New US Code has screwed all of us

[Locobuster]

(B) any sunken military aircraft or military spacecraft
that was owned or operated by a government when it
sank...

Wonder if they'd try to go after the guys who pulled up Gus Grissom's Mercury capsule...

[Jeffrey]

it would be against our constitution to let a forign land have any power here, we have a few sites which are classed as US SOIL that the US bought from us, apart from that they cant do anything.

there are also a number of areas leased by the US on aussie soil and also facilities which were/are american owned but aussie operated under govt control that I can think of so there's a bit more going on than you let on there.

as for american laws applying to aussie soils I have my doubts too. unfortunately when you look at it realistically with little johnny running things and how he seems to kowtow to anything america wants.... well.... be prepared is all I can say aside from go for it! you never know, I might even break into the piggy bank and see if I can scrounge the pennies to join you in ownership if I can ever find a suitable wreck.

[homer]

the us government doesnt stand a chance in taking my plane.

my country may sign a treaty with america which would be a way they wouldnt have to legislate it, but ultimatly i would win hands down in court.

Now Homer I don't want to start anything here because I still want to work with you on some stuff.

But under UNESCO Law the US Gov. can ask your Gov. to stop any recovery of US Aircraft. Now it would take to long to explain UNESCO but please trust me when I say the main reason the Stuff off of Brisban and the Gold Coast hasn't been recovered is because the US Navy ask the State Dept. to envock UNESCO law.

Rob

i think the main reason it hasnt been recovered is because its absolute junk, its weetbix, it just turns to dust. and btw. those aircraft are all royal navy and rnzaf. the only underwater american stuff is million dollar point.

if you want one i can get you one, thats no problem. the heritage people here are trying to protect the area now because trawlers keep bringing the crap up.

its no good for restoration or even patterns.

all i can say is goodluck to them!
they want a fight they will get a good one here

[HarvardIV]

So COl Rohr:

Have your efforts in meeting with the Navay brass gone for naught?

[Mick Grinter]

If you arn't happy go to their house.
And crap in the letter box.
Let their wives change their mind for them.

Hi Rob:

You wrote:

So back the Hell off before you really P1SS ME off. You have know F-N idea what is going on behind the scene and may I suggest you keep your trap shut and oppions to yourself. If you want to be part of this then get involved then contact Mike or myself or better yet why don't you pick up the phone and call Buddy you know the Telp.# if not then stay out the way and let us who are trying to do something do it.

I really don't care if you have a Bloody T-6 project I've been in this Hobby all of my life so don't mess with someone you don't have any clue about.

Come on Rob, you can't take a little advocacy? I was just testing you to see how thick your skin is. Don't get angry. You should've been able to handle my little comment.

[hairy]

My question is why are they doing this, and is it widely internally supported or is it small group within the gov. with their own agenda, i.e organise themselves rights/permits so that they have a monopoly on these airframes when they leave gov. service?

[hairy]

The rot is spreadding.http://www.uscg.mil/hq/g-cp/history/FAQS/USCG_Shipwreck_Policy.html
Under the section titled "What if I want to recover a coast Guard-owned wreck?" they say they are formulating their own policy but will probably copy the navies policy.

[hairy]

P.s thanks for the answer my Question and the background.

[HarvardIV]

Hey Col Rohr:

Very well stated points in your last post. I am going to writ my congressman here in Arizona about this issue, and perhaps we can form a coalition on this website. A possibility could be each person who frequents this website from a different state can write their own congressman, and shore up support for preserving warplanes.

Their corresponding congressmen can apply political pressure on the Secretary of the Navy, Naval Historical Center, and the Dept of Underwater Archeology in order to make them stand down.

Are you familiar with how the chain-of-command works? I was in the Navy, and I can tell you Congress can go to the Joint Chiefs of staff. They and the President can make the entire Navy stand down with a Congressional and Executive order.

I suggest we write a letter to our own congressmen, and then write an organizational letter from WIX to the President of the US.

This is sort of what the NRA has been doing. I'll start with COngressman McKaine here in Arizona.

Thanks,

Chris

Maybe a law suit against the navy under the clean water act for pollution of fresh water, making them clean the aircraft from the lakes and fines for the damage to the ecosystem. It would cost the taxpayer but would also bring to light the stupity of their actions in the national press. Assuming the press would cover such an issue in the light of our current political problems. This is so dumb if you don't laugh at it will eat at you.
I have a hard time thinking the operators of Navy aircraft will line up to turn in their planes because some idiot behind a desk told them to.
just my 2 cents.
Steve

[Rob Mears]

There are so many, many millions of dollars wrapped up in civilian owned Navy warbirds that I can't imagine the wealth of the invested warbird community letting the Navy get their fingers this deep under the game. A small group of greedy opportunistic Navy plotters stands no chance against an informed aviation communty. I'd bet my lefty there's more than a few warbird owners who are very close friends with their respective Congressmen. This will only come to pass if the community is blind-sided having not known such a bill was even up fr a vote. Congress is renound for slipping stuff like this right under the noses of the public with little or no forewarning - especially when there is a underlying government agenda working to get it passed.

Warbird Digest, Air Classics, Warbirds International, Flight Journal...even Air Progress, Plane & Pilot, and Flying magazine need to post this ASAP in their news sections. If not, it WILL get ushered into law.

[John Beyl]

Rob,

Correct me if I'm wrong but this is part of a proposed bill and has not yet been voted on, correct? If this is true, and you intend to live with this law albeit in a slightly altered form then, in my opinion, I do not think it's wise to be pointing out to the Navy where they have left loop-holes in their unsigned law.

They have written and proposed to congress their own laws correct? Do we not have the same rights as individuals or a group? This is a chess game and right now we are on the defensive. This is only because they were able to write up a proposal and get it before congress without our knowledge (Advantage, timing). I would suggest that we attempt to even the playing field as a first step. Instead of finding loop-holes in this proposal, get it struck from the bill that it is attached. If that can be done (By lobbying congress and finding 'Elected' support of our stand on the floor), THEN we propose our own legislation that favors us regarding ownership and recovery of these artifacts.

John

[airnutz]

Amen, Mr. Beyl...we don't want to help the NHC edit THEIR bill resulting
in a MORE restrictive piece of legislation.

As I read the NHC proposal(again, and moreso), I am dismayed that this
is an attempt to make the NHC THE ONLY place to go for recovery
permits. If a person does NOT have a permit or title from the service
that "originally employed the artifact"...then control reverts to NHC.
The exceptions, or "loopholes" being referred to are the "pathways"
marked for anyone seeking such permits. But, WHO decides WHO gets
a permit and WHO decides what constitutes EDUCATIONAL...I know
the proposal says "the Secretary"...but I'll wager it's the beauracracy
that advises the "boss" on who gets approval and who does not.
Probably the same guys who have been the "trouble" before.

It looks like the NHC got tired of losing in court, and are "rigging the game".

Maybe this is a dumb question, but in the past where did NHC stand
in the chain of "recovery approval"? When a salvor applied to recover
an artifact did a different section of the Navy give approval ? As I
seem to remember,the NHC would let the civilians do all the "legwork, research, and in many cases recovery" only to step in and take the
salvor to court. Was the NHC at that point, overriding another departments
decision, or was the NHC "backsliding" on a former OK?

I've been reading about these instances for years, but I am not as
"close to the fire" as you guys, so I'm not sure at all how one went about getting approval for a recovery in previous times.

[Scott Rose]

From what Rob has explained to me this part HAS been passed into law, the part that hasn't is the section dealing with the Navy reclaiming all aircraft that does not have a solid paper trail and clear title.

Theres two seperate issues being dealt with in this thread.