Would that not be the piece of boston they tried to lift off the mountain under a Wessex? If so it wasn’t in a fit state for much afterwards from what I have been told. Being a wing it was generating lift while being transported and the heli crew worried about it coming to visit them released the sling and it crashed for a second time, shame really it would have been better off where it was.

I’d heard from a reliable source that there were talks on going for the gannet to go to another museum in the north of england.

Not saying which just in case the info was wrong.

I have visited 341 sites, the majority on high ground which since the enactment of CROW Act 2000 (some bits of which I have a serious disagreement with but that’s not got anything to do with aircraft, more things with a green oval that come from Solihul, I own one!) increasingly fall within access land (though the 57 in Scotland fall under differnt access laws) and have only twice encountered a landowner at a site on private (non-access) land that has said no.

Yes there are sites that people may be inclined to technically tresspass to get to, pre-CROW Act the Forest of Bowland (~200 Sq Miles of heather moor? some 8-9 findable sites) was out of bounds because of a certain land owning Duke but that never seemed to stop anyone, mainly due the sites being on heather moorland.

As for the web sites that clearly show trespass, post the links to the particular pages here, I am sure for the purpose of the exercise the webmasters will not delete them.

Of the digs I have been involved in (all low ground) no pressure was put on landowners, even in a case where we were fairly sure the landowner had breached the PMRA 1986 himself and we could have told him that, we said we respect your views and hope to be able to return in the future if circumstances change.

I have to re-iterate what JC said, BAAC and its member groups are not calling for a relaxation of the law, the law has been applied the same since it was introduced, what has cahnged are the supplimentary regulations written by unaccountable civil servants. It is these that there are calls to tone down or in some cases get rid of. They wouldn’t be a problem for a commerical set up with paid lawyers but individuals carrying out research, locating sites (don’t for a minute under estimate the amount of time that can take) and where appropriate carrying out recoveries the regulations get in the way of forward progress. If interpretted literally the very act of stepping up on a site is illegal.

(2) A person contravenes this subsection in relation to any remains—
(a) if he tampers with, damages, moves, removes or unearths the
remains;
(b) if he enters any hatch or other opening in any of the remains which
enclose any part of the interior of an aircraft or vessel; or
(c) if he causes or permits any other person to do anything falling within
paragraph (a) or (b) above.

The two highlighted bits are of interest, tampers with can be taken to simply picking a piece up to look at it, for instance you see a part number and want to confim what it is off, moves is a very broad term, a person (average is what 150lb) walking on uneven / unconsolidated ground typical of a site where an aircraft has burned causes that ground to move leaving foot prints, that will move very small pieces. Also in picking up an item to look at it you have moved it. Oh dear three breaches.

No offence taken over you calling it aviation digging, it isn’t archaeology, though to form a group you need a reasonable title. Bunch of blokes on a rainy saturday in a field doesn’t quite as good.

That’s about how it works with the finds return form. The problem bit with them is the clause that says they can have what ever they like with out compensation to the digger, that even include expences incurred recovering the item and transporting it to the MoDs desired location.

Though they have only tried it once and went home with tail between their legs when they were sent a rather large bill for the recovery costs since the item was know about for over 30 years and the MoD waited for someone else to go and recover it.

There was a crash on the 3rd September 1939, Wallace K6028 on Benachie, I can’t remember what time of day it was but I think it was possibly after 11am.

At least they [MoD] have made enough contridictions in their own actions to allow anyone to win a case against them.

The one issue that no one has brought up yet is that of aircraft being Struck Off Charge, ie removed from the inventory when the airframe was disposed of. Again not a subject tested in law.

Not having read a copy of the PMRA 86 in full, only the initial bill as put forward for approval, I would think that they would certainly have trouble trying to take recovered items off an individual (not a group) without proper compensation for time and recovery costs.

There is certainly enough presedent for that in the form of marine recoveries and much more for finds on land that have had to be surrendered to the crown.

In short the MoD are heading for a complete lack of co-operation and unlicenced digs. Shame really.

Also this SMR lark is a bit of a worry, though there will be some discussion about that at the next BAAC meeting.