This is the place where the majority of the warbird (aircraft that have survived military service) discussions will take place. Specialized forums may be added in the new future
Post a reply

Latest Communique from The Colonel on the NHC

Thu Oct 11, 2007 7:27 pm

Greetings All,

So yea I’ve been rather busy with trying to find a way so we all can go out and recover USN/USMC aircraft with out being throw 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 an 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 give you permission to remove it.

Now Rob what if the Navy tries to come in and say its there well then the say that if the USN/USMC hadn't removed 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 backyard will understand that all of the USN/USMC aircraft he recover was 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 sign the Land Ownership and Stewardship act with basically gave Dept. of Interior and BLM control over all domestic none Military Land.

In order to do these recovery's you must one provide the BLM with written request to do a recover second you will have to do the following before you can recover said aircraft.

Provide an EPA impact study. Provide an archaeologal study, and finally sign an n agreement that you will not destroy any property while doing the recovery.

But Rob can't the Navy claim ownership even thou its on BLM land, no the 77 Act transfer's 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 with in 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 visit and or has removed items or dump said aircraft. Now this one is the sticky one you have to prove with out any doubt that the USN/USMC has come out to said aircraft and recover items or has dump said aircraft.

Rob this doesn't sound right our you sure about this, well yes I'm pretty sure on this one since there is two different court case that can be used to back up ownership claims. the first one is Mr. Mike Rawson case in which he won the ownership rights due tot he fact that the Navy dump 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 basic tot he case was that the Navy had visit the site and had removed items from it and this one also can be used under the private land ownership part also.(Lex feel free to provide more information)

Now on the actually ownership problem well I've been in contact with a few folks at the Dept. f Interior these are the folks who oversee the National Historical Preservation Act(NHPA) you know the thing that the Navy claims ownership over 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 with out going into the gory details to put it simple 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 the claim like the Midway SBD has no paperwork nor does the NH-1. What does this all mean in the long run well lets 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 w
e will ask that under Federal Law that the Dept. of Interior step in a and fine the Navy and maybe this will force them to either change there views or force Congress to change the ownership laws. To give you and 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 allot 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 a Student of History I have as much right as anyone of you do, I just decided to act. I would like to know were 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 question please feel free to e-mail me and I will do my best to answer your question.

Cheers
Rob

Thu Oct 11, 2007 7:58 pm

Thank you Rob for all that you have done on this matter.
If it is not for folks like you, then their might not be things that we take for granted.
Again Thank You

Thu Oct 11, 2007 9:54 pm

Is it just me. This is very tough to read and/or understand due to the lack of proper grammar, spelling, and punctuation. Would someone please post a synopsis of what's being reported here? (If you can make any sense of it.)

Mudge the confused :?

Thu Oct 11, 2007 10:09 pm

How would aircraft not on U.S. soil be covered?

Grammer

Fri Oct 12, 2007 12:12 am

Hey Mudge, I thought it was me there for a minute.Oh wait, it is.Never mind. :oops:

Fri Oct 12, 2007 12:19 am

Mudge wrote:Is it just me. This is very tough to read and/or understand due to the lack of proper grammar, spelling, and punctuation. Would someone please post a synopsis of what's being reported here? (If you can make any sense of it.)

Mudge the confused :?


Nope, not just you. I gave up half way through the first rule.

Fri Oct 12, 2007 12:36 am

hmm i understood it a little... guess its my F.A.R.'s class kicking in.

Fri Oct 12, 2007 2:23 am

Heheeeee :D

Has it been that long? Nobody remembers Rob?


Thanks Rob for the info.

Fri Oct 12, 2007 2:46 am

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! :drink3:

Fri Oct 12, 2007 11:32 am

So if I understand this correctly, if an aircraft is on private/BLM land then as long as you have landowner permission/proper paperwork and studies then it's yours to recover. (providing it's there over 25 years) But how many are out there in this case to be recovered?

The more numerous possibilities that people are interested in are the Lake Michigan, off FL coast and South Pacific airframes to be recovered. They way I interpret this is that the aircraft must have been dumped, or prove that the Navy have been there to remove items, in order for anyone to have dibbs on a recovery. If the aircraft was crashed/ditched, then you are out of luck. Is that correct?

Cheers,
Pete

Fri Oct 12, 2007 1:22 pm

Excellent research Rob provided you have all the documentation to back it up. I do not believe I ever read where you should not do this. The thing everybody is afraid of is what you now plan to do with this information. If I understand correctly you will be presenting it to the Secretary of The Navy and then attempting to follow through with strong arm tactics (a 2.7 trillion dollar fine) to get them to fall in line with your thinking (Or what you believe is the thinking of others inside the Warbird). Be prepared for them to quickly and efficiently create legal ways to block you and anybody else who in the future may want to try and use your researched facts to save any of these relics. In other words, you’ve found the loopholes and now have the trump cards you need to salvage…be happy, don’t kick the beehive! Use these findings to your advantage…quietly! The old saying “Lose lips sink ships” seems to apply here.

John

PS: Mudge…you need to install “Colonel Rohr decoding software” in your brain to cipher through his writings. Sorry Rob…I couldn’t resist!

Fri Oct 12, 2007 2:58 pm

O.P. wrote:Has it been that long? Nobody remembers Rob?

I dunno about the rest of ya'll, but I'm still trying to forget... :lol:

Nevertheless, I do appreciate his efforts in this area...

Oh, Mr. Brame, I also appreciate your giving this the Rohrsetta Stone treatment...


Fade to Black...

Fri Oct 12, 2007 4:43 pm

Peter-Four-Oh wrote:
O.P. wrote:Has it been that long? Nobody remembers Rob?

I dunno about the rest of ya'll, but I'm still trying to forget... :lol:

Nevertheless, I do appreciate his efforts in this area...

Oh, Mr. Brame, I also appreciate your giving this the Rohrsetta Stone treatment...


Fade to Black...


Oh, I do miss it!

Its good to see Maryland is not far from Maine!

Fri Oct 12, 2007 4:49 pm

Interesting, I hope someone uses this before the hole closes up.

I think most people think they have to travel a long way to get to some of these crash sites, well over the last few months I’ve found more than I can believe in a few hours drive form my house. I’m sure there are a lot more crash sites that I have not even heard of yet.

Tim

Fri Oct 12, 2007 7:13 pm

Just a quick clarification, the 2.7 Trillion dollar fine is what could be levied against the Navy for not following the regulations under the National Historical Preservation Act. Keep up the discussion, Boys and Girls, and maybe Santa WILL bring you a Devastator, Buffalo or Mariner for Christmas this year!
Don

Hey Scott, when did Spell Check start working on the WIX?!
Post a reply