UN Arms Treaty & Historic Weapons (inc. aircraft)

Of course.
But remember the often-present “unintended consequences” of well-meaning laws, rules and regulations.
Bureaucracy doesn’t leave much room for “common sense”…rules are rules whether they make sense in particular applications or not.

There are plenty of examples out there, many/most of which aren’t favorable to warbirds and old aircraft.

I agree – By a common sense approach I meant that the bureaucrats need to realise that there are many occassions when shipping “weapons” between countries (particularly older “weapons”) doesn’t mean that they are moving to be sold for war-like purposes and this should be taken into account when the legislation is written but, of course, that is unlikelty to happen and will, almost inevitably, lead to problems for museums and private owners of historic “weapons”.

The story of some of the “Biafra” airframes is covered in the book “Shadows” but I don’t doubt there are many other stories which, unfortunately, can’t be told in a public place.

And wasn’t there the British registered Strikemasters that ended up blown up by the French in a hangar in The Ivory Coast

http://www.flickr.com/photos/rinkratz/4390201999/

I’m unable to elaborate on ‘Biafra Warbird Era’ airframes on a public forum, but IRRC some of the issues that arose from that set of events resulted in a phase where MOD airframe had their spars cut etc.

Having been involved in importing a Safir on negligible paperwork; a Draken on a carnet; a Viggen on an EU movement paper and End-User certificate; plus being on the edge of the American Marshall Plan airframes VAT situation – I’m very wary of regulations such as this. As stated above anything that is badly drafted can have many hitherto unforeseen consequences! 🙁

…but there needs to be a common sense approach when it comes to historic aircraft vehicles, ships and other weapons.

Of course.
But remember the often-present “unintended consequences” of well-meaning laws, rules and regulations.
Bureaucracy doesn’t leave much room for “common sense”…rules are rules whether they make sense in particular applications or not.

There are plenty of examples out there, many/most of which aren’t favorable to warbirds and old aircraft.

Some of the “Biafra warbirds” were allowed to leave the UK on temporary export permits which meant they should have been back here within 30 days. Not surprisingly some didn’t return although ultimately many didn’t actually make it all the way to Biafra either due to other problems en route.
The above highlights how difficult it would be to police temporary licences. Quite apart from the policing difficulties there would be reams of paperwork involved and the processing cost would almost certainly be passed on to the person applying for the temporary export licence.
There is also the question of what qualifies as a military weapon. Will a WW2 warbird flying to a show in Europe, a WW2 tank returning to France for a commemoration event or an old Motor Torpedo Boat returning to Dunkirk for the anniversary be classed as a military weapon. If so there will either be huge amounts of paperwork to process and owners will need bottomless pockets to pay licence fees or no one will move anything outside of their own country.
It is understandable that governments want to monitor the movement of weapons but there needs to be a common sense approach when it comes to historic aircraft vehicles, ships and other weapons.

I would think that the transfer of a single example would be acceptable to most ‘clear thinking’ people. Perhaps not to an official with paperwork to shuffle though. It’s the airworthy airframes that would muddy the waters. May be a government licence like with other armaments would be an answer?
mmitch.

Surprised by the lack of response on this one, but that’s life! :confused:

As someone who had to deal with a few minor issues created during the ‘Biafra Warbird Era’ I can also see how it could potentially become an issue again.

Fingers crossed that the MA are successful in getting an exemption clause added to the Treaty!

You can understand the reasoning though, sorry, these do not breach the arms embargo, these are 60 Hind Gunships for delivery to the National Syrian Airforce Museum. Etc etc etc…..

Though it does need some sort of sensible clause in there.