sunken military aircraft /ships protected

[Warhawk]

I have a question: where did that “Corporal” come from that is under my name? I am (or was) a commissioned infantry officer, ranger qualified

Corporal is not very flattering to me.

Taras

Hi Taras!

It's the post counter assigning a rank by the number of posts you've made. I was a Corporal in the infantry, now I'm a Group Captain, and am apparently English.

Scott can change your "rank" if it really bothers you. As you can see by mine he was feeling humorous one day and made me the motor pool officer. (not that I'm complaining mind you, because I'm not)

[Brad]

I have a question: where did that “Corporal” come from that is under my name? I am (or was) a commissioned infantry officer, ranger qualified

Corporal is not very flattering to me.

Taras

I still just a lowly little enlisted guy (E-6) in real life. I'd take great offense to being addressed by an officers rank. It would be quite embarassing as I work for a living and have full knowledge of who my parents are.

[Taras]

I spoke with the General Counsel (or is it council) for the House Armed Services Committee today. Aside from the fact that he said he handled the legislation in the FY05 Defense Authorization Bill concerning the submerged aircraft, then sort of back peddled and claimed it was a lot of lawyers. Aside from him changing his reason why the act was drafted: first it was because of the Buffalo from the swamp, then it was that they wanted to protect grave sites (he mocked me when I told him for the Lake Michigan planes were not), then it was because Congress did not want anyone messing with the airplanes. When I told him (he knew nothing about it) that in 1989 Congress changed the law to provide the funding avenue to recover lost airplanes, thereby showing him that Congress intended different in 1989, he ended the conversation at that time, with a, “we changed our minds” snap at me.

Beside that fact that I practiced my award winning win friends and influence people skills, he did not seem to enjoy my pointed criticisms of what I see as bad piece of Congressional Legislation. A side conversation that stood out in the conversation for me was that when I mentioned the EAA objections to the legislation, he seemed honestly to never have heard them. Those professional lobbyists we heard about must be doing a fine job, at something. Does anyone know what that is?

Taras

[Paul Krumrei]

Stupid Question.........

Why would the NHC want to shut this forum down. First of all why would they care about a forum, and second why would they waste the time, government time to monitor such forum.

I was in the Air Force for 10 years, and to be honest, I just do not understand why the NHC would give two hoots about this forum.

It is a nice forum, dont get me wrong, but what danger if any is there for people trying to locate historical data on aircraft.

Now if the information is deemed classified, I can see if information was leaked, someone might have a problem. Most documentation is under the Freedom of information act, though limited sometimes.

Just a curious question and no, I am not a cat so dont go there with the reply of Curiousity Killed the Cat.

Paul Krumrei
Warbird-central.com

[Dan K]

First off: Hi Paul. Welcome to WIX.

Secondly: Yours isn't a stupid question.

I believe you're correct when you imply that the NHC probably doesn't care whether posters locate historical data or not.

WIX, however, includes many who are interested (and actively involved) in locating historical aircraft--for the purpose of recovery and restoration. NHC's current goal is to prevent that from happening.

[Paul Krumrei]

Ahhhhhhh. Now I get it.

Well, my 2 cents is, that if a person was killed in the crash, leave it be, the soul of the pilot and those on board rest there.

However, the other side of me tugs in the direction of get the plane out of the water and into a Museum or other significate location, to explore and rejoice in the lives of those who flew her.

The NHC, however probably feels that since it is officially government property, it has the power to stop them from getting it.

Now try to educate me. If an aircraft is damaged/crashed, is it not "written off" the books from the government, therefor no longer an assett of the U.S. Government.

And if so, why could someone not prospect these "gold" pieces and claim it for themselves?

I am sure the laws state such claims against doing so, just trying to figure out the "game" of ever changing rules.

Paul Krumrei
www.warbird-central.com

[Taras]

I would think the NHC would want to use what is written here to support their way of doing things, it would not serve them well to try to shut it down.

Just imagine twenty years from now the salt in the ocean, the Zebra Mussels in Lake Michigan, and the weather on land will have destroyed the airplanes we have been discussing. How will the NHC write the history and tell that story so they look like the heros to future generations?

Taras

[Dan K]

Paul, you've just hit a goldmine concerning recovery and restoration expertise on this board. People like Taras, Mike R., John Lane, and so many others would be able to answer your questions more ably than I.

In a nutshell, yes: The Navy has played "games" over the years concerning who owns what. Years ago, commercial fishermen were having expensive nets caught on sunken naval ships in the Gulf of Mexico. The Navy successfully dodged any financial responsibility to the fishermen by declaring the sunken vessels to NOT be Naval property. Their current position has taken a 180 degree turn, even to the point that current legislation empowers the Navy to claim ownership over ALL sunken military craft--not just former Navy issue.

Yes, I think you summed it up well with the term "games".

[airnutz]

Paul, your second post on this page "hit the nail on the head", concerning
most of the points of contention swirling around this issue with NHC. Over
time, cast-off and forgotten public property..has been ignored and denied
under by the classic Navy performance of casting refuse into the depths.

Normally..unless there was a specific war-grave, then the issue would come under the aegis of Maritime salvage rights. The NHC is attempting to
alter the game to their "bureuacratic court"..they have seen the light! Junk is worth something now..but they waited until a
following/industry evolved dedicated to historical preservation before they decided to get in the game.

Actually, my statement sounds conspiratorial...actually these people are "little weenie bureaucrats" who think they've discovered a way to
become "big weenies"....more bureaucrats trying to justify their existence!!

US government junk(our junk), has become something that a particular clique of folks within the agency seek to gain control of! I am respectful of
our deceased Vets..but alot of this stuff has been junk..that they are now
interested in...but they have neither the will, nor the ability$ to safely
preserve it, so they'll let it rot..regardless of the citizenry's will and resource$.

oooppsss..didn't mean to rant..but that is the jist of things..IMOP

[Taras]

I think Airnutz has about pegged it.

To the NHC it is important to control. Even though I have the locations to the lost Lake Michigan airplanes, I can't do anything with that as long as they can hold onto their control.

It is not much diffent from you owning the land above a big oil reserve, but having to get the approval of some government offical to drill for it. When you try to work with him/her he tells you that it is not their problem you bought that land and wish to make something from it.

A. and T. Recovery really bothers them because we have shown that our objectives are about presentation to the American public, the dozens of airplanes on display around the country offers proof.

Taras

[wendovertom]

Personally this discussion of "junk" conjures up images of Wildcats, Hellcats, CORSAIRS, TBMs (on and on) being PUSHED over the side of carriers to make more room!!

I know we have all sen the videos of Hueys going over the side with wild abandon during the fall of Siagon.

Seems like these planes were "scrapped" so to speak.

Taras and Rob - I think you are in the right on this one - in the words of a famous Naval Commander, "I have yet begun to fight"

[Jack Cook]

It's interesting that this current polocy is 180' shift. In years past they have releasted rights to a number of aircraft. Quote "it's wrecked junk why would we care or want it? Now they'd love to get these letters back and burn them. One wix member has had 3-4 aircraft released to him back in the late70s early 80s. One of these aircraft flies today and parts from another helped rebuild a SBD now in a museum.

[Taras]

1) Get a copy of and read Section 106 the Colonel can help you
2) Get a copy of and read the SecNAV Instruction
3) Read the NHC position on the subject

You must fully understand the subject

1) Develop a solid set of ideas about what concerns you, write them down, that is called the problem
2) Develop a solid idea of what you wish to achieve, that is called the objective
3) Develop a plan for achieving, that is called the method
4) Determine what could be used to determine a level of success, that is evaluation

Determine who must be made aware of the situation, who has some ability to take an action:

The Honorable Duncan Hunter
Secretary England
Senator Warner

Present to these people, written form first your plan

Taras

[Jeffrey]

In a nutshell, yes: The Navy has played "games" over the years concerning who owns what. Years ago, commercial fishermen were having expensive nets caught on sunken naval ships in the Gulf of Mexico. The Navy successfully dodged any financial responsibility to the fishermen by declaring the sunken vessels to NOT be Naval property. Their current position has taken a 180 degree turn, even to the point that current legislation empowers the Navy to claim ownership over ALL sunken military craft--not just former Navy issue.

I wonder if the fishermen could be induced to sue NHC for their losses since NHC have just assumed responsibility for these things?

I'm suprised that the environmentalists haven't jumped all over somebody over there being airplanes still "full of gas and oil!" slowly decaying on the bottom of the lake - not to mention the possibility of ordnance.

Some people in this country consider an airplane wreck lying out on the tundra as a threat to the environment - something to be cut up and buried. If you did it right I'm sure Environment Canada would help foot the bill for a recovery.