People say strange things. In the Toronto Star today there is a report that someone actually said this to one of their reporters:
"I suggest you don't pursue this any further," said the official, who asked not to be named.That the official was being asked about secret-ish CIA flights into Canada, sort of of the sort that was used and researched a bit by this here blog in the Arar case, makes the words of the Bar River airport official both a tad ominous and a bit silly. Needless to say, the Star did not take the advice. I can't find the airport on g-maps. Maybe Mr. Secret got to them.
Putting an aircraft identification number like N6161Q - or as in the Arar case N829MG - into Google is very instructive. You can see that a plane or planes bearing N6161Q:
- was in an accident in 1971 at LAX even though it is a 1979 Dehavilland DHC-6-300,
- was noticed in Ireland on 7 August 2005,
- was in another fatal accident in 1994, and
- was photographed by nerdy planespotters both landing and taking off at Malta on 2 and 3 August 2005.
Comments
Chris Taylor - December 6, 2005 1:42 PM
There's nothing fishy about it. It's highly likely that more than one aircraft will share a single FAA registry N-number. Not concurrently, of course, but as aircraft age and are decommissioned, their N-numbers go back into the available pool and the number is reassigned to another, newly-registered aircraft.
The 1971 Los Angeles incident lists the N6161Q plane type as a Cessna 320, whose production run began in 1961, so it's certainly possible for a 1961-vintage aircraft to be a participant in a 1971 accident.
The registry number N6161Q has been assigned to, in recent times, a Tierra II homebuilt ultralight and a two-seat Cessna 152 trainer. N6161Q has been assigned to the white DHC6 since July 19, 2001. The FAA's online records only go back to the beginning of the 90s, so there are probably a half-dozen other aircraft who used N6161Q (like that Cessna 320) that are not listed online but will exist on paper.
Alan - December 6, 2005 1:47 PM
I am deeply saddened that you do not share my interest in superficial conspiracy, Chris. What is the point in lacking understanding if one cannot speak publicly based on such vacuity.<p>The nerdy photos from Malta were gold, though, were they not? What was going on behind the glass?
Chris Taylor - December 6, 2005 3:15 PM
All right, here's my "conspiracy theory":
The DHC6 is well known for its bush-flying capabilities, particularly short-field operations. The number of antennas poking out of the thing seems to indicate the presence of secure comm gear, probably military in nature. My guess would be that it is used to covertly insert small teams into remote, unprepared airfields (which is easier to get away with in civilian bush aircraft vs. large, noisy military-marked helicopters). A couple of DHC6s have actually crashed carrying paramilitary teams while simulating exactly that. If you're flying paramilitary missions you need to communicate with the brass and get operational updates re: opposition force location, strength, yadda yadda. Hence the array of antennas up top.
However that is clearly not what the Twin Otter was doing up here. The Star article points out rather quietly that it's here to get work done on the aircraft. Twotters are Canadian-made (as are many DHC6 after-market parts and services), so these CIA fronts and almost every other DHC6 operator will have their planes up here for refits on a regular basis.
Alan - December 13, 2005 5:25 AM
More about plane nerds and CIA agents. Watching the secrets.