Tom HHi there
I am going by memory…but as I recall the one you are referring to is around Tofino BC.
The aircraft was a takeoff accident and there is not much left as it is accessible by easy hike from Tofino airport.
Again if I remember correctly it crashed shortly after take off and parts were salvaged, since then it has been trophy huntered over really badly. Might be a source of some parts, but not an airframe per say.
I used to have pics, if I turn them up I will try to post them.
There are a surprising number of PBY’s lying around wrecked, the problem is recovery…they tend to be in very expensive places to reach and get them out of. That is flatly what is holding up our attempt on one in the Arctic.
For what it appears it will cost to recover we could likely buy and undamaged non flyer. I would rather have the one up north, but we are currently dollar stalled.
Thanks
Tom H
Tom HScorpion
Don’t know who you talked to at Heritage Canada but they are mistaken. Without quoting chapter and verse all aircraft over 50years old (given certain qualifiers) are automatically subject to Heritage Canada Cultural property laws.
We have already had a separate thread on the Heritage Law issue so I am not going to revisit it here, but I know the City of Calgary has been advised directly as to their repsonsibilities and obligations under the law.
That said rather than debate the law…we hope to help those involved and made a standing offer as such.
Working together much can be accomplished and both aircraft preserved and brought back to the public.
When things have settled we will again working with other museums make the Museum and the City aware we hope to help them achieve their goals.
Tom H
Tom HAs I understand things…
The City of Calgary’s decision not to sell the aircraft is just the first step.
As Richard put it…once the dust settles the City, the Museum and those of us willing to help need to come up with a long term solution to both protect and display the Mossie and the Hurricane.
The is a lot of help available to the Calgary Museum from Canadian Museums and interested parties.
As far as selling the aircraft…yes it is still possible, but the City Council and administration are now fully versed in the procedures and requirements to do so.
Is it still possible the aircraft could leave Canada, yes. Is it likely, no. Will there be a long term solution/restoration/presentation of the aircraft…we need to be paitient and wait and see.
We need to look beyond the airframes, if the Calgary Museum is having issues then the Museum/City and others need to find the long term solution THEN the airframes need dealt with in an intelligent manner.
My two bits
Tom H
Tom HThanks for the info Steve
Tony sent me his article a while ago and it is a good one.
Nice to see the work being done a Vintage Wings and glad to see they are getting the support our aviation heritage needs.
As far as Canadians blowing our own horn….we are doing our part and we are incouraging all Canadians to get in the game.
We have one of the most exciting, Romantic, adventerous aviaton histories in the world and its about time we made sure everyone knows!!!!
Keep the faith
Tom H
Tom HHeard about Hawk 1 but didn’t know if it was to be public knowledge yet.
A lot happening and we are starting early….
Our plan is to have an event a month from March 08 through December 09!!!
Our first aircraft is due to fly this year.
Our B-25 may be complete enough to start letting the public see her without going into restoration.
New flight simulators.
Speakers, Movies and more.
We are hosting the CAPA conference in “08” as well.
Plus some surprises….have to wait and see.
You guys across the pond are gonna be jealous.
Tom H
Tom HK225
You got it..no fair you are Canadian.
Tommorow the Canadian Aeronautical Preservation Association, our museum and many others begin the countdown to the 100th anniversary of flight in Canada.
Some of the things planned for 2009 are:
1) Back to Baddeck, coast to coast aerial tour of Canada
2) Special events in every province
3) Special events at every aviation museum across Canada
and much more
Our countdown begins next month with a special exhibit on the Women of Aviation in Edmonton….
Keep watching.
Tom H
Tom HHi again David and all
Ahh the extended Norseman defence…
While I agree with you as to the details of the job of the poor old Norseman, I think where we are diverging is in the impact it made.
To me, it was world changing in making servicing isolated communities and outposts practical, and in the day, safe and consistant.
While no single feature or portion of the design was ground breaking, the combination created was.
The practicality of the Norseman lead to the Beaver, Otter and Twin Otter…true
higher production full STOL aircraft that really made every corner of the world accessible by fixed wing.
We need only look to the medivac a few years ago in the antarctic…couple of good old Canadian Bush pilots in a old Twin Otter flying in where no one else would to do a medivac.
And it all started with the Norseman.
I’ll get off my soap box now
Tom H
Tom HJ Boyle
David Burke
While I appreciate your comments on the Norseman and agree other aircraft played a huge role in opening Canada’s North and other remote areas, the Norseman was the first designed for the job rather than adapted.
While other aircraft were adapted to be “Bushplanes” the Norseman was the first designed to be a “Bushplane” from a clean sheet.
This in turn eventually lead to the Beaver, Otter and other STOL aircraft.
So, in my mind, it is truely an aircraft that changed the world.
I do appreciate the Fokkers, Junkers, and Fairchilds…agree we need to pay tribute to them, as we do in our museum…but the Norseman hold a little bit of a special place.
Tom H
Tom HNoordyn Norseman
I would like to submit the Prototype Norrdyn Norseman
The first true ground up bush plane and idealoical grand father to the Dehavilland Beaver.
The Norseman opened practical access to Northern Canada and all remote areas.
This oft forgotten Pioneer changed the lives of those that inhabited remote areas long before the helicopter flew…and a handful remain in commercial service
Tom H
Tom HScorpion89
The reason I don’t like to discuss specific aircraft is simple…
Not everyone has the same information…so unless I have all the paper trail, and can share it,I don’t go there. One sided conversations don’t work for me.
As far as regulation on a private owner, everything for business transactions, firearms and many other things are controlled…whats the difference?
As far as the levels of government that have to be dealt with…in the USA the states often have powers that override the federal government…much the same
in many other countries.
As far as your non negotiatble stand on Private ownership…that kind of ends the conversation.
The world is a compromise…we simply find the combination that best suits the needs of all.
Tom H
Tom HScorpion89
Your story on the B24 is not the same one we get up here, which is why I do not like to get into specifics unless I can track the paperwork. Don’t know which version is the most accurate…when I find the time to chase the paper then I will let you know what it says…till then this is simply an example of why I use hypothetical examples only.
But it also comes back to what I was saying on the Mossie thread:
Lets say you are a New Zealander who wishes to recover an Anson from a remote site in Canada.
1) You would contact the Province or Territory that administers the site to
confirm the rules and regulations, even if it is on private property.
(They do vary a bit from one to another)
2) You would contact Heritage Canada to advise them of your interest.
3) You would advise CAPA of your intent and ask for support.
4) You make applications as required to the Province/Territory and Federal
government have permissions granted and go get your Anson.
If you skip a step…back in the mud
Same applies across the board…buying privately, from a museum etc.
The rules must be followed and the steps taken and your homework done…
Tom H
Tom HMark
Thank you for articulating the difference between the Preservation and Warbird movements so well.
I have sat back for a day trying to figure out how to word it, and you have done it so well.
I also agree that this has been a very informative thread that I hope carries on.
When duties permit I would like to contact you for additional advice re: Australian Heritage legislation if that is ok with you.
To all that have participated…thank you
Tom H
Tom HThe last few post have, in my mind, laid the topic out very well and covered most sides of the coin (cube?)
Cypherus
Makes the academic points of history and “significant” artefacts very well. But moving past the academic points we move to the point of the “passion” of history and ability to tell the story.
An International forum will never be able to wade through the mire of each nations heritage to determine what should be protected.That is way national registers make sense.
Mark and Don, in their posts, have outlined how things work on the other side of the world. While I have ot had time to peruse the Australian Heritage Laws (but I will) they seem to do the job…yet not inordinately block the trade of warbirds.
Which in my mind IS the goal.
Excellent discussion
Tom H
Tom HAhh the bone of contention…
So the point is you want no rules and consider it an infringement of your right.
What about the rights of others, the rights of those within any country to have access to their history and heritage.
A well laid out set of rules does not keep you from selling your item for what you want, it simply allows those in the country to have a shot before it leaves. If you can’t get your $$$ in country then it leaves.
You get your $$$ ether way, so what is the problem?
You want an international list….
Why? We can’t get countries to agree on minor items, let alone the the idea of what is important to each.
A National format allows each country to identify and protect what is important to that country and its citizens. A forum that can be agreed on with something like the UK’s registry.
What are we protecting…
While I don’t disagree with you I do find it very limiting, and I would argue some of your list.
To me we are protecting the “History” of the people of a country. Something that is earned in blood sweat and tears, the aircraft we choose to protect are meerly the artefact that allows us to tell the story of the people that created the history. And it is all that will remain long after the people are gone.
This becomes the issue, the ability to protect the items that tell that story.
Sorry guys, in the long run the aircraft were only the tools, the people made the history. But the only way we can effectively tell their story is to use the tools to tell the story…which is why each natioin will have a different priority as to what aircraft to protect.
Next on the soapbox
Tom H
Tom HExcellent thread
I am hamstrung by not being able to use a computer at home right now so I need to make an effort to catch up.
Hairy…
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.
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.
Mark
The information you have passed on about Australias legislation is excellent and the examples presented excellent.
To all others…the input is invaluable!
But we are back at the start…abiet with new information.
If the goal is to protect while not eliminating trade what is an appropriate system.
Rather than look at an international registry….Lets look at a National style system that can be adapted to any country.
So I think a good first question is…”What are we protecting”?
To me it is the history and its artefacts as it relates to the history of our (or any) country.
Not just the specific airframe, but the ability to represent the history and tell the story of that history for future generations.
What do others think?
Tom H
Sign In
