CMV-22B Osprey Rollout

[Spekkio]

The media makes it seem that Ospreys are plagued with all sorts of issues and falling out of the sky on a regular basis, I am not surprised as that results in clicks, which leads to more advertising dollars.

So rotary in general is 3x more dangerous than fixed wing... and we should get mad at the media for highlighting this about ospreys but excluding other rotary platforms.... and somehow this makes ospreys more safer because no one is advertising other rotary class A mishaps...

This is Donald Trump logic

 

[Brett327]

So rotary in general is 3x more dangerous than fixed wing... and we should get mad at the media for highlighting this about ospreys but excluding other rotary platforms.... and somehow this makes ospreys more safer because no one is advertising other rotary class A mishaps...

This is Donald Trump logic

Just wait until you hear my thoughts on submarine reactor safety.

 

[ChuckMK23]

Fleet wide global grounding of all V-22 variants...

NAVAIR STATEMENT ON V-22 Osprey Grounding

Out of an abundance of caution, following the AFSOC operational stand down, NAVAIR is instituting a grounding bulletin for all V-22 Osprey variants Dec. 6. This decision comes after the V-22 Osprey

www.navy.mil

 

[number9]

I lurk in r/helicopters on Reddit and always pay close attention to the user u/UR_WRONG_ABOUT_V22, who (as you can guess) is a strong advocate for the V-22 platform and defends his position with statistics and real-life experiences. I was very saddened to read that he was the mission commander of the aircraft in the fatal crash; his wife posted about it. There is a thread here:

https://www.reddit.com/r/Helicopters/comments/18cre08

 

[sevenhelmet]

Not just the USN, apparently:

US military grounds V-22 Osprey aircraft after fatal Japan crash

The U.S. military said on Wednesday it was grounding its fleet of V-22 Osprey aircraft after a crash last week off the coast of Japan that killed eight people onboard.

www.reuters.com

 

[ChuckMK23]

It seems like every new-development aircraft has it's major hurdle in its lifecycle - looks like the Osprey is having that now. Seems like it drives honest conversations about resources and engineering. For an aircraft that will likely serve another 30 years its a necessary process.

 

[sevenhelmet]

It seems like every new-development aircraft has it's major hurdle in its lifecycle - looks like the Osprey is having that now. Seems like it drives honest conversations about resources and engineering. For an aircraft that will likely serve another 30 years its a necessary process.

Considering the Osprey has been in development since the 1980s, I wouldn't say it's just now having a "major hurdle" in its life cycle. I actually remember reading about the Osprey in my 3rd grade classroom library (1991), never thinking I would be flying Navy jets myself before it deployed operationally (2007).

Being a first-in-class of a new aircraft type can be tough.

 

[Average Monke]

I lurk in r/helicopters on Reddit and always pay close attention to the user u/UR_WRONG_ABOUT_V22, who (as you can guess) is a strong advocate for the V-22 platform and defends his position with statistics and real-life experiences. I was very saddened to read that he was the mission commander of the aircraft in the fatal crash; his wife posted about it. There is a thread here:

https://www.reddit.com/r/Helicopters/comments/18cre08

I've interacted with him a handful of times, all positive. Very sad.

 

[ChuckMK23]

 

[exNavyOffRec]

I've interacted with him a handful of times, all positive. Very sad.

I saw a similar comment on a FB post and I think I need some clarification.

A mishap rate may or may not involve a fatality, which leads me to believe that you could have an aircraft with a high mishap rate (gear collapse/running into equipment when taxing/crash not involving fatality) but a low fatality rate, but then you could also have an aircraft with a low mishap rate but a high fatality rate due to number of passengers (747 capacity vs Cessna capacity).

Is the above accurate or am I misreading things.

 

[Average Monke]

I saw a similar comment on a FB post and I think I need some clarification.

A mishap rate may or may not involve a fatality, which leads me to believe that you could have an aircraft with a high mishap rate (gear collapse/running into equipment when taxing/crash not involving fatality) but a low fatality rate, but then you could also have an aircraft with a low mishap rate but a high fatality rate due to number of passengers (747 capacity vs Cessna capacity).

Is the above accurate or am I misreading things.

I am about far from expert on this forum as you can get, but your intuition seems correct.

 

[phrogdriver]

Red stripes should always have exit criteria.

“Down until we find these defective parts.”

“Down until this airframe change is incorporated.”

Doing this before knowing the cause is profoundly unwise.

 

[exNavyOffRec]

I am about far from expert on this forum as you can get, but your intuition seems correct.

I wasn't necessarily asking you, it was that the post you responded to was along the same lines as what I was wondering.

 

[Swanee]

Red stripes should always have exit criteria.

“Down until we find these defective parts.”

“Down until this airframe change is incorporated.”

Doing this before knowing the cause is profoundly unwise.

Concur. If you don't know why you're not flying or don't know what you're looking for, or don't know what you're fixing, you're acting emotionally and rationally.

That doesn't have a place in military aviation risk assessment decision making.

 

[zippy]

The media makes it seem that Ospreys are plagued with all sorts of issues and falling out of the sky on a regular basis,

Well, they have been plagued by various issues over the years and they get more attention because of their checkered past and tendency to kill a bunch of people when they do fall out of the sky.

It seems like every new-development aircraft has its major hurdle in its lifecycle - looks like the Osprey is having that now. Seems like it drives honest conversations about resources and engineering. For an aircraft that will likely serve another 30 years its a necessary process.

New Development? The prototype first flew in 1989 and IOC was 2007. We’re well past new development.

Red stripes should always have exit criteria.
Doing this before knowing the cause is profoundly unwise.

Concur. If you don't know why you're not flying or don't know what you're looking for, or don't know what you're fixing, you're acting emotionally and rationally.

That doesn't have a place in military aviation risk assessment decision making.

Probably so. However, the Osprey is sensitive to politics and Japanese politics are extremely sensitive to the perception of dangerous military activity. Unfortunately in this latest case you have a public eyewitness account from a (presumably) Japanese national of an aircraft on fire flipping over and crashing into the water while coming in to land at a Japanese airfield. You already have the Air Force announcing a potential material failure (possible design flaw/ manufacturer defect) as the cause of the mishap and the Japanese grounded their own MV22s as well. Japan is an extremely important ally in the Pacific, and appearing to be a good ally by going along with a Japanese government request/attempt to keep its community safe will be of longer term benefit than seeming to ignore it and dealing with the fallout (Anyone whose been in Japan when relations were dicey due to a sexual assault or murder in Okinawa, or when a submarine sank a Japanese fishing boat can attest it gets pretty bad) the next time there is a mishap in Japan.