mark_pilkingtonUnfortunatly due to time& financial constraints the wings were cut off.
Hopefully will be re attached (somehow) one day.
It is indeed unfortunate, not only because the aircraft was complete and in “reasonable” condition as compared to others facing a more uncertain fate, but also because there is obviously significant work to correct it, as compared with dis-assembly or shifting it with wings folded etc.
Obviously in a perfect world these other options would be far preferable, however its clear its reprieve came at very short notice and with limited resources, and having watched the uncertainty of the future of this airframe in the forum for so long it is better to see it recovered even at this “cost” than to see it simply disappear into scrap.
Well done to those involved and hopefully the repairs can be both structurally and cosmetically achieved to allow the airframe to live on in retirement and preservation.
The before and after shots of the Queensland Air Museum example shows how you can salvage a Gannet back into excellent museum display, when you set your mind to it, and perhaps be an incentive for recovery plans for the other Gannets still looking for a long term home?
regards
Mark Pilkington
mark_pilkingtonSmiles
Why make a choice over the CAC Sabre and and Fury when you can have your cake and eat it too?
Recieved at 1 AD 20/05/55. Allocated to storage 03/06/55. To 2 OTU for Sabre Trails Flight 17/06/55. To 78 Wing 19/03/56. Modified to Mk.31 25/06/56. To CAC Avalon for mainplane repair 02/05/58. To 81 Wing 23/02/61. Crashed Williamtown 09/09/63. Crashed into swamp next to base following engine flame-out. Engine removed 12/09/63. Converted to componants in situ and unservicable remains disposed as scrap 11/10/63. A request was made to use as instructional airframe but advised not suitable on 24/10/63. This would seem to be the end of -916 however according to Warbirds Directory A94-916 was aquired by Saunders Aviation of Chino Ca. in 1990, it was then at Stallion 51 at Kissimmee Fl. in 90/92, and then to Charles Osbourne of Louisville Ky. 92/93 and under restoration.
It is now on display on a pole at Clark County Airport, Jeffersonville, Indiana, USA. It is displayed as a US Navy FJ-3 Fury
Regards
Mark Pilkington
mark_pilkingtonsmiles,
I was being a little mischievious in launching this off as a world list, in absence of the existance of National Lists, (Although the UK does have one) in that after a few “World Changing Event” airframes, the logical outcome would be Nations would look to their most significant “National” airframes to be put forward, and that becomes the temptation of posters here as well.
Despite the interpretation of some (and indeed my own use of the term loosly here myself) of the UNESCO definitions to be requiring an place (or aircraft) to be “world changing” that is strictly not correct.
As Don Clark shows in his post of 14th of Feb, there are a number of criteria to allow qualification of a place or building to be as being of outstanding universal value (which is to say of world or international significance – and no not of intergalactic significance!)
As an example of the UNESCO World Heritage List, Australia has had 17 sites listed as being of World Heritage.
Australia has 15 natural landscapes, and two buildings on the UNESCO World Heritage Lists, the natural landscapes are prinstine examples but are not related to a world changing event, the Sydney Opera House is there because of its unique architecture not because of the world changing event, while the Melbourne Exhibition Building is there because it is one of only two remaining structures from the world fairs or international exhibitions which were run in the 1800’s (The Effiel Tower is the other). The Exhibitions were not “World Changing” but were of world significance, and the building as a reminder, or place of that event has therefore been accepted of world significance.
I therefore consider Pearl Harbour, the Battle of Britain, Battle of Midway, bombing of Dresden or the wider role/campaign of Bomber Command may be events of world significance and have surviving airframes able to be nominated?
A world war, and major battles or defining moments in it are clearly of world significance, thats not to say every example of a WW2 Spitfire or Mustang, or other “warbird” is of world significance just because they saw service in WW2, but those with operational service in key operations etc may well be.
Don is also correct that the UNESCO criteria is worded around “places”, “buildings” etc and not particularly “aircraft”
“i. to represent a masterpiece of human creative genius;
ii. to exhibit an important interchange of human values, over a span of time or within a cultural area of the world, on developments in architecture or technology, monumental arts, town-planning or landscape design;
iii. to bear a unique or at least exceptional testimony to a cultural tradition or to a civilization which is living or which has disappeared;
iv. to be an outstanding example of a type of building, architectural or technological ensemble or landscape which illustrates (a) significant stage(s) in human history;
v. to be an outstanding example of a traditional human settlement, land-use, or sea-use which is representative of a culture (or cultures), or human interaction with the environment especially when it has become vulnerable under the impact of irreversible change;
vi. to be directly or tangibly associated with events or living traditions, with ideas, or with beliefs, with artistic and literary works of outstanding universal significance. (The Committee considers that this criterion should preferably be used in conjunction with other criteria);
vii. to contain superlative natural phenomena or areas of exceptional natural beauty and aesthetic importance;
viii. to be outstanding examples representing major stages of earth’s history, including the record of life, significant on-going geological processes in the development of landforms, or significant geomorphic or physiographic features;
ix. to be outstanding examples representing significant on-going ecological and biological processes in the evolution and development of terrestrial, fresh water, coastal and marine ecosystems and communities of plants and animals;
x. to contain the most important and significant natural habitats for in-situ conservation of biological diversity, including those containing threatened species of outstanding universal value from the point of view of science or conservation.”
Don suggests aircraft would be mostly likely to be tested against criteria (i), (ii) and (iV), however I believe (vi) would also very importantly apply to those which were themselves directly involved in a major event.
I certainly feel the Flyer is of world significance, its orginality may be compromised by substitution of spare or replacement parts but it is not a replica, it is a composite, and the original parts clearly retain full provenance.
The Bleriot XI (Conservatory of Arts in France) put forward by Pondskater is IMHO of world importance, despite being “just a short flight between two neighbouring countries, France and England in 1909, seen in context of its time, the distance – over water was evidence of the endurance and reliability of aircraft, but it also caused the military applications of aircraft to suddenly taken seriously despite the Wrights spending years being unable to interest the Military much in their invention, The “breaching” of the English Channel immediately rendered the English “rule of the sea” a questionable defence of its home country from “air invasion”, and caused rapid military aviation development in the UK, British Empire and Europe.
I would also agree with the Fabre Hydravion and Bell X-1 also put forward by Pond Skater.
I intentionally limited my two “Australian” nominations to the Southern Cross and Vimy, as their exploits were both “International” and certainly of great significance to aviaition worldwide, if not for mankind.
I left off the Duigan Biplane, a 1910 local design, built by John Duigan, based only on reading of overseas experiences and never seeing a previously seeing a flying machine. He followed the Wrights examples of tethered gliders before embarking on developing an airframe and engine combination. While clearly the most significant Australian “National” airframe IMHO, by 1910, many other aircraft and pilots had flown world wide. In the same vein I would question the Avro Triplane of 1909, as being of World significance because of its status as the first UK built aircraft fly, as that is a “National” significance ,and would imply every Nation could nominate its own “first to fly”.
(The Avro Triplane might still be of world significance because of what Avro went on to do, as a very significant airframe builder, of airframes that were important in world events – WW2?)
I had also left off the list
Parer & McIntosh DH9, which was the first single engined aircraft to fly from England to Australia in 1920, (AWM or National Museum of Australia collection)
Bert Hinkler’s Avro Avian in which he flew solo from England to Australia, 1928 (the first solo flight) Queensland State Museum.
I personally believe these are significant flights in the world history of aviation as well ,but unsure if they are as significant as the “first” by the Vimy.
The DH60 “Jason” of Amy Johnson would then fall into the same category.
An interesting one is the post war “first” flight across the south pacific from Australia to South America by PG Taylor in the Catalina VH-ASA “Frigate Bird II” in 1951, it is long after the other significant pioneer air travels, but is the first for its course of departure – destination – and this then raises the question – is every first flight between every different country of international or world significance, even though they are obviously of National Significance to each of the participant countries.
My own view is that the Vimy Flight to Australia was such a long distance flight, – effectively half away around the world, that at its time it was world changing / or of world significance, and in a different way, while the Southern Cross flight from US to Australia was a slightly shorter overall distance, and nearly 10 years later, but it consisted on very long distance legs requiring pin point navigation accuracy, and extensive endurance of the aircraft and crew.
Together, both of these flights (and others) led the way for the modern long distance Air Travel.
While the first single engined, first solo pilot, or first female pilot flights are important on those same routes, they aren’t quite as significant in my view as the first, however that is not to say they are still not of world significance?
I support the Curtiss NC-4 and Alcock & Brown Vimy as being of World significance, and although they predate it, I consider Lindburgh’s solo flight to be of world significance i the same vein as Parer, Hinkler and Amy Johnson above.
I do also believe the B29 Enola Gay in the Smithonian is undeniably of world significance, the first (and hopefully only) use of the Atomic Bomb in war, and that event’s dramatic impact on the ending of world war two in the Pacific, was an important world changing event, & would make it clearly of “world significance” IMHO.
I agree with Bruce that National Lists would be easier to do, as it would let those of us from each Nation to focus on histories most important to us, and avoid the need to explain / justify/compare for others from overseas who dont know the context of a particular event, but I do believe there are still some airframes not yet raised that are of World Significance.
Lighter than Aircraft played an early role, there are some airship gondola’s still surviving, some of these might qualify, and certainly the Apollo 11 Command Module in NASM Washington USA, associated with the first successful landing of man on the moon is of world significance (maybe this one REALLY IS of “universal significance” too ,we will need to hear from ET on that one), and there would be other capsules etc, hopefully the first manned flight capsule is preserved in Russia somewhere?
I would propose we still let this “Event” focus run one more day, what of Wiley Post and the Winnie Mae?, The DH Comet “Grosvenor House” and Turners Boeing 247 of the 1934 Air race? (The race played an important role in the development of air-travel although it was perhaps the results of the DC2 airliner, coming second overall and first on handicap whilst operating a scheduled service with mail and passengers that is the most astonishing and significant aspect of that race, but IMHO the race, and therefore those two surviving airframes are of world significance, I am sure there are still a few more such airframes to be teased out.
Then the world significant types can begin, in which case Bruce’s Mosquito, and the prototype or Tom’s Norseman can come in to play.
To avoid confusion, I would suggest seperate threads (for each Nation’s own list) be created if people wish to commence listing aircraft of National Significance for each country, it will then be easy to view each post relevent to each list and debate.
All an interesting and stimulating debate.
Regards
Mark Pilkington
mark_pilkingtonWow.
Great to see such rare items still surviving.
According to the BAPC preserved and displayed UK Engine list, there are only 12 Napier Lion’s surviving in the UK of various marks. One is reported in the NASM holdings in the USA, are there any others worldwide?
Would seem worthy of recovery, and preservation (as long as the appropriate National Heritage Laws for recovery and export of wrecks in Sudan is complied with – smiles)
I dont think the airframe components are substantial enough to produce a restoration, unless the full drawings exist somewhere, but it would be a great ‘as found” desert display somewhere , not unlike the “Kookaburra” Westland Widgeon and “Southern Cross Minor” Avro Avian wrecks preserved “as is” in Australia.
Regards
Mark Pilkington
mark_pilkingtonRob,
I dont think anyone is complaining at your responses in regards to politeness, or personal attacks or anything else that would suggest the need to lock the thread.
People may be concerned that you are not conceding any points of argument as is normally done in a debate, but if you cant/wont etc thats fine, you are entitled to your opinion.
So you all think Heritage Laws are good thing great but beside aircraft show me any of the following items listed that the sell of has been blocked in the name of Heritage laws.
Vintage Cars
Vintage Trucks
Vintage and Military Ships and Sailing Craft
Armour Vechiles
Tanks
Guns
Vintage Tractors an Farm Equipment
Vintage Construction VechilesOh thats right Heritage Laws in general don’t stop these sales but hey you want to go and sell a Mossie off well thats going to get the Heritage Police jumping up and down. See this is what I mean Double Standers you can’t have Heritage Laws for man made items, their really isn’t any debate in this till those Governments start using the Heritage Laws for everything you can’t just say well were not going to let the Vintage and Warbirds leave
Rob, havent you read the posts already made in reply to your thread, you were the one who wanted this debated in the first place?
You need to listen/read to the “arguments” put forward from the other side, and reply to them, not simply keep stating the same incorrect generalisations and and un-evidenced arguments from your point of view?.
In regards to those claims highlighted above, the Australian National Heritage Laws apply near enough to everything, and particularly to “man made things”, as detailed in my post of 9th of Feb:
Class B comprises objects that are of cultural significance to Australia and require permission to be exported. The categories are:
Australian Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Heritage
Archaeology
Natural Science
Applied Science or Technology
Fine or Decorative Arts
Documentary Heritage
Numismatics (coins)
Philately (stamps)
Historical Significance
Applied Science or Technology, where “Aircraft” come in to it, are included among the following:
(i) It must fall within one of the classifications described in Part 4. These
classifications include;
agricultural objects;
engineering objects;objects of air transport;
objects of rail transport;
objects of road transport;
objects of scientific interest;
objects of water transport; and
weaponry.
If you so want, I will give you links of the various annual reports that list the various items in the above categories that have been denied export under these laws that ARE not aircraft, and believe me the number of aircraft successfully denied export in Australia due to heritage law can be counted on one hand!!!!!
Many have been assessed (all over 30 years of age HAVE to be assessed) and obviously many of those have not been blocked from export, and are now overseas.
(The ME109 never got that far, it was denied export and impounded due to declaration/description fraud).
The one thing we ask is that you recognise the arguments and information put forward to you in reply, and simply dont ignore it and return to the basic, “you can have my gun when you prise it from my dead fingers” type of argument over private individual and property rights, the rights of government, UNESCO convention and other claims that are clearly refuted by the factual evidence already provided.
many democracies, outside the USA, recognise the Government is controlled by the people, and enacts laws to govern everyone to the benefit of everyone, in Australia at least, we consider ‘we” control government, and throw out those who pass laws the majority dont like, as per November 07.
Many laws limit individual rights, can you fly your aircraft without a licence, can you fly it outside maintenance certification, can you fly it unregistered, can you maintain it without appropriate licences, can you substitute parts without the appropriate certification, can you register some overseas aircraft in another country (Seafuries without Centaurus).
In Australia we control what you can import into our country, even if you own it, we therefore have the right to control what you can export out of our country, even if you own it.
“IF” Australia’s heritage laws existed in PNG, there would seem to be a good basis for recovering many of the remaining wrecks, and exporting them, subject to two being in the PNG National Museum collection? or some equivalent acceptable outcome?
The problem in PNG is that there is no workable or understandable heritage laws at all?
Regards
Mark Pilkington
mark_pilkingtonThe USA is the current wealthy nation which tends draws the world’s heritage to it (aircraft, books, art etc). Britain used to do it but in the future it could be China, Russia or India. Who knows.
Pondskater I would agree, and the “Elgin Marbles” are a good issue to explore to understand National Significance and the relocation of heritage.
The world has seen many “Super Powers” over the centuries (although not called that at the time) relative to their times, the Romans, the Egyptians, the Spanish, the French, the British Empire, for a while Germany and Japan and at the moment the US.
Although I certainly wish no ill-will to the US, and even the rest of our western economies, (but) the emerging asian economies, and India and China in particular, are set on a path to become significant economic, industrial and military powers.
The day then may come when the US is concerned with loosing too many valuable heritage artifacts overseas, Perhaps then Rob may have a different view of the world on heritage laws.
Until then at least it is open slather on aircraft being exported from the US, – anyone want to line up for swaps of any of the remaining B24’s in the States? – smiles.
Regards
Mark Pilkington
mark_pilkingtonNo,
Despite being moved, it is still largely intact is it not, the loss of foundations and original site have degraded its originality, but it is still a heritage building.
The preservation of a rare and unique heritage building, (even at a last resort through location) is justified when it is of high significance. (Although the high significance hopefully would protect it where it is.
The same protection would not be provided to a RAF WW2 building if there were numerous examples elsewhere.
In relation to Driffield, if all of its buildings are duplicated elsewhere it would weaken its protection, but unfortunately quite often heritage assessments of such sites are done on a “building by building” basis.
There is some argument to also test a site in terms of its intactness or completeness, as compared to other sites, not just the uniqueness of its buildings.
In Victoria Australia, the wartime EATS base at Ballarat has been added to the Victorian Heritage Register.
It is one of the few EATS bases in Australia with substantial building infrastructure left in place.
Victoria had 12 EATS schools of the 41 across Australia, many are no longer operating airfields, and the remaining ones (have) lost most buildings other than hangars.
While the buildings at Ballarat are not unique, and do exist at some of the permanent RAAF bases, the heritage value of Ballarat is its “intactness” as a whole representing the EATS history, rather than the architectural merit of each individual building as a stand-alone.
Driffield might then benefit from trying to assess its relative completeness rather than the uniqueness of individual buildings.
Obviously however, the Graham-White Hangar is unique.
Regards
Mark Pilkington
mark_pilkingtonI dont think EU regulation of air transport and registration categories should be allowed unapposed to ground historic and vintage aircraft, and understand the current issue is not relating to the airworthiness, but compliance with modern airline “operator” certification, either way dispensations must surely be able to be sought from rational people somewhere.
I would also agree that the vintage light aircraft will continue to fly as long as the private owner can justify it to his own bank balance.
The medium term threats to Vintage “heavy metal” would be the rising insurances that warbird and airshow accidents may attract, making it prohibitive to get insurance, and commercially untenable to operate without it.
I have previously raised concerns that the constant pressure to put on a show, or even show off, can cause a display pilot, or aircraft to exceed a safety margin with horrible resultant outcomes, each such event simply rises the risk and premiums for the following year.
Another obvious threat is airframe lives, and spares / parts availability, although warbird reproduction houses have shown that airframes and parts can be put into new production, and the same may be true of engines in the future, however the complexity and cost of engine castings and machining would probably only encourage very common engines such as the Merlin and PW 1340 / 1830’s to be so supported through new manufacture.
However the most interesting very long term threat to vintage aviation may not be the loss of servicable parts or the engines to bolt upfront, but instead the fuel to make it work.
The eventual dwindling of use of petroleum for automotive use and its flow on effect to other uses.
If the threat of peak oil, together with carbon gas emmission concerns bite as predicted just for car commuter use, there will be strong effort to develop combined cycle electric /hydrogen or other engines for cars and other modes of transport over the next 100 years.
(Obviously this isnt a problem for most of you, but it is for me as I am hoping to live well into next century ,which is still 92 years away – smiles)
While many existing automotive engines can be converted to bio-fuels, and I assume so may the Gipsy Major in Tigermoths be too which is already certified for low octane auto fuel? can some of the more complex and powerful aero engines also be so certified?
ie Can Merlins and large radials etc credibly move to such bio-fuels?, and what about jets?
Obviously new engines can be developed for new cars and aircraft to run efficiently on new fuels, including to maintain fast air travel and military air defence, but that doesnt mean new fuels will be developed to support old engines, or that new engines will be suitable for installation in existing airframes. (or viable to develop short runs to suit small populations of historic aircraft).
There are solutions, permit certain historic vehicles, aircraft to be exempt from emission standards and continue to operate.
However the price and availability of petroleum products such as petrol/gasoline, diesel and turbine fuel is linked to the high volume uses, if all cars were forcibly pushed off onto hydrogen/electric, and trucks onto LPG or other fuels, would the refineries/exploration keep petrol prices low, would the levels of production and supply be maintained, or would supply eventually dry up?
This is akin to the reduction of coal use in Britain for steam production in trains, industry and power stations and the eventual closure of most (all?) coal mines, or the simple blacksmith being replaced by the automechanic in the transition from horse and buggy to cars?
Then there is the simple physical view of oil as a natural resource, ‘peak oil’ that we have already exhausted over 50% of the world’s acccessible oil resources and it will simply run out in the next 50 to 100 years given the current rates of production. Which will have dramatic impacts on the production of motive fuels, lubricating oils and the manufacture of plastics?
(‘peak-oil’ is a bit of a night-mare scenario for the world when you stop and think how many uses oil products are used in, my lunch is wrapped in glad-wrap and put into a tupperware plastic box,, my paper is delivered in a plastic wrap, many goods and drinks are in plastic packaging, and then I need to drive my car, heat my house – but its also then easy to see why production is measured in millions of barrels aday, and the risk of running out may be credible?).
Without affordable access to current technologies of lubricating oil and fuels, what would happen to most of our heavy metal warbirds and even light vintage aircraft. some people might be able to horde some private stock, but some aircraft use significant volumes of both at their current level of activities, and are used to finding it available where they fly, not having to BYO.
I think the physical availability, economics of production in the face of new alternatives, or carbon tax or regulatory limitations on the use of petrol and oil is likely to be the greatest threat to the future operation of historic aircraft, through impacting on the use of existing powerplants and the difficulty and reluctance to replace them with new powerplants on new fuels.
(but hopefully not in my intended very long life time).
regards
Mark Pilkington
mark_pilkingtonExample #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.
Rob, I obviously can’t comment on why your proposal was rejected, however that does not mean the heritage law is incorrect, or stopping the individual aircraft being recovered fullstop by you or others? under a re-packaged proposal?
The issue in Ottawa and the B24 would seem to have halted half way through a process, surely if Ottawa heritage laws permit the wreck to be recovered, but not depart the state, then the laws are missing a compensatory purchase option? or it has not been invoked or sought?, or alternatively a legal appeal would be assumed capable of releasing the wreck? from the limitation if the state has not proposed another outcome.
The issue of export would then need re-confirmation of the National Law position in relation to the wreck? leaving Canada?
I know a little about the Canadian processes – but not a lot, as I understand it, there are local/state laws that can control a recovery, – regardless of where its intended to go, and by whom – that is generally not a Heritage Law but more often an “Environment” related law in that the wreck is sitting in Government land often in forest or State Parks. (The same can occur in Australia).
However getting beyond that may then encounter a local/state heritage law that considers the wreck is of state heritage significance and intervenes to halt a recovery.
This is because the wreck is historic “as a wreck”, not as a potential recovered and restored museum piece or even airworthy warbird. (in part this is similar to the treatment of a WW2 “wreck” in PNG etc).
That same treatment applies to all historic shipwrecks in Australia, they are protected to remain (and rot away) the system is not “designed” to encourage recovery and refloating of shipwrecks, however to be fair few are capable of having that happen, and the law is primarily to stop salvagers /divers stripping the wreck for scrap or momento sale.
I suspect other countries may have similar laws covering shipwrecks in their Territorial waters.
Beyond that local/State heritage law, is the Canadian National Heritage Law that controls export, and refuses export if the item is determined to be of National Signficance, I do note the Canadian law has a number of differences to the Australian law, I am not aware of a “2 airframe in public museum test”, and it requires as I understand it, for the intended export to be first offered to not-for-profit museums at the intended sale price?
However I suspect the test of significance will be based on UNESCO conventions and other internationally accepted practices.
The above web of various state and National “Heritage” laws might complicate a recovery to overseas, however I dont think it stops it from happening, I am personally aware of some intended Canadian recoveries by an Australian group that have already received local / state Government go-ahead and Heritage approvals without great complication or difficulty.
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 still personally cant see why you can support Heritage Laws for all other objects and places, yet draw the line at aircraft, other than because it restricts the warbird market and an open slather on recoveries.
While some wreck recoveries deliver a wreck into preservation, lots of others can end up simply as scrap sources for a few key parts – thats not preservation.
I would personally prefer to see most viable airframes recovered rather than left to rot away, particularly if they are historically significant or of a unique or extinct type, I also would prefer to see a part from a wreck used in a preserved static display or even flying restoration rather than allowed to rot away.
But I dont have a problem with the recovery of wrecks of heritage significance having to jump through some hoops, to avoid important wrecks being lost to everyone, or even just lost to their local nation. SG is an example of that.
I certainly dont have a problem with an aircraft – already in the collection of a museum, (such as the Canadian Mosquito) having to jump through the same hoops to avoid an aircraft of heritage significance being exported and lost to its local nation. The recent Canadian Connie process seems an excellent example.
As I said before Historical Laws are great for certain items but they can’t be used for aircraft.
Why, if we agree that aircraft can be of historical importance and are worth preserving, shouldn’t they be covered by Heritage Laws like everything else? which you do appear to accept?
as said earlier, I believe the Australian system works reasonably well, I can agree heritage laws may need fixing or improvement, but to have none at all is unacceptable and illogical.
Regards
Mark Pilkington
mark_pilkingtonRob,
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.
with respect, my replies and posts here have been in response to the various comments made by yourself and others, but my reference to your position is based particularly on your opening post and the following:
But first before I lay out my views in details I would like the following statement read in int he public as they would say.” I do believe that Heritage Laws do work for certain area of historical preservation be it Sites like Stonehedge or Gettysburg. I do think the World heritage Sites and UNSECO do wonders and help preserve and protect everyone history“.
Now with that out of the way I would like to explain my reason why I’m against any form of heritage Laws being used for aircraft.
1. While I can agree that historical airframe’s have been preserved under the guise of heritage Laws not one single aircraft is list on any UNESCO Heritage List. if the UN will not list any aircraft then why should there be any aircraft protect under National Heritage Laws.
As discussed in previous posts the role of the UNESCO lists are to preserve only items of World significance, but the role of UNESCO and its conventions is to also encourage member Nations to create their own National lists, those lists are not limited to objects of world significance within the Nation.
UNESCO conventions specifically support export controls, and even return to a country, of objects of National significance.
I am sure the UNESCO will list any airframe submitted by a member country, and determined to be of “World” significance.
And we all agree the Wright Flyer is of world significance and I am sure UNESCO would reach a similar conclusion and finding.
Australia has submitted and had listed a number of natural environments to the World Heritage List, and had its first built heritage place submitted and listed in the last few years, (edit – its not the role of ) the “UN” to search for possible sites and objects to list, it requires a member state to nominate them.
Australia’s heritage laws have been in existance for quite a while and are well developed, I am sure they could be improved, but they do work.
Our Local, State, Commonwealth and National Heritage Lists primarily contain natural and built heritage places at this time, but moveable cultural heritage such as Paddle Steamers, and in deed aircraft are now being considered for entry.
I am sure as member states commence including airframes on their state and more importantly National Lists they will also consider nominating some for world Heritage listing.
In Australia Kingsford Smiths “Southern Cross” and the 1919 Vimy of the Smith Brothers would both be possible contenders.
The UK BAPC National Aviation Heritage Register is obviously a valuable tool in identifying the holdings within that Nation and what airframes are considered significant, (something preservation groups in other countries should consider) this in part reflects the british leadership in the aircraft preservation movement developed after WW2.
Please note the difference between the aircraft preservation movement and the “warbird” movement which perhaps has been lead in development by the US, they have a lot of common interests and are part of an overall area of interest but they have significant differences and drivers.
Preservation groups are typically museums and “not for profit” collectives with altuistic ambitions, warbird operators are typically private individuals with their own satisfaction being the driver for ownership and restoration.
That is not to deny that they may also support preservation and heritage, but their investments are primarily on behalf of themselves and their own enjoyment. (and not that there’s anything wrong with that, and I am pleased they do so, so I can enjoy watching their aircraft at a fraction of the cost they have invested to achieve that.)
Heritage laws are designed to “preserve” historic objects and places for future generations, they do not need to be designed to support and facilitate the warbird industry. That is not to in anyway deny the important role warbirds “can” play in heritage preservation, however not every warbird is an “historic” aircraft of “any” significance (nangchungs/ L-29’s), and in many cases the act of maintaining or restoring an airframe to airworthy standards requires comprises in authenticity and replacement of original parts, and therefore compromises in its overall significance.
The new broom / new handle argument is not preservation, it is restoration, they are two different things.
The Warbird movement is an important supporter of aircraft preservation, its development in the 1950’s 1960’s saved many airframes from scrapping, and have caused many more to be recovered from jungles and wrecks that would never have been recovered and restored just for static display, it has created an economic worth to historic aircraft, and a public awareness and appreciation that then encourages and supports the museums and preservation activities.
Indeed some important museum aircraft have been “retired” from the warbird movement that had saved them.
But “Heritage” is much much more than a borrowed paintscheme and the correct outline re-made in modern metal, despite our enjoyment of it in the air at an airshow, but that debate is outside the objectives of this current thread.
The issue of Canada’s heritage laws is for the Canadians to decide, not unlike gunlaws in the USA,
Hopefully their laws will encourage and permit recovery and preservation/restoration of historically “significant” remaining wrecks locally and permit others to be recovered for export overseas, and also permit export of other airframes that are not considered to be of National Significance. But the decision of what is Nationally “significant” to Canada is best seen through Canadian eyes.
An excellent thread and well done in launching it, and thanks to those who have contributed to a thoughtful, enjoyable and polite debate.
Regards
Mark Pilkington
mark_pilkingtonRead all of this thread with great interest but the one thing that comes through clearly is the divergent views on what constitutes a heritage aircraft, we see on a regular basis nations claiming provenance of certain airframes yet clearly they have none, bodies organising legal campaigns to retain airframes yet they cannot lay before a court even the most meagre evidence of heritage of any form.
Cyperus,
You are making sweeping statements without any evidence yourself, and without reference to countering information that precedes your post despite apparantly having read it all with great interest?
You also seem to have the same misconception as Rob that an aircraft must be of “world changing” significance to be considered a heritage aircraft, there is no legal basis for that, nor no parallel in the treatment of any other object, or place as being of heritage significance.
I’m sorry but after a thread/ debate this long, I cannot allow you to simply dismiss argument and debate with such generalisations, as an apparant summary, without asking you to elaborate, evidence and defend your counter statements.
In the developed world, and at least in Australia there is well developed legislation on heritage at local government, state government and federal government level, and then there is the UNESCO conventions, none of these are aircraft specific but can easily be applied to them.
I am particularly interested in your claim to support such a position that there are regular examples of nations claiming provenance when they have none, and bodies organising legal campaigns without meagre evidence.
Interestingly I have not seen any examples of those situations of which you speak, and would be keen to know which you are referring to?
A Pacific Nation, holding the wrecks of WW2 on the battlefields clearly have a heritage claim on those wrecks funder the UNESCO conventions, that does not extinguish the parallel claims that can be made by the combatant nations that put them there – this is the basis of the constant arguments that arise on these forums, and is often poorly debated or understood.
Rob and others quite often argue the heritage solely belongs to the combatant nations, this is not correct. There is a shared heritage.
Despite much of the culture and lifestyle of these island Nations being based on their continued isolation and islander lifestyles, WW2, the invading forces, combat and liberation by advancing allies will now always be significant historical events in their culture. The objects associated with those events form part of the Nation’s heritage. The Citizens of a Nation own and inheret the heritage of their Nation even if they themselves were not directly involved in the event, – ie flew the aircraft or were directly engaged in the combat.
Some 50 years after the war, entire generations have grown up with these wrecks in their village, having the stories of the aircraft, combat, troops, ships etc passed down in folk law. For what is effectively a uneducated, unsophisticated primitive society, WW2 burst the 20 century into their stoneage bubble, – I recall the Ben Daniker book “Chariots of the Gods” referring to a Pacific Island tribe that started to worship aircraft as gods, given the technology and culture shock.
For a generation that has grown up with the folklaw and wrecks of the battleground all around them, these are a strong part of their heritage, in “contrast and conflict” with their sustanance heritage of headgear and spears.
The Wrecks are not “rebuildable to airworthy warbirds” to them, they are not “shrines to the fallen”, they are simply links to this great event that has touched them and had an impact on them and their way of life and society. – the simple ingredients for a heritage object.
WW2 brought the “white man” to many deep parts of PNG and islands that had only previously seen missionaries, aircraft, trucks, ships, tanks, weapons, armies of troops, electricity, etc were all injected into their lives, cigarettes, alcohol were introduced by the visiting armies.
A sharp introduction to the 20th century- & certainly probably “world changing” for their world?
(Clearly there is case for some of these wrecks to be preserved in the batteground, and to the benefit of both the local Nation’s heritage, and that of the Combatant Nations. And of course that shouldnt mean viable aircraft for restoration and recovery should not be able to be considered for recovery, and certainly not if their future is simply to rot into the ground. The recent Solomon Island recovery seems to deliver a win win outcome that may be a template for other islands and PNG, the lack of “clear” heritage laws in those countries are inhibiting the preservation in either outcome.)
That is not to deny the combatant Nations, and peoples dont have different Heritage claims to these wrecks, however it is interesting that the Government’s of those Nations are not spending any money recovering them as being significant enough to preserve in their National collections. (I am particularly dis-appointed at the number of extinct Japanese types that could still be recovered and preserved if the Japanese Government got formally involved).
I am not aware of many other Nations that have their provenance disputed when they make a claim? – where are your examples.
In terms of legal battles being made but with no evidence? to place in court, I find that claim particularly strange.
Having made such a legal challenge to the export of a significant Australian aircraft that was subsequently denied export from Australia under those laws, I could not have contemplated legal action without first being able to convince my barrister of the merits of the case? I cannot imagine many others would spend real money to get to court without having to convince their own legal team either, where are your examples?
Regards
Mark Pilkington
mark_pilkingtonRob,
An international list of World significant aircraft and only “world” significant, would leave many historic aircraft unprotected to export and sale, which is exactly why those countries who have such laws have enacted them – ie Australia.
In addition once past the “obvious” candidates there would be national and regional arguments of which aircraft was to be considered the representative example etc
While a free market allows individuals to own, profit and determine their own outcomes, a regulated market with such laws ensures a Nation preserves its own most significant heritage for its own future generations, (and its current population).
There are many limitations placed by Government on all free markets, TAX to begin with, Licences, registration, certification, testing etc.movement of currency.
Australia has foreign ownership and investment rules on property and companies, so does many other Countries, the controls on export of significant heritage objects is simply an extension of the same concepts.
Government’s compulsorily acquire land for public works, conscript citizens in to the Military and send them off to war, and many other infridgements of liberty and rights, and many countries, including Australia limit the ownership and carry-ing of guns.
Even in the private sector, and the heart of Capitalism in the Sharemarket, I can own shares in a company, but if a takeover bid is successful, I can be forced to surrender my shares to the bidder and compensated at the agreed or successful price, even if I didnt want to sell!
Most of us accept these as a trade off of individual rights to create shared rights, societal or public rights, otherwise the law of the jungle would prevail.
I can see you are passionate about such individual rights, and I dont plan to enter a debate on these wider issues, and only mention them in context of this comparison to the regulation of the movement of historic aircraft.
Living in a Society, whether its a cave-man tribe in 5000BC, or downtown New York, requires compromise of individual rights for the rights and good of the group or many.
In a perfect society, Public institutions would be funded to acquire and preserve all historically important objects and artifacts to that society’s Heritage, however that is not possible and so many important heritage objects sit in the hands of not for profit museums or collections, and many more sit in the hands of private collectors.
It is perfectly reasonable for a collective society to step in an intervene in the private sale of an important and significant heritage artifact if that sale is going to send that artifact overseas. The individual can still retain ownership, sell it to someone within the local country, or be offered to sell it to the Government so they retain it for the public good.
In Australia, we have a National Heritage Investment Account, whereby a unique object rejected from being sold overseas can be purchased at an agreed market rate from the individual owner denied export, and placed into a public collection, thereby compensating an individual for his loss of sale overseas. (really no different from BHP paying Me out for my Rio Tinto Shares even if I didnt want to sell them)
As I said as the intro to my first post in this thread :
I think its important to understand the objectives of heritage law before this debate drifts off to a simple argument between free market, private ownership rights, rather than the issues arising from the Canadian Mosquito that encouraged this seperate thread.
While individuals are entitled to rights, so it is the right of Nations to pass laws, with the support of their citizens, to preserve and protect their heritage, in Canada or Australia, and even PNG and the Solomons.
UNESCO, which you often quote or refer to, does not propose to only protect objects of International or World Heritage Value, but encourages and supports the very National Heritage Laws you oppose?
Heritage values need to be seen in the context of each Nation, and region, not centrally from UNESCO (or just from the USA).
It is not suitable, or realistic to limit the control of historic aircraft only to those that have “changed the course of human history” such an International or “World” list would only contain a handful of airframes IMHO.
There is no argument that the Wright Flyer is of “world significance” (it is equally of US “National Significance” and should be retained in the USA, but has NO Australian Significance.)
That Doesnt mean Australia would not be pleased to have it, or would not consider it worthwhile being preserved, it simply recognises the source and basis of its significance.
But is the Duigan Biplane in Australia of 1910, the first Australian designed/built aircraft to fly of “World” significance? or only of “Australian National Significance”, would it be on the “International” list or would it be permitted to be freely exported out of Australia? (btw It has NO US “National Significance”)
These are both one-offs and unique examples, what of aircraft types that are relatively “plentiful” and “common”?
How many Spitfires are of “World” significance, – which are they? where are they? where should they be located? A different answer would be arrived at as seen from an American point of view versus a British point, let alone an Australian point of view.
Australia’s AWM has a rare mark I Spitfire, flown by an Australian, in the RAF in war in Europe, its heritage is therefore shared, but would it make it onto the World heritage list ahead of, or alongside equivalent mark I Spitfires in the UK? – would they all go on?
How far does such a “International” list go, preserving at least one or two of each sub model of Spitfire?
Listing as “World” Significant a B17 because it has the only Bendix powered ball turret. Such things are only recognising technical or mechanical features and uniqueness, and there is justification to preserve technical innovation and representive examples of machinery, but not all are “world changing” Heritage?
The Spruce Goose is a unique example of a design that never went into production, its fame derives in part from its history of its development and then its “failure” to proceed into service, its linkages to Hughes and the senate enquiries and also its unique construction (for its size) from wood.
Other than a single “hop” its operational service and achievements are non existant? Despite that I am sure it is of US National Significance, but I would wonder if it is of World Significance to justify entry onto an “international list”, it certainly “didnt” change the world?.
Heritage arises from “social” features or attributes, “who” used something, and “why”, and “how” important that use was to that society, at a “local”, “State”, “National” , and yes “World” level of significance.
These ‘social’ features are based on local or National values, Australia’s local heros and important historic events are not neccessarily “world” important events or events that “changed the course of human activity”, so therefore the aircraft involved cannot be of “world” importance, and they are not equally important to American or to British citizens.
However UNESCO and Australian Law ensures the rights of our society to preserve some elements (and hopefully the most significant of them) for future generations.
As I said earlier, Australian Heritage Law has the effect to lock up two preserved examples in Australian Public Museum’s of each type of a Nationally significant aircraft type etc, before an example can be exported.
For a country the size of Australia, (7,600,000 Sq KM) the requirement for two examples in public collections is not a very restrictive requirement to expect or support.
I have no problem with the process that allows review of an historic aircraft as being of National Significance before it is permitted to be exported from Australia, and would support similar laws elsewhere including the USA.
As stated in another thread, your own opposition to the export of the Lackland B24 was based on its significance to the USA.
Thats not to say that its significance would have been sufficient to justify it export being denied, but that would be a matter for experts to assess against an appropriate law and criteria.
Such a law would have allowed the local or National heritage arguments against its export to be examined, rather than just the facilitation of the “commercial” trade between museums to complete their collections.
Without such laws, countries are exposed to the variable economic cycles and issues of exchange rates, economic power etc, and deals down behind closed doors.
In fact many of the problems with recovering wrecks from PNG appear to arise BECAUSE there is no clear laws in place, and instead conflicting laws and interests are being applied at the National and local levels.
regards
Mark Pilkington
mark_pilkingtonBut if I may oppose the export. In 1909 the Wright Brothers licensed their design to the Short Brothers who set up the UKs first (indeed the world’s first) aircraft factory to produce a run of six copies of the Wright Flyer. I would argue that this makes the Flyer significant in UK National Heritage in being the start of UK aircraft manufacturing.
In 1948, the Short Brothers activity of 1909 would be 39 years old, meeting the 30 year test, however the issue would hinge on the relevence of the Original Wright Flyer to that heritage, rather than just its design? An issue for the team of independent assessors to determine, and issue a decision on, allowing for the owner / exporter to review and appeal if appropriate.
An appropriately written Heritage Law, with appropriately qualified assessors, and access to the appropriate information and records should hopefully be able to resolve the issue to the satisfaction of most logical onlookers?
Obviously “unique” objects create more complex issues when being tested for significance, and a world heritage significance starts to complicate “National” significance assessment. My own view would be the Original Wright Flyer is of US “National” heritage significance, and “World” Heritage Significance but not of UK “National” significance to warrant blocking its export, particularly if returning to back to the USA, (UNESCO convention would support its return to the USA over retention in the UK and would be most likely included in the assessors report and decision.
Interesting thread
Regards
Mark Pilkington
mark_pilkingtonI am supposing that everyone here agrees that the Wright flyer is probably THE most historically significant a/c that still exists, therefore in the context of the history vs. heritage and associated laws debate where would the Wright Flyer be now (London or Washington) if current laws were around when Orville Wright resolved his differences with the Smithsonian and agreed to transfer the flyer from the Science Museum in London to the Smithsonian?
If we play this case study through, and apply current Australian Heritage Law described in the post above to the situation as it arose we would get the following situation:
If the Heritage Law was operating as a US law, then the initial shipping of the Wright Flyer to the UK in 1928, some 25 years after the first flight, would not have been blocked – as the Flyer would have been 5 years under the 30 year criteria. it would have been permitted to be sold / given to the UK.
If the Heritage Law was instead a UK law, and applied in 1948, when the Wright Flyer returned to the USA from the UK, the UK law would have determined that while the Flyer was 35 years old, (over the 30 year test) it had not operated in, or been associated with the UK for over 30 years, and in fact only been in the UK for 20 years. Despite its “world Heritage” values, the Wright Flyer is therefore not significant to UK “National” Heritage, and the Heritage Law would then let it depart.
Following its return to the US, the Wright Flyer would fall back under the jursidiction of the US Heritage Law. In 1948, it IS over 30 years old, and has a history relevent to the USA stretching back over 35 years, dispite its period of 20 years display in the UK. Any future attempt to export it would now be blocked due to its significance to US Heritage.
Neither Law is being used to assess, or act on the object’s obvious “World Heritage” values, but that is not their purpose, which is to test and protect “National” Heritage values.
I think the above clearly shows the Flyer would be exactly where it is today back in Washington USA had such laws existed in both Countries, which I assume we all agree is the correct outcome?
Regards
Mark Pilkington
mark_pilkingtonRob,
as you know I am a participant in that Wix debate, and did not bother argueing the definition and distinction of heritage and history and symantics being put there as it has little impact on what is happening, as the Solomons are not applying any “Heritage Laws” to that situation in any case.
While WW2 combat or aviation may not be considered “heritage” of a population and culture in terms of direct involvement , the “history” of what happened makes the wrecks “historic” and therefore part of the “heritage” of the battleground.
The definition of heritage includes “inheritance” of history, folkore and culture handed down through generations, the wrecks and the history of the battle is clearly inherited by these nations, and therefore would still meet all UNESCO definitions and criteria.
It is fairly simple, History creates historical objects, and links those objects unarguably to the heritage of a place or location.
The people associated with that location are connected to the object and its history either through direct involvement or inheritance, either creates Heritage.
regards
Mark Pilkington
L
Sign In
