Originally Posted by Bruce
We have a policy in the UK, that allows free trade of historical aircraft. Aircraft come, and aircraft go.
As far as I can see, that adds to the rich diversity of aircraft we see in the UK, and they rotate on a regular basis.
There is nothing whatever to say that the Mosquito, once restored, would not return to Canada in the future. A full restoration, by professional engineers would be the best outcome for the aircraft, ignoring the politics.
The Mosquito has been stored for a very long time, and nothign has been done – only when there is a threat of it leaving do people get excited.
It does come across as wanting to have your cake and eat it too.
Bruce.
The US and UK enjoy a healthy flow of exotic aircraft between them, but thats not evidence for open slather “free trade” access to all other countries.
Most of those moving each way are not the last one or two examples of the type left in the UK or US, most are not particularly significant in terms of their specific heritage, – many are new build or heavily restored aircraft.
A “109” came out of India – whats gone back in on “free trade” – the BBMF Hurricane?
Swamp Ghost came out of PNG – Whats gone back in “free trade” – a fibreglass B-17 one day?
“Free Markets” are always beneficial for those with the goods to sell, or the money and desire to buy, and those are who constantly call for them.
Both Australia and Canada have implemented laws controlling the movement of cultural heritage because of the significant losses of historic aircraft in years gone by.
The mass flow in of nangchungs, T6, L-29s, Lims or other irrelevent “warbird” types into a country is “not” an argument for “free trade” access to export their significant historic aircraft.
It is all very well for weathly countries such as the US or UK to claim they are “willing” to put their “collections” at risk of sale and export, to justify that expectation of others in the name of “free trade”.
But the reality is there is little risk at the moment of those countries being “cleaned out” given the populations of aircraft, and the populations of wealthy “internal” buyers in each.
Interestly both of those countries have very healthy static collections in any case, easily arguable as the largest populations of collections and museums by far, in addition to the largest “warbird” populations – these arent a product of liberal policies of the free trade of historic aircraft, these are simply results of economic power and concentration of wealth, and the legacies of the original use of those aircraft in the first place, ie they lie where they fell.
The UK and the US have the largest cakes, but seem to argue the right of eating their cakes, and the cakes of others too.
Interestingly in World Trade negotiations both the UK and US support free trade “except for” reducing internal agricultural subsidies and import trade barriers, its a different story when the shoe is on the other foot! – so much for “free trade”!
As David stated above, I understand Export controls do exist in the UK, but are triggered by the value of an object, and then can be referred to the Minister- the Lincoln was below the value threshold in any case.
In Australia you can count the aircraft refused export permits on one hand!, I dont know how many have been limited from export from Canada?
Interestingly the two “known” fraudulent exports from Australia were not to India, PNG, Canada or some other country, but to the UK, and most of Australias losses have been to the UK.
Australia has lost many historic and significant aircraft to overseas collections, a 1917 Maurice Farman Shorthorn and a Supermarine Seagull V to name two. These aircraft just were’nt significant as survivors of their types, it was their roles and service in Australia that created their significance to Australia.
Its difficult to name one historic aircraft of great significance to Australia flowing back the other way into Australia from the UK (or US?) – other than the QANTAS 707, and that was hardly “raped and pillaged” from a UK collection! It would have been scrapped!
The export of the Lincoln to Australia probably saved it from scrapping as well? (The Lincoln as a type is significant to Australia, but RF342 has no Australian provenance).
Perhaps another is the ex Australian service Mark XVI Spitfire with Temora? (how many remain in the UK?)
Its difficult to see the historic significance to Australia of the Temora F8 Meteor, or Canberra, or the HARS Connie, or PBY-6A, or for that matter the other two PBY-6A’s recently acquired.
Again how many F8 Meteors and Canberra’s remain in the UK, how many Constellations or PBY-6A’s remain in the USA?, not how many are flying, but how many are preserved for the future generations of those nations?
We have a USAF Phantom and USN Skyhawk dressed in RAAF and RAN colours and displayed in our service museums, but neither of those are missed or extinct in the USA, and still not of real historical significance as specific airframes to Australia, even if they are of interest as types.
These are all largely “eye candy” rather than objects of historic significance.
The Balance of “Free Trade” is heavily “one sided”!
I am not sure many historically significant aircraft have flowed from the UK to Canada? but I am happy to be educated.
So what “are” the great exports from the UK that Australia or Canada have enjoyed?
What significant aircraft has the UK lost? to anywhere? and particularly other than to the USA?
(I personally regretted the UK loosing an F3 Meteor and both remaining TIII Mosquitos, but such “significant” losses have been few and far between)
These laws in Canada (and Australia) are quite reasonable, and only limit aircraft of major significance from being limited from export, if the Canadian Government deems this mosquito to be of major significance to Canada through expert analysis, then there is probably a strong risk that it is.
Lets wait and see if it gets to that situation of being assessed, and what the decision is on its significance, if instead the locals decide to retain it and display it, thats their decision.
There are plenty of aircraft stored undercover in collections in the UK or the US Museums, yet to be restored or displayed publicly? no one seems to be arguing they need to be sold off or exported to protect them from deterioration?
We need to seperate our desire to see a flying Mossie back in the UK from this debate, and see Canadian heritage through Canadian eyes.
Heritage is the eye of the beholder, ie the importance and need for a flying Vulcan, or a significant number on outdoor public display, as against none being preserved, is best seen through British eyes, and decided in the UK, while the rest of us can have an opinion, its a UK issue to resolve.
Where a British built aircraft served in Australia or Canada, it does retain some importance, relevence and significance to the UK, but in this case, this aircraft is duplicated by a number of B-35’s already preserved in the UK, its hardly a case of Canada with-holding the Elgin Marbles! from return to their native home.
Lets decide the significance of aircraft to a country or population based on their input and views, and its heritage significance, and not cloud the debate with economic “free trade” theories that are usually distorted by the wealth in a one sided debate.
I support the private ownership of historic aircraft, and the restoration to fly, without that many more would not exist, or have been recovered and restored.
I also support the ability to import and export such aircraft, but with the ability to prohibit export of significant examples – that is how the Australian law operates, and as I understand it the Canadian Law (on which the Australian law was based).
I certainly support countries preserving and retaining their own aviation heritage, and having laws to support that through export controls.
If the UK and the US dont need to have such laws, that more reflects their fortunate situation of abundance and wealth.
regards
Mark Pilkington
Sign In
