Question: US Navy reclaiming "their" airplanes

TheBoy · **Posted:** Mon Jan 14, 2013 2:31 pm

Hi everyone,

I've got an question that should be fairly straight forward. I searched the forum and didn't come up with an answer, even though I'm sure it is out there. What is the basic, 5 minute answer to the Navy reclaiming airplanes recovered by private individuals? Is there a specific set of criterion that they use to determine whether it is "theirs" or not? Is there something that makes it "safe" from being reclaimed? As an example, and airplane that crashed in the 40's, was stricken from the Navy registry then recovered by an individual in the 1990's - is that at risk of being "reclaimed"? Thanks!

tulsaboy · **Posted:** Mon Jan 14, 2013 2:56 pm

The short answer is "yes, that airplane is in danger of being repossessed by the Navy." Whether or not they can depends on whether or not the person who recovered the airplane in the 1990's did so with Navy permission or not. Per present Navy rules, all Naval aircraft, stricken or not, are still the property of the US Navy wherever they sit. Anyone wanting to recover them has to have clear permission from the Navy, or (literally) an act of Congress that overrides the Navy. With all of the Lake Michigan recoveries, the Navy is onboard as a partner/owner of those aircraft and has authorized those recoveries. Folks who have gone to great expense to recover Navy aircraft on their own without Navy permission, even if they have the best of intentions, have found themselves in legal hot water and have watched as the Navy repossessed their recovered aircraft.

kevin

Dan K · **Posted:** Mon Jan 14, 2013 3:01 pm

Just about everything you need to know. Just scroll down and click.

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

Happy reading!

TheBoy · **Posted:** Mon Jan 14, 2013 3:15 pm

Thanks guys. That is how I understood things but wanted to clarify if there was a statute of limitations or something that protected airplanes recovered X number of years ago. Dan, the page you directed me to seemed specific to submerged artifacts, do the same rules apply to a Navy airplane found on land?

shrike · **Posted:** Mon Jan 14, 2013 3:45 pm

http://www.history.navy.mil/faqs/faq28-1.htm is the part that spells it out, submerged or not.

Short answer is that the Navy retains ownership of everything, everywhere, forever barring (literally) and act of Congress.

cooper9411 · **Posted:** Mon Jan 14, 2013 4:42 pm

The Navy has paperwork that would need to be filled out in its entirety, and even with that the chances of the Navy transferring ownership is none! Now they will at times (at the salvagers expense) "give" aircraft on a permanent loan to museums/organizations. The chances are better than those for a private individual. :drink3:

Noha307 · **Posted:** Mon Jan 14, 2013 5:06 pm

Historic Preservation Policy Regarding US Navy Sunken Military Craft wrote:

Recovery of historic ship or aircraft wrecks will be considered only for educational or scientific purposes. It is unlikely the Department of the Navy will recommend the disposal and sale of historic ship or aircraft wrecks. It has been Navy policy not to dispose of historic ship and aircraft wrecks for the following reasons:
...

Abandonment of wrecks could deplete a finite inventory of significant cultural resources.

Wait, what? :shock:

This doesn't even make sense. Aren't the wrecks currently abandoned because no one is able to care for them? Wouldn't they be less abandoned if someone raised them? How could not allowing the recovery of these artifacts not constitute abandonment? I'm confuzzled. :rolleyes:

To answer my own question, I think they're trying to say that the Navy would be abandoning the wrecks in that they would no longer be in their care - that by removing their legal title to them they would be metaphorically "abandoned". It still seems highly hypocritical though. (I started this post out not understanding the reasoning. I had to read through the passage multiple times before I could comprehend what I think they are saying.)

hang the expense · **Posted:** Mon Jan 14, 2013 7:10 pm

H E L L of a note since it was us the TAXPAYERS that paid for said aircraft when new and the aircraft were struck off charge.

cooper9411 · **Posted:** Mon Jan 14, 2013 8:14 pm

hang the expense wrote:

H E L L of a note since it was us the TAXPAYERS that paid for said aircraft when new and the aircraft were struck off charge.

Agree 100%! :shock:

According to the higher ups with NMNA and the Navy History & Heritage Command, just because the aircraft were struck off charge does not mean in any way that the Navy has given up title/ownership?????? :roll:

Very confusing if you ask me.

John Dupre · **Posted:** Mon Jan 14, 2013 8:41 pm

I am no expert but it seems to me that part of the Navy's claim relates to maritime law. A vessel abandoned at sea, even outside territorial waters, is not ownerless the owner or his representatives are just not in possession at the moment. Wrecks are the property of someone, if not the owners then thier insurance companies. A salvager has no right to assume ownership of a salvaged wreck but can expect compensation for the salvage.

The US Navy has made repeated claims in salvage courts that they have not forfeited ownership of any of thier property. The best anyone could hope for is to prove that a USN wreck was a hazard to navigation and therefore the salvager deserves compensation in the form of payment or the wreck itself. So get yourself a couple of crack sea lawyers and have a go.

The USAF has a much more enlightened policy, basically forfeiting ownership of any wreck prior to 1962. Such wrecks then beloning to whoever owns the property they rest on.

PbyCat-Guy · **Posted:** Mon Jan 14, 2013 10:20 pm

What does the navy do with aircraft they confiscate? would be really crazy if they scrapped them. Speaking of taxes to help pay for things, think of all the office furniture that was simply thrown overboard (practically new) so they could get the same amount of funding for the next year.

hang the expense · **Posted:** Tue Jan 15, 2013 12:44 am

If it was there money it would be a different story but since it is not...

B-29 Super Fort · **Joined:** Wed Sep 01, 2004 11:12 am **Posts:** 871

Does the Navy claim of their aircraft change if the plane crashed on land rather than the ocean?

tulsaboy · **Posted:** Tue Jan 15, 2013 8:06 am

Warbirdnerd · **Joined:** Fri Apr 30, 2004 7:34 pm **Posts:** 2923

TheBoy wrote:

Hi everyone,

I've got an question that should be fairly straight forward. I searched the forum and didn't come up with an answer, even though I'm sure it is out there. What is the basic, 5 minute answer to the Navy reclaiming airplanes recovered by private individuals? Is there a specific set of criterion that they use to determine whether it is "theirs" or not? Is there something that makes it "safe" from being reclaimed? As an example, and airplane that crashed in the 40's, was stricken from the Navy registry then recovered by an individual in the 1990's - is that at risk of being "reclaimed"? Thanks!

Get in touch with Lex Crawley aka Pirate Lex on this board, he is very well versed on the Navy policy.

Warbird Information Exchange

Question: US Navy reclaiming "their" airplanes

Who is online