A new turbo aircraft bought for the Royal Bahamas Defence Force has been grounded in Nassau for several months partly because its pilots are on the US stoplist, it emerged last night.
During the brief time it was operational, the plane was also involved in two embarrassing incidents when it strayed into Cuban airspace.
Now the sleek King Air 350 aircraft stands on an apron at Nassau International Airport with a sunscreen fabric stretched over its cockpit.
The astonishing disclosures about the plane and its past came from the permanent secretary at the Ministry of National Security, Mark Wilson.
He admitted that Defence Force airwing officers assigned to fly the plane were on the US stoplist. And an incident in Cuban airspace also factored into its grounding.
Mr Wilson's admission came after a source revealed to The Tribune that a number of high-ranking officers on the Royal Bahamas Defence Force were on the United States' stoplist.
Among them are a senior officer and a former assistant who were trained to fly the grounded plane, according to the source.
Additionally, in the performance of its surveillance duties, it was alleged the aircraft was flown into Cuban airspace on at least two occasions, causing a situation between the two nations that eventually led its grounding.
"Mr Mark Wilson seems to be either in left field or the outfield," said the source, "and a lot of questions need to be answered by the permanent secretary."
The source went on to question why the Defence Force would buy a civilian aircraft and then outfit it to perform military functions.
"Logically, it would seem that if you are going to purchase a military aircraft to do surveillance, you don't go to a manufacture who manufactures civilian aircraft, you should just purchase a military aircraft, shouldn't you?" inquired the source.
Yesterday, before addressing the allegations, Mr Wilson apologised for misinformation he supplied to the newspaper concerning the aircraft's location.
Mr Wilson said it was his understanding at the time of the conversation that the aircraft was off the island for repairs, but he subsequently learned the plane was, in fact, still at NIA.
After taking responsibility for the erroneous information, Mr Wilson answered questions about the source's allegations and other comments in the Tribune article that were questioned.
He began by clarifying references to the FAA by saying: "They had nothing to do with the aircraft's grounding. The problem is that questions arose because of the military activities of the aircraft, and the fact that it was registered with them."
For security purposes, Mr Wilson wished to withhold details concerning the "military activities" that led to problems, but said the aircraft had civilian registration and a military number.
because to bring it to New Providence if had to be registered as a civilian aircraft.
Acknowledging that the aircraft was, in fact, airworthy and had been in operation before it was grounded, Mr Wilson said: "The people who flew the aircraft ran into difficulties that cannot be revealed. The difficulty arose in the course of the aircraft doing its surveillance duties."
Mr Wilson said he was not at liberty to go into details, but when particular questions were put to him concerning the aircraft flying in breach of Cuban airspace and with pilots who were on the US stoplist, he paused before speaking – possibly as this information had previously been classified.
Candidly, Mr Wilson said there was an issue with the aircraft flying into Cuban airspace because at the time it was registered as a civilian aircraft despite having military identification.
He said the registration matter is now in the process of being resolved, but wanted the public to know that was only one factor in the plane's grounding.
Additionally, he admitted to knowing of two pilots who may have been on the US stoplist, but he said that was something he could not report on presently.
As to the feasibility of purchasing a military craft from a military manufacturer, Mr Wilson said the civilian craft was bought because of economics.
He added: "A military aircraft, I suspect, if we had built that from scratch to specifications, would cost in the region of $10 to $12 million.
"The difference is $12 million and $5 million. There is no question about the savings. The savings are significant, and it would take less than $1 million to refurbish the aircraft".
In the end, Mr. Wilson said he hoped a letter forwarded to the Tribune editor would make up for any inconvenience his comments about the plane's location may have caused the public.
"If you come to this ministry and ask us a straight question, we will answer you straightforward. If it has any threat to security we will tell you we can't answer it," he said.
He concluded by noting that mechanical difficulties were the main reason for the plane's grounding, and all of the other matters were, in fact, significant issues that were being dealt with by his agency.
By MARK HUMES, The Tribune
