Talk:Aviation archaeology/Archive2006

Welcome to Talk:Aviation archaeology/Archive2006. Go to main Aviation archaeology

All 2006 discusions will be moved to this location in by April 15, 2007. Please do not continue discussion on any 2006 topics in this page. Highlight, copy and paste particular section or sentence that can be copied back to the primary page for further discussions and begin a new section. Thank you. LanceBarber 21:36, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Archive 2006

British Aviation Archaeological Council link discussion

The activity is legal, with a license, in the United Kingdom. Should a link to the "official national body in the UK for aviation archaeologists and researchers of military crashes" be included? Check-Six 20:44, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

The above statement is only partally correct.sites in some areas,for instance those within the national parks and on land owned by the National Trust are given the same status as any other historic site,as such only qualified archaeologists may disturbe these sites. In regard to the BAAC they are only the the "Official national body" according to themselves.No member of the BAAC is a qualified archaeologist and there is a massive amount of evidence of BAAC members carrying out "digs" and removing wreckage from sites without MOD or landowners permission. BAAC member groups such as the "Wartime Aircraft Recovery Group" have also scrapped a large amount of historically important material from sites,there is plenty of photographic,audio and written evidence of this. There is a growing concern being expressed here in the UK by veterans groups,families who lost loved ones in crashes and qualified archaeologists at the actions of "aviation archaeologists". There have been several cases of "aviation archaeologists" finding human remains at sites and failing to report this,indeed in one case the remains were stripped of personal items which were later offered for sale. -Brutalcannon

Interesting assertions... And you have proof in the form of newspaper articles or other references (case law against trepassers maybe) to back your claims, right? A link like this one here would perhaps help your case. Wikipedia requires a high standard of proof before the text you have written can be included for any period of time If you have a beef with them (the BAAC), that is what this discussion page is for. This is an encyclopedia, not a forum. Check-Six 21:42, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

I do indeed have proof in the form of video shot covertly during several "digs" carried out by BAAC groups,BAAC member reports in which members state what they have removed items from certain sites for which neither MOD or landowners permission was granted,photos showing names of BAAC members scratched into wreckage on several sites,ebay auctions for parts removed during BAAC digs. Just bacause an organisation calls itself an "offical national body" it dosen't mean it is! for instance I'm sure NAMBLA considers itself an "offical" organisation but would you consult them on child care?. I don't have "a beef" with the BAAC specifically,my beef is with anyone who disregards the feelings of the families of those who died for our freedom and who seeks to destroy out nations heritage. Perhaps before you set yourself up as an advocate of the actions of the BAAC you should come to the UK and see first hand what they do. You are quite right that this is an encyclopedia and not a forum,the whole point of WIKI is that others can contribute to make it more comprehensive,so why when I add details of the legal situation in regard to crash sites in certain areas of the UK do you delete them? perhaps you understand the role of national parks,The NT,and SMR's better than I do? (BTW I am a qualified archaeologist..) -Brutalcannon

First off, please sign off your comments on this. Secondly, before you attack a group, I strongly suggest that you have your evidence in hand and in a web-presentable format (may I suggest YouTube). I argee with increasing the comprehensive nature of the page, but with provable FACTS. You say you have the evidence of your claims. Link it to the page, and you'll have no arguments from me. Just the facts, please. Check-Six 23:31, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Why does the evidence need to be on the web? if this is of such great concern to you why not contact the BAAC and ask for a copy of their member reports? IF they will even respond you can then contact the MOD and enquire if the BAAC had a licence for the sites they list in the member reports,you will find that in the majority of cases they did not. You talk about provable facts,why have you stated that the PoMRA was passed to deal with trespass? where in the act does it say this? also why state it is legal to disturbe a crash site with a licence when in several areas of the UK this is not the case? you are basing your statements on one web page which contains information submitted by one BAAC member,how is this a balanced picture of the current situation in the UK? may I suggest that unless you are prepared to actually come to the UK and see for yourself what the BAAC and others like them do you should confine your Wiki to the situation in the USA. -Brutalcannon.

Perhaps you should read this http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/1490263.stm -Brutalcannon.

Even if that was the case, and I am not conceding that it is, do you dispute that: A) The "Protection of Military Remains Act" was passed into law in 1986? And... B) It, the "Protection of Military Remains Act", does have a licesne provision in its text? Here is a link to the text of it... [1]. Check-Six 18:02, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

The PoMRA has actually existed in various forms since WW2,the first legislation aimed at protecting sites of historic importance was passed in 1975.In the UK it is also an offence under the theft act for anyone to remove anything from a crash site. The licencing procedure under the PoMRA is now more complex that you seem to realise,in large areas of the UK it is not possible to get a licence to remove wreckage from a site owing to the statutory obligation placed on National Parks to protect ALL historic sites including crash sites. If you are not going to make the full situation clear why keep talking about licences? you also seem keen to remove any reference to souvenir hunting and the concerns of family members,even though these are the primary reasons the PoMRA was passed.The link I posted above makes the feeling of families clear. It would seem you are determined to maintain a stance that supports the removal of wreckage from crash sites,even though this contradicts the practices employed by qualified archaeologists. -Brutalcannon.

But you remove any references to licensing, and the fact that the PoMRA, as it directly applies to aircraft (the concern before was naval vessels), was established in 1986. I think a consensus (a key tenet of Wikipedia) on this can be reached, but let's do it here via discussion, rather than reverting the article back and forth. Deal? Check-Six 19:47, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

The PoMRA covers both aircraft AND ships,the concern previous to 1986 was specifically with aircraft crash sites. I agree that the best way forwards with this is to reach a point where we both agree on the content of the article,how about you write the sections on the situation in the United States and I cover the UK? I have been working with this subject since 1990 in my role as a county archaeologist. -Brutalcannon.

I have no problem with that arrangement, as long as it is fair, unbaised, and based in FACT. Wikipedia has little tolarance for emotionally-charged statements. And, your statement had better include the points I have previously addressed, such as the licensing aspects. Otherwise, we're back to 'Square One'.

Agreed but it is only right to make the full situation in regard to licences clear,also any external links should not be to sites which have a baise in favor of removing wreckage from sites. Archaeology is generally based on studying a historic site in a non destructive manner,this sometimes involves carrying out a "dig" on a site but any material found is usually studied in situ,this is where groups such as the BAAC have caused problems as their aim is to remove wreckage from sites,thus denying historians of the future the opportunity to study the wreckage in context(or in the many cases where wreckage has been destroyed by the recovery group,the opportunity to see it at all). It is also important to include the views expressed by families who lost loved ones in crashes. If you wish to email me direct I would be more than happy to discuss this further. -Brutalcannon.

Do you mind posting an e-mail address that you can be reached at? Check-Six 16:51, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Many of the comments above by Brutalcannon are incorrect and potentially libellous. BAAC is not aware of any evidence of its members acting illegally and evidence of any illegal activity on crash sites should be presented to the police. BAAC works with the Ministry of Defence and English Heritage. Its code of conduct prohibits the sale of items from crash sites. We respectfully request Brutalcannon to withdraw the above content and to contact BAAC directly with any complaints about BAAC member groups - contact via our website www.aviationarchaeology.org.uk. Perhaps he can also give further information about his role as "county archaeologist", so we can pursue this with English Heritage. -BAAC

Exactly which comments do you feel are incorrect? Do you deny that in recient "BAAC member reports" details are given of items(including personal property) being removed from several sites for which neither MOD or landowners permission had been granted? Do you also deny that BAAC member groups have scrapped wreckage removed from crash sites,including major sections of some extreamly rare aircraft?.In the past six months there have been a number of auctions on ebay for items removed from sites during BAAC group "digs". If I am incorrect in regard to any of the above statements I am more than happy to remove my comments and apologise to the BAAC membership,however before doing so I would need to know where specific parts from a number of sites are currently located,these parts are specifically refered to in the reports of several BAAC member groups dating between the 1970's and the present. -Brutalcannon.

Gentlemen, please sign off your comments using the ~~~~. Wikipedia will username and timestamp your comments for you when you use them. Thanks in advance.Check-Six 05:40, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

My apologies,will sign from now onBrutalcannon 08:22, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Not familiar with the ~~~~, but will give it a go. BAAC objects to all of Brutalcannon's comments about BAAC. Some members of BAAC groups ARE qualified archaeologists; BAAC is not aware of any evidence of its member groups excavating sites without the landowners permission or, since the Protection of Military Remains Act was introduced in 1986, the necessary licence; BAAC is not aware of the names of BAAC members being scratched onto wreckage; BAAC is not aware of BAAC members selling items from crash sites on eBay or anywhere else since the introduction of its code of conduct in 2000. Many BAAC groups run museums and erect memorials to commemorate the bravery of wartime aircrew and families frequently express their gratitude. People outside BAAC do sometimes dig without licences and in several cases BAAC has passed information to the MoD and pressed for prosecutions. BAAC continues to work closely with MoD and English Heritage. BAAC groups have certainly scrapped wreckage - not everything is worth retaining from every dig - mainstream archaeology takes the same approach. The regrettable loss of much wreckage from high ground sites is mainly due to souvenir hunters and others, not BAAC groups.

We clearly have no problem with your desire to locate items recovered in the 1970s, but if you refuse to withdraw your comments you are leaving yourself open to legal action. If you really are a County Archaeologist, then you are also leaving yourself open to disciplinary action. For which region are you the County Archaeologist? BAAC is not going to be drawn into further discussion on this subject and if you want to take your allegations further then you should contact BAAC directly through the website www.aviationarchaeology.org.uk and take any evidence that you have to the police.

B.A.A.C. 11:10, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Archived LanceBarber 04:01, 11 April 2007 (UTC)