Warbird Information Exchange

I'm still puzzled how the ban got started in the first place. While I'm very pleased the Navy is recovering their own aircraft I'd still like to know how the public got banned from this activity in the first place.

Why was it legal to pull a TBF out of Lake Michigan in the 50's 60's or 70's but suddenly we get to the 80's and the Navy says no more?

Why? What changed besides the fact they became valuable?

No politics please

_________________
Always looking for WW2 Half-Tracks and Parts.

That picture should be the WIX main page design only animated in ultra-slow motion.

I don't ever recall seeing a discussion here about how the ban got started in the first place. I'd really like to know more about it. I don't want to bash the Navy etc. just want to understand what was really the motivator for the policy change.

_________________
Always looking for WW2 Half-Tracks and Parts.

Also anyone know the timeline for when the state of Alaskan put their wrecks off limits to the public such that wrecks like the Spillers Mustang could no longer be recovered?

What about Canada when they did the same thing? I've always found the timing interesting to say the least.

_________________
Always looking for WW2 Half-Tracks and Parts.

I believe it was in the Mid-70s that Alaska jumped on a ban when the warbirds that were there started to "vanish" and/or were stripped of their components.

_________________
Kind Regards,
Gary Lewis
J.A.F.O.

Here I go out on a limb or two again. It probably came about because they didn't want anyone getting rich trying to save one of them. And it seems the powers to be in any government agency would rather see the elements destroy those aircraft than have them saved anyway. Now if someone would offer any of the states some big bucks to be able to recover one of those aircraft, I'm sure they would be all for it then. Problem is they would want full value of what it would be completly restored. MY guess on all of it.

Most of the answers to the questions are on the websites below, as I linked to on the Otay Helldiver thread.

[WARNING: Will require reading, attention span and concentration drivers to be fitted, not suitable for thought & understanding free knee-jerk rants.]

[Former] NHHC policy here:

http://www.history.navy.mil/branches/nhcorg12.htm

A couple of Wendy Coble's relevant papers, and other papers relating to relevant Navy unit approaches are presented here:

http://www.history.navy.mil/branches/org2-a7.htm

Regards,

_________________
James K

"Switch on the underwater landing lights"
Emilio Largo, Thunderball.

www.VintageAeroWriter.com

Hi Guys,

as for the Canadian perspective... It's not that the federal government is banning aircraft recoveries.

At the end of WWII the US government transferred all war materials (including crashed/missing) aircraft to the Canadian government. This allowed the Canadian gov't to do what they want with them and what they've done is grouped WWII artifacts in the same category as native artifacts, etc.

What this means is there is a significant amount of protection given to these artifacts to prevent treasure hunters from snatching them up and selling them for profit. In order to recover an artifact, let alone simply survey the site, they must apply for a permit to do so. They must also have permission from the land owner; be it government, native, private, or parks.

On top of that, a prerequisite for applying for one of these permits is that you must be a museum, historical organization, or similar. This part weeds out the treasure hunters. But, these applying organizations must also ensure that the artifacts recovered will be preserved in their care and that deterioration of the artifacts will be minimized.

I'm not sure when these regulations came into play, but I think they were created around a time when it was noted that many native artifacts were being exported out of Canada and they were enacted to prevent further loss of Canadian artifacts. And, as it turns out, WWII artifacts fell under the same regulations.

I hope that clears the mud.

Peace,

David

P.S. This response is based on research I did years ago on the subject, and I may be a little fuzzy on it now, but that's the jest of it.