Taras wrote:
Last night we received an e-mail from the archeologist of the RMI with a copy of their law attached. It is very clear in the e-mail and the RMI law that any idea of recovering one of the aircraft from their waters is a futile effort, because they would only allow the aircraft to be loaned for a short term.
Taras
Taras Lyssenko
http://www.ATRecovery.comTaras
I assume they are effectively saying that if you recover one, that it remains their property, is only on loan to the USN and then has to be given back?
I assume they DONT intend to then sink it back into the sea to let it rot away, when its returned, and instead would retain it and put it on display somewhere?
Given that assumption, then is it viable to recover 2, and return one "restored" or even simply "conserved" as per the RAFM Do17 etc after a "short term" loan, and retain the other one on longterm ie permanent "loan" after full restoration in the USA, ie it remains the RMI property but isn't required on display there, given they already have one?
Wouldn't this then:
Give the RMI a conserved "above water" archeological artifact for their national collection, (or one to sink back into the sea if that is their want?), and another one, restored and on permanently display in the USA, promoting the RMI, the battleground and wartime history, and on paper retained in ownership by them, but permanently restored back to static condition?
Hence resulting in two survivors, at both ends of the Pacific, and at both ends of the conservation/restoration ends of preservation, as against simply enjoying them both as rotting wrecks in the sea for a few more years?
Surely this is something worth exploring via the State Department? rather than just USN or Defense?
How about an online petition campaign? or polite letters to the RMI President HE Christopher Loeak
Regards
Mark Pilkington