Hello,
somehow the scanBam function does not properly read in the mapq scores from this file:
HWI-ST227:407:C56MLACXX:1:1316:6877:64103    0    chr10    3153911    255    24M    *    0    0    CCCAATTAATGGGGGCAGGATAAG    HFHGHI@DAEI@GGIDEBGFGHHG    NH:i:1    HI:i:1    AS:i:19    nM:i:2
HWI-ST227:407:C56MLACXX:1:2102:2752:79037    0    chr10    3153911    255    24M    *    0    0    CCCAATTAATGGGGGCAGGATAAG    HGIJJIIJJIGHIJJJIJJIJJIG    NH:i:1    HI:i:1    AS:i:19    nM:i:2
HWI-ST227:407:C56MLACXX:1:2113:3448:85785    0    chr10    3175788    255    24M    *    0    0    TCTTTTAGATCTATTTACTCTGGA    ########################    NH:i:1    HI:i:1    AS:i:19    nM:i:2
HWI-ST227:407:C56MLACXX:1:1203:13148:73589    16    chr10    3180818    255    24M    *    0    0    TAGGCTTCAAGGAGAGTCTCCTGT    ?DBEIIEDD?99>C@DEEE9FFC4    NH:i:1    HI:i:1    AS:i:23    nM:i:0
They all should be 255 but are read in as NA.
The code I used was just:
scanBam("test.bam")[[1]]$mapq
 [1] NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
[34] NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
What could be the reason for this?
Best regards,
Felix
PS: How could I provide the test.bam file for testing?

Martin I see your point, however the value 255 for MAPQ is often used (in particular by the aligner topHat and STAR) for uniquely mapped reads.
This may not be a good practice ("No alignments should be assigned mapping quality 255" (SAM spec, "2 Recommended practice for the SAM format"), but it is used, maybe by default scanBAM could allow 255?
I'll likely change the behavior, unless I hear arguments against...
Should be updated in Rsamtools 1.19.42, in svn now and hopefully via biocLite() after Sunday at 10am ish