Wreckology.

I have visited 341 sites, the majority on high ground which since the enactment of CROW Act 2000 (some bits of which I have a serious disagreement with but that’s not got anything to do with aircraft, more things with a green oval that come from Solihul, I own one!) increasingly fall within access land (though the 57 in Scotland fall under differnt access laws) and have only twice encountered a landowner at a site on private (non-access) land that has said no.

Yes there are sites that people may be inclined to technically tresspass to get to, pre-CROW Act the Forest of Bowland (~200 Sq Miles of heather moor? some 8-9 findable sites) was out of bounds because of a certain land owning Duke but that never seemed to stop anyone, mainly due the sites being on heather moorland.

As for the web sites that clearly show trespass, post the links to the particular pages here, I am sure for the purpose of the exercise the webmasters will not delete them.

Of the digs I have been involved in (all low ground) no pressure was put on landowners, even in a case where we were fairly sure the landowner had breached the PMRA 1986 himself and we could have told him that, we said we respect your views and hope to be able to return in the future if circumstances change.

I have to re-iterate what JC said, BAAC and its member groups are not calling for a relaxation of the law, the law has been applied the same since it was introduced, what has cahnged are the supplimentary regulations written by unaccountable civil servants. It is these that there are calls to tone down or in some cases get rid of. They wouldn’t be a problem for a commerical set up with paid lawyers but individuals carrying out research, locating sites (don’t for a minute under estimate the amount of time that can take) and where appropriate carrying out recoveries the regulations get in the way of forward progress. If interpretted literally the very act of stepping up on a site is illegal.

(2) A person contravenes this subsection in relation to any remains—
(a) if he tampers with, damages, moves, removes or unearths the
remains;
(b) if he enters any hatch or other opening in any of the remains which
enclose any part of the interior of an aircraft or vessel; or
(c) if he causes or permits any other person to do anything falling within
paragraph (a) or (b) above.

The two highlighted bits are of interest, tampers with can be taken to simply picking a piece up to look at it, for instance you see a part number and want to confim what it is off, moves is a very broad term, a person (average is what 150lb) walking on uneven / unconsolidated ground typical of a site where an aircraft has burned causes that ground to move leaving foot prints, that will move very small pieces. Also in picking up an item to look at it you have moved it. Oh dear three breaches.

No offence taken over you calling it aviation digging, it isn’t archaeology, though to form a group you need a reasonable title. Bunch of blokes on a rainy saturday in a field doesn’t quite as good.

Hi JC and Fighterace,

Thanks for your replies,which IMO are the most sensible so far. Perhaps I do tend to think of all involved in wreckology as being the same,but you are right that there is good and bad with everything,wreckology being no exception.

I am not “out to get” at anyone who shows respect and acts within the law,obtaining landowners and MOD permission etc,but there are those who are rather vocal in their calls for the law to be relaxed and who put pressure on landowners to allow recoveries to take place,why??.

There are some websites which show people on sites on private land where the landowner did not grant permission for those concerned to go to the sites,simply because they did not ask,so perhaps you can understand why I see such websites and feel that this must be usual behaviour for wreckologists.

Garry.

Well Garry if anyone puts information and photo’s regarding themselves and their activities in the public domain they are very silly to draw attention to their activities particularly if it shows them breaking the law,

I do know the MOD monitor websites on avaition digging, sorry I dont pretend to call it archaeology, and long may they do so if it catches the bad apples !

I personally would be very wary of trespassing on farmland, as having lived on a farm, I know farmers tend to have a ready supply of 12 bore shotguns and dogs and worst of all, large muscular daughters, I am not usually fond of any of those combinations !

I am not aware of calls to relax the law, can you advise where this is coming from ?

Hi JC and Fighterace,

Thanks for your replies,which IMO are the most sensible so far. Perhaps I do tend to think of all involved in wreckology as being the same,but you are right that there is good and bad with everything,wreckology being no exception.

I am not “out to get” at anyone who shows respect and acts within the law,obtaining landowners and MOD permission etc,but there are those who are rather vocal in their calls for the law to be relaxed and who put pressure on landowners to allow recoveries to take place,why??.

There are some websites which show people on sites on private land where the landowner did not grant permission for those concerned to go to the sites,simply because they did not ask,so perhaps you can understand why I see such websites and feel that this must be usual behaviour for wreckologists.

Garry.

Interesting to see that we are all tared with the same bush atleast, I think this is a fruitless debate that i personally dont think you will ever faviour our side

The case of ownership has never been tested after some 60 years on somelses land and the acts states its an affence to tamper with the remains, we all are happly to comply with the new policlys,reports ect as normally they grant permission unless there is a possibility of the unwanted which is then placed on the local SMR

There seems to be a painting in general of all people interested in this field as trespassers and looters, from what I read in the last post.

I have visited sites and the landowner has said no and thats fine I have walked away and respect their wishes, I havent been back looting or pillaging to sell for profit.

There is good and bad in everything eg Motor Racing (ie the thieves who steal good classics for banger racing) does that make all motorsport bad ?

There are sadly good and bad in the aviation field but it is I am sure the minority we are talking about, and as far as the law goes if you break it you must be prepared to take the consequences as some have found to their cost ! particularly from the quiet army of undercover self appointed investigators that exist, which is fine as I for one have nothing to hide !

Sadly we don’t live in a perfect world and remember the pictures from WW2 with young lads clutching pieces of downed 109’s etc it’s something that always fires peoples imaginations and taking souveneirs is nothing new either,

Its fine to raise these points as I think people should be aware of some of the malpractices that can go on, but please believe me when I say we do not all sing from the same hymn sheet so to speak !!

Gary, so are you trying to have ago at people? maybe I did not read the other posts or forgot about them.
I would like to offer you a visit to our museum one day and see the dedication which has gone into bringing the memory of these Pilots and crew to the attention of the general public who often leave our museum with a tear in their eye and a realisation of what these people went through to fight for their country and that means whatever side they were on.

I am not in it for medals or for financial reasons, I started looking for these wrecks around 1970 and the museum has put me out of pocket to the sum of thousands (that is not a moan far from it)

Wreckology has had its bad points, the people with the personal gain to be had financial or otherwise but please do not paint all the people out of the same pot.

I must admit that some of the “diggers” and their private collections if you want to call them that have given it a bad name but again it is the “Few” who F it up for the “Many” dedicated aviation enthusiasts.

So please if you have a beef put it in plain English and I for one will be happy to answer and prove its not all cowboys in AA.

Hi Nick, glad to see your still banging the drum :rolleyes:

Hi Colin,

Thanks for the offer,it is one I would greatfully accept.

I am not trying to have a go at anyone,but I am having a go at the attitude of some who call themselves wreckologists,thus my question about what exactly defines a wreckologist.

If as you say there are a few who get wreckology a bad name,why do ALL wreckologists seem to think and act as one? the general view seems to be that ANY removal of wreckage from a site is a good thing,and how dare the MOD enforce a law which was passed to protect sites.Or am I missing something? If so I would be happy to hear your views,this is my point,I am asking these questions to see if there are other views towards wreckology.

Nick,I know several families and landowners who feel very strongly that the sites should be left alone,obviously different people have different views and feelings towards sites vary,but certainly here in North Wales most landowners seem to prefer that the wreckage which does remain should stay where it is,this could in part be due to the amount that went during the 70’s and 80’s,and perhaps also the attitude of some wreckologists,for instance I have a copy of a report dating from 1978 by a well known recovery group who went to a site in Snowdonia and they complain in the report about the farmers in the region using electric fences which were difficult to get through! the fact they were on private land without permission does not seem to have crossed their minds.

Garry.

Gary, so are you trying to have ago at people? maybe I did not read the other posts or forgot about them.
I would like to offer you a visit to our museum one day and see the dedication which has gone into bringing the memory of these Pilots and crew to the attention of the general public who often leave our museum with a tear in their eye and a realisation of what these people went through to fight for their country and that means whatever side they were on.

I am not in it for medals or for financial reasons, I started looking for these wrecks around 1970 and the museum has put me out of pocket to the sum of thousands (that is not a moan far from it)

Wreckology has had its bad points, the people with the personal gain to be had financial or otherwise but please do not paint all the people out of the same pot.

I must admit that some of the “diggers” and their private collections if you want to call them that have given it a bad name but again it is the “Few” who F it up for the “Many” dedicated aviation enthusiasts.

So please if you have a beef put it in plain English and I for one will be happy to answer and prove its not all cowboys in AA.

Hi Nick, glad to see your still banging the drum :rolleyes:

The hobby can turn into an unpaid job, cetainly if you are the person who is dealing with the permit applications, talk about jumping through hoops.

The only high ground sites that seem to suffer are the better known ones so really they are best left, though certain larger items of interest can be recovered from such sites.

I know you (scotavia) have posted about this before but a large scale clean up would be a nightmare to organise. Your idea of sell the scrap as either that or souveniers is not really the best way to go about preserving high ground sites. Targetted recoveries are the only way to deal with high ground.

And my view is well known, recover all the parts when an assured home has been found for them.Otherwise they will gradually be picked clean by souvenir hunters and scrap dealers. Piecemeal recovery is pointless.

Sell the unusable fragments with full history to raise funding for further recoveries.And also for a memorial.

Hello Garry – I’m afraid I really do not see why you started this thread – as you rightly say you have made your views known before and your initial post seems to merely have been intended to tempt enthusiasts into joining a debate, so that you could then reiterate your opinions once again?

There are those of us who behave responcibly and believe what we are doing IS preserving and recording the history of which you speak, as well as perpetuating the memory of those who lost their lives – private ownership of recovered material obviously seems to be an issue to you, but I fail to see how this could be overcome as the MOD themselves insist that ownership is passed to a named individual – the licensee. I do agree that the selling of recovered material for profit raises many issues and personally disagree with such activity for reasons that I have expressed before and feel no need to do so again – However I recognise there are those who have views other than mine and acknowledge their right to do as they see fit within the law.

Finally I was surprised by your comment re relatives etc wishing wreckage to be left where it fell, I have very rarely come across such views – vey much the opposite, in fact – in over 25 years of this hobby and talking to and meeting more relatives and landowners than I care to remember, only once did such a request come from a relative – actually it came indirectly as the relatives I spoke to actually wanted the aircraft excavated and wished to attend the dig – just could I wait until the pilots sister had passed away! – the circumstances of the crash were particulalrly tragic and they did not want to risk upsetting her by bringing back the memories, as she was very frail – I of course agreed to shelve the project.

Nick

Hobby? More like an unpaid job to some of us don’t you think. 🙂

Cheers

Cees

Well said Nick.

TT

Hello Garry – I’m afraid I really do not see why you started this thread – as you rightly say you have made your views known before and your initial post seems to merely have been intended to tempt enthusiasts into joining a debate, so that you could then reiterate your opinions once again?

There are those of us who behave responcibly and believe what we are doing IS preserving and recording the history of which you speak, as well as perpetuating the memory of those who lost their lives – private ownership of recovered material obviously seems to be an issue to you, but I fail to see how this could be overcome as the MOD themselves insist that ownership is passed to a named individual – the licensee. I do agree that the selling of recovered material for profit raises many issues and personally disagree with such activity for reasons that I have expressed before and feel no need to do so again – However I recognise there are those who have views other than mine and acknowledge their right to do as they see fit within the law.

Finally I was surprised by your comment re relatives etc wishing wreckage to be left where it fell, I have very rarely come across such views – vey much the opposite, in fact – in over 25 years of this hobby and talking to and meeting more relatives and landowners than I care to remember, only once did such a request come from a relative – actually it came indirectly as the relatives I spoke to actually wanted the aircraft excavated and wished to attend the dig – just could I wait until the pilots sister had passed away! – the circumstances of the crash were particulalrly tragic and they did not want to risk upsetting her by bringing back the memories, as she was very frail – I of course agreed to shelve the project.

Well, interesting point raised Gary
Firstly everything i recover is done above board and all the thing i have ever found were never visable to the eye as they was below ground level and often like new if deeply buried.

Some surface sights are interesting to visit but to be honist in badly decaying condition from the elements and would leave it upto the landowner if he wants wreckage accross his land. I would agree that its a bad show cutting off prop which i have seen ect from the high groung sites as they would be best left alone and origional

One point that we differ is that i disregard ourselves “hoarders” as most people display their finds, after all if it was not for us most of the sites would never have been found as all the witnesses are no longer around so i think we fall in to the preservation catorgory

they take a dim view on rubish on the hillside now by the seems of it as they removed a lot of wreckage off the hills up north recently if i remember by helecopter to keep it tidy. Least if it has gone lets hope its looked after rather that being scrapped

Not sure who you mean by “they” but you are correct,a dim view is taken of rubbish being left,however as wreckage which remains on the high ground sites in Snowdonia is recognised for it’s historical and emotional importance it’s hardly thought of as rubbish!. As I have said before Snowdonia National Park have never had a policy of removing wreckage,however some larger parts such as engines were removed from five sites after a wreckologist from a (now defunct) local group said he wanted them for a museum,in fact the majority of the parts were sold or scrapped.

This is my point with high ground sites,the parts which remain mark the site,anyone can go to see them(not forgetting to ask permission if on private land),and in all the years I have been involved with sites in Snowdonia I have yet to meet a landowner,member of the public or the family of someone who died in a crash who feels the parts should be removed.

I said in my first post that I might be persuaded to alter my views on wreckology,but if anything most of the replies have actually just confirmed my feelings that most wreckologists are basically collectors who are out to grab as much as they can,with no regard to the law,feelings of families,landowners or anyone else!. Such myths as there being a policy of clearing sites is used to defend their actions,after all if the national park want rid of the wreckage,then it’s ok to just take it,right?.

Another favourite excuse is “well it would just rot away if left,by taking it we are preserving history”,not so,the parts left on high ground sites still exist,a vast amount of the parts removed in the name of aviation archaeology don’t,or if they do no one can see them as no one knows where they are or who has them.

I am all for preserving our history,but it’s pointless if that means private individuals or groups just hording as much wreckage as they can.

Garry.

Yes that true enough, personally i have recovered some excellent finds deeply buried from complete hurricane control columns to almost undamaged merlins that would run again with a lot of money spent and to be fare they have granted ownership.

Thats needless to say they may ask oneday if i ever found something like a whirlwind, but would have to cross that bridge with a fight for some componsation as some digs cost 500 pounds for the digger alone for the day with the chance of finding nothing!!

As the the P-38 site you could ask the question why did they not tidy up,they take a dim view on rubish on the hillside now by the seems of it as they removed a lot of wreckage off the hills up north recently if i remember by helecopter to keep it tidy. Least if it has gone lets hope its looked after rather that being scrapped

I will leave the coat and the anorak question for the boys to battle out on the difference!

That’s about how it works with the finds return form. The problem bit with them is the clause that says they can have what ever they like with out compensation to the digger, that even include expences incurred recovering the item and transporting it to the MoDs desired location.

Though they have only tried it once and went home with tail between their legs when they were sent a rather large bill for the recovery costs since the item was know about for over 30 years and the MoD waited for someone else to go and recover it.

flying again

Well the answer to the question is yes a few aircraft have been restored to flying condition such as hurricane AE977. As a Digger myself i think the idea of a recovered list is a waste of time, half of the gear recovered will never be used in a flying aircraft apart from ods n ends and the rest just used to gain the identity,if you can afford to keep a flyier insured in the air alone you can afford to make the parts. question you should ask what persentage is original anyway to make it WW2 ?

Any how the new MOD recovery forms cover all parts recovered if filled in correctly so they have a list and have chance of the picking if they want, otherwise its handed to the us to look after and display rarther than rotting under the ground

Another thing is I doubt many people or groups will want what they own accessible by who knows who, in this day and age theft is a potential problem !

Hi Alan,

You raise some interesting points,indeed it would be a large undertaking to put together such a database,but IMO worthwhile. As to it being used as “a stick to beat people” surely if the parts were removed from a site with landowners and MOD permission there would not be a problem? and if the parts were removed without permission then,IMO, it is only right that action be taken if a crime has been comitted. I’m not sure we are talking about the same person in mid Wales as the chap I know seemed interested in just the one site. I’m in north Wales and I must admit I don’t like seeing wreckage being removed for no good reason,on some sites where wreckage remained up to twenty years ago there is now nothing,and little of it seems to have gone into museums. The Boston and Ventura are two sites I do know well and I’m not sure your info on parts going to Australia is correct,but I would be happy to be proved wrong!.

If a database did turn up parts that were needed by museums surely that would only be a good thing?

Garry.

There are many problems with a database of what is held by people up and own the country, below are just a handful.

1. Who has access to it. Certain people would use such a database as a stick to hit people with, for instance the person in mid wales you refered to Garry is keen on reporting people to the MoD when no crime was commited because parts were recovered pre-1986 or with a licence but he doesn’t seem to like bits leaving wales.

2. What goes on to any such database, if every last little item went on each individuals list would run in thousends of individual items. From the digs I have attended in the last few years we have rarely left with less than a trailer full.

3. Who maintains the database, BAAC are trying to get a general list of what sites people have done work on and the major parts recovered but I know there is trouble in getting even that much together into a single list.

4. What incentive is there to add to a list which may become a giant parts catalogue for museums etc to potentially cherry pick from.

I know that many arts from both the Boston and Ventura on Carnedd Dafydd went to a project in Australia IIRC, as for a historic wreck being recovered in this country and returned to flight I can’t think of any at the moment. Mainly because of the broken nature of most remains.