longer wishes to own it and has no further interest in it.

James – Yes, but more to do with future reference and dates on photos.

Tangmere – Slight thread drift i know and you would certainly know more on this subject than me, but if say a wreck is still in situ in the ground and the MOD / Crown have made no attempt to recover it, within say five years of the incident, then surely ownership passes onto the landowner.. even when struck off charge. Likewise if parts or wreckage are excavated / retrieved with the appropriate permission and licence and no claim is made on them as part of the granting of said licence then surely they wouldn’t have a leg to stand on as regards re-claiming them post recovery!

Or is that just a naive view?

I think I am right in saying that a Spitfire was exchanged for a Hampden wreck a few years ago – the Spitfire (presumably) being on RAF charge since I think this pre-dated the transfer of title of RAFM airframes from the MOD to RAFM. This being the case it begs the question; if they owned the Hampden anyway (SOC or not), then why exchange it for a Spitfire?? I am sure they would argue that it was to reflect the salvage and transportation costs etc etc. But……!

Would they, I wonder, enter into such a generous exchange with any UK based individual who recovered a wreck here, or overseas, and which they decided the MOD/RAFM might want? Or would they just say: “Thats ours, thank you very much!”

I think I know the answer. But I may be wrong.

Discuss……:eek:

An intersting legal argument, though, which I have been trying to get resolved for some time. The MOD seem unwilling to want to properly address this.

I am talking about lost/wrecked aircraft, here.

Notwithstanding the provisions of the PMR Act (which is ENTIRELY silent as to the matter of “ownership”) my question is this; in the case of crashed aircraft (at home or overseas) that have been struck off charge, either at the time or retrospectively, then surely no ownership rests with the MOD or Crown? Not so, say the MOD. The wreckages still belong to the MOD, they say, even in the case of aircraft that are recorded as SOC.

This must beg the question; what about other airframes that have been SOC and then sold for scrap or otherwise disposed of? If the MOD claim they still own wartime wrecks that have been SOC, then what is the difference? Or are the MOD just conveniently re-claiming “ownership” because it suits their control over such matters?

Lobs in grenade. Dons tin helmet. Ducks. Leaves…..

MOD’s using its moveable goal-posts no doubt!!! 😀

An intersting legal argument, though, which I have been trying to get resolved for some time. The MOD seem unwilling to want to properly address this.

I am talking about lost/wrecked aircraft, here.

Notwithstanding the provisions of the PMR Act (which is ENTIRELY silent as to the matter of “ownership”) my question is this; in the case of crashed aircraft (at home or overseas) that have been struck off charge, either at the time or retrospectively, then surely no ownership rests with the MOD or Crown? Not so, say the MOD. The wreckages still belong to the MOD, they say, even in the case of aircraft that are recorded as SOC.

This must beg the question; what about other airframes that have been SOC and then sold for scrap or otherwise disposed of? If the MOD claim they still own wartime wrecks that have been SOC, then what is the difference? Or are the MOD just conveniently re-claiming “ownership” because it suits their control over such matters?

Lobs in grenade. Dons tin helmet. Ducks. Leaves…..