Wreckchasing Message Board
Register  |   |   |  Latest Topics
 
 
 


Reply
  Author   Comment  
NickV

Avatar / Picture

Founder of Wreckchasing.com
Registered:
Posts: 273
 #1 
If the wreckchasing/aviation archaeology community does not establish a best-practices methodology and set down ways to interact with landowners and land management agencies, extremely restrictive rules will be forced upon us.

Who would like to join an ethics discussion at the AAHA meeting?
Nick

__________________
Nicholas A. Veronico http://www.Wreckchasing.com Support this website by purchasing copies of Wreckchasing 101 for yourself or a friend at: http://www.amazon.com Check out my other books at: http://www.amazon.com/author/nicholasveronico
Jeff_Wilkinson

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 290
 #2 
I'm in.
__________________
Jeff Wilkinson
Oklahoma Wreckchasing
http://okwreckchasing.org
Tamranger

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 84
 #3 
Count me in.
XHunter

Avatar / Picture

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 840
 #4 
Works for me.

__________________
http://www.thexhunters.com - Searching for the lost aircraft of Edwards AFB
xplaneguy

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 138
 #5 

I'm in!


__________________
MUROC AVIATION ARCHEOLOGY TEAM
   "Determination equals Discovery!"
theronmoon

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 476
 #6 

I'm in. This will get interesting for sure.


__________________
Check out my smugmug account for over a thousand pictures of classic aircraft and wreck site visits.
http://theronmoon.smugmug.com/
petef86a

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 127
 #7 

I would enjoy the opportunity!

Moxie1

Registered:
Posts: 59
 #8 
Hi Nick,

I would be interested in this topic but with a very big disclaimer that everyone on both side have to understand that their are some of us who our wreckchaser are in it for recovery and this has to be discussed also.

Also I suggest that we have someone from the National Parks be their to discuss their policy which are rather interesting.(Did you know you can recover a US Navy aircraft if it's on Park Land for over 50 years got that straight from Buddy Macon).

Also speaking of the US Navy and private Land we should also discuss those nice little rules. Hint the US Navy can't stop you from recovering anything on private land

AAIR

Avatar / Picture

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 620
 #9 
Quote:
you can recover a US Navy aircraft if it's on Park Land for over 50 years


True indeed, as long as a section 106 review has been done, the site is properly documented, and various other laws and regs have been followed. This is what has been done for the recent USN lake recoveries. However, I should point out that this does not mean that every time the recovery will be granted, sometimes it will not.

__________________
Craig AAIR, Aviation Archaeological Investigation and Research http://www.aviationarchaeology.com
Moxie1

Registered:
Posts: 59
 #10 
Ah but see Craig that's not true my information came right from Buddy Macon and this is what he told me that any US Navy aircraft that is on land and on Dept. of Inter or US Park Service Land and has been their for more then 50 year then ownership belongs to those two Federal Dept.

As for 106 before the Navy can even claim ownership they must complies with 110 and 111 which they don't hence my stance is that the US Navy doesn't have any ownership claims. You have to follow 110 and 111 before you can claim 106.

Also another fact is if te US Navy has gone to a site on Public or Private land and removed items (Guns,Radios ect. ect.) then they have abandon the airframe if they don't recover it. this was the basic crux of Lex's case. Also it was another point that Buddy explain to me that the US Navy can't claim ownership on something that they abandon after visiting the site.

petef86a

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 127
 #11 
Recovery policies, standards and case law is a totally seperate discussion from ethics...... Maybe another forum.

A code of ethics for an profession/activity should boil down to no more than 5 canons or so. Our goal should be to generate such a set of canons, eventually.
AAIR

Avatar / Picture

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 620
 #12 

Quote:
As for 106 before the Navy can even claim ownership they must complies with 110 and 111 which they don't hence my stance is that the US Navy doesn't have any ownership claims. You have to follow 110 and 111 before you can claim 106.

 

Where in sections 110 and 111 does it state this? I do not see how non-compliance with 110 or 111 causes the Navy to lose ownership, and regardless of whether or not the Navy is claiming ownership, section 106 still has to be complied with for a recovery.

Section 110 stipulates in part “The heads of all Federal agencies shall assume responsibility for the preservation of historic properties which are owned or controlled by such agency… that historic properties under the jurisdiction or control of the agency, are identified, evaluated, and nominated to the National Register…  that such properties under the jurisdiction or control of the agency as are listed in or may be eligible for the National Register are managed and maintained in a way that considers the preservation of their historic, archaeological, architectural, and cultural values in compliance with section 106

 I can see the argument that the Navy has failed to do what is listed above, though NHHC was at one time working to identify and evaluate known crash sites, but there is no timeline that this must be completed within, so not actively working toward completion is essentially the same as not having gotten around to it yet.  “Not having gotten around to it yet” does not mean they can no longer claim ownership.

But for argument’s sake, let’s say you are correct, that since the Navy did not comply with 110, they have no ownership claim…

If the site is on Federal land (Dept of Interior Forest Service and Nat’l Park Service, for example), excluding land owned by the Navy, and if the (potentially) historic property is going to be recovered by the Navy, or by anyone else, then section 106 would apply—regardless of whether the Navy was removing one their own planes or someone else’s plane (i.e. Air Force or civilian). If it were you or I removing that plane from the Federal land, section 106 would still apply. Section 106 requires the permitting agency (the Federal agency who owns/manages the land) to:
take into account the effect of the undertaking on any district, site, building, structure, or object that is included in or eligible for inclusion in the National Register.

Now, if the Navy were conducting something on their own land that would adversely impact a historic property, then Section 110b would be applicable:
Each Federal agency shall initiate measures to assure that where, as a result of Federal action or assistance carried out by such agency, an historic property is to be substantially altered or demolished, timely steps are taken to make or have made appropriate records…

As for Section 111, it is primarily saying that if an agency cannot use a historic property for its original purpose, then, to the extent practicable, they should find an alternate use for the property. It is primarily invoked for things like old buildings—rather than destroying the fire lookout, use it as a rental cabin. The argument could be made that the Navy is not using the crashed plane for its original purpose as an aircraft, but under Section 111 that does not mean the Navy has lost ownership, just that the Navy cannot do something else with it without considering options first. And one of the options that may be considered and chosen is to do nothing with it.

Quote:
Also speaking of the US Navy and private Land we should also discuss those nice little rules. Hint the US Navy can't stop you from recovering anything on private land

I agree that this looks to be the case, but as far as I know it has not been taken all the way through court and is not yet case law. If you know of a case, please let me know. The Martha’s Vineyard court case was settled out of court when it looked like there was a chance the USN might lose that case. As to Lex’s Brewster Corsair, I was under the impression that he received ownership by an act of congress before the court case was settled.

As Pete said, this would make for a good discussion panel on its own. Matt has already agreed to provide an update to the presentation he gave at the first meeting on laws and regulations.  Perhaps after that we can have a formal discussion. I will add that knowing what is legal and what is not is an important part of determining ethics.


__________________
Craig AAIR, Aviation Archaeological Investigation and Research http://www.aviationarchaeology.com
Tamranger

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 84
 #13 

Recovery or removal of artifacts of crashed aircraft on any Public Lands (local, state or Federal) can be a part of the ethics discussion.  Currently the vast majority of crash sites would fall under the definition of "cultural or historical resources,” but once they reach  one hundred years of age in the Federal definition they would become "archeological resources" and gain further protection under the Archaeological Resources Protection Act (ARPA) There is one unit of the National Parks that was designated specifically because it is a crash site.  http://www.nps.gov/flni/

At the bottom I provide a link to The Society for California Archaeology’s Code of Ethical Guidelines. 
 
Here’s some definitions
 
Historical Resource:  Any object, building, structure, site, over 50 years old that is listed in or potentially eligible for the local register as an individual or contributing resources in a district which is historically or archaeologically significant, or which is significant in the architectural, engineering, scientific, economic, agricultural, educational, social, political, military, or cultural history of the City, County, State, or Nation.  Structures or sites less than 50 years old may be historic if they posses exceptional significance.
 
Cultural Resource: A broad category that describes a wide variety of resources including archaeological sites, isolated artifacts, features, records, manuscripts, historical sites, traditional cultural properties, historical resources, and historic properties, regardless of significance. Any tangible or observable evidence of past human activity, regardless of significance, found in direct association with a geographic location, including tangible properties possessing intangible traditional cultural values.
 
As I stated in my Ethics post:
"1) Did the person who removed it have permission from the owner (public or private)?  2) Why was the wreckage or artifacts removed (souvenir? restoration? museum/interpretive display? protect it? personal gain etc…).  Clearly sometimes removals are ethical and other times clearly they are not. "

You could also add to 1) Were the legal requirements followed and permission granted/permit issued.

The help the discussion  here's a link to National Historic Preservation Act:
http://www.nps.gov/history/local-law/FHPL_HistPrsrvt.pdf

A link to Title 36 Code of Federal Regulations:
http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/text-idx?c=ecfr&sid=0d536fb3d4dd9d075fbb8675733af404&rgn=div8&view=text&node=36:1.0.1.1.2.0.1.1&idno=36

http://www.nps.gov/history/local-law/FHPL_ArchRsrcsProt.pdf
http://archnet.asu.edu/Topical/CRM/usdocs/43cfr3.html
http://www.nps.gov/history/local-law/FHPL_HistSites.pdf

More info related to the topic:
http://www.nps.gov/history/laws.htm
http://www.nps.gov/history/mwac/history/index.htm
http://crm.cr.nps.gov/issueindex.cfm
http://www.nps.gov/history/index.htm
http://www.nps.gov/archeology/public/publicLaw.htm  (covers Archeology Laws and Ethics)
http://www.nps.gov/goga/historyculture/preservation.htm
 
Other Federal Lands:
USDI Bureau of Reclamation http://www.usbr.gov/cultural/
http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/text-idx?c=ecfr&sid=e3167c49a01d7f51b8c3c7fdbc84ab45&rgn=div8&view=text&node=43:1.2.1.1.10.3.163.6&idno=43
http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/text-idx?c=ecfr&sid=e3167c49a01d7f51b8c3c7fdbc84ab45&rgn=div8&view=text&node=43:1.2.1.1.10.3.163.10&idno=43
USDI BLM
http://www.blm.gov/ca/st/en/prog/archcult.html
http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/text-idx?c=ecfr&sid=e3167c49a01d7f51b8c3c7fdbc84ab45&rgn=div5&view=text&node=43:2.1.1.8.113&idno=43
 
USDA Forest Service
http://www.fs.fed.us/recreation/programs/heritage/
http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/text-idx?c=ecfr&sid=e3167c49a01d7f51b8c3c7fdbc84ab45&rgn=div8&view=text&node=36:2.0.1.1.19.1.53.12&idno=36

California Archaeological Site Stewardship Program (CASSP) http://www.cassp.org/
The Society for California Archaeology http://www.scahome.org/index.html
SCA’s Ethical Guidelines http://www.scahome.org/about_sca/bylaws.html#16

Matt


AnthonyMireles

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 352
 #14 
I would be happy to be part of the discussion at the meeting. 

Tony Mireles

__________________
Anthony J. Mireles
FATAL ARMY AIR FORCES AVIATION ACCIDENTS IN THE UNITED STATES 1941-1945
http://www.warbirdcrash.com
Bearcat34

Registered:
Posts: 23
 #15 
Count me in.  I look forward to the discussion and any standards it will bring to our avocation.

Brian
Previous Topic | Next Topic
Print
Reply

Quick Navigation: