WIX Archives

Which B-17 was it?

Posted by Will Fowler on Sun Jul 07, 2002 03:49:46 AM

In reply top Re: Who owns them anyway?? posted by Elliott on Sat Jul 06, 2002 11:26:35 AM

Hi Elliot,

Which B-17 was it you recovered? are the remains on diplay?

Sorry, off the original track but just would like to know more about this plane.

Regards,

Will


: : It seems an interesting deabate has been opened up by co
: mm
: : ents arising out of my case. In a way, the issue of Crow
: n/
: : MOD ownership was central in the final analysis to the p
: ro
: : ceedings in my case. However, I will not comment further
: v
: : ia this forum on the court case or its satisfactory outc
: om
: : e - save to say that the RAF Press Officer Squadron Lead
: er
: : Elaine McLeod this week said that I had been "exonerate
: d"
: : . Coupled with Judge Rennie's praise of my actions isn't
: i
: : t, surely, a case of 'nuff said on that point? Ownership
: t
: : hough, now thats another matter!
: : It is a fact that RAF aircraft wrecks, wherever they wer
: e
: : in the world, were "Struck off Charge". Look at the rele
: va
: : nt Air Publications on that point and draw your own conc
: lu
: : sions. Moving on to 8th May 1972, the MOD said in writin
: g
: : that they had no further interest in these wrecks, that
: th
: : ey had abandoned all claim to them and that they had bee
: n
: : reduced into the possession of the landowner upon whos l
: an
: : d they lay. By about 1975 the MOD were taking a differen
: t
: : stance, saying they owned them after all. Despite being
: pr
: : essed repeatedly on the matter they have never satisfact
: or
: : ily explained the change of tack. Considering that they
: "a
: : bandoned" them through the Struck off Charge process and
: c
: : onfirmed the abandonment in 1972 I believe that MOD clai
: m
: : to title is tenuous in the extreme. Add to this the civi
: l
: : laws on abandonment and I fail to see they have any case
: a
: : t all. If you or I left our property on private land for
: s
: : ixty years or more I suspect our claim to ownership migh
: t
: : be a little shaky. Ah, yes, I hear you all say, but what
: a
: : bout the Protection of Military Remains Act 1986? Well,
: w
: : hat about it? Can we dispel a myth here. The PMR Act doe
: s
: : not confer ownership of wrecked aircraft on the MOD. It
: is
: : entirely silent on the issue, and so were the debates o
: n
: : the matter in the Houses of Commons and Lords. The MOD w
: ou
: : ld like to have us believe that the Act does confer owne
: rs
: : hip - but read it and see. It does not. All it does is r
: eq
: : uire that within the UK one needs a licence to work on c
: ra
: : sh sites. As for RAF wrecks abroad, well the Act cannot
: ap
: : ply outside the UK so only the sovereign laws of the lan
: d
: : where the wrecks lie could be applicable. Of course, if
: as
: : ked, then I am sure the MOD will claim wrecks as their o
: wn
: : just in a rather opportunistic way in case they decide
: th
: : ey want them. The Lancaster in Sweden is an interesting
: ca
: : se.
: : As for former USAAF aircraft, the written US Policy on t
: he
: : se (unlike USN airplanes) is total abandonment in exactl
: y
: : the same way as the MOD stance in May 1972. I have it in
: w
: : riting, chapter and verse, from the US authorities. Mean
: wh
: : ile, the MOD here untruthfully claim in writing that USA
: AF
: : wrecks still belong to the US Government - but the US G
: ov
: : ernment are saying opposite. Either the MOD are muddled
: in
: : their stance over the whole ownership thing, or they ar
: e
: : not playing with a straight bat.
: : Sorry about the length of this, but I hope it opens up a
: d
: : ebate. It is a serious issue. For example, what about RA
: F
: : wrecks brought into the UK and restored? In theory, if i
: t
: : ever came to an export licence, the UK Govt could say "N
: o"
: : because Hurricane P1234 or whatever is still Crown Prop
: er
: : ty. Do I have a point? Andy Saunders.
:
: I am not the biggest fan of the MoD by a long shot - I fin
: d them beurocratic - their representatives can be hostile
: and rude, but sometimes very helpful and supportive. I've
: had some heated telephone exchanges and get frustrated so
: metimes as I always take great care to jump through their
: petty beurocratic hoops - even though this often leaves me
: at a disadvantage at least I have the law on my side.
:
: We dug a B-17 about 4 years ago (with a licence). The sit
: e was raided by some individuals from Surrey (who did not
: have a licence) the day before we were due to dig. They c
: aused a lot of damage - the aircrafts wings were intact an
: d buried just below the surface on some mudflats. Also in
: tact were the engine nacelles, engines and props - at low
: tide the prop tips could be seen. We were able to find ou
: t a lot about the aircraft and it's crew and met up with t
: he navigator and I was able to give him back his navigatio
: n computer, something he left behind in his sinking B-17 a
: s a young fearless 19 year old. They got into the dinghy
: and were rescued without even getting their feet wet!
:
: Our colleagues tore two engines from the bearers, trashed
: a beautiful pair of intact nacelles, ripped out two of the
: fuel tanks, left live ammo all over the beach (which caus
: ed all sorts of repercussions). They also dug up a pair a
: M2 Brownings and the MoD had a fit.
:
: The MoD police did a great job in tracking them down and a
: fter a dawn raid managed to recover most of the stuff they
: 'stole'. They went to court and were successfully prosec
: uted - as far as I know, it was the first successful prose
: cution under the 1986 PMR Act. Anyway, the point is, thes
: e people were total arseholes and made what should have be
: en a very productive dig - of a historically important com
: bat aircraft (with major intcat sections in good condition
: ) which we were able to research to a high level (with loc
: al expert help) - into a total shambles by destroying larg
: e sections of the aircraft just to get the bloody engines.
:
:
: The live ammo on the beech issue was brought up in Parliam
: ent! If people follow rules and are regulated this sort o
: f thing (hopefully) becomes a rarity. Maybe I am being a
: little niave - after all, common sence is not common - but
: it would be wrong to let people loose on the potentially
: hazardous remains of aircraft.
:
: It has always seemed to me that the only reason the MoD re
: gulate these activities is to prevent injury from live ord
: nance (although lets face it - you have to pretty unlucky
: - or very thick to get blown up on a dig) or the more seri
: ous issue of human remains.
:
: I do feel that the MoD should have a more responsible atti
: tude towards missing servicemen. If I had a missing relat
: ive and found out that the MoD had known their last restin
: g place for the past 60 years and not informed me I would
: be furious.
:
: We found the remains of 8 US soldiers in a common grave in
: Indonesia plus several aircraft with associated remains i
: n various jungle locations. It took a couple of months af
: ter I got back, but the CILHI sent out a team to follow up
: our report. This would be very unlikely to happen in the
: UK. The Japanese, Canadian and Australian authorities al
: so actively pursue missing servicemen once found.
:
: The only case I am aware of outside the UK of missing serv
: icemen being recovered was with the crew from Fairey Battl
: e P2330 in Iceland.
:
: I would like to know exactly what charges were brought aga
: inst Andy and which ones stuck and which ones didn't. The
: law is always open to interpretation and it is a relief t
: hat honourable motives are rewarded in the eyes of the law
: .
:
: Thank god!
:
: I'm sorry this is such a long post - I'm not known for lon
: g posts, but it's very thought provoking and a subject tha
: t is very important to me. If anyone wants to email me th
: en I'd be pleased to carry on the discussion privately.
:
: Elliott
:

Follow Ups: