Navy lifts ban on salvage?

[Sasquatch]

I just found this on a Navy submarine site; I don't know how if affects warbird recovery but thought you all might be interested...I couldn't find anything else on it on the net so far....

-Tom

________________________________


WASHINGTON (NNS) -- The Navy has eased its moratoriums on recovery of submerged macro artifacts and aircraft, officials with the Naval History and Heritage Command (NHHC) announced July 8.

While the moratoriums are lifted, existing state and federal requirements, including the prohibitions contained in the Sunken Military Craft Act and associated permitting regimes remain in place.

"I have determined that such a blanket prohibition is untenable and too inflexible given our responsibility to the public. I am lifting the standing prohibitions put in place earlier," said Samuel Cox, the director of NHHC, who arrived in his new post in late December 2015.

"My primary consideration will be to maintain the sanctity of any wrecks that constitute the last resting site of American Sailors who made the ultimate sacrifice. For wreck sites that fall short of those criteria, the educational value to the American public of recovering the wreck must be of such great significance as to outweigh the disturbance to the historic and archaeological record of leaving the wrecks in place; this will be a high bar. Any recovery must also involve negligible cost to the U.S. Navy, and must be with the legal consent of all appropriate federal, state and local government organizations responsible for environmental and historic preservation," said Cox.

[Fouga23]

Let's hope this is true and some rare pieces of history can be recovered!

[DoraNineFan]

That is refreshing.

Let's hope that permit systems will be implemented before hordes of yahoos start pulling up everything within reach to sell, regardless of any further damage they might inflict.

[CoastieJohn]

A few thoughts on this.......(if it's true??)

Considering the Navy wrecks belong to the taxpayer and not the Navy, surprised that permitted recovery was not Congressionally addressed a long time ago.

The Navy risks looking very bad by leaving historical artifacts off limits all the while they deteriorate to the point of not recoverable. Once it's gone...it's gone.

There will have to be a program put in place with guidelines for an equitable way to issue salvage permits and which also protects the artifact during recovery and what will happen to it after recovery. Maybe the prospective salvagers get vetted by the govt showing they have the expertise, they can meet all the financial, insurance, environmental type requirements, get govt approval as an authorized salvager and then go into a lottery for a given artifact.

[Chris Brame]

For wreck sites that fall short of those criteria, the educational value to the American public of recovering the wreck must be of such great significance as to outweigh the disturbance to the historic and archaeological record of leaving the wrecks in place; this will be a high bar.

There are are no TBDs available to be viewed by anyone above water. Is that a high enough bar?

[SaxMan]

That's pretty huge if there aren't any strings attached.

[Nathan]

If that's true there is a T2V Seastar wreck two hours from me I'd like to recover!

[Jim MacDonald]

Stupid question, but here goes. Why would you need or want them to issue permits?

How does the AF do it? If the AF does do permitted recoveries now, then I could see the Navy following the same path. But, my understanding (not that I've researched it) is that the AF is pretty much hands off as long as the land owner permits the recovery & local regulations are followed.

Mac

[ALOHADAVE]

The Navy's priority is cost. "Any recovery must also involve negligible cost to the U.S. Navy" The Navy is also concerned that all ready recovered aircraft were not being taken care of. They had effectively run out of places to have them restored. The restoration process requires many years and lots of money and there were only so many places that could take on the work. They basically require a plan must be in place before any aircraft are recovered. No aircraft are allowed to be recovered if they are associated with human loss/remains. So no real change in policy, yes you can recover an aircraft, but you better have a plan, meet their requirements and lots of money!

[sandiego89]

There's a group in Florida with recent PBY lifting experience....







I kid, I kid.....

[DoraNineFan]

Stupid question, but here goes. Why would you need or want them to issue permits?

How does the AF do it? If the AF does do permitted recoveries now, then I could see the Navy following the same path. But, my understanding (not that I've researched it) is that the AF is pretty much hands off as long as the land owner permits the recovery & local regulations are followed.

Mac

There can be any number of issues. The first that come to mind are proper and safe disposal of unexploded ammunition, securing the high powered weapons properly and according to local laws, and water and environmental damage from spilled oil and fuel. You would think that some people would not just dump the oil, but they probably would. Consider how local authorities could slam the door shut on Lake Michigan recoveries after the first mishap.

Then there is the task of identifying war graves. I'm in support of giving the deceased a proper burial, but USN policy and family wishes may be to let the remains lie in peace.

Consider the last time a large cache of aircraft became available when Russia became a fertile hunting ground for wrecks, until locals and organized crime realized that they had any value. Then it became very difficult to recover anything else. Also consider the example of the Brewster Buffalo recovered from a Russian lake. The local "salvage crew" decided to crudely saw the plane in half in a effort to fit it into a crate.

Permits would at least prevent wreck hunting for USN aircraft from becoming a free-for-all and generating bad press. And it would ensure that people involved in the salvage at least know what they are doing.

[needle]

said Samuel Cox, the director of NHHC, who arrived in his new post in late December 2015.

I always like someone who can work pro-actively....someone with foresight.....and someone who, according to the report, doesn't actually become the director of the NHHC for another 5 months.

[DoraNineFan]

So I'm in the process of getting more information on this. But it looks like we can go and recover stuff but will need to fill out a permit

Thank you for the update, Col. Rohr.

Though some may consider the permit an intrusive inconvenience, long term it will be a very wise decision by the Navy. I'm hopeful that it will save many wrecks from amateurs looking for gold.