RN to do the right thing!
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 312
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RN to do the right thing!
Unfortunately I do not have all the details yet, but it will come out.
In 1947 the RN lost two Fairy Fireflies in a mid air near Melbourne Australia.
At the time only one body was recovered and I presume lies in the Victorian service cementry.
The two aircraft have been now found, with the remains of one person in the pilots seat and another besides the second aircraft.
Whilst not confirmed "Their Lordships" have decreed that the men will not be recovered, and left where they lie. Problem is that they are in 60 foot only of water.
Are we so short of cash, that we cannot do the right thing.
More later as it comes through.
Regards
Col Tigwell
Downunder
In 1947 the RN lost two Fairy Fireflies in a mid air near Melbourne Australia.
At the time only one body was recovered and I presume lies in the Victorian service cementry.
The two aircraft have been now found, with the remains of one person in the pilots seat and another besides the second aircraft.
Whilst not confirmed "Their Lordships" have decreed that the men will not be recovered, and left where they lie. Problem is that they are in 60 foot only of water.
Are we so short of cash, that we cannot do the right thing.
More later as it comes through.
Regards
Col Tigwell
Downunder
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: by the Great Salt Lake, USA
Posts: 1,542
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
While a wreck site is, normally, a form of gravesite, that is only so when there is a reasonable probability that the remains will be undisturbed in their location, or where the remains are completely buried.
In this case, neither applies... therefore the remains should be removed, identified if possible, and re-interred in a formal cemetary.
In this case, neither applies... therefore the remains should be removed, identified if possible, and re-interred in a formal cemetary.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 312
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Unfortunately in this case the remains are only in 60FT of water.
This means that it is likely, inspite of any restrictions, that the "wreck junkies" will appear.
Why can they not be interned, along side their mate who was recovered 60 years ago.
Regards
Col
This means that it is likely, inspite of any restrictions, that the "wreck junkies" will appear.
Why can they not be interned, along side their mate who was recovered 60 years ago.
Regards
Col
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: by the Great Salt Lake, USA
Posts: 1,542
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There is also a rather ghoulish set that think it "cool" to have human bones as souvenirs of their visit.
The US Park Service and the FBI arrest several such looters (and their customers, for those who loot for profit, rather than "kicks") every year... and not just with ancient remains.
Revolutionary War sites, Civil War sites, "Ghost town" graveyards... and many others are targets.
If those remains are allowed to rest in such an accessable location, without protection, then sooner or later they will be disturbed... and maybe looted.
The US Park Service and the FBI arrest several such looters (and their customers, for those who loot for profit, rather than "kicks") every year... and not just with ancient remains.
Revolutionary War sites, Civil War sites, "Ghost town" graveyards... and many others are targets.
If those remains are allowed to rest in such an accessable location, without protection, then sooner or later they will be disturbed... and maybe looted.
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: West Sussex
Posts: 1,771
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I thought such ' wrecks ' were dealt with by the RN / Marines, labelled as a training exercise ?
I hate to think aircraft might be differently treated to wrecks such as POW & Repulse - a lot deeper but ships - is this the ' fish-head ' syndrome again ?
I hate to think aircraft might be differently treated to wrecks such as POW & Repulse - a lot deeper but ships - is this the ' fish-head ' syndrome again ?
