What's new
British Ordnance Collectors Network

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Inert ordnance data sheet

exat808 said:
This is exactly the dilemma that collectors find themselves in. In the absence of a civilian FFE regime exactly who can certify an article to be FFE?
My view is that in order to satisfy our obligations (duties) under various pieces of legislation the best option is to self certify as Paul has done.
It may be better re-inforced by having some "legalese" wording on the datasheets. I'll look at some options and post them.
Your esteemed leader Spotter is actively looking at a recognised registration scheme. Stay tuned.
Click to expand...

In my personal opinion self certification is useless and will weaken your entire approach. Any professional, bomb disposal, LEO, etc is going to immediately ask the same questions as raised here, "who certified". The second that they hear "self certified" they will ask your qualifications, upon hearing "collector" you are done.

There are many individuals that post on this site that are extremely knowledgable, at least in limited areas. There are also others that are idiots, digging items which they have no idea what they are or the damage that they can do, asking questions only after the fact. The same people often examine items and determine them to be safe and inert, with little or no understanding of what components were there in the first place. Self certified? Get real.

If you are going to try and do this for yourselves (UK) you need to establish a certifying board, show some sort of credentials, and get it recognized by someone. Then only recognized members of the board can certify. Otherwise you will have no credibility in the field, where you need it the most.
 
My initial idea was to produce a piece of paper which at a glance would show someone that an item is inert and empty before they actually pick it up and examine it. It doesn't have to say on it "i certify it is empty" A picture paints a 1000 words. Surely this would be a good thing for all you EOD boys to see when visiting a collection?
Cheers, Paul.
 
Perhaps there is another approach. I see regularly a certain dealer who proclaims that 'All our items are free from explosives AND DEMONSTRABLY SO'. This last phrase is the key. Shell cases and HE projectiles should have visible empty space inside them. Fuzes should have a visible firing pin, etc. If a piece is demonstrably inert, then surely there is no need for an independent FFE certificate.
 
In my personal opinion self certification is useless and will weaken your entire approach. Any professional, bomb disposal, LEO, etc is going to immediately ask the same questions as raised here, "who certified". The second that they hear "self certified" they will ask your qualifications, upon hearing "collector" you are done.

There are many individuals that post on this site that are extremely knowledgable, at least in limited areas. There are also others that are idiots, digging items which they have no idea what they are or the damage that they can do, asking questions only after the fact. The same people often examine items and determine them to be safe and inert, with little or no understanding of what components were there in the first place. Self certified? Get real.

If you are going to try and do this for yourselves (UK) you need to establish a certifying board, show some sort of credentials, and get it recognized by someone. Then only recognized members of the board can certify. Otherwise you will have no credibility in the field, where you need it the most.
Click to expand...

Whilst I agree with the general line that self certification is in itself not a qualifying argument, it does provide a generally responsible attitude and Pauls (good) idea lays out a clear start to help prove that an item is inert - i.e not kept in a box full of rusty bits. The premise here is that the item was responsibly obtained (i.e not dug-up and inerted by the owner - not only is this of course illegal, but utterly stupid!). I still believe that we as collectors (certainly in the UK with our very drastic laws) need to do something and think this is a good initiative. I think that the idea of an organised FFE process is also a good long term aim. This however is a very difficult one - as you rightly point out - who would these people be? The official organisations certainly couldnt (and wouldnt want to) spend time FFE'ing every type of item in existence out there! Just the thought of doing this at the huge shows we all attend would put this in perspective - 1000's of items on display!!
I think proactivity is the key here. The aim of every responsible collector has to be to act responsibly and not have stuff he (or she!!) shouldnt. If called on to do so, the aim should be to prove everything is legally owned and anything that leads the person asking the questions to beleive that the collector is legitimate has to help.
At the end of the day there is a huge void of maybes and unanswered questions and will remain so for who knows how long, but the more we do in the interim to show that we act responsibly, the more this must help should the need arise!
At the end of the day, and I reluctanly raise the point here, either these things are legal to own as inert or thay are not. If they are legal to own (i.e not blanket banned) then they need to be provable as inert - this has perhaps a vague definition in law (in the UK) at the moment, but common sense must dictate that an item that has no explosive content (i.e an obviously completely empty void where the explosive would be) - is inert.
The option to ban these items completely has to not only be completely
impractical from a political, ethical and simply logistical perspective. Purely by their nature and volume, they are here and there has to a practical common sense approach to managing there existence - the more we can do here help this the better for us all!
Mark
 
I can only see a viable solution would be a collectors ticket like a firearms ticket and based on trust. At least then there would be a database held by the police and if a report that you were seen with a rocket came in they would know not to raid you, mabe a visit from the FEO. I've been spotted out shooting many a time and reported, but as they know i'm on my land and ticketed, (sometimes they even call me on my mobile to check it is me or someone with my permission), the place is not raided by AR.
 
Great ideas so far. May I suggest an addition to what Paul has done. Add another page stating "why" it is inerted by showing what the original explosive components were by use of drawings of the original item and explain how the item was made inert, by firing or other technique, ie by a complete removal. This may not be applicable to all items however.
This might require copies of original drawings or the assistance of a competent artist. One area of collecting that may cause problems is purpose made drill rounds which

Anyone could rattle off a fantasy drawing of any item they may have to justify what they think they have so a central repository of "official" drawings may be required that users could use. Perhaps we could use BOCN as the database.

The entire concept of self certification relies upon correct identification of the items in question.

There was an MOD memo issued in 2007 that described what was expected of technicians and other users. It wasn't a technical "how to" but it covered basic concepts. eg If a cartridge or other "empty" case did not have a primer fitted then an FFE certificate is not required to be issued. I think this was intended for items moving about within the MOD but it migh apply outside too.This did not apply to collectors and might not hold up in law.

disclaimer:
This may descend into the realms of describing how to make an item inert etc which is contrary to forum rules but I hope you get my idea.
 
Last edited:
You cannot self certify.
You are making the whole concept a farce in my book.
The authorities need to issue the guidelines, its not for us just make them up. And thats what we are doing now, making up rules in order to justify to ourselves the reasons for having our collections.

Until that happens, please realise that it is a complete waste of time.If you are going to get pulled by the authorities with todays rules then the well publicised actions of the authorities will take place whether or not you have self certified that your collection is ok.
Until the law is changed you cant self certify or go down that route.
There is no such thing as self certifcation or a concept of such.
By all means make a list of what you have, this will help both you and the authorities but it wont stop them taking it away and at least you will be able to check what is accurately returned.The authorities will interpret the law as they seem fit as is seen by the different experiences reported by forum members who have been unfortnate enough to come into contact with them.

I think really we need to lobby our MPs, if we shout loud enough our voice will be heard but dont bother with the Civil Servants or Police/EOD as they are not elected and not accountable to the public.

Just my penorth.

Andy
 
Last edited:
The thread is to discuss concepts and ideas that the authorities may consider. They won't do it themselves so the original concept, proffered by exat808, is to come up with a system that they may adopt.
 
I think, although it wouldn't really prove anything as all the above comments on the self certifying state, if you were to be unfortunate enough to have your collection taken by the authotities and you ended up in court, it would give you a very solid platform to say that you have been documenting everything to make the life of the authorities easier and proving that you are a serious and legitimate collector. I think that the document ideas shown would really put you to an advantage in the court room as you are showing that you have gone well out of your way to attempt to provide a certificate in the absence of an official one. Not our fault that there are no official certificates available for this stuff.
 
Out of interest, how do the Imperial War Museum (for example) deal with their collections? Would they have all been FFE'd by an ATO? What paperwork trail do they use to manage their collections? A system must already be in place to cover the museum industry, so why reinvent the wheel?

EDIT: SPaG
 
SCJB said:
Out of interest, how do the Imperial War Museum (for example) deal with their collections? Would they have all been FFE'd by an ATO? What paperwork trail do they use to manage their collections? A system must already be in place to cover the museum industry, so why reinvent the wheel?

EDIT: SPaG
Click to expand...

I don't know the ins and outs of it, but museums are covered by a specific bit of legislation, hence why they can display sec 5 stuff. I will try and find out for you though
 
Hello, all.

I am new to the forum, new to collecting, and completely amazed by the content and quality of the collections displayed by B.O.C.N. members!

I would like to humbly submit my thoughts on the subject of certifying that an item is inert.

Who better to certify that an item is inert, than the expert collector-members of the B.O.C.N.? I suggest that the members of B.O.C.N. discuss, establish, and collectively agree upon "A Member Guide to Certify Inert Condition".

This guide would (1.) establish rules to prove than an item is truly inert; (2.) be posted on this forum for all members to reference; (3.) provide a means for a member to demonstrate compliance with the rules and to apply for certification; and (4.) provide members whose submission is approved with a "Certificate of Inert Condition" from the B.O.C.N.

Of course, a "Certificate of Inert Condition" would not be a legal document. However, if established and adminstered properly, I believe inert certification from the B.O.C.N. could carry as much weight as a certification issued by other member organizations, such as P.A.D.I. (Professional Association of Diving Instructors), or the B.P.A. (British Parachute Association).

I suggest that a small fee be charged for this service as a way to cover costs, and to support continuation of the board. As to who would manage this service, collect the fees, and issue the certificate, I have no idea. Remember, I'm "the new dumb guy".

Let the "stoning" begin...
MBbob, new member
 
MBbob said:
Hello, all.

I am new to the forum, new to collecting, and completely amazed by the content and quality of the collections displayed by B.O.C.N. members!

I would like to humbly submit my thoughts on the subject of certifying that an item is inert.

Who better to certify that an item is inert, than the expert collector-members of the B.O.C.N.? I suggest that the members of B.O.C.N. discuss, establish, and collectively agree upon "A Member Guide to Certify Inert Condition".

This guide would (1.) establish rules to prove than an item is truly inert; (2.) be posted on this forum for all members to reference; (3.) provide a means for a member to demonstrate compliance with the rules and to apply for certification; and (4.) provide members whose submission is approved with a "Certificate of Inert Condition" from the B.O.C.N.

Of course, a "Certificate of Inert Condition" would not be a legal document. However, if established and adminstered properly, I believe inert certification from the B.O.C.N. could carry as much weight as a certification issued by other member organizations, such as P.A.D.I. (Professional Association of Diving Instructors), or the B.P.A. (British Parachute Association).

I suggest that a small fee be charged for this service as a way to cover costs, and to support continuation of the board. As to who would manage this service, collect the fees, and issue the certificate, I have no idea. Remember, I'm "the new dumb guy".

Let the "stoning" begin...
MBbob, new member
Click to expand...

All well and good bud but an unauthorized body however good its intentions cannot certify an item FFE. The assocciations you mentioned dont deal with explosives and there is the rub. As we all know, live ordnance is dangerous and it should not be made inert by unauthorised personnel and therefore the BOCN cant and in my mind should not put its name to any such documentation. I fear a heap of trouble for the site organizers if it did.All down to self certification again, musnt go there.

Andy
 
Museums first -
A previous post talked of possible exemptions or legislation covering Museum collections.
Museum collections of firearms and amunition are covered by the granting of a Museums Firearms Licence by the Home Office or Scottish Government. Any prohibited weapons/ammunition (Sect 5) must be subject of separate Authorities issued by the HO or SG as above. Museum licences are not available to private collections or collections that are privately funded. In respect of inert ordnance exhibits there is in existence an HSE/Local Authority Circular that gives guidelines to museum directors on cataloguing and marking exhibits and advises contact with EOD to detemine suspect articles.

FFE Certification by collectors organisations.
For BOCN to offer the services of its talented and knowledgeable members to carry out FFE certification for its members is in my view a non-starter. Please consider the liability issues in this day and age of major litigation. BOCN is not an employer and cannot offer the milions of pounds of liability cover needed for such a task.
Voluntary self certification is in my view the start point. It may appear of little value to some but it may be the the toe in the water that leads to a more formal recognition of your diverse hobby.
 
Ffe

Just to support the points made by Exat808, both the IWM and the National Army Museum have had items in their collections certified FFE by professional EOD personnel. In both cases I know who did the certification and the rates they charged for this service.

For BOCN to get involved in certification is meaningless apart from the very real liability issues. Whilst I am sure MBbob has the best of intentions, by his own admission he is new to the hobby and his approach is unfortunately naive at best. Can you imagine the courts accepting self certification that a machine gun has been deactivated, rather than a Proof House Certificate?

I confess I don't know what the answer is. I only collect SAA and my collection is live and I have an FAC with Section 5 authority, so I am not directly affected.

I would like to think that there was a practical solution, but I am doubtful. Trying to find a solution acceptable to the courts could open a whole new can of worms. Currently, in Australia I believe the authorities accept an item is inert only if 25% is removed by sectioning, so be warned.

Sorry to be negative, but that is the way I see it.

Regards
TonyE
 
So, in summation:

Self certifying is useless in a court of law.

Good idea to make up pic sheets with disassembled views.

Better than nothing.

As pointed out earlier, if they see you're an upstanding young man, gots alot of documentation, trying to do right, is better than the obverse. I'd bet things would go smoother if one had the documentation. Maybe they wouldn't cinch down the shackles as tight.
 
Have to agree with Slick. Personally I think a record of what you have and how you know it is inert will be of some value the day you have to prove your case. It is also good practice to encourage people new to ordnance collecting (and some old hands) to ask the question “how do I know it is inert?” before they handle an item. It may be in the form of date sheets, or simply a well maintained register. Whilst it won’t be legally binding and won’t be taken as proof, it will show you take your hobby seriously and understand the associated hazards. It will also quickly allow the reviewing officer to ascertain your level of expertise (credibility) and rate the level of risk associated with your collection. This is especially important with those items that are hard to verify as fully inert, as they are likely to be destroyed rather than inspected.
 
Last edited:
Would tend to agree with Slick and kiwicolin that anything is better than nothing. In the UK explosives sector at present "competence" is very much flavour of the month with enforcers. What better way of demonstrating to the enforcing authorities that you are "competent" as a collector than by having a well presented and accurate catalogue of your collection, freely available to those who would have a need to examine it.

Added as an edit - I have just reread the MOD guidelines on FFE. In the section on museums and collections they advise that the record for the article includes a details of the explosive filling that would have previously been present.
 
Last edited:
Exat808 & TonyE, just to clarify. Do you mean that the museums are getting FFE certs from MOD ATO's, or from commercial sector organisations? From the reference to fees charged, I'm presuming private sector. In which case, that would imply non-MOD personnel (I am aware of their previous histories) are issuing certs...?

As an aside, are the museums only calling for confirmation where they may be some doubt as to the nature of a piece, or is there generally a blanket policy to get everything inspected by a third party (of whatever flavour)?
 
SCJB said:
Exat808 & TonyE, just to clarify. Do you mean that the museums are getting FFE certs from MOD ATO's, or from commercial sector organisations? From the reference to fees charged, I'm presuming private sector. In which case, that would imply non-MOD personnel (I am aware of their previous histories) are issuing certs...?

As an aside, are the museums only calling for confirmation where they may be some doubt as to the nature of a piece, or is there generally a blanket policy to get everything inspected by a third party (of whatever flavour)?
Click to expand...

Places such as IWM will have to obtain FFE certification from a commercial source. There are numerous companies that offer this service. Some collections may have paid to have all their exhibits FFE'd, others may only seek an assessment on items of a dubious origin etc. As we have said before - there is no civilian legislation that requires FFE certification.
MOD owned establishments however,fall under the strict FFE guidelines of JSP482 the MOD explosive storage "bible". This makes it a requirement for all MOD collections to be FFE'd by a "competent" person, and to have exhibits recorded and catalogued. A regime that could easily be "civilianised".
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top