Tom,

As far as the 24 I was part of that group I know the ends and out of the deal allot better then what has been reported on hear and other media outlets.

But why don’t you want to discuss indv. aircraft these is where the problem is, as for your example thats the problem if you a have Heritage Laws then ONLY the Federal Government can give permission for the recover and or remove from the Country and as for Private stuff sorry till the Governments start paying the owners Tax’s and bills they have no say what he/she does with there aircraft unless your wanting to go to Communisim.

Sorry folks this isn’t a gray area when it comes to privately owned aircraft unless you all feel that its alright to stpe on one rights then have at it but this is why folks go around the stupid Heritage Laws.

You know looking back at the whole 24 I told tom once that we should have just moved it to Canadian/Maine border and then I would have got it across into Maine and no one would know the difference.

And yes this is personal for me.

Alright so I’m going to narrow this discussion down a little,

Mark all good points but while I will agree with you on certain aspects of the Warbird movement it still is effect by Heritage Laws and this is where I’m going to go with the discussion.

So lets take the Canadian Heritage laws and look at how they have effect the recovery and restoration of airframes and why they are very bad for Historical Aircraft.

Example #1 The B-24D that was sitting on private land in Labrador. This aircraft went down during WWII and yes it was an RCAF aircraft. The Land owner over a period of 40 Years had offered the aircraft to various Canadian Museum seven different times and not one want it. Tom Reilly heard about the crash site purchase the wreck from the Land Owner got permission from the National Government to remove it from Canada then the local Government step in saying that they had no right(Ottawa) to let said airframe leave, mind you the owner offered the Museum in Labrador the aircraft twice and both times the Museum turned it down.

So what we have now is the wings still sitting out in the woods while the rest of the aircraft is sitting on a dock near salt water in the open just wasting away neither the Labrador Government nor the National Government have step in and sent this aircraft to a museum. Mind you three well know museum have been ask and all three have said that they don’t have the resource to rebuild or even display the airframe.

Example #2 Oh Mark take note of this one please. I was ask to look into the recovery of the Lincoln that is woods in Canada well after getting verbal agreement from a Canadian Museum I sent a request to Heritage Canada asking permission to recover the Lincoln along with six other airframes. In order for me to fianace the project I need to recover three airframes to sell the other three I was going to offer to two different Canadian Museum in exchange for the Lincoln recover, well at first Heritage was all for the idea but then they decide to change there mind with out giving me a reason. So instead of having Seven airframes recover and being restored for display they still sit in there collective crash sites.

This is why I have major problems with Heritage Laws they claim that they are protecting there Heritage but are they really, its just as bad as the United States Navy stance on aircraft which I have been part of the ongoing battle with them for 20 Years.

Now some of you might bring up the State of Alaska law on aircraft wrecks well that one doesn’t stop you from recovering it just makes you go threw allot of paperwork and for the record its the Feds are looking into the Law to see if it goes against the 1st Adm. (not sure how they can do this but its the Feds)

Also here in the States the Dept. of Interior has stated that any aircraft on their lands are protect like the Lake Mead B-29 well under the 1978 Forest Land Protection Act they have the right to say something is Historical but they can’t stop them from being recovered they are about to find this out in a court case that is going to be filed in US Federal Court.

As I said before Historical Laws are great for certain items but they can’t be used for aircraft. Oh and for the record of the Six airframes two of them were Vintage aircraft from the late 30s.

I just got in from work so I’m going to have to sit down and go over the past few posted. But i will point out this one thing, I never said I was against heritage Laws if you go and read my very first post I make this statement what I’m against and have always been against is the random use of Heritage Laws when it come to aircraft.

Don,

As for UNESCO i work with it everyday so I have a very good understanding of how it is to work and how it really works;) .

Mark,

You and I agree on many areas when it come to Warbirds and we both know that while Australian might have the best system out there other Country’s like Canada Heritage Laws work against the preservation of aircraft.

As for a World list and it being an item that has change mankind well that comes from UNESCO. Any item that has been ask to be part of the World heritage List has to meet that as part of the critera.

Nice discussion let me digest what has been written and I’ll come back.

While I understand you point of view with regards to the backyard play toy, my point is not to force the sale of items, but regulate them. If you don’t want to sell your airframe…don’t and you should not be forced to.

Sorry Tom but I really have to attack this whole idea, first if the Government want it in the first place then they should have held on to it. Second since they didn’t want them any more and I purchase it then no Governmental Agency has the right to tell me what I can and can’t do with MY Aircraft if I choice to sell it to someone out of the Country then its my right untill they start paying my tax’s then they can tell me what I can and can’t do on this subject.

The idea of the legislation is to put a fair system in place that allows the sale, but gives the coutry it resides in first shot if it meets criteia.

And this is the major problem with Heritage Laws when it comes to not only aircraft but other Man made Items like Cars,Ships ect. ect. what right does the National,State and Local Government have to tell me what I can and can’t do with my property. Till they start ponying up and paying all my bills then they can but as longs as we live in a somewhat Free Social Setup then I’ll do what I want with my Aircraft and if someone wants to fight me over this one then fine lets have a discussion on this one.

If the goal is to protect while not eliminating trade what is an appropriate system.

Simple getting rid of all Heritage Laws that are restictive to the movement of aircraft.

Rather than look at an international registry….Lets look at a National style system that can be adapted to any country.

No we need to have a International list because then it would be just that an International Rules and list that everyone must follow this would eliminated the ongoing problems in the South Pacific,Canada and yes it would force the United States Navy to give up there ownership on aircraft.

So I think a good first question is…”What are we protecting”?

Well this is my take we should be protecting only aircraft that change the course of Human History like the Wright Flyer, Enola Gay, X-1, ect. ect. By what I mean by this is that with out these aircraft the course of Human History would not have change, I think we all can agree that the Wright Flyer should be the #1 aircraft on any Worlds List, As for the Enola Gay well the dropping of the A-Bomb change everything we understood when it came to Warfare and usher in the Dawn of the Cold War. As for the X-1 while other aircraft attempt to break Mach 1 it was this design that it was done in.

This has been a great discussion but I wish more folks would get involved.