Author Topic: Salvage Rights and US Navy  (Read 737 times)

Offline crockett

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3420
Salvage Rights and US Navy
« on: December 25, 2007, 08:10:07 PM »
I touched on this topic last month in another thread but I'm looking for any info I can get on salvaged Navy aircraft or ships. I know there are a lot of history buffs here and a few people whom might have some info.

So in short I'm looking for any info I can dig up in regards to any sort of Navy propriety that has been salvaged. Mainly court cases if anyone knows of any but in short any sort of leads would be nice.

I know of one successful case in which Doug Champlin won salvage rights to a Douglas Devastator via the Supreme Court. I think there was also a Navy aircraft pulled out of the great lakes if I'm not mistaken. If I remember right it ended up in a museum with an agreement that it wouldn't be restored and only be displayed as it was found.

Those are the only two cases I know of so I'm trying to find out if anyone knows of any other successful or unsuccessful attempts to salvage any sort of US Navy wrecks.

I don't want to limit the info to just aircraft so any info or savaged Navy ships might help as well.
"strafing"

Offline Guppy35

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 20385
Salvage Rights and US Navy
« Reply #1 on: December 25, 2007, 08:55:04 PM »
Navy claims any and all rights to lost Navy ships and planes.  It's a major pain in the A## for folks wanting to recover aircraft in particular.

As mentioned before, the only case I know of where the Navy lost in a claim was the Brewster built Corsair recovered by a guy from Princeton Minnesota and that took Congressional intervention.  So far that's the only time the Navy hasn't been able win in that kind of fight.

http://www.brewstercorsair.com/

Champlain did not win in the Devesator case and any and all Lake Michigan or Lake Washington Navy birds are property of the Navy
Dan/CorkyJr
8th FS "Headhunters

Offline crockett

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3420
Salvage Rights and US Navy
« Reply #2 on: December 25, 2007, 09:26:01 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by Guppy35
Navy claims any and all rights to lost Navy ships and planes.  It's a major pain in the A## for folks wanting to recover aircraft in particular.

As mentioned before, the only case I know of where the Navy lost in a claim was the Brewster built Corsair recovered by a guy from Princeton Minnesota and that took Congressional intervention.  So far that's the only time the Navy hasn't been able win in that kind of fight.

http://www.brewstercorsair.com/

Champlain did not win in the Devesator case and any and all Lake Michigan or Lake Washington Navy birds are property of the Navy


I thought he won the case but the Navy was trying to appeal.

I wonder why they are being so hard headed about it. If the AF/Army allows WW2 birds to be salvaged why is the Navy being such a PITA? It almost seems like it's just the typical bureaucratic BS that just needs a precedent set.

I wonder if it's possible to try and buy the aircraft as scrap from the Navy and pull the salvage rights in that manner.
"strafing"

Offline Guppy35

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 20385
Salvage Rights and US Navy
« Reply #3 on: December 25, 2007, 09:58:16 PM »
Check out some of the warbird forums like the WIX forum or Flypast.  These discussions go on there often.  No one quite knows the point of letting the Devestator turn to dust, or to let all the birds in Lake Michigan rot away.

Considering the condition of some of the Lake Michigan birds when they came up, it's a crime to some extent.

Here's the Navy policy

http://www.history.navy.mil/branches/org12-7f.htm

A decent article showing a recovered SBD
http://www.midwaysaircraft.org/training_on_the_lake2.htm

These are the guys that recovered some for the Navy from Lake Michigan.  The condition of the aircraft are amazing.
http://www.atrecovery.com/Pages/Airplanes.htm

Dan/CorkyJr
8th FS "Headhunters

Offline Arlo

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 24759
Salvage Rights and US Navy
« Reply #4 on: December 25, 2007, 09:58:37 PM »
The U.S. Navy's stance on salvaging wrecks has a lot to do with:

Human Remains

Where human remains are concerned, United States Navy policy has been clear for some time: "salvors should not presume that sunken U. S. warships have been abandoned by the United States. Permission must be granted from the United States to salvage sunken U.S. warships, and as a matter of policy, the United States Government does not grant such permission with respect to ships that contain the remains of deceased servicemen... " (DOS 1986; UNESCO 1994).

This is not a new policy as the Navy's involvement with USS Tecumseh illustrates. Tecumseh was lost in 1864 during the battle of Mobile Bay with 93 men on board. In 1873, Tecumseh was sold for salvage by the Department of the Treasury to James E. Slaughter of Mobile for $50 (West 1995:27). After the purchase, Slaughter let it be known that he intended to use explosives to blast the wreck into salvageable pieces to recover iron and possibly the ship's safe.

In 1876, the relatives of the men lost on Tecumseh petitioned Congress to stop this salvage. Congress quickly passed Joint Resolution No. 23 on August 15, 1876 directing the Secretary of the Treasury to return the $50, with 6% interest to Slaughter and empowered the Secretary of the Navy to assume control and protection of Tecumseh. Congress stipulated that any salvage must provide for the removal and proper burial of the remains of the crew.

Another example from the Civil War, concerns the remains of the crew of USS Tulip. A boiler explosion sent Tulip and most of her crew to the bottom of the Chesapeake Bay. Only a few bodies were recovered, and these were buried on shore within site of the disaster. Correspondence in Navy files dating to at least three periods in 1929, 1951, and 1967 show continued Navy concern over the remains of both the crew members buried ashore and those carried down with the ship (Ellicott 1929; Heffernan 1951; [Eller] 1969). The Navy refused a 1967 request from a diving club for salvage rights to Tulip primarily on the basis of "nondesecration of crew members entombed in sunken naval vessels. " Other considerations were ordnance still on board and damage to the historic and archaeological integrity of the site.

Conclusions

The refusal of permission to the salvage of Tulip shows that as early as 1967 the Navy considered such wrecks to be war graves and of historic significance. The Navy staff involved were from the Naval Historical Center and the Navy JAG, Admiralty Division. The individuals in these Navy branches foresaw the importance of sunken ships and aircraft for interpreting the history of the United States and its Navy.

Today, the Navy recognizes that it has under its jurisdiction some of the most significant historical properties within the United States. Many, if not all of the Navy's sunken warships, are eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places, for these are reminders of the actions and events that forged the nation. These sunken vessels and aircraft also represent the courageous actions of those Americans who have earned a permanent place in United States history and are the final resting place for many who sacrificed their lives for their country. Sovereign immune status is a key concept and doctrine for all those who seek to protect a nation's naval heritage, whether U.S. or foreign, from willful destruction and wrongful taking. It is also the raison d'etre for the Navy's policy concerning its ship and aircraft wrecks.

http://www.history.navy.mil/branches/org12-7h.htm

There's more to it than that and if you go to the source you'll see their legal stance on it in it's entirety.



(Whups .... aparently Dan beat me to it while I was composing message - though a slightly different source which doesn't seem to go into as great a detail regarding remains) ;)
« Last Edit: December 25, 2007, 10:03:58 PM by Arlo »

Offline crockett

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3420
Salvage Rights and US Navy
« Reply #5 on: December 25, 2007, 10:35:43 PM »
Yea I can understand when there are remains involved and that's not the case with this aircraft. The plane was ditched in the lake because of a fueling mishap and the pilot did walk away. (or maybe swam in the case :D ) So the pilot did not die in the crash/ditch landing so in this case it's not considered a grave or memorial.

Good news is I made a deal with my uncle tonight at Christmas dinner. I'm going build him a website and he'll show me the first of these planes this summer. Then I guess I'll go from there.

I just want to do as much research as I can because it's looking like all the aircraft were US Navy. Which is where the brick wall comes into play and things get harder.

I'm in a unique position here, as my other uncle owns a salvage company and I do have the ability to salvage this plane, if the legal issues can be worked out. I just want to do what ever I can to try and make it happen.
"strafing"

Offline Arlo

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 24759
Salvage Rights and US Navy
« Reply #6 on: December 25, 2007, 10:39:11 PM »
More power to ya. Because, quite frankly, if it's not a gravesite there's no reason to let the plane rust away.

Offline crockett

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3420
Salvage Rights and US Navy
« Reply #7 on: December 25, 2007, 10:51:47 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by Guppy35
Check out some of the warbird forums like the WIX forum or Flypast.  These discussions go on there often.  No one quite knows the point of letting the Devestator turn to dust, or to let all the birds in Lake Michigan rot away.

Considering the condition of some of the Lake Michigan birds when they came up, it's a crime to some extent.

Here's the Navy policy

http://www.history.navy.mil/branches/org12-7f.htm

A decent article showing a recovered SBD
http://www.midwaysaircraft.org/training_on_the_lake2.htm

These are the guys that recovered some for the Navy from Lake Michigan.  The condition of the aircraft are amazing.
http://www.atrecovery.com/Pages/Airplanes.htm



Guppy, I can't say these planes will be in as such good shape. As the fresh water rivers here are a bit more toxic to metal because of all the plant life. It's almost as bad as dealing with something that's been in saltwater in regards to stablizing it once it pulled from the water.
« Last Edit: December 25, 2007, 11:05:22 PM by crockett »
"strafing"

Offline kilz

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3336
Salvage Rights and US Navy
« Reply #8 on: December 26, 2007, 01:32:13 AM »
there is a B-29 thats called Lady Of The Lake up here in fairbanks alaska Eielson Air Force base is where it is located.
Former LTARkilz

R.I.P 68KO, TailSpin, Maj1Shot, Prop31st, SWfire, rodders, Vega, easy8, 11Bravo, AWMac, GMC31st, Stoliman, WWhiskey

Offline SD67

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3218
Salvage Rights and US Navy
« Reply #9 on: December 26, 2007, 03:44:55 AM »
There was once a pair of P47's that were ditched during the war and left insitu with bent props but otherwise intact. About 15 years ago someone came across them, and enquired regarding salvage and restoration from the RAAF. Since they were technically on lease from the USAAF  the RAAF said they saw no reason not to allow it, but sent an team out to "clear any ordinance from the aircraft" since they were loaded with MG rounds at the time. They "cleared" the ordinance with several charges of C4, effectively rendering the aircraft aluminium confetti.:mad:
The same fate befell another pair of P39's ditched in the desert out of fuel but loaded and intact. Once again the RAAF "cleared" the ordinance, but this time there was sufficient structure to restore one aircraft from the remains of both. I understand this effort is still onging.
« Last Edit: December 26, 2007, 03:50:30 AM by SD67 »
9GIAP VVS RKKA
You're under arrest for violation of the Government knows best act!
Fabricati diem, punc
Absinthe makes the Tart grow fonder

Offline Guppy35

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 20385
Salvage Rights and US Navy
« Reply #10 on: December 26, 2007, 04:14:39 AM »
Quote
Originally posted by SD67
There was once a pair of P47's that were ditched during the war and left insitu with bent props but otherwise intact. About 15 years ago someone came across them, and enquired regarding salvage and restoration from the RAAF. Since they were technically on lease from the USAAF  the RAAF said they saw no reason not to allow it, but sent an team out to "clear any ordinance from the aircraft" since they were loaded with MG rounds at the time. They "cleared" the ordinance with several charges of C4, effectively rendering the aircraft aluminium confetti.:mad:
The same fate befell another pair of P39's ditched in the desert out of fuel but loaded and intact. Once again the RAAF "cleared" the ordinance, but this time there was sufficient structure to restore one aircraft from the remains of both. I understand this effort is still onging.


Those 39s and a number of 5th AF Jugs are working their way through Bob Deimert in Australia.  Some amazing work going on over there on restorations.  38s, Tonies, 39s, Jugs etc.
Dan/CorkyJr
8th FS "Headhunters

Offline Airscrew

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 4808
Salvage Rights and US Navy
« Reply #11 on: December 26, 2007, 09:32:13 AM »
these might be a bit large,  pictures I took 2 years ago at Pima Air museum near Tucson...




Offline Airscrew

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 4808
Salvage Rights and US Navy
« Reply #12 on: December 26, 2007, 09:33:09 AM »



Offline GtoRA2

  • Persona Non Grata
  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 8339
Salvage Rights and US Navy
« Reply #13 on: December 26, 2007, 04:11:46 PM »
I have shots from one on the USS Hornet that was on the bottom of a lake and it looks great. I will post them later.

Offline crockett

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3420
Salvage Rights and US Navy
« Reply #14 on: December 26, 2007, 06:02:31 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by Airscrew
these might be a bit large,  pictures I took 2 years ago at Pima Air museum near Tucson...



Is that the plane that caused the lawsuit with the US Navy over it's rights?
"strafing"