Exactly how is that statement of facts based on experience and in
reply to a direct and specific series of questions being in any way
disingenuous?

I obviously was asking the question in the context of information
available to ATC, which could be passed on to an itinerant GA pilot.
You knew that what was important was a CLEARANCE (which I failed to ask
directly about, but merely implied, in my question). Instead of saying
that such flights have sections that are NOT UNDER ATC CONTROL (while
still on a flight plan), you stated that all flights ARE ON A FLIGHT
PLAN (even though they may not be under ATC control).

Further, you kept focusing on the idea that a FLIGHT PLAN (even after
you knew it was irrelevant) is just an "intention to fly", thus
underlying its irrelevance.

The reply is disingenuous in the same sense as the joke whose punchline
is "you are in an airplane".

Was this investigation conducted by a disinterested third party?

An accident investigation is convened based on very specific
regulations. Composition of that board is IAW those regs. A board will...

In other words, no, the investigation was not conducted by a
disinterested third party. (and for somebody who, in this thread,
prides himself on answering =just= the question asked, you did not do so
here; the answer was either "yes" or "no".

You are asking if a civilian flying a fighter aircraft would be
subject to similar proceedings? That would be such as a "war-bird"
enthusiast? Or a manufacturer employed test or demo pilot?

Either of the above.

Those individuals would not be involved in the military process, but
would be subject to NTSB accident investigation. Outcome would
probably be very similar with the principal difference being that if
there were suspicion of criminal behavior (flying under influence of
drugs/alcohol for example leading to a mishap), the proceedings would
take place in civil court.

I suspect there would be another proceeding, akin to the Article 34
hearing. That one would be conducted by the FAA (or under its
auspicies), and would determine what penalties would be applied to the
pilot found at fault. If the fighter pilot were found at fault, in the
case under discussion as I understand it, I expect that the FAA would
suspend and probably revoke his certificate.

I would expect the civil proceeding to find the pilot liable for
millions of dollars in damages to the dead Cesesna pilot and his estate.

I would find it inconcievable that the (civilian) fighter pilot would
get away with a "reprimand" from the FAA, and no financial
responsibility towards the pilot of the Cessna he crashed into.

Do you disagree?

Jose
--
The monkey turns the crank and thinks he's making the music.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.