Janet and the USAF coverup

page: 1
0
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join

posted on Jul, 11 2006 @ 09:39 PM
link   
While going through an aircraft crash database, I came across a crash from 1994 at the Tonopah range. The plane, a King Air 1900, crashed when the pilot suffered a fatal cardiac arrest on landing, killing 5 people.

Here's where things get interesting. According to the news article, the plane belongs to the US Air Force Materiel Command. According to the USAF, the plane was carrying contract workers for JT3 LLC, a joint venture between EG&G and Raytheon. However, pictures of the plane, and the registration certificate show that the plane was operated by EG&G as a Janet Flight. Janet Flights operate from Mccaren Airport in Las Vegas, to Tonopah Test Range, and Area 51. They all carry a standard FAA N number. (Registration number. N is used for North America and is ONLY used by civilian companies.) USAF planes don't use an N number. They use a 5 digit tail number. (Using 12668 as an example, 1=1961 the year it was made, 2668=2.668th plane built.)

The FAA Registration Certificate shows some oddities as well. The certificate shows that the plane is registered to the Department of the Air Force, and a Government certificate, but the address on it is a P.O. Box in Layton, Utah.


FAA Registry
N-Number Inquiry Results


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



N27RA is Assigned

Aircraft Description

Serial Number UB-37 Type Registration Government
Manufacturer Name BEECH Certificate Issue Date 07/28/1988
Model 1900C Status Valid
Type Aircraft Fixed Wing Multi-Engine Type Engine Turbo-Prop
Pending Number Change None Dealer No
Date Change Authorized None Mode S Code 50522633
MFR Year 1985 Fractional Owner NO


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Registered Owner

Name DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE
Street PO BOX 1504
City LAYTON State UTAH Zip Code 84041-6504
County DAVIS
Country UNITED STATES

registry.faa.gov...

JT3 LLC shows an address in Las Vegas, and has been tied to projects such as the B-2, F-117, F-35 and F-22.


That's where JT3 (Joint Test, Tactics and Training) comes in. A joint venture between EG&G Technical Services and Raytheon Technical Services, JT3 provides engineering and technical support services for aerospace and military customers. Areas of operation include mission and project planning, flight test engineering and development, modeling and simulation services, and hardware and software support. JT3 has been involved in testing such high-flying projects as the F-35, F-117, the B-2, and F-22.

www.hoovers.com...




posted on Jul, 11 2006 @ 10:04 PM
link   
So...What are you thinking?



posted on Jul, 11 2006 @ 10:23 PM
link   
We're still starting the investigation, but it's interesting how planes that belong to the USAF are being flown under an N number, and by civilian pilots.



posted on Jul, 11 2006 @ 10:39 PM
link   
Hey Zaphod, nice article.

In Australia, I know that we lease aircraft for Defence work (we have some King Airs, also our VIP jets I believe are leased). Could it be the a similiar deal?

Will



posted on Jul, 11 2006 @ 10:49 PM
link   
That is indeed rather interesting. It's possible the mismatched stories could just be the routine denial of Area 51's existence, but I don't know what their public stance on the Janet flights is, or if they even have a public stance on it.

An owners search on landings.com for "Department of the Air Force" returns only 11 aircraft: N20RA, N27RA, N5175U, N5176Y, N5177C, N5294E, N5294M, N623RA, N654BA, N661BA, and N662BA. And those all are Janet aircraft. So that's interesting, the only Department of the Air Force-registered planes being Janet.



posted on Jul, 11 2006 @ 10:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by Willard856
Hey Zaphod, nice article.

In Australia, I know that we lease aircraft for Defence work (we have some King Airs, also our VIP jets I believe are leased). Could it be the a similiar deal?

Will


If it was a lease, the the registered owner should be the company it's leased from. It wouldn't say it was a Government certificate, and have Department of the Air Force as the owner.



posted on Jul, 12 2006 @ 12:38 AM
link   
Actually, it seems that it isn't totally unusual for an aircraft operated by the military to have a civilian registration number.

Designation Systems


The C-7 designation was also used for some versions of the deHavilland Canada Dash-7 in US Army service. The Dash-7 flew for the first time on 27 March 1975 and the US Army aircraft were procured from the civil market in app. 1995. The US Army used one designated as O-5A for imagery intelligence and 2 EO-5Bs as communications intelligence aircraft. The O-5As had civilian registration N5382W, whilst the EO-5Bs had registrations N705GG and N59AG. In addition the US Army used seven aircraft with the designation RC-7 and various RC-7Bs for anti-drug operations and other military intelligence gathering missions. Photographic evidence suggests that the aircraft are operated in a civilian guise and carried the civil registrations including N42RA, N89068, N53993, N176RA, N177RA, N765MG, N54026 and N5382W.


Zaphod, do you have anything concrete that says that military aircraft can't have an N number (I don't doubt you, I'm just checking all angles)? Maybe you can check who the above N registered aircraft are currently registered to?



posted on Jul, 12 2006 @ 12:52 AM
link   
In the case of the C-7s, they started life as civilian planes, with an N number, and were used for other missions. With the USAF, even the planes I've seen that weren't painted up in USAF markings used a 5 digit tail number, instead of an N number. I chcecked the first 4. Three are still showing DOD ownership, but I don't think they still fly C-7s, which is interesting.

I don't have anything concrete to show that they don't, but I have had a lot of experience around USAF/USN/USMC planes, and I NEVER saw one that used an N number instead of a tail number. The USN/USMC used a different numbering system, but every USAF plane I've seen has used a 5 digit tail number. There were even a couple of VIP planes that were bought off of the Customs Service that had N numbers, that the USAF reassigned 5 digit tail numbers based on the manufacturing information.

And if you do an owner search of USAF planes, on the website that LoganCale showed, the ONLY USAF N numbers that show up, are the Janet fleet. If there were more than just those particular planes, then they should show up. But why are they being operated by civilians, and a civilian company, if they belong to the USAF Materiel Command.

[edit on 7/12/2006 by Zaphod58]



posted on Jul, 12 2006 @ 01:04 AM
link   
The only thing I can think of is for some reason the USAF bought the aircraft, but lease out the daily operations to a civilian company. Maybe there is then a requirement to have civilian registration (for insurance, company records etc). This of course is speculation on my behalf! And yes, I do see the logic disconnect in leasing out the operations when you could just use military pilots. Just thinking aloud



posted on Jul, 12 2006 @ 01:17 AM
link   
That's actually a good theory, except for where the flights go to. The go from Las Vegas, to Nellis AFB, Tonopah Test Range (where the F-117 flew for years), Edwards AFB, and Area 51.



posted on Jul, 12 2006 @ 01:19 AM
link   
On this page regarding the Janet fleet, it lists the history of the aircraft, which is a bit odd, but might kind of explain, to a certain degree, the registration to the P.O. Box in Utah. For N4529W:


First flew 12/07/73, delivered to Pacific Western Airlines 12/19/73 as C-FPWB, transferred to EG&G 02/03/83 as N4529W, with ownership changing to First Security Bank of Utah 03/91, transferred to Dept of AF 12/07/95 and registered for service 02/13/96


I don't know why it would go through a Utah bank, but the fact that it did probably necessitated the creation of the Utah P.O. box.



posted on Jul, 12 2006 @ 01:24 AM
link   
Why would where the flight goes alter the validity of the theory? When I was on exchange to Nellis, I knew some civilian pilots who flew into the area. So not totally unusual. As long as you have the appropriate clearance of course!



posted on Jul, 12 2006 @ 09:05 AM
link   
Actually, it is not that unusual for a military "owned" aircraft to fly with civilian tail numbers. It just depends on who is operating the aircraft, and for what purpose.

For many years I flew on an aircraft that was "owned" by AFMC (they where the one's paying the bill) that had a civilian tail number. It was even piloted by active duty USAF pilots. However, it was register to and "operated" by a civilian entity and was being used for non-military purposes. Thus, a cilivian registration was more appropriate. Also, and this is key.....having a civilian registration and tail number makes it much easier for civilians to travel and utilize the aircraft for their own purposes. If the JANEP flights were true military aircraft, can you imagine the paperwork and red tape one would have to endure (as a civilian) to ride on it on a regular basis?



posted on Jul, 12 2006 @ 09:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by Willard856
Why would where the flight goes alter the validity of the theory? When I was on exchange to Nellis, I knew some civilian pilots who flew into the area. So not totally unusual. As long as you have the appropriate clearance of course!


It's not so much Nellis, or Edwards but Area 51. If the gov't doesn't even admit that Area 51 EXISTS, why are they letting a civilian company fly into there. TO ME it would make a lot more sense for them to be using a military pilot, and USAF plane to fly into.

Pyros, I can understand having a CIVILIAN owned plane, that was being leased by the AF, and having an N number. But I NEVER saw a plane that was owned by the USAF that used an N number in 25 years. And I never saw one that was owned by the USAF, and registered to them being flown by civilian pilots, and a civilian company.

[edit on 7/12/2006 by Zaphod58]



posted on Jul, 12 2006 @ 10:30 AM
link   
Do a google search on N404PA. A fine old bird still flying.

It happens more often than you might think. Just not in place you are used to look at....



posted on Jul, 12 2006 @ 01:43 PM
link   
N404PA is an experimental, so I'm not surprised by it. But with OPERATIONAL planes and transports I've never seen it happen. I've seen planes that were LEASED by the USAF. The ONLY planes I've seen flown by civilians, were test planes, and they ALL (with the apparent exception of this particular one) had USAF tail numbers.



posted on Jul, 12 2006 @ 03:02 PM
link   
Also Pyros, if it's more common than I think, why does an owner search (as performed by LoganCale), ONLY return 11 hits, and all of them Janet flights?



posted on Jul, 12 2006 @ 03:26 PM
link   
N404PA is registered to Air Force Material Command as opposed to Department of the Air Force, but there is only one other aircraft registered to that: N105TB. Which happens to be a rather interesting Gulfstream II with hardpoints on the wings. And both of those are active around Area 51.



posted on Jul, 12 2006 @ 03:41 PM
link   
Very interesting post here. Janet flight crashes with workers for JT3 LLC. What exactly is that project? Just curious.
Also I believe the sightings of Janets at other world wide installations(England) may suggest they are specialized transports of some type and specific to the Nevada test sites and personell. A secure door to door ride if you will.

However im interested in this Joint venture project as well.



posted on Jul, 12 2006 @ 05:51 PM
link   
Sorry Zaphod, I didn't make myself very clear in my last post. I meant civilian aircrew flying out of Nellis into what is known as Area 51.





top topics
 
0
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join