Warbird Information Exchange

Thanks for posting the links.

They make interesting reading. The parts that I skimmed speak of the need for increased preservation of our National Heritage by BOTH the government and the PRIVATE SECTOR and the transfer of "excess property". I would think that the underwater planes would fall under the Threatened National Historic Landmarks also. Letting them return to their component natural elements does not seem like the type of "preservation" that is in the intent of these law. After all, isn't "flying" the natural hertage of an airplane? I don't have the means to view a sunked plane but I can easily go to an air show.

I remember transfering ownership of the "excess" light houses to the private sector that is mentioned in the second link getting attention in the local papers.

When I was at Steamtown (one of our many great National Parks. I am into trains also), I asked on of the rangers about the retorations of the steam engines. They said that the cost was too prohibitive to restore them all to working condition but their goal was to keep them from getting any worse.

That can't be done with airplanes bathed in salt water!

Kenn

_________________
May all your bent wings be F2G Corsairs!

I keep asking myself (and I've had quite a few friends ask recently) what has Rob's post above got to do with the preservation of historic aircraft?

Rob, you obviously don't like the new language in the Defense Authorization Act for 2005, namely Title XIV-Sunken Military Craft, Sections 1401-1408. That provision basically says that all sunken US and foreign military aircraft are still owned by the US government. (For those interested the EAA Warbirds of America has made this document available on their website...
http://www.warbirds-eaa.org/news/2004%2 ... #TopOfPage

And, if I understand you correctly you're saying that this provision is in conflict with US Code (a fancy way of saying US Law) Title 16 which deals with Conservation, and specifically section 470, the National Historic Preservation Act (16 U.S.C. 470).

Oh, now I get it! Rob's being an attorney again, and he's making a case! So, is that it? Is that really your whole case, that the new provision in the Defense Authorization Act covering the protection and ownership of sunken military aircraft by the US government is in conflict with the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966? Is that your whole arguement?

Just for the record I'm not a big fan of the new act. I believe that it's a shame to allow these aircraft (and we're mainly talking about the US Navy training loss aircraft located in Lake Michigan, which is a fresh water lake BTW, not salt water), it's a shame to allow these aircraft to sit at the bottom of a lake when they could be recovered. However, I feel that there's nothing wrong with the government protecting these aircraft from modern day bounty hunters who realize the dollars that warbirds bring on the open market. If you want to see these aircraft recovered and displayed (either by private owners and museums or US military museums) then I suggest you work through one of the recognized warbird organizations that are attempting to solve this problem. My choice is the EAA. With over 170,000 members I trust their voice to be heard in Washington. If there's going to be common ground found on this issue with Uncle Sam I'd bet my money on the EAA finding it.

Now give it a rest Rob. You're embarassing yourself and this forum by playing attorney, and you're not helping the warbird movement.

Steve Patterson

Personally Steve, Rob etc., I wouldn't mind seeing a public DISCUSSION
of Title 14 amongst people who can make a civil interpretation of these
laws. Preferably by people who have direct knowledge of cases where
the governments actions directly affect them. Taras, Cralley and anyone
who has first-hand info, please join in.

No rookies(definately me included), unless to ask for a point of clarification.
No slandering, anger or snide remarks please?

My first question for clarification, is in reference to something Taras referred to about the difference, between a 1989 decision Congress made
and a change that occurred with Title 14's passing?

_________________
He bowls overhand...He is the most interesting man in the world.
"In Peace Japan Breeds War", Eckstein, Harper and Bros., 3rd ed. 1943(1927, 1928,1942)
"Leave it to ol' Slim. I got ideas...and they're all vile, baby." South Dakota Slim
"Ahh..."The Deuce", 28,000 pounds of motherly love." quote from some Mojave Grunt
DBF

If what you are saying is true, then we should all just roll over and let other "professionals" handle law. Law is written, at least in a modern sense, for the good of the people and their protection, even if it is for protection against their own selves. But that doesn't excuse any citizen of a law bound nation from their duty as a citizen to ensure that they are being governed properly. Maybe Rob is not the most articulate, but at least he is standing up and asking questions about the law. So he is in effect exercising his RIGHT and I believe DUTY to do so. Any person who would advise otherwise doesn't know much about the true meaning of being an American.

As for laws conflicting, Rob has a point, but I think the bigger right is that of salvage law. It has been well established nationally and internationally that no one has rights to abandoned underwater salvage until it's recovered. The only reason that the USN is pushing this agenda is that they (1) do not want people digging up modern sunken secrets which effect national defense, (2) don't want to have to be immediately responsive to traditional laws of salvage in cases of wartime, again to be immediately protective of possible defense secrets, and (3) to protect war graves. If this is their only agenda, there are other ways to preserve their rights without making laws which violate international salvage laws and which also protect salvors.

Salvors of aircraft have a legal right to title of what they collect, unless it can be proven otherwise in a court of law. Case precedent has been made in US Courts ( think of the Atocha (sp?)) regarding the historical signifigance of recovered articles. As for the USN conspiracy, I think that their stance and recent gesticulations through the NHC are just their convenient way to short cut through the title issue, e.g "We never gave up title, so we still have title."

Well, it's not so easy. Title naturally passes to anybody who recovers anything that is abandoned. Legally, title is a notice of no encumbrances. All that means, in old Englishese, is that anybody who holds legal title to anything has a declaration from a legally recognized body- like Department of Motor Vehicles, or a court- that no one has other claims to their property. Salvage law, which is long accepted and documented, states that anybody who recovers anything has title to it. That is an oversimplification, and their are other things which impact it, but that is generally accepted in courts all over the face of the earth.

Now, for the USN, which raises flags and goes to battle every time some one tries to recover a WWII aircraft, the question is- Why? It is not a defense secret, has little or no archaeological value, is not their responsibility (due to other law precedents) for cleanup. Well, I think it comes down to what really underlies all western law- $. They see a resource for their cash strapped museums, and don't want to lose it. Well, that's great. But they still can't claim natural title to it, in any sense of the law as presently accepted.

So my point is- Rob Rohr is right to make the arguments he is making, as inarticulate and spell-check challenged as he is. At a minimum, he is raising the awareness of the issues and making it NOT easy for the USN and even unscrupulous people to go recover aircraft without taking a long breath and thinking about their responsibilities. I think it is for the better, and he seems to be participating in the long tradition of US Citizens to question the fallibility of their laws.

_________________
REMEMBER THE SERGEANT PILOTS!

Well put John... it is every citizen's duty to stand up and be counted when their government abuses its power, and I think that this is indeed one of those cases.

Trusting that the EAA will do the job for us is also not necessarily the right thing to do either, but it is perhaps the most rational body to make the strongest argument. What are they really doing about it though? They have kicked up a very visible stink in the past when provisions were made to de-mill every former piece of military hardware several (a strangely recurring nightmare). They did a good job in this case, and performed a valueable service. However, this was something that directly affected many EAA members. I have heard little if anything about the EAA's efforts with regards to the sunken warbirds issue though, and that's probably because it affects almost none of the EAA members directly. So, is the EAA making a concerted effort to get the laws changed? Can we simply rely on them to be doing something about it, without raising questions ourselves, or at least raising the profile of the issue so that they do take notice? I think not.

While I must admit that I often have issue with the tone and the way Rob presents his arguments, he is at least willing to tackle the issue and do the research. There has to be something said for that.

I do agree with you Steve that the primary issue with people like Taras is to make a profit from the sunken warbirds, and your concerns in this issue are very valid. I do not in any way believe that recovering these artifacts should be a free-for-all. However, there should be some mechanism whereby our heritage is allowed to be salvaged and preserved that benefits both the country as a whole, and those willing to take the risks and effort to recover them... that is still within the realm of the spirit of free enterprise and to the benefit of our nation after all. Currently there is NO mechanism for recovering these artifacts for posterity, and time is running out VERY fast... even for the Lake Michigan birds since the introduction of the zebra muscles to the region.

Just my opinion, but more has to be done to get some sanity returned to the NHC's policy regarding sunken warbirds. I, for one, would love to see the devastator, and birdcage corsair at Pennsacola some day, as I am sure we all would.

Cheers,
Richard

Why not? Those that have done the research and financed the recovery should get the spoils. Those that do nothing, should get nothing. This is business pure and simple. A little public oversight is sensible to prevent oil spills and the like, but a simple permit process should suffice. Maybe the permit would be good for 3 years to legally protect the site- if not recovered in that period then someone else has a chance. We need to do no harm, yet put up a minimum of road blocks.

I think what the "Free for all” clause is to prevent ill-planned and executed recoveries like the Navy/NHC did with the PBM in lake Washington.

Or like the F6F off Mass several years back.

_________________
www.tailhookstudio.com

I agree with Tim. If there is no permit process where an applicant has to prove that he/she/them has a realistic, workable plan for not only recovering an aircraft but also to see to it's conservation afterwards - perhaps even posting a bond to ensure that any environmental damage or clean up work will be guaranteed - then every yahoo with a speedboat and a grappling hook is going to be out there with the mindset that "even if all we get is a Wildcat canopy, we can flog it on Ebay for ten grand!" But the people or office administering those airplanes and granting the permits would also have to be cooperative to the whole idea of seeing the aircraft salvaged in the first place.

Few things are more destructive than misguided zeal.

Just my opinion.

Dan

So we should require the government to get the permits, not individuals?

If you look at some of the recoveries done in the eastern bloc, from 109's to tanks, you will see that recoveries can be done very successfully by private parties- and inexpensively too! The enthusiasts are the ones that care about preservation the most.

My point on the "free-for-all" statement was that if you let any Tom, Dick and Harry out there with a grappling hook the aircraft will be just as destroyed as if you had left it there in the first place.

Sure aircraft can be recovered cheeply and simply, especially by the private sector, but it does take a knowledgeable and well equipped crew to do it. If you remember the hurricane recovered recently in Russia was ripped apart during the recovery process... it had been completely intact prior to the rather botched effort.

I simply meant that recoveries should be done in a sensible manner, and that a permit process would be a good compromise to the current situation where nothing is allowed to be even touched. Sure, I see no reason why money shouldn't be made by the salvors... that's just plain fair. However, it takes great skill to recover an aircraft from underwater, and it should be planned and executed by people with a good knowledge of such things. That's all I meant.

Cheers,
Richard

Absolutely, and recoveries can be quite dangerous as well.

I assume you are talking about the F6F. If so, I stand corrected.

But on the good side, That F6F was recovered and is being saved.

Rob
What are the parts of that story am I missing?

_________________
www.tailhookstudio.com

The victor's write history as the saying goes

_________________
www.tailhookstudio.com

As a little aside to preservation.

According to the ranger at Steamtown that I talked to several years ago, a lot of the steam engines in OUR US NATIONAL PARK came from our friend to the North, Canada, as it seems most of ours were scrapped.......... back in 1979 I remember seeing rows upon rows of steam engines in a junk yard in Chicago waiting for the smelter.

When Denver cleaned-up their airport in the 80's I saw planes just pushed in a pile to be scrapped, just like pictures of the scrapping after WWII.

I say, let those with the talent and money go for it! They are taking a risk that what they salvage may not be restorable too! Museums go belly-up too and good planes have been scrapped because of it in the past.

Kenn

_________________
May all your bent wings be F2G Corsairs!

Gentlemen,

If I'm reading this thread right, you're upset because you feel that anyone should be able to go claim and recover the aircraft in Lake Michigan. The Navy owned them when they went in and nothing has changed since, so why would the Navy no longer own them? Maybe you should just pull up to Walter Soplata's and claim and pick up a couple of his aircraft since he is not really doing much with them either other than letting then sit there. Seem about like the same thing to me!

Glenn