Talking of cars, there was also one in this hole which we assumed it dated from the 1920’s.
Not 7 but 8 as it was a mk2a. If can i will post a few photos of the dig, however given the nature of the ground i think its going to be more like bog fishing:diablo:
The second proto type crashed only a mile from my house, little chance of a rebuild there as it cartwheeled over the field and hoovered up by the RAF recovery crew. One that has missed the radar is the one that crashed nr Wool dorset, this its likely to have a great deal buried as the area is very boggy.
The current “Notes for Guidance of Recovery Groups” states that “the Ministry of Defence is not prepared to grant, indefinitely, sole rights of recovery to an individual to excavate a particular site, but, other than in exceptional circumstances, only a single licence will be granted to work in a specified area at any one time” – so yes only one individual is to be licenced for a site at a time, but it seems that that individual cannot continually renew the licence to block others, which is allegedly what is happening in the case of the P-38?
However, the guidelines go on to say “that licence holders will need to apply for a new licence if they wish to continue working on an excavation into a second year and their application will be considered (on its merits) alongside those of any other applicants seeking to work at the site”
So there doesn’t seem to be anything stopping another group putting in an application and if Tigger still have a licence, then it must be that no one else has put in an alternative application? However, it does also seem that perhaps the MOD are close to contravening their own guidelines if they are continually re-issuing a licence to the same individual or group, who are clearly not carrying out any work.
There is no reason why another individual cannot gain a licence providing the landowners are happy for the recovery. However who in the right mind would spend thousands recovering it, to run the risk of having to give it back the the MOD with no compensation for the recovery
This is the likely reason why its still there!!
Do we know if its on i player, you link only shows a 30 second clip
Looks good boys, the engine cleaned up lovely and no too badly damaged either, what happened to the prop hub?
We have visited the area where the aircraft fell and its bloody dangerious bog land, so boogy infact we decided not to venture too deep, Got put off with the ground moving! had quite a few leads from a newspaper to their location. Most likely the reason why the pilots were posted missing for some time!
I did hear that there was some parts were found in the area but failed to have any ID numbers on the pieces plus the paint colours suspect.
With regards to an up an comming dig, i would have my doupt given the sencitivity of the area given they have fell in a SSSI, special area of conservation, blanket bog etc just to name a few. No MOD permissions would be granted unless you get this prior approval and off experance you are almost ******** in the wind.
dont get too carried away, first you have to locate the whirlwinds and i dont think anyone has actually found them otherwise there would have been a recovery attempted long ago. I know approximatly where they are but dont fancy the idea of walking accross a very soft peat bog
Secondly if you find them, dont be suprised if after all the efforts of a recovery from the bog that the raf wish to have them back, after all they are likely to be the only examples know to survive.
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
That goes for quite a few of the relics, FA. Modified during excavation. At least it wasn’t a toothed bucket. The exactor control is die cast alloy and the crud comes off quite well, wouldn’t hold out too much hope for the innards but I’m sure you can do something with it, Elliott. I’m guessing the wedge plate is Whitley to as it’s riveted to the Whitley wedge plate support. Teleflex control has most of the body corroded away but part number B10072 and an MHC V3 inspection stamp. Be still your beating heart?
Ian the sales pitch should be “New old stock!” not seen the light of day for 60years:diablo:
Wow – you’ve found an exactor control! What kind of shape is it in? They were used to control the pitch of the prop on the Whitley… Looks like a great site!
It was much better before i clubbed it with my shovel:D
Councils certainly know how to waste money even if it is donations, for 2 million quid they could have the real macoy flying around not a not a mascot that looks as if its been taken off a car from the 40’s.
Nice as it may be but i think the Sb6 would look much better: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
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?
Happy new year graham, Not in normandy this year, so if its up and running I can bring the Willys jeep down in convoy with a few others for a good day out
gareth