Originally Posted by
Easy Street
Can someone explain to me what motivation the CAA might have for wanting to influence the findings of further investigation into CI? There does not seem to be an obvious equivalent to the “protect the retired Air Marshals” allegation associated with Mull, etc. The CAA’s regulation of display supervision has already been discredited; what else could it be hoping to protect? A finding of CI would surely take attention *away from* airworthiness matters, if indeed there is anything to be diverted from.
As for the RAF, a finding of CI’s existence would actually be quite convenient to very senior leadership in implementing its vision for uncrewed platforms. So not sure what institutional motivation is being implied there either.
Agree with this. CI being real would be a convenient excuse to CAA “oh, we didnt know about this CI, it explains everything, nothing else to see here” (sweeps regulatory issues under carpet).
looking at the credentials of the panel - 3x Profs, 1x Doctors and a couple of other professionals - who have worked in the UK, Aus, US and NZ, I have no reason to doubt their relevant professionalism or experience. They are also displaying willing to put their name to the report, so if there was contrary evidence they would be discredited immediately.
It starts looking like parts of the US unwillingness to look at science in the face if Covid-19 because it doesn’t suit their narrative.