--Posted on behalf of Ben Robinson--

Martin Newman and all,

I don't know the emphasis of the desk-based recording exercise for aircraft
crash, but presumably there is a set of agendas driving it. I have just
started recording these sites on my SMR in a fairly simple fashion so that:

1) I can inform our local aviation groups about potentially threatened
sites;
2) Some notice may be provided to prospective developers;
3) Local history and specialist researchers can access the information;
4) I can begin to think about proactive management of the sites.

Some of my information derives from anecdotal and eye witness accounts. Some
has been gleaned from the existing specialist publications on aircraft
losses, and relevant appendices in regional aviation books. 

In satisfying objective 3) I am aware that whilst it might be helpful to the
local historian to see these sites in the context of local airfields, ground
and air to ground defences, and other ,military installations (all of which
we try to record), the specialist aircraft wreck researcher can get most of
the historic information they need from the said publications. What they
can't necessarily get is a detailed location (crash sites are often very
poorly located in the national literature and sometimes known to the nearest
10m locally) a summary of debris or burial context, and the outcome of any
investigations or other interference with the wreck. Its the management-type
information which I think we could most usefully provide.

Having seen crash sites being very recklessly excavated by enthusiasts, and
disturbed during the course of development, I think we should be moving
towards the active management of those significant sites that remain. This
again requires an emphasis on the management type information. 

Therefore, I think we need some record of what was salvaged immediately
after the crash (airframe, bombs, human remains, etc.), and a clear
indication of whether we are likely to be dealing with deeply buried remains
(such as those which dive into coastal mud or fen deposits), or something
which is likely to have disintegrated on impact, or survived the crash
largely intact to be recovered by a salvage team at the time. Such
information (where available) is currently recorded in my free text
description field, but would be better managed in structured fields. 

Only in this way can sensible management choices be made about a crash
site's importance. Similarly, some care has to be taken with the aircraft
type list. Sub-types and variants have variable degrees of rarity or
historic value which would greatly increase the value of a well preserved
site (i.e.. of many thousand Rolls Royce Merlin-engined Lancasters were
produced, but only 400 were powered by Bristol Hercules engines).
Association with historic persons and events also would increase the
notional value (and sensitivity) of a known site. 

Has there been any communication with any of the regional aircraft research
and crash recovery groups to see their preferred information structure ?
Such groups will constitute an important contributor and enquirer set. There
is a national federation called the British Aviation Archaeological Council
which may be interested to contribute. 

In answer to the specific points raised by your email.

As a flyer, I log Departure airfield name, followed the general
administrative location only where not immediately apparent (this applies to
foreign airfields, unnamed/temporary airstrips, etc.). I've only landed on
pretend aircraft carriers (!), but I would have thought that the carrier
name followed by broad location (i.e. North Atlantic, Channel) would be
useful. 

Destination is a difficult one. Several destinations may be planned with a
single sortie, a bomber may have had to divert from its original target to
an alternative one. Aircraft may be forced to divert to alternative
airfields on return. Interceptors might not necessarily have an easily
defined destination. My feeling is that the destination should be the last
recorded objective at which landing, or some specific task (such as bombing,
dropping parachutes, picking up mail), was to be carried out. A  bomber on
return from a target will have the destination recorded as its home
airfield, unless archives show that it had been diverted elsewhere. 

Evidence. I think this category needs to be supplemented by further
information on burial context etc. as described above.

Cargo. Bombs and other ordnance should be recorded under this category.

Aircraft type. See above.

Other identifiers. This is potentially confusing because we have
manufacturer's serial numbers for engines, airframes, and other components.
Then we have military serial numbers, then military unit codes (Squadron
codes etc.). All should be accommodated. 

Height/Depth. I think depth is more useful than height. It could be used to
estimate depth below sea level, or to record the depth at which remains have
been noted in soft deposits. In this last respect, engines are often
retrieved from around 8m below current ground level in the fens, whilst
elements of the airframe remain near the surface. 

Collisions. Definitely two separate records which are then cross-referenced.


Mounted. I don't see why the last flight should not be recorded. This might
give some idea of last operational use. Alternatively, how about another
field which records 'last operational unit' (i.e.. Squadron/Group/Corps,
etc. or commercial operator) 

Civil aircraft. I would record these too. 

Cheers,

Ben Robinson
Archaeological Officer, Peterborough



***Private and Confidential Notice***

The information contained in this E-Mail is intended for the named
recipients only.
It may contain privileged and confidential information and if you are not
the intended
recipient, you must not copy, distribute or take any action or reliance on
it. 
If you have received this E-Mail in error, please notify the sender
immediately by
using the E-Mail address or on +44 (0) 1733 452411.




%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%