Utter rubbish, Phil,
It’s a shame, but money has talked, and the warbird game is a worldwide scene. Airframes travel from country to country all the time, and this one was always on shaky ground.
In a very sad day and strange movement , the Queensland State Government has forced a local aviation musuem to give up its loaned Spitfire on display.
It wasn’t the Queensland Government at all. It was Aviation Australia. Who are they? Their website explains all;
Aviation Australia is the leading aviation training organisation in the Asia Pacific region. Our organisation is an accredited, world class training facility established to support the development and growth of the aviation and aerospace industries in Australia and the Asia Pacific, with a particular focus on aircraft maintenance engineering, cabin crew, management and operations.
Was it the Queensland Government? What is the QLD Government connection?
Aviation Australia was founded by the Queensland State Government with the
co-operation of major airlines, aerospace companies and universities.
It is an independent organisation, which may have been founded under the authority of the Queensland Government, but it is not a ‘part’ of it. A simple understanding of organisational structures would make it obvious that statements like the following, are simplistic at best and completely without basis in fact at worst;
Someone should have their heads rolled in tourism QLD office for one and another at the cabinet level.
Sigh!
Anyway, more information about AA is available here;
http://www.aviationaustralia.aero/about-us/overview
The historic plane has now been sold overseas to a UK owner it seems.
The trade in warbirds is a global activity. There are many historic planes which have come to Australia from the US or the UK. Big world out there.
The Spitifre should of been kept in Australia… why it was sold by a State Governemnt with no heritage thinking .. is scandalous to many.
Again, nothing to do with the State Government. A corporate organisation chose to sell one of their assets. Private ownership allows this.
As for emotive language, it doesn’t prove much. If you’re going to shriek hysterically about one of half a dozen complete Spitfires leaving Australia, then you’d better start complaining when interesting non-singleton warbirds come to Australia. Phil, I seem to recall you breathlessly announcing that a ‘four-engined heavy bomber’ was said to be coming to Australia. Using your logic, this would be a ‘scandalous’ thing to happen. Consistency is needed.
The Caloundra Air Museum volunteers are rather upset at this snatch and sale of a item they had on loan.
Understandably. Mind you, those of us without all of the pertinent information are just making guesses as to the full story. It was always on loan, but business is business. Unless AA has a corporate heritage responsibility, then it can do what it likes with its assets. Sentimentality isn’t the primary concern. It isn’t even the secondary or tertiary concern.
Someone should have their heads rolled in tourism QLD office for one and another at the cabinet level.
I’m doing my best not to cringe at this ill-informed assertion.
Wonder where was the export protection for this warbird?
Do you mean the Protection of Movable Cultural Heritage Act 1986? A look at the following link (and subsequent links on that page) shows what items cannot be exported and what items require permission for export;
http://www.arts.gov.au/movable/exporting_cultural_heritage_objects
As the Spitfire doesn’t come under the Category A definition of items which cannot be exported, it comes under the Category B definition of items for which permission must be granted. If permission has not already been granted, it must be demonstrated that the Spitfire is not adequately represented in Australian collections if one wishes to ensure that export permission is denied.
It could be hard to justify a denial of export permission, as there are a number of Spitfires on public display in Australia. The Australian War Memorial has MkIIa P7973, the Bull Creek (Western Australia) museum has Mk22 PK481, The South Australian Aviation Museum has EE853/A58-146 and there are two at Temora (MV239/A58-758 and TB863). I may have missed some complete examples. With this many complete examples, it’d be very hard to demonstrate that the type isn’t adequately represented in Australia.
LZ844 was Barry Coran’s 1980s-90s reconstructed airframe, made from a chunk of fuselage, many newly-constructed parts and some miscellaneous original bits. It isn’t going to stand out as a vitally important piece of Australian cultural heritage. Especially when there is a good sprinkling of complete examples throughout Australia, not to mention the various projects underway. Emotions are understandable, but facts come first.
Cheers,
Matt
Sign In
