Hi,
Just thought I'd throw in a few thoughts I've had while reading this thread. Having almost completed an Archaeology degree ( late 80's ) as well as being a volunteer at an aviation museum for 23 years dragging in planes to restore ( usually a half step ahead of the scrap man ), my views cover both sides of the debate. As an Archaeologist, when a “site” is excavated, it is “destroyed” in the process so it is vital that as much information as possible is gathered and recorded for future researchers ( the structure might remain but all the info about the inhabitants diet ( collect all the bones etc in the trash pits, sort, weigh, and tada their menu ! ) and other information in the “dirt” is lost ). This is why most sites today are only partially excavated, if at all, and then only after much thought and planning. The exceptions are for “rescue Archaeology” where the site is about to be destroyed by man or nature so an effort is made to save as much information / material as possible. All this being said, most standard “sites” are stable and not going to change very much in another 10-200 years. Aircraft, ships and most other “modern” tech items / relics are another matter. In another 100 years all that will be left in most cases will be glass and a few stainless bits buried in a pile of discolored and polluted dirt. There may be a few unique exceptions ( ice, sealed in clay, dry desert etc ) but even then, if the sites are in ANYWAY accessible to people, some @$$**** will decide to get off by destroying the item / site ( human nature, always has been, always will be – “You just can't fix stupid!” ). Just as quick examples: grave / tomb robbers for hundreds of years; the jerks who had to pay money and ride for several hours across the desert just to bash up the WWII P-40 in Egypt, like WTF!!!; the current idiots in Middle East / Africa blowing up REALLY old sites; and here in the US people pushing over rock formations, vandals damaging displays just for the h### of it, etc, etc. The point I guess I'm trying to make is that while “in situ” sites are cool to visit, they are NOT going to last for any real length of time. In my option though, ships and other large war grave sites should NOT be disturbed except for ID'ing and other non salvage types of research. Smaller sites, Aircraft, etc containing remains should be ID'ed and the decision to recover the crew / airframe made only after consulting the relatives and their respective government, as well as receiving the permission of the land owner and the local government. I think any other aircraft should be open for recovery if the land owner and the local gov. are both agreeable. Should every scrap of wreck be picked up and put in the big black hole warehouse from the “Indiana Jones” movies ? No, of course not, but the really rare / good examples that still survive should be preserved for the future. Preserved vs restored to fly ? Tough question, on which I lean more towards preserve if the information is available to build a “replica” without taking apart / destroying the original plane. If the type is fairly common but no rebuild data is around then do the “restore” but collect as much info as possible and share it! Finally the really sticky wicket, the last of it's kind plane that has to be disassembled to acquire the info to make a new one? That is kinda like a no win call plus open invitation to be a dart board from both sides at the same time. Any of the above actions should be given thought, planning, as well as fund raising before starting the process and making a mess out of the recovery ( PBY in Gulf comes to mind, as well as many other planes that have been pulled up/in then allowed to sit out in the open and rot at a MUCH faster pace because a preserve-restore plan & money was not in place, just the good intentions of “hey guys, lets save this”. I've been guilty of that myself, which is why I try to help others learn from my mistakes.
Now to the PNG issues, and the original topic of this thread, sorry for “deep thoughts from Kudzu” side track!
It's been awhile since I read a certain tour guide's site / posts, other people's post's about him etc. so I won't throw any big rocks ( glass houses and all that ). I do however think he has a vested interest in leaving the planes to rot away in place so he can continue to make a living as a guide instead of considering what's best for the artifacts and the historical record. Judging from the picture of the B-26 in the other thread that was excavated at his request ( per other posters, I don't know ) the site WAS destroyed as an “Archaeological” site by the digging plus now that the artifact is exposed to the open air again, the corrosion will go into afterburner and TOTALLY destroy the plane shortly ( Okay slightly larger rock, but the plane was already identified and all of the crew accounted for ( survived ), so absolutely no need to excavate / destroy it just for a cool “hey, look what I found picture” ). He is working on helping bring home the MIA's, so my hat's off to him for that part of his operation. As far as dealing with the local people and their government on recoveries, I think “Digger” has been outstanding. To me, the main thing is the respect of their values and culture he has shown in his posts. In a lot of the world “gifts” are the way things work, and the way the people there WANT it to work as well. Most of the time, the local leaders and government of any given country have to keep their population at least somewhat happy or they get replaced. Just because we don't like such business practices as a general rule doesn't give us the right to force our view on them. It's their pool, so if you want to swim you have to follow their rules or go home. Can the recovered aircraft have a monetary value ? Of course, but as the saying goes, the way to make a small fortune with an airplane is to start with a large one. I've never recovered an airplane for pay or one that was later sold but I really don't see much, if any profit to be made after all the expenses are paid ( almost free planes here in the USA still get scrapped because of the moving costs, so just imagine where everything has to be shipped in / out at great cost ). All of the work I've done over the years was because of my interest in preserving history, not for ego, or to make a quick buck ( it's actually cost a lot of hard earned bucks ). It's been fun with some blood, a lot of sweat, and a few tears along the way but worth it for the moments like the time we hosted Collings B-17 / B-24. A veteran came up and thanked ME for not forgetting about him and all the others. I told him “I'm the one who is thankful to you and all of your friends sacrifices”. That's one of the priceless moments I'll remember forever along with my paid flight on “909” to Asheville where we were greeted by Col. Bob Morgan on arrival ( Memphis Belle ). Back to the idea of viewing the planes in place, it's not something that I think will ever bring in enough revenue to make any real difference to the locals standard of living etc. The number of people willing to spend money on touring historic sites like these is going to keep declining even without bad headlines. When I visited friends in Sydney back in 2005, I was told a little about PNG. One girl's uncle lived there with his local wife and family. She had visited them and traveled around safely but only because she was with her cousins ( kidnapping / robbing of tourists was not uncommon and the family lived in a guarded compound per her info ). It was and from what I've read, still is quite tricky to travel and visit due to all the different family / tribal areas. Here's a link to the article about some recent incidents which will further reduce tourism / income for the locals ( only takes the one bad apple to give the whole place a bad name ).
http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/ame ... ?ocid=iehpKeep up the good work Peter,
if I ever get a chance to visit again, I'll try to see more than just the Sydney area.
Cheers and Good Night!
Brian
AKA “Kudzu”
PS “SG” is for the B-17 “Swamp Ghost”, now in Hawaii
Login
Register
FAQ
Search
so...
)
