Ok, as a professional proofreader, I'll polish this up a bit. (Don't take offense, Rob - if what you've done saves a few aircraft, it's all good.)
Greetings All,
So yeah, I’ve been rather busy with trying to find a way that we all can go out and recover USN/USMC aircraft without being thrown into jail, and this is what I and a few other folks on here have been able to discover.
There are four different ways that you can legally recover a USN/USMC aircraft; each one has its own rules to be followed.
1.
You can recover any aircraft that is on private land. The catch is this: The land owner must sign paperwork saying that he/she gave you permission to remove said aircraft. You can't purchase it from the land owner - let me repeat that part, so there is no misunderstanding: You can not purchase it from the land owner.
In order to recover said aircraft from private land, the owner of said land must sign paperwork stating that the aircraft has been on his/her land for over 45 years and that they are giving you permission to remove it.
"Now, Rob, what if the Navy tries to come in and say it's theirs?" Well, then, they say that if the USN/USMC hasn't removed it from the private land in 25 years, then it becomes the property of the land owner. As other proof, those who have been to Mr. Larry Webster's backyard will understand that all of the USN/USMC aircraft he recovered were from private land and the NHC has told him that there is nothing they can do about that.
2. You can recover any aircraft that is located on Dept. of Interior land and BLM property.
In 1977 then-President Carter signed the Land Ownership and Stewardship Act which basically gave Dept. of Interior and the BLM control over all domestic non-military land.
In order to do these recoveries you must first provide the BLM with a written request to do a recovery; second, you will have to do the following before you can recover said aircraft: Provide an EPA impact study, provide an archaeological study, and finally sign an agreement that you will not destroy any property while doing the recovery.
"But Rob, can't the Navy claim ownership even though it's on BLM land?" No, the 1977 Act transfers all items to control of BLM and the only aircraft that the Navy can recover is anything that is on active duty or aircraft lost within the past 20 Years. As for proof, see the Lake Mead B-29.
3. You can recover any aircraft that the Navy has come out and visited and/or has removed items or abandoned said aircraft. Now this one is the sticky one; you have to prove without any doubt that the USN/USMC has come out to said aircraft and recovered items or has abandoned said aircraft.
"Rob, this doesn't sound right; are you sure about this?" Well, yes, I'm pretty sure on this one since there are two different court cases that can be used to back up ownership claims. The first one is Mr. Mike Rawson's case in which he won the ownership rights due to the fact that the Navy abandoned said Helldiver (Mike, feel free to provide more information) and the second case is Lex Crawley’s. While it never made it to court, the basics to the case were that the Navy had visited the site and had removed items from the aircraft, and this one also can be used under the private land ownership part (Lex, feel free to provide more information).
Now, on the actual ownership problem, well I've been in contact with a few folks at the Dept. of Interior. These are the folks who oversee the National Historical Preservation Act (NHPA), you know, the thing in which the Navy claims ownership over the aircraft under part 106. Well, in my course of researching the above stuff, I have come across the fact that the Navy doesn't comply with Section 110 and 111 of the NHPA. Without going into the gory details, to put it simply, in order to file 106 ownership said Governmental Agency must, under 110 and 111, provide a yearly detail paper trail of all items that are under 106 protection. Now, you can guess that the Navy hasn't even filed a single piece of paperwork on any of the stuff they claim; for example, the Midway SBD has no paperwork nor does the NH-1. What does this all mean in the long run? Well, let's just say that I and a few other folks that some of you know are going to put together a White Paper and present it to the Sect. of Navy, and if he doesn't want to act then we will ask that under Federal Law that the Dept. of Interior step in and fine the Navy, and maybe this will force them to either change their views or force Congress to change the ownership laws. To give you an idea how much the fine would be, the quote I saw was 2.7 Trillion Dollars.
On a personal note, I kind find it funny that a lot of folks on Wix, when I first started working on trying to change this ownership policy, bashed me and said that I had no right to speak for the Warbird Community, which to me is a joke - as a former warbird owner and as a student of history I have as much right as any one of you do; I just decided to act. I would like to know where all the so-called folks who claim to have the right have been. I was told to have the EAA/CAF involved. Well, Mike Rawson and I tried to get them involved and they wanted nothing to do with it. But some of the loudest critics were the folks that were associated with these groups.
If any of you have any questions, please feel free to e-mail me and I will do my best to answer your question.
Cheers
Rob
Cheers to you too, Colonel!
_________________
All right, Mister Dorfmann, start pullin'!
Pilot: "Flap switch works hard in down position."
Mechanic: "Flap switch checked OK. Pilot needs more P.T." - Flight report, TB-17G 42-102875 (Hobbs AAF)
Login
Register
FAQ
Search
