reply to post by Zcustosmorum
It's not so much the suggestion of a cover up, as it's a misunderstanding by the journalist of what the actual AIB report says. I've read some AIB
reports that have made me scratch my head, and I lived in that world for almost 30 years.
I'm not saying it doesn't happen, because I've read some reports recently of manned aircraft that did some truly bonehead things, such as
forgetting to put the landing gear down, but the fact that the Air Force expanded UAVs to include non-pilot candidates as pilots for them, and this
article says a civilian contractor doesn't add up. I don't see the Air Force letting non-pilots fly their UAVs, only to turn around and give the
mission to a civilian contractor.
Now if this was a test mission being flown by a civilian contractor, that makes a lot more sense, and would explain why it's not listed on the AIB
report list, and there's no AIB report for it to be found. It would be an informal report, because the contractor would "own" the airframe for the
duration of the testing, and it wouldn't be an Air Force accident, so no AIB report required.
That's why this whole thing doesn't make sense. Either it was an Air Force mission, and there's an AIB report that the reporter got his or her
hands on, and I can't find anywhere, or it was a civilian test and there's no AIB report because there wasn't one done. So in this particular
incident, something isn't adding up.
