WIX Archives
Re: Objections to airframe retrievals?
Posted by Jim on Mon Jul 21, 2003 04:27:35 PM
In reply top Objections to airframe retrievals? posted by Tony C on Mon Jul 21, 2003 03:00:19 PM
My $.02
I'm sure the policy is there in part to deter less ethical individuals from simply tossing any human remains aside in order to salvage or scavange from a wreck. I don't agree with it entirely when there are many responsible and capable organizations willing to make a proper recovery for the remains and the wreck. There are plenty of wrecks that contain no remains which could be saved from destruction (at little or no cost to taxpayers) and that fact that they are still off-limits is just irresponsible management of historical relics by the military.
I agree with you that surviving relatives should have the final word on war graves and any remains--leave them be if the relatives wish. But for unclaimed remains, I think its a matter of decency to provide them with a proper burial. We go to great efforts to recover remains from modern crash sites in remote areas (including the sea bed), so I don't think war remains should be treated any differently. Sometime within the past year or two, I was watching a travel documentary filmed somewhere in the South Pacific and the host and his guide wandered onto a WWII crash site with the pilots remains still strapped in the cockpit. I find it a little disturbing that the pilot's remains (lower body only) and tattered uniform were shown on camera. The show's host made it a point not to reveal to viewers where the plane rested or to disturb the remains, since he seemed to indicate that the man should be left in peace. I think it would have been more dignified to return this young pilot home instead of leaving his remains in the open jungle.
I think we're beginning to understand that the window of opportunity to save these relics from rotting away is closing. It's no wonder that we're seeing thefts and smuggling from PNG. Clandestine acts are probably the only course of action sometimes, unfortunately. (I'm sure the Indian Emil was not far from the scrapper's torch before it's "removal.")
I'm hoping some day that someone will be able persuade the USN to change their stubborn (and stupid) policy.
: Hi all,
: With the known objections to airframe retrieval by both th
: e USN and the RAF, I was wondering if anybody knows just w
: hat these organisations have against the recovery of any a
: irframe?
:
: Are there specifics or is each case dealt with separately
: but with ultimately the same negative response?
:
: From my point of view, if a wreck contains human remains a
: nd if any surviving relatives have objections, then I agre
: e that the site should be considered as a War Grave and tr
: eated as such for all eternity, regardless of how rare tha
: t particular airframe may be!
:
: However, if the surviving relatives agree, do these organi
: sations still object and if so why?
: What if there are no surviving relatives and no objections
: have been raised, what would any objection be based on?
:
: If the Dutch Air Force can recover (and I assume fund) cra
: shed airframes, why not the RAF or the USN?
:
: Reasons?
:
: I assume (again) that the Dutch recoveries are not purely
: down to munications still on board but are led by other ob
: jectives!
:
: Would this be correct and again, can anybody shed any ligh
: t on why the RAF do not get involved?
:
: Is it government or MOD policy?
:
: After all, doesn't the USAF have a policy of actively goin
: g after and recovering lost airmen?
:
: It appears to me, that there are no problems opening tombs
: in Egypt, recovering part of a certain ship including per
: sonal effects or even recovering bodies from Everest, some
: that have lain undisturbed for 80 odd years, but it seems
: somehow unacceptable to disturb the wreck of someone who
: has fought and died for his country!
:
: Surely that person deserves the right to be returned to th
: eir loved ones and laid to rest?
:
: I understand that this will be a uneasy subject to some bu
: t I would be interested in other points of view as well as
: the reasons for the stance of the RAF and USN.
:
: Tony
Follow Ups:
- Re: Objections to airframe retrievals? - Rob Rohr Tue Jul 22, 2003 04:32:19 PM
- Re: Objections to airframe retrievals?- Ah this is where it - John Parker Wed Jul 23, 2003 03:51:38 AM
- Re: Objections to airframe retrievals? - Ross McNeill Wed Jul 23, 2003 06:10:09 AM
- Re: Objections to airframe retrievals? - Richard Woods Wed Jul 23, 2003 07:05:10 AM
- Re: Objections to airframe retrievals? - Ross McNeill Wed Jul 23, 2003 06:10:09 AM
- Re: Objections to airframe retrievals?- Ah this is where it - John Parker Wed Jul 23, 2003 03:51:38 AM