A Verdict in the TVAL Case

[nuuumannn]

Nice work Zac. Champion.

[chrism]

Good work Zac. Thanks.

[Deleted]

I also emailed the various ministers associated with this sort of thing because why not. Had the standard auto-reply, will advise if anything relevant comes my way

[denysjones]

The "expert examiners" that get consulted is an interesting topic.

In my role as Chairman of the Ferrymead Trust I have recently been involved with a request to provide persons to fulfill this role in respect of stationery engines (the sort used in farming etc) on the basis that we (Ferrymead in the broad sense) are recognised as having collections in this space, and so assumedly are therefore experts.

So if I rush out and buy up a whole heap of material on a topic am I suddenly an "expert examiner"?

I referred this to our Rural History Society and one of their number provided what to me appeared to be a rigorous evaluation, I however have no way of verifying his capability so to do.

So the point has to be made that how does the Ministry ascertain the veracity of the qualifications of that person?

So if they approach me as an aeronautical person on the basis of my visibility in the field how or do they even ascertain that I'm not in collusion with the intending exporter?

On the basis of my experience I'd say that they do not.

[emron]

After casting my layman’s eyes over the regulations, I came to ponder about these points:
I wonder how much of Kittyhawk ZK-RMH would qualify as a protected NZ object. I bet the fuel, oil, coolant and electrical systems, hoses, tyres, brakes, radio, navigation aids, surface coatings and an unknown quantity of new built parts are all less than 50 years old. Maybe not a requirement but I’m sure that the wings, fuselage, engine, propeller and cowling never flew together as one airframe in our skies before 1971 either. As far as I know it’s only the fuselage that can trace heritage to wartime service as NZ3009.
Another factor in the favour of an exporter is that there are 2 examples permanently held in New Zealand public collections, albeit hard to describe them as “comparable” as little of either has any proven history of RNZAF use.
Rather than ever having an export application refused by the Customs Dept, I sense that it was the intent of several previous owners to keep both aircraft in NZ and they made it a condition of their sale. Mr. Wulff might be happy to confirm if this applied to his purchase of ZK-RMH.

[Deleted]

Dec 14, 2021 14:38:22 GMT 12 emron said:

As far as I know it’s only the fuselage that can trace heritage to wartime service as NZ3009.

ZK-CAG has the fuselage of A29-448, wing from NZ3201 and engine out of NZ3128 but is accepted as A29-448 - I think the fuselage is the key piece of the identity puzzle. Just my own layman's/enthusiast's take on the type.

[Mustang51]

This area is fraught with danger signals - especially when you become embroiled with a uni qualified person (Museuology)....not that I am against uni qualifications but their 'artistic' decision making processes have been found to be arbitrary and capricious and in some cases severely flawed in the past....for example....a Ki.43 in the ocean off northern Australia is a heritage item and yet a virtually complete (airframe) of a Ki.43 extant in Australia since the war was allowed an export permit...........another, rubbing back the paint from an Me262 to reveal all of the schemes that it had worn as they were 'original'... now it represents something yet nothing. A dilemma posed to me at an international Museum's conference years ago. Apparently the Smithsonian has an original SPAD....exactly as it was taken out of service in WW.I even some of the mud. It is totally original but...it is suffering from the ravages of time. If it is 'restored' it wont be 'original' but if it is not restored it simply will fall further to pieces over time. Unfortunately the battle between these 'conservators' on different sides of some philosophical argument does not allow much for common sense. That is why we mortals can never win any reasoned discussion with most of them. Why is is better to watch a movie representation of a Spitfire in a museum rather than look at the real thing on display where one is owned by that museum......

[Mustang51]

emron, you are correct ( as a sensible person) that the fuselage is generally accepted as the identity of an aircraft. AWM Mustang was restored as its original RAAF serial despite new wings and the fact that it never actually served as an operational Mustang with the RAAF. OK with that. The AWM B.25 was obtained - perhaps the wrong word - in a contract with Aero Heritage. It was to be operated at no cost to the AWM by AH with contract renewals (a matter of course) each - I think - 5 years. The B.25 served with the USAAF and USAF but not operationally. It was to be 'representative' of the RAAF Mitchells and those operated in the Pacific by the USAAF and US marines. This arrangement operated well till the first renewal. AWM personnel changed and one of their 'people' decided it was not 'representative' of the RAAF B-25s as it had never served on ops with the RAAF. Same applied to the P-51 on display but so what, their decision process on the B.25 was crafted (and supported by the Commonwealth Solicitor if required) by a change in their personnel and those personnel's individual thought processes on the day. Despite fervent arguments for a long time the AWM just shut shop, aircraft disassembled, stored then sold. The sale itself is also interesting as an Oz group tendered for the aircraft at a higher price than was the successful published offer from US bidders.............very galling to see it at Chino when we were picking up Sabre parts.....

I'll get off that horse now..........sorry for venting

[Dave Homewood]

I feel very uncomfortable that people are speculating here over ownership plans and possible exports of the aircraft involved here. It is up to the owners as to what happens to them. And if they decide to sell the aircraft they will undoubtedly go through all the legal processes properly, since the spotlight has been so squarely on these airframes for a prolonged period. That will include any legal position on their export if that becomes a path they take.

The New Zealand public really has no say in the future of the aircraft unless a member of said public stumps up with the cash to buy them. And for all we known, that could already be on the cards.

[Mustang51]

I would just like to see that the protections in place are effected as appropriate. There should be no loss of NZ Heritage through all of this

[ErrolC]

Dec 15, 2021 21:09:34 GMT 12 Dave Homewood said:

I feel very uncomfortable that people are speculating here over ownership plans and possible exports of the aircraft involved here. It is up to the owners as to what happens to them.

But that is what is being discussed. It (possibly) isn't only up to the owners.

And if they decide to sell the aircraft they will undoubtedly go through all the legal processes properly, since the spotlight has been so squarely on these airframes for a prolonged period. That will include any legal position on their export if that becomes a path they take.

Understandably the law requires interpretation, so the result of following the process is not clear in advance. An aircraft that has been exported legally has still been exported.

The New Zealand public really has no say in the future of the aircraft unless a member of said public stumps up with the cash to buy them. And for all we known, that could already be on the cards.

But the NZ public do have a (partial) say in practice, a law has been passed which may apply (well almost certainly does in the case of the Corsair).

[planecrazy]

Off but on topic I guess, when Ray Hanna owned NZ 3009 he had her in the UK for
sometime with the Breitling Fighter thing, wasn't this an export?

Also the two ex RNZAF P40's that wear RAAF markings in Australia, obviously these
were exported as well. Please understand me, not challenging the export process
just asking out of interest, as I am confused, how the description "Protected New
Zealand Object" is established?

[Mustang51]

Has to be placed on a register if it is like Oz

[Deleted]

Nov 26, 2021 9:25:57 GMT 12 @zacyates said:

Nov 21, 2021 20:06:32 GMT 12 chrism said:

I wonder if we should email them to enlighten them about these aircraft if they don't already know.

I did.

Thank you for your email about your concerns for the Curtiss P-40E Kittyhawk and Goodyear FG-1D Corsair.

Protected New Zealand objects can be sold to overseas collectors, however before a protected New Zealand object can be exported from New Zealand, either temporarily or permanently, permission must be granted by the Chief Executive of the Ministry for Culture and Heritage.

Any application to export the aircraft in question would be considered under the Protected Objects Act and would be assessed by expert examiners to determine their significance to NZ under the Act.

We will certainly continue to follow the situation as it plays out.

Received yesterday:
220202 SIGNED Zac Yates Potential export of protected heritage aircraft by Zac Yates, on Flickr

I asked that my thanks for the minister's time and consideration be relayed to her.

[Dave Homewood]

The latest in this saga

Former employee Gene DeMarco who defrauded filmmaker Sir Peter Jackson’s company chased to New York

www.nzherald.co.nz/business/former-employee-who-defrauded-sir-peter-jacksons-company-chased-to-new-york/ZNNDKKYH7ZEIPM26RCONGLCXOQ/

Full story thanks to Ian.