Ross_McNeillAs I said exception by specific Licence which specifies limits – without Licence the following applies to duty holders.
“There are two levels of protection offered by this Act, designation as a protected place or as a controlled site.
Protected places
The designation of protected places includes the remains of any aircraft which crashed while in military service or any vessel which sank or stranded in military service after 4 August 1914.
Although crashed military aircraft receive automatic status as a protected place, vessels need to be specifically designated by name. The location of the wreck does not need to be known for it to be designated as a protected place.
You are allowed to dive on an aircraft or vessel designated as a protected place, on a ‘look but do not touch’ basis only, however it is an offence to:
conduct unlicensed diving or salvage operations
tamper with, damage, remove or unearth any remains
enter any hatch or other opening
Controlled sites
Controlled sites are specifically designated areas which cover the remains of a military aircraft or a vessel sunk or stranded in military service within the last 200 years.
Within a controlled site, diving operations are prohibited unless you are authorised by a specific licence. It is also an offence to:
conduct diving, salvage or excavation operations for the purposes of investigating or recording the remains
tamper with, damage, move or unearth any remains
enter any hatch or opening
You can obtain further information on this Act and its administration by contacting the MOD.”
https://www.gov.uk/guidance/wreck-and-salvage-law
Ross
Ross_McNeillWould UK policy prohibit a bona fide museum from removing objects from the wreck that would have little likelihood of disturbing human remains…such ad the aforementioned glider towing yoke?
Yes – If museum was UK owned/based or UK national tasked with work. Exception is Licence Issue – but not given for explorative action to identify wreck. Any other nationality would need agreement of UK Gov – which would deffer to UK policy from Protection of Military Remains Act and International Maritime Law.
Also, what is the likelihood of the wreck still harboring human remains?
Policy is to assume that all wrecks contain human remains unless identity is confirmed beyond all reason and all crew (plus possible stowaways/additional crew) accounted for.
Before the debate starts of “all remains will have decayed” look at the fabric of the snorkel parka on the B-24 wreck in the Channel on this link.
http://www.wessexarch.co.uk/projects/marine/alsf/wrecks_seabed/round2rov/wa1001/b-24_wa1001_art
Edit – Put WA 1001 into the search box then go to the artefact tab
The “war grave” status doesn’t seem to be universal…witness the Swedish C-47 on display that was shot down by Russian fighters in the Cold War.
Also, have any Spitfires been resurrected (via “data plate” rebuilds) from fatal wartime crashes?
See my comments about “War Grave” not having any status in Law and beware of including UK recoveries taken place before the Act.
So far I see the original exploration company carring out explorative/identification and reporting in accordance with their duty to law and with respect. A far cry from the ill informed opinion of some who have not take the time to research what the duty to law for the site is afforded.
Ross
Ross_McNeillNo – because the phrase “War Grave” has no meaning in UK or International Law – just common usage.
It is a place covered by UK law for UK nationals regardless of location and by that Act considered to have human remains unless Licence Issued.
Under International and local law it is owned by UK and no rights have been relinquished so it is a place subject to UK interest.
Why do you feel it should need to go RAF Museum regardless of status?
Ross
Ross_McNeillIt was a fairly wide ranging survey under the supervision of Wessex Arch.
Most of the flying boats remains found were off Oban – losses on take/off/landing and at mooring.
The most interesting find in terms of rarity was L7523 – Saro Lerwick.
Link to the 2015 project report
http://www.wessexarch.co.uk/system/files/SAMPHIRE%20Annual%20Report%202015%20small.pdf
Ross
Ross_McNeillThe Gazette entry is single line on award – no citation as common for most DFC wartime awards.
https://www.thegazette.co.uk/London/issue/35486/supplement/1164/data.pdf
However the No.211 Sqn site – possibly the on-line archive you mention in post 1 has the citation
http://www.211squadron.org/gallantry_awards.html
Ross
Ross_McNeillHi Andy,
A proposed aggregate dredging operation has kick started a more detailed survey on the Goodwins (GAD8).
Details are “commercial in confidence” so little detail is released but a presence in the public gallery of the Inquest may give more that you can print.
Ross
Ross_McNeillThis is the company.
http://www.datasave.ltd.uk/document_scanning
I sent them a sample reel and they did a few frames at various resolution and grayscale/colour/bw so I could select what Iwanted for tiff image storage size before setting up the high speed scan.
Found them easy to talk to and helpful for getting the final product that suited my needs.
Ross
Ross_McNeillThe microfilm is 16mm and the copies are like for like so unless your scanner has a frame adapter it will not fit easily.
Length varies but for the Form 1180 series each reel contains 1000 to 1300 images.
Processing time to scan and save each image depends on your software.
After trying various work flows I decided that the best way forward with the number of reels I wanted to do was to use a professional scanning service.
They turned round batches of 10 or so reels in 14 days scanning as grayscale 300 dpi for approx £10-15 a reel on that batch volume.
One thing to note is that the card image is about 1/5th the frame so I carry out post processing after scan is done by the external company but the 300dpi gives excellent resolution for view and magnification once cropped.
Here are some examples of the batch scanned 300dpi, manually cropped, web hosted and displayed
http://www.rafaircraftaccidents.com/?q=node/4
Others can be found under the example F1180, F1183 etc tabs
Ross
Ross_McNeillBy way of a fuller example of the RAF use this is the Ops board for No.75 Sqn on a night 16/17 June 1941
https://75nzsquadron.files.wordpress.com/2014/11/ops-board-stretched.jpg
First column is labeled Serial No and shows the MSI three alpha followed by the three digit for each aircraft. Also shown is the 4 numeric of the aircraft serial under Aircraft No.
Ross
Ross_McNeillGot to be careful of Ops board photos – they mostly use MSI as opposed to Aircraft Serial.
The full RAF Movements Section MSI (Movements Serial Indicator) typically used three alpha followed by three numeric so that it would not be confused with aircraft serial. The transatlantic format was typically two alpha followed by three numeric and only occasionally the aircraft serial.
I answered a post a few years ago on RAF Commands with a description of the RAF MSI usage
“The KBLXXX is the MSI or movement serial indicator and it’s just an accident that the BL part has been used for a Blenheim.
In general the MSI for aircraft on ops on the same day and with take off times within a few minutes had the same alpha part of the MSI but sequential numeric parts.
The senario is that the aerdrome Watch Office staff plan the take off and route (or in the later part of the war are instructed by Group on take off and route).
They then assign aircraft and crews, telephone Flying Control at Fighter Command and request a MSI for x aircraft with take off time y and route z.
Flying Control then use the three letter code of the day for that aerodrome and time period and assign the request the code with the sequential numeric portion.
Now Flying Control have an aircraft serial with a route and estimated times logged against an MSI.
Later the Chain Home station picks up a track and reports it to the Filter Room, the flying control liasion officer compares this to the MSIs and advises on possible hostile, possible friendly or unknown. The teller then “tells” via the telephone the plotter at Fighter Command/Sector the narrative for unknown or possible hostile and the Plotter puts it on the table.
Any subsequent reports from Observer Corps are compared to the raid track to see if possible hostile or unknown can be resolved into an MSI and taken off the Fighter Command table.
From about 1941 then GCI stations and Gun Laying Radar reports were also added to the mix for FCLO resolution but key to all this activity was the MSI relating to a known and planned aircraft movement.”
So the board may not be posed but a real one using a wartime code to confuse the enemy that still works today to mislead the unwary.
Think of it as the same way ATC designate and track flights in todays controlled airspace.
Regards
Ross
Ross_McNeill“Was AL614 employed on the Return Ferry Service”
Mapping the use/owner for these aircraft is looking into the gates of hell..
AL614 is an RAF serial and denotes that the aircraft was supplied to an Air Ministry contract and was officially taken on RAF charge as per form AM78 dates.
However it was officially TOC by BOAC on 31/8/42 no subsequent transfer was made to RAFFC/ATFERO/ATC (pick an era) so likely that it remained listed as “in transit” and hence used by RFS.
All ATA staff in the UK were BOAC employees and ATA ferry aircraft were on RAF charge so in a sense ATA/BOAC/RFS aircraft and crews were all BOAC.
In Canada the admin was Canadian Pacific Railway with Trans-Canada Air Lines maintenance and BOAC crews so somewhere a very complex paper ownership dance was happening.
in the early years one way trippers regardless of actual service were also employed under BOAC contract for the ferry flight to the UK but as ATFERO then RAFFC became established then the pretext of civilian crew disappeared and Air Training Plan graduates operating under the national service became the norm.
One of the underlying reasons for the ownership alphabet soup for the Liberators was to try to stop Harris acquiring the aircraft and stopping the RFS.
Harris had arranged the purchase for Coastal Command when he was part of the British Purchasing Committee as he saw no need for them in Bomber Command. However with the move from medium to heavy bomber to give the tonnage and range into Germany and the failure/delays of two/four engined new types into Bomber Command service one of moves as AOC was to make strong representations for all aircraft to be diverted from Coastal to Bomber.
Carl Christie is one of the few authors to make any headway in truly recording the service, most sources, including me only scratch the surface and record a fleeting image of the moment.
Ross
Ross_McNeillNo the numbers involved were too small for any meaningful attempt to protect shipping.
The first batch of three or so serving USN pilots were an add on to the RAF crews collecting a squadron of Catalina from Consolidated factory in Feb/April 1941.
Ensign (jg) L B Smith USN was part of the first group. The USN pilots took part in squadron working up on the new type when it reached the UK and seem to have been initially acting as conversion instructors beside RAF pilots who had flown the PBY used by Coastal Command in 1939/40.
However as the squadrons moved to Operational flights the USN pilots stopped instructional flights and start to appear in crew lists.
The new task for the USN pilots is to gain experience on how the Catalina fares in combat (a similar event with USAAF pilots occurs with RAF introduction of the B.17-C).
It is reputed that Smith was flying in May when the Catalina broke cloud over the Bismarck and Briggs who was aft at the radio/nav station composing the sighting report had to return to the cockpit in a hurry. Briggs always said “he did not find Bismarck, she found him!”.
After May more USN pilots arrived making 9? in total and appear in most of the Catalina Squadron ORBs in operational flights between then and Dec as 2nd Pilots.
Ensign (jg) D A Eldred USN was flying with No.413 (RCAF) Sqdn when he was killed on 23rd Aug 1941, the only fatality of the USN military mission.
You mentioned the Liberator losses in Gander/Canada did you know about AM261 on Arran.
Ross
Ross_McNeillThe USN was already flying in Coastal Command aircraft on Operations from UK bases well before the Ruben James.
Take a look at the crew of the Catalina that re-located the Bismark.
Also the date for the grave of Ensign D A Eldred in Scotland
http://www.bbm.org.uk/airmen/FowlerAL.htm
Ross
Ross_McNeillFollow the links trail to see the previous threads
Ross
Ross_McNeillMerlin Mustang X were handed over to Spaatz for evaluation Autumn 1942 and led to P.51B/C Packard production Spring/Summer 1943.
RAF Mustang I escorted a daylight Wellington raid to Germany Oct 22 1942 as a result of the Polish demo.
Ross
Sign In
