Warbird Information Exchange

DISCLAIMER: The views expressed on this site are the responsibility of the poster and do not reflect the views of the management.
It is currently Sun Sep 20, 2020 3:30 am

All times are UTC - 5 hours


Classic Wings Magazine WWII Naval Aviation Research Pacific Luftwaffe Resource Center
When Hollywood Ruled The Skies - Volumes 1 through 4 by Bruce Oriss


Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 7 posts ] 
Author Message
PostPosted: Tue Jan 14, 2020 11:57 am 
Offline
2000+ Post Club
2000+ Post Club
User avatar

Joined: Fri Apr 30, 2004 7:34 pm
Posts: 2744
Even Taras is getting fed up...
From his blog-

Quote:
The incredulous issue of the subversive bureaucratic bullying being wrought by the Underwater Archeology Branch (UAB)—each under the Naval History and Heritage Command—against the National Naval Aviation Museum (also within the same command) has not not gone away or corrected itself. The UAB has not only brought to a halt the progress of recoveries and restorations of historic aircraft they have done harm to the National Naval Aviation Museum—as well as the general public who are their paymasters.

The NHHC’s commander is Admiral Sam Cox and he recently went on the record (see press release below) that recoveries may continue but he has not received proposals. This is ludicrous and patently false—there can be no misinterpretation on the admiral’s part as he has received at least two proposals. These came from A and T Recovery and the Kalamazoo Air Zoo which are famed each for successful records and budget keeping with several aircraft now on exhibit. The UAB is also party to this sinister conspiracy. Yes, Admiral Cox and the UAB—a laughing-stock type of embarrassment to the U.S. Navy to those aware.

Another recent bad faith action on the part of Admiral Cox and the UAB is their attempt to map and image the World War I German U-boat known as UC-97 (renamed as a transfer of ownership war prize). There is no need as this work has been accomplished in excellent fashion (highly accurate GPS positioning as well as HD video by A and T Recovery) yet the UAB, in concert with NOAA, have on public record how they are performing the same work as original effort on their part. Embarrassingly, though trying to steal the academic and discovery credit, their combined efforts as well as in each’s work quality is abysmal in comparison to that of A and T Recovery. Simply a waste of taxpayer money as well as a shaming Bogart attempt.

<><><><><><><>

Fuller explanation on the poor service of the UAB, as well as their dirty tricks, can be found in these posts:

Why Does the Navy’s Underwater Archeology Branch NOT Wish to Have Historic WW II Aircraft Recovered?

8/4/2019

When will the UAB play nice with the National Naval Aviation Museum?

9/11/2019

<><><><><><><>

The just released press release, below, by A and T Recovery has more details as well as historical links:

Naval History and Heritage Command and NOAA Waste Taxpayer Money Attempting to Repeat A and T Recovery’s Success

On January 7, 2020 NOAA’s office of Coast Survey posted the following on their website:

https://www.nauticalcharts.noaa.gov/upd ... -aircraft/

The title of the posting is, “NOAA in the Great Lakes supports inter-agency search for WWII aircraft.”

The side-scan sonar image screen shot at the top of the post provides the aware person with some very interesting insights to the wasteful actions of these two Federal agencies. There is a side-scan sonar image of an aircraft and information box that states, “NHHC-NOAA\UC97\2019-244.”

This is significant, because it clearly shows that their search was for the former German Submarine U.S.S. UC-97. In June 16, 2017 the staff A and T Recovery, at our own expense, took the Director of Naval History and Heritage Command, Samuel Cox to the precise site of the former German Submarine U.S.S. UC-97, so that he could see the vessel for himself.

https://usnhistory.navylive.dodlive.mil ... -michigan/

Author’s note: I wish thank Mr. Taras Lyssenko for his invitation to accompany him on a visit to the UC-97 site—Admiral Cox

A few more media links about the UC-97

https://abc7chicago.com/archive/9108423/

https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/ct- ... story.html

The entire NOAA posting is additionally significant, because during the past year we at A and T Recovery have attempted to work with both NOAA and the Naval History Command to present our findings of the U.S.S. UC-97, scores of shipwrecks, the dozens of the once lost in Lake Michigan U.S. Navy World War II aircraft and to the American public. We have been met with slanderous defaming reviews of our proposal to NOAA and absolute nonsense from the staff at Navy History and Heritage Command, demanding that we sign non-disclosure agreements to keep our knowledge from the American public along with many other crazy things.

It should be noted that all our work on Lake Michigan has been done “pro bono publico”, “for the public good.”

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_and_T_Recovery


Found it here-
https://travelforaircraft.wordpress.com ... uab-write/


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jan 15, 2020 12:21 pm 
Offline
Been here a long time
Been here a long time

Joined: Sun May 02, 2004 1:16 am
Posts: 10621
Thanks for posting that. Sad set of circumstances...


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jan 16, 2020 10:30 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Aug 28, 2012 4:48 pm
Posts: 778
Location: Cincinnati, Ohio
Warbirdnerd wrote:
From his blog-

I'm pretty sure that's not his blog, just someone else reposting what he has written. In another post, the author of the blog writes:
Travel for Aircraft wrote:
In reading Taras Lyssenko’s book

I doubt Taras refers to himself in the third person.

_________________
Tri-State Warbird Museum Collections Manager & Museum Attendant

In a perfect world we would be flying only replicas. (Or at least only non-combat veterans.)

Means of Imperialistic Air Attacks


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jan 17, 2020 8:24 am 
Offline
2000+ Post Club
2000+ Post Club
User avatar

Joined: Fri Apr 30, 2004 7:34 pm
Posts: 2744
Noha307 wrote:
Warbirdnerd wrote:
From his blog-

I'm pretty sure that's not his blog, just someone else reposting what he has written. In another post, the author of the blog writes:
Travel for Aircraft wrote:
In reading Taras Lyssenko’s book

I doubt Taras refers to himself in the third person.

I believe you are correct. Here is more info Taras posted to the WIX facebook page-
Quote:
An open letter to the Acting Secretary of the Navy and the Chief of Naval Operations.

To All Concerned:

For the past thirty-something years, A and T Recovery, L.L.C. has surveyed the southern basin of Lake Michigan in search of the once lost World War II United States Navy aircraft. We have recovered approximately forty of the aircraft, mostly on behalf of the National Naval Aviation Museum with support from the Naval Aviation Museum Foundation and many others. Many of the recovered aircraft have been restored and are now on display at nearly two dozen of our country’s most prestigious museums and airports.

Since circa 1993, the Naval History and Heritage Command (at one time called the Naval Historical Center) has opposed our efforts as well as those of the staff at the National Naval Aviation Museum, and the Naval Aviation Museum Foundation to present these wonderful machines of peace, used by the “Greatest Generation”, to the American public. We at A and T Recovery, L.L.C. believe that the staff of Naval History and Heritage Command, in particular the Underwater Archaeology Branch are ill qualified for the management of these historic assets.
This past year our attempts to negotiate with the staff of the Naval History and Heritage Command, to include their general counsel, has continued to strengthen this belief. We at A and T Recovery, L.L.C. have presented multiple proposals that were solicited by the staff of the Naval History and Heritage Command. The ordeal began with the following email that was sent on Thursday, March 14, 2019.

“Taras, on a similar note, we have been conducting an archival review and update of U.S. Navy losses in Lake Michigan for management and documentation purposes. Presently, we are seeking data from local entities that may possess more precise locational information for naval aircraft and UC-97 beyond the historical records. Any information you are willing to provide would be greatly appreciated.

Respectfully,

Bob

Robert S. Neyland, Ph.D.
Branch Head
Underwater Archaeology Branch
Naval History and Heritage Command”

On behalf of the United States Navy, he was soliciting the intellectual property that belongs to a private company. In response to that solicitation we (A and T Recovery, L.L.C.) prepared multiple proposals for the staff at Naval History and Heritage Command for the survey of Lake Michigan that would locate remaining missing Navy aircraft. Each proposal was met with a response that dramatically introduced a set of increasingly complex technical requirements that were unrealistic and clearly not necessary for the successful accomplishment of the original solicitation. It appears to us that they were seeking to establish a set of requirements that made it impossible for A and T Recovery, L.L.C. to perform the tasks. We do not believe that the staff at Naval History and Heritage Command ever intended to negotiate in good faith. It should be noted that the survey methodology proposed by A and T Recovery, L.L.C. is the same methodology utilized by the Navy’s Supervisor of Salvage to locate under water objects for identification and recovery.

Taking into consideration all that has occurred with the staff of the Naval History and Heritage Command over the past years, we have come to the conclusion that the staff at the National Naval Aviation Museum and the American public are far better stewards of the once lost U.S. Navy World War II aircraft of Lake Michigan.
The actions of the Naval History and Heritage Command are allowing many historic aircraft to corrode to nothing at the bottom of Lake Michigan when they could be recovered and presented to the public. Realizing that we do not have the ability to change the harmful attitude and actions of the staff of the Naval History and Heritage Command or the decision of the Navy to place this responsibility with this command, A and T Recovery, L.L.C. intends to begin an action of our own.

The American sport scuba diver does several tasks very well, the first being the boasting of their exploits. They do this by venturing below the water where they photograph and video what they see to share with others. It is our intent, starting in the spring of 2020, to begin sharing with the American sport diving community locations of the remaining once lost U.S. Navy World War II aircraft of Lake Michigan. This is in keeping with our traditional behavior, acting “pro bono publico”, for the public benefit. Over the past forty years we have shared dozens of locations of once lost shipwrecks with the American sport diving community. This has led to much of our shared history being presented to the American public, in an array of venues. This includes, film festivals, other public forums and presentations, book publications, print and visual media, and social media, e.g. YouTube, Face Book, LinkedIn. If the Naval History and Heritage Command won’t make these aircraft available to the public, the sport diving community will.

The United States Navy, by placing this responsibility with the staff of the Naval History and Heritage Command, is failing the people of the United States of America. We shall seek to overcome this short coming by continuing to enlist the assistance of the American public. A group of people for which the staff of the Navy History and Heritage Command has demonstrated a complete lack of respect and utter disdain.

Very Respectfully,

Taras
Taras C. Lyssenko
General Manager
A and T Recovery, L.L.C.
305-794-4457
TarasAtSea@AOL.com

PS. Please do share this email with the world.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Jan 19, 2020 3:12 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Aug 28, 2012 4:48 pm
Posts: 778
Location: Cincinnati, Ohio
Follow up question: What specific airframe recoveries has the Navy "meddled" with? Not asking for polemics at the moment, I was just trying to see how many there were. Here's what I've come up with so far:

  • F3A, 04634 – Lex Cralley [1]
  • TBD, 0353 – Doug Champlin [2], [3]
  • F4F, 4097 – Historic Aircraft Preservation Inc. [4]
  • F6F-5, 70185 – Quonset Air Museum [5]
  • SBD, Unknown – Unknown [6]

Anyone know of any more? It's not a recovery, but it's probably worth mentioning the scrapping of the privately held wreckage of SNJ-2, 2549 last year.

_________________
Tri-State Warbird Museum Collections Manager & Museum Attendant

In a perfect world we would be flying only replicas. (Or at least only non-combat veterans.)

Means of Imperialistic Air Attacks


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jan 20, 2020 8:06 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jun 20, 2005 7:35 pm
Posts: 166
Location: Selma, California
I was the owner involved with the scrapping of SNJ-2 BuNo 2549. As Taras as elaborated, the NHHC began negotiations in earnest then increasingly added more terms and conditions that were difficult to comply with. That is why I finally relinquished the wreckage to what I believed would be placed into storage. In my situation, I never was informed the ultimate disposition would be scrapping.

But the story of SNJ-2 BuNo 2549 is not over. I have purchased another early Harvard MkII fuselage and am combining it with the center section and other T-6/SNJ parts previously collected to build another SNJ-2 and will be painting it with the distinctive “Blue Goose” paint scheme of BuNo 2549.

Please follow the restoration progress at:

http://www.SNJ-2.com

https://www.facebook.com/SNJ2BUNO2549/


Attachments:
696CBC02-1970-4892-AC35-8D4A2EBBC23A.jpeg

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jan 20, 2020 1:32 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Aug 28, 2012 4:48 pm
Posts: 778
Location: Cincinnati, Ohio
VCS1 wrote:
I was the owner involved with the scrapping of SNJ-2 BuNo 2549. As Taras as elaborated, the NHHC began negotiations in earnest then increasingly added more terms and conditions that were difficult to comply with. That is why I finally relinquished the wreckage to what I believed would be placed into storage. In my situation, I never was informed the ultimate disposition would be scrapping.

The Navy's conduct was disappointing to say the least. I saw the story when it was posted to a Facebook group. For what it's worth, here's the response I posted there:
Noah wrote:
Okay, so one of my takeaways is that the reply to the attempted trade is very confusingly worded.
First, the owner is asking for the navy to transfer ownership of the BuNo 2549 parts to him. However, the way the response is written it makes it seem like the reason the Navy can't offer the parts for trade is not because they don't own them, but because they do own them, which makes absolutely no sense.
Second, by saying they are not involved in the Trade and Exchange Program, it makes it seem very odd that they can then reject his trade offer. If they are not in charge of trades, how can they say that something can't be traded?
I realize that there are reasons for these statements, but they are not apparent here. At the very least, the Navy needs to be a lot more clear in what it is trying to communicate. There are key explanations of the situation that are missing from the conversation that would explain everything a lot better. I would really like to see the entire correspondence between the owner and the Navy.
-------------------------------
My question is: What reason does the Navy for not releasing airframes like this to private owners?
If the issue is liability, couldn't the problem be solved by having the owner sign a waiver that states that they agree to not hold Navy responsible in the case of an accident or other lawsuit?
If the issue is that the Navy didn't want to lose a historically significant airframe, then that purpose was definitely not borne out by their subsequent actions.
-------------------------------
I'm surprised by this decision if for no other reason that between the recent call for public input on the Trade and Exchange Program (http://warbirdsnews.com/.../public-meeting-on-us-navy...) and the session at Mutual Concerns this year, it really appeared to me like they Navy was trying to be more cooperative and flexible on the subject of aircraft transfers and this seems like a step in the opposite direction.
I realize that these may *technically* be two separate programs/issues, but they have to understand that undermining public confidence in one will only hurt the other.


I hope you don't mind, but I figured I would post some of the correspondence from your Facebook post below for posterity:
Attachment:
Facebook – SNJ-2, 2549.png
Facebook – SNJ-2, 2549.png [ 78.98 KiB | Viewed 421 times ]

Image
Image
Image
(Source: Facebook)

Finally, I saw a mention of a WIX thread about the Brewster SB2A Buccaneer that the NNAM used to have while looking through your Facebook page and figured that it would be worth mentioning here even though, as far as I can tell, it doesn't constitute the Navy being hostile. Anyway, thanks for inadvertently helping me find that.

_________________
Tri-State Warbird Museum Collections Manager & Museum Attendant

In a perfect world we would be flying only replicas. (Or at least only non-combat veterans.)

Means of Imperialistic Air Attacks


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 7 posts ] 

All times are UTC - 5 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Altmikey, Google Adsense [Bot] and 11 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group