Navy Hellcat to be pulled from Lake Michigan..

[rrpilot]

A Navy Hellcat that sank on a training mission in 1945 is to be pulled from Lake Michigan next week...Link below includes a few words from the pilot.
I assume that this would have been off the Wolverine or Sable?
I'm also wondering how they got the Navy to let them recover the aircraft as I've read stories about people trying this type of thing before and the Navy takes them to court to stop it....

http://ow.ly/GrGO

 

[Bevo16]

There are hundreds of aircraft where we know the locations, but are designated Maritime Grave Sites due to the fact that the crew members are still in them. If someone is going to disturb an underwater grave, you bet your ass we will take them to court.

When remains are discovered, it depends on water depth and likelihood that the remains will be disturbed on if the remains will be recovered. JPAC and OSD made that determination.

This was not a combat loss (no historical significance), and the pilot got out (no legal issues). That, and the fact that it has been sitting in cold fresh water instead of warm salt water, make salvage a much easier option.

 

[rrpilot]

There are hundreds of aircraft where we know the locations, but are designated Maritime Grave Sites due to the fact that the crew members are still in them. If someone is going to disturb an underwater grave, you bet your ass we will take them to court.

Agree 100%, I hope I didn't make the wrong impression, I hope in the coming years there will be a follow up story with the pilots reaction to seeing his old bird all shiny and new again.

 

[LazersGoPEWPEW]

There are hundreds of aircraft where we know the locations, but are designated Maritime Grave Sites due to the fact that the crew members are still in them. If someone is going to disturb an underwater grave, you bet your ass we will take them to court.

When remains are discovered, it depends on water depth and likelihood that the remains will be disturbed on if the remains will be recovered. JPAC and OSD made that determination.

This was not a combat loss (no historical significance), and the pilot got out (no legal issues). That, and the fact that it has been sitting in cold fresh water instead of warm salt water, make salvage a much easier option.

Big time. Some of the aircraft under the ocean off the coast of Pensacola are nearly unrecognizable. I wonder how deep it was.

 

[HAL Pilot]

The Navy still maintains title to all it's sunken ships and cashed/sunken aircraft. Under domestic and international law, they are still Navy property and any recovery requires permission unless the Navy releases them for salvage. The Navy will not do this. The Air Force seems more willing to do so.

The museum in Pensacola is the Navy's POC for aircraft. They sometimes make deals. I.e. you restore the F6F we have out back and we'll let you salvage the F6F you found in the ocean. Mostly they maintain a hard stance.

 

[PropAddict]

As cool as it is to dive old airplane wrecks, restorable hulks like this one probably should be salvaged.

There's a Hellcat off of Rhode Island (warm-ish, shallow, salt water) that 10 years ago was a neat dive. Wings ribs and spars were exposed, but it was definitely a Hellcat. When I dove it again 4 years ago, there was just rusted remnants. Couldn't even tell it had been an airplane.

 

[rrpilot]

The Navy still maintains title to all it's sunken ships and cashed/sunken aircraft. Under domestic and international law, they are still Navy property and any recovery requires permission unless the Navy releases them for salvage. The Navy will not do this.

I've always wondered why they have this policy?...with the obvious exception of grave sites of course...

 

[Bevo16]

I've always wondered why they have this policy?...with the obvious exception of grave sites of course...

It is easier to have a blanket policy for all wreaks that to have a staff of 50 people to manage/locate/prioritize all of the wreaks and have some kind of convoluted decision matrix for when a wreak is salvageable. We have had lots of modern aircraft go down, some with crypto and weapons on board. It makes sense to have those things remain off limits with no questions asked.

 

[HackerF15E]

A completely idiotic policy.

There are plenty of people who are more than willing to spend their own dime to go recover legitimate pieces of aviation history. There are many of these that are one of a kind artifacts and are not gravesites. Doesn't matter if the Navy deems them as 'salvageable' or not -- they don't have to do anything at all. Simply release the title to the salvager, like some other DoD agencies do.

The Navy would rather see them decay into nothing than actually preserve them.

 

[Bevo16]

A completely idiotic policy.

Said the blind man. The people who made that "idiotic" policy have a hell of a lot more knowledge about and experience with those independent treasure hunters than you do, and they make their policy based on what we deem to be good for the Navy.

There are plenty of people who are more than willing to spend their own dime to go recover legitimate pieces of aviation history.

Yea, and a lot of these same people are nothing but glory hounds and treasure hunters who have no respect for the law, regulations or the remains of our fallen sailors. If you had some experience in this area and knew the instances of people trying to sell these artifacts either on the black market, or even selling human remains, you would understand why the policy is not "idiotic".

There are many of these that are one of a kind artifacts and are not gravesites.

List them.

Doesn't matter if the Navy deems them as 'salvageable' or not -- they don't have to do anything at all. Simply release the title to the salvager, like some other DoD agencies do.

See the subject of this post and the story that it links. When the Navy is presented with a situation were salvage makes good sense, it happens.

The Navy would rather see them decay into nothing than actually preserve them.

Now ^^^^this is idiotic. Ever been to Pearl Harbor? Ford Island? The Naval Aviation Museum? Battleship Cove in Mass? Ever visit the Battleship Texas? The USS Intrepid is a fine Naval Museum in New York city, along with the Lexington in Corpus, the Yorktown is in Charleston, The Midway in San Diego, the USS Kidd in Baton Rouge...should I go on?

It is kind of funny to hear someone from a service with no real history of it's own lecturing the Navy on how they should be handling their historical sites.

 

[Owen]

Salvage

Gentlemen,
The History & Heritage Command (formerally NHC) in D.C
and NNAM in P'cola is in charge of bringing up that F6F; just
as they brought two SBDs this year. They do a great job of
distributing those birds around the country so people can view
them and learn their history. I believe there will be more rec-
overies in the future.

One reason I believe the navy does not allow just anyone
to salvage a downed bird is liability. I am sure everyone here
is familar with the Chaks case, in which Grumman was sued for
alleged design flaws of decades old re-engined aircraft. Then
there is the Miles case; a nose gear failure resulted in a sever-
ed leg with a resulting lawsuit. The court ruled that the
government failed to adequately inspect the aircraft 30years
before when it was turned over. There are people who believe
the government has perpetual liability.

When I was in the 7th grade a T-2 from Pensacola crashed
in a vegetable garden 150 yards from my school. No one was
injured, there were no lawsuits, everyone just thanked God.
Can you imagine what would happen today if an F4F or an SBD
crashed in a shopping mall or a school?

Just my .02.....

This thread may be of interest.....
http://warbirdinformationexchange.org/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=33243

Owen

 

[mmx1]

Now ^^^^this is idiotic. Ever been to Pearl Harbor? Ford Island? The Naval Aviation Museum? Battleship Cove in Mass? Ever visit the Battleship Texas? The USS Intrepid is a fine Naval Museum in New York city, along with the Lexington in Corpus, the Yorktown is in Charleston, The Midway in San Diego, the USS Kidd in Baton Rouge...should I go on?

With the exception of the war graves at Pearl Harbor, who owns and maintains these ships? Certainly not the Navy. So why the aversion to aircraft ending up in private hands? According to remarks from NMNA director Capt. Rasmussen in the Nov 98 Air and Space, it seems like the overriding interest has been maintaining ownership of the salvaged aircraft under the NMNA, available for display via loan. While the NMNA does a great job, I think it's unrealistic to expect them to be the sole owner and maintainer of all historical Naval aircraft. That places an unnecessary financial bottleneck, especially when there are wrecks still rusting away. The Navy is within its rights to demand first dibs, but to deride private ownership as Rasmussen has smacks of turf protection.

These are rare pieces of American aviation history and we have to maintain them. I want to have access to them for the museum, and I don't relish seeing them enter the civilian sector, where who knows what will happen to them. Sure, they might be well protected in a private collection, but who's to say what will happen 50 years from now? Maybe the collector's grandson won't care about old airplanes and he'll sell them to Japan."

I guess it's a good thing the Intrepid isn't in private hands, or some fool might sell it to the Japanese for scrap.
If there is a market for warbirds, why not trade away more common aircraft for unique pieces for the museum, as Rasmussen's predecessor Capt. Walker did?

I was just at the Southern Museum of Flight, and they did a great job with the B-25 privately recovered from Lake Murray. For every grave robber there are great examples of what private money can do, as well.

 

[HackerF15E]

Bevo, I have quite a lot of experience in the warbird community, including dealing with the USN on ownership issues of WWII wrecks.

Not sure what it is exactly that I'm "blind" to, though.

Thanks for the negative rep, though.

Examples? Obviously not all of them are sole survivors...but at this point, where WWII aircraft are a finite resource, I can't see the rationalization for leaving *any* of them that aren't grave sites in place. If there are people that wanna go get 'em....

How about the Martin Mariner up in Lake Washington? The Brewster Corsair in North Carolina? The TBD Devastators out in the Marshall Islands are my favorite, where Dr Neyland specifically wanted them to sit in the water so "future generations" could go dive the wrecks. There's a group that's been trying for decades to recover Lake Michigan wrecks.

Dr. Neyland and and Ms. Coble are (were) specifically ones who prefer airplanes to rot in-situ rather than be recovered, preserved, or restored. The organization has fought recoverers and restorers every step of the way with ownership issues, even back-tracking on their own decisions after granting ownership rights to people who recovered airframes with their own $ (the NC Corsair).

You list a bunch of places where aircraft are preserved -- fine, that is great. My beef is with the other stuff that IS out there, that people WANT TO and CAN go recover, and the NHC flat out says "no f*cking way" because they assert a blanket "ownership" to things they have themselves discarded and have no intention of ever retrieving. There are TONS of these that are NOT gravesites, that have NO security value whatsoever.

But, apparently since I'm in the USAF, and my service doesn't have a history, I don't have a valid viewpoint on this -- even though my opinion has absolutely zero to do with the service I'm in, and one I had experience with long before I ever took an oath of office in the DoD.

 

[HH-60H]

It is kind of funny to hear someone from a service with no real history of it's own lecturing the Navy on how they should be handling their historical sites.

Although, as Hacker pointed out, this point is immaterial to the topic at hand:
The Air Force rightfully traces its heritage back through the Army Air Corps back to 1908, which is actually older than Naval Aviation which is regarded to have been founded in 1911. So you're saying Naval Aviation has no real history?

 

[Jim123]

Although, as Hacker pointed out, this point is immaterial to the topic at hand:
The Air Force rightfully traces its heritage back through the Army Air Corps back to 1908, which is actually older than Naval Aviation which is regarded to have been founded in 1911. So you're saying Naval Aviation has no real history?

Oh man, here we go... let me help stir the pot! :devil_125 Doesn't the AAC really go back to the observation balloons in the Civil War or better yet, didn't the Continental Army have a signal corps? Smileys all around of course

Anyway, bureaucracies make both good and bad decisions, the people in this thread have made good arguments pro and con, and the "system" doesn't always work properly.