Deals Involving the NMNA

[Rocketeer]

I am writing a feasibility study advocating for the U.S. Navy to allow U.S. citizens to acquire physically abandoned Navy aircraft (for example: WWII era aircraft in the great lakes, along the coasts, etc.).

I understand the NMNA only desires to raise select quantities and types of each aircraft, but they do not intend nor can afford to raise and preserve all of the known physically abandoned naval aircraft in U.S. territory - therefore it would be wise to offer the remainder to the private sector. Even if the U.S. Navy sold the legal titles to these aircraft individually, they could even make some revenue.

It is false to say these machines can remain "preserved" underwater or in corrosive environments, as they age and deteriorate over a period of time. Artifacts that are properly "preserved" do not deteriorate. If no serious effort is made allowing private citizens to raise them within the next few years, there may be nothing left to save.


In my quest for factual evidence for past dealings or trades involving the National Museum of Naval Aviation, I was wondering if anyone could offer some information (preferably with a link to the original source if a website) regarding the few cases where private citizens were able to gain custody of abandoned Navy aircraft.

Although it may seem off topic, I would also appreciate any information regarding the scandals where the NMNA was caught trading C-130s to firebombing agencies (Forestry Service?) that turned around and sold them to foreign governments to pocket the change.

[flightsimer]

The NMNA won't even deal with private citizens for parts. We called down to find some missing parts for our T-34 and they asked us how we acquired it, which was through the state, and they said they couldn't sell us anything even if they did have it.

Not really a scandal, but I know of a certain B29 that is being restored to flight that was initially purchased by giving the NMNA a very rough B25 dressed up as a PBJ. I would consider that a trade heavily in favor towards the original B25 owner.

[tulsaboy]

Pirate Lex got his Brewster Corsair through private legislation passed through Congress that forced the NMNA's hand. There were some early arrangements regarding Great Lakes aircraft and recovery (I think through A&T) that traded rights to a few aircraft (I think Wildcats and/or SBD's) in exchange for recovering others. The B-29s Fifi and Doc were liberated from the Navy's bases at China Lake, Fifi in the 1970's and Doc in the (I think) 1990's. Outside of those rare few, I think you'll be hard pressed to find examples of many sales or trades. I think it is fair to say that the NMNA got burned a couple of times and has not had a good time working with private collectors and/or organizations. They are more than happy to loan things for static display ONLY to reputable museums and organizations (see the abundance of SBDs and F-14s at museums around the country) but I think you're not going to find many examples of sales or trades in the last 10 years.

I agree with you, by the way, that doing something that got surplus airframes into private hands in exchange for cash that the museum could use for restorations and/or purchases of missing links in their collection would be fantastic. Whether or not that will ever happen is another matter entirely. The clock is ticking, however, before even the freshwater Great Lakes aircraft are gone. The saltwater birds, for the most part, are pretty well gone. This will probably ultimately cost us the opportunity to have a largely intact TBD...or two or three.

kevin

[Wildchild]

The saltwater birds, for the most part, are pretty well gone. This will probably ultimately cost us the opportunity to have a largely intact TBD...or two or three.

kevin

Depends how deep you go....

If you could convince the NMNA that selling the aircraft at the bottom of the freshwater lakes and around the US could bring in enough $ to raise and restore a TBD, or anything else they wish they had in this bad economy, then you might be on to something...

[flightsimer]

The B-29s Fifi and Doc were liberated from the Navy's bases at China Lake, Fifi in the 1970's and Doc in the (I think) 1990's.

kevin

yup, Doc was traded for the B25, "PBJ". It might have bern in the very late 80's or 90's

We were the ones who transported and assembled the B-25 to Florida after it sat at our hangar for years. We still have the 8 gun nose we took off and replaced with a glass nose.

MARC was involved somehow, but I'm not exactly sure how.

[bombadier29]

The B-29s Fifi and Doc were liberated from the Navy's bases at China Lake, Fifi in the 1970's and Doc in the (I think) 1990's.

kevin

yup, Doc was traded for the B25, "PBJ". It might have bern in the very late 80's or 90's

We were the ones who transported and assembled the B-25 to Florida after it sat at our hangar for years. We still have the 8 gun nose we took off and replaced with a glass nose.

MARC was involved somehow, but I'm not exactly sure how.

David Tallichet funded the B-25 which gave him partial ownership (85%?) of the B-29.

[F3A-1]

Capt. Texas,

The short story, as I see it is this. No deal can be struck with the Navy.

The old NHC had pursued the ownership of the officially abandoned Naval aircraft to the point of total irrational thoughts. Call or PM and I will give some examples! Most, if not all of the Navy brass and civil staff have the absolute conviction that any and all parts, and aircraft that go back to civilian use "WILL" result in a lawsuit. I have had considerable dealings with the Naval attorneys and have been told this from at least three face to face.

It is best to simply find an airplane that they do not have legal ownership of and recover it. Any formal Naval planes underwater are now (since fall of 2004) legally owned by the Dept. of the Navy. The act of recovery is a felony and has a large fine too! I will not violate or challenge law, only policy. I have seen no legislation to change the original act of abandonment for airplanes crashed or left behind on land or buried. I is however against "Naval Policy". You probably know how I feel about that. Naval policies are not civil statutes. They are tyranny.

Best of luck,
Pirate Lex
http://www.BrewsterCorsair.com

[gary1954]

Captain Texas,
You need to get a couple of Congressmen that are on the Senate Armed Services Committee on your side and let them help you battle the tyrannical NAVY .
Also add a line that that specifies that the Department of the NAVY shall not be held liable for any damages, injuries, or death following the recovery and return to civilian control regardless of the circumstances or something along those lines, to let the NAVY off the hook should one of these vintage planes wind up in someone’s living room.


Good Luck


now if we could just get the National Park Service to let go of that B-29 in Lake Mead

[CoastieJohn]

The below FAQ's are from the USCG Historian's website. It is likely parts of it will parrot where the Navy get's their policies. There is some good source material there.

http://www.uscg.mil/history/faqs/USCG_S ... Policy.asp

I agree in part with allowing "credentialed" civilian people or groups getting the aircraft. Some individual(s) who just want to get the plane to make a fast buck on the market with no interest in the airframe itself....no. Where it gets sticky is when there are newly located MIA's involved and/or locations deemed war graves. Any white paper to Congress will need to address this. It will also need to address policy regarding all military aircraft. You can't go after the Navy without addressing the other services too...standardization.

IMO.....I wouldn't even bother going thru the Navy. They're too low on the totem pole for something like this. If the aircraft "title" belongs to the U.S. govt...that means the taxpayers own it....not the Navy. Hence...going thru Congress vice the Navy.

Coast Guard History

Frequently Asked Questions

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


The following are commonly asked questions concerning Coast Guard ship and aircraft wrecks.

Who owns U.S. Coast Guard ship and aircraft wrecks?


The United States of America holds legal title to the wreck. The U.S. Coast Guard is the Federal agency that retains custody for the wrecks unless specific, formal action is taken to dispose of them. The administrative act of striking an aircraft or ship from the active list does not constitute disposal. Even aircraft and ship wrecks that are stricken from the active list remain the property of the United States until such time affirmative action is taken to dispose of these properties in accordance with law. Coast Guard vessels sold to commercial businesses or private citizens are no longer U.S. Government property. Vessels and aircraft sunk as artificial reefs have been transferred to other agencies; the Coast Guard does not own or manage these ships or aircraft.

What do I do if I want to dive on Coast Guard ship or aircraft wrecks?


Divers may dive on Coast Guard ship and aircraft wrecks at their own risk. However, federal property law dictates that no portion of a government wreck may be disturbed or removed. Unauthorized removal of any property from a U.S. Coast Guard wreck is illegal. Sections of the U.S. Code have been successfully applied in prosecuting individuals who violate Coast Guard wreck sites. Coast Guard wrecks may contain unexploded ordnance and other hazards and should be approached with the utmost caution. The Coast Guard strongly encourages cooperation with other agencies and individuals interested in preserving our maritime and aviation heritage. The diving public is encouraged to report the location of underwater ship and aircraft wreck sites to the Coast Guard Historian Office. Documentation of these wreck locations allows the Coast Guard to evaluate and preserve important sites for the future.

What if I witness another diver removing parts from a Coast Guard wreck?


If you witness the theft of material from a Coast Guard wreck, report it to the U.S. Coast Guard and to your State Historic Preservation Officer or State Underwater Archaeologist. Vandalism of U.S. Government property is illegal and leads to the destruction of historically valuable underwater sites.

What if I want to recover a Coast Guard-owned wreck?


Recovery of historic ship, aircraft wreck or associated components will be considered only for educational or scientific purposes. It is unlikely the Coast Guard will recommend the disposal and sale of historic ship or aircraft wrecks. The Coast Guard is currently working on an official policy in this regard, which will likely follow the U.S. Navy’s policy. It has been Navy policy not to dispose of historic ship and aircraft wrecks for the following reasons:
•Congress has mandated through the NHPA that Federal Agencies make every effort to preserve their historic cultural resources.
•The remains of crew members, if any, deserve respect and should remain undisturbed unless proper retrieval and burial become necessary.
•There is a possibility that live explosives or ordnance may still be on board.
•Arbitrary disposal and sale of wrecks may foster commercial exploitation of cultural resources.
•Abandonment of wrecks will deplete a finite inventory of significant cultural resources.

Under no circumstances should salvage of Coast Guard ship or aircraft wrecks be undertaken without prior and specific written approval by the Coast Guard Historian's Office!

Can I penetrate a Coast Guard ship or aircraft wreck?


No, the Sunken Military Craft Act, Pub.L. 108-375, Div. A, Title XIV, Sections 1401 to 1408, Oct. 28, 2004, 118 Stat. 2094, provides that no person may engage in or attempt to engage in any activity directed at a sunken military craft that disturbs, removes, or injures any sunken military craft except as otherwise authorized by law. Further, no person may possess, disturb, remove, or injure any sunken military craft in violation of this Act or any prohibition, rule, regulation, ordinance, or permit that applies under any other applicable law.

Justification: Throughout history, warships and other craft in the service of the government have been accorded special protection under the concept of sovereign immunity, which exempts a warship or other governmental vessel in noncommercial service from the jurisdiction of any other state. In the modern era, this doctrine has been accepted as customary law by the courts in most jurisdictions as well as having been memorialized in articles 95 and 96 of the 1982 UN Law of the Sea Convention.

Sunken military vessels often contain military or diplomatic material and naval technological modifications of a sensitive nature which may compromise national security. They also often contain the remains of naval personnel, which entitles them to the same protection as military gravesites on land. There are safety concerns, both for divers and the surrounding environment, in that careless activity could trigger off unexploded ordnance or release of fuel or other hazardous material into the ocean environment. Additionally, several articles in UNCLOS recognize the need for all States to cooperate to protect archaeological and historical objects found at sea.

The United States has been very aggressive in using this doctrine as a rationale for protecting our sunken warships and denying access to them or the pursuit of salvage claims against them since the nineteenth century.

What about wreck sites that are debris fields rather than whole aircraft or ships?


Wreck sites that are not entire aircraft or ships, but are parts strewn in a debris field are considered archaeological sites. Such sites still contain U.S. Government property and must be managed by the Coast Guard in accordance with the National Historic Preservation Act. Contact the Coast Guard directly for further information.

Federal Laws and Regulations Relating to U.S. Coast Guard Submerged Ship and Aircraft Wrecks


•Antiquities Act (16 U.S.C. 433).
•National Historic Preservation Act of 1966(16 U.S.C. 470).
•Archaeological and Historic Preservation Act of 1974 (16 U.S.C. 469).
•Archaeological Resources Protection Act of 1979 (16 U.S.C. 470aa).
•Theft of Government Property (18 U.S.C. 641).
•Abandoned Shipwreck Act of 1987 (43 U.S.C. 2101).
•Documents, Historical Artifacts, and Condemned or Obsolete Combat Material: Loan, Gift, or Exchange(10 U.S.C. 2572).
•Archaeological Resources Protection Act Final Uniform Regulations (32 CFR 229).
•Protection of Historic Properties (36 CFR 800).
•Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Historic Preservation Projects (36 CFR 68).
•Abandoned Shipwreck Act Guidelines (55 FR 50116).
•National Register of Historic Places (36 CFR 60).
•Determinations of Eligibility for Inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places (36 CFR 63).
•Recovery of Scientific, Prehistoric, Historic, and Archaeological Data (36 CFR 66)
•Curation of Federally-Owned and Administered Archaeological Collections (36 CFR 79).
• Sunken Military Craft Act (Pub.L. 108-375, 10 U.S.C. 113 Note & Stat. 2094-2098, Title XIV)

For further information, contact the Coast Guard Historian’s Office at:



United States Coast Guard Historian’s Office (CG-09224)
U.S. Coast Guard Headquarters
2100 2nd ST, S.W.
Washington D.C. 20593-0001

202-372-4650.

[Speedy]

I was just down at P-cola last week and was sad to see the state of the PBJ out on the flightline. I mean, I am glad that they have the planes and that ultimately I know they will be cared for, but it hurt to see the Privateer and some of the other 'big' planes outside. It's better than when I was stationed there in the early '90's and all the big planes were out in the grass around the building, but still.....

[AirJimL2]

MARC is an interesting case as they were involved in two somewhat recent deals involving trades, the above mentioned B-25 for B-29 and an FM-2 now at Pima. Not sure how they were able to make these deals.

Not really on topic, but my understanding is the Mars deal will involve a trade for a Herc or Hercs.

As for the C-130s and P-3s, was the NMNA even involved? I always thought the deal was with the U.S. Forest Service and the GSA.

Jim