I checked in with a source who is very familiar with the Osprey program to see if he had any insight into last week’s crash of the 1st Special Operations Wing CV-22 Osprey in southeastern Afghanistan. Lots of speculation, he said, and the Osprey community is, understandably, tight lipped on this one because it was a spec ops bird.
He thinks it was malfunction or pilot error, or both. Since there were survivors that were subsequently rescued, he believes it was most likely a severe mechanical malfunction that precipitated an emergency landing in which the pilot most likely was unable to land safely in the dark. The CV-22 is heavier than the MV-22 and has less power available to maintain a “wave off” capability, he said.
He doubted Taliban claims that they shot it down. His reasoning:
“Since it went down approx 1 a.m.; it is highly unlikely that it was shot down. The only weapons available to the Taliban are ballistic (RPGs) and IR MANPADS. The visual acquisition requirements coupled with the 30 second seeker head cool down time makes it damn near impossible to acquire the aircraft audibly and then visually acquire the aircraft while inserting the BCU into the shoulder fired MANPAD system, and then waiting the 30″ for seeker head cool down and then conduct an engagement in the dark. Additionally, it is likely that the crash would have been more catastrophic given an impact of the SAM and the subsequent conflagration following an impact (fire, hydraulic, confusion, panic).”
– Greg
{ 21 comments… read them below or add one }
A friend of mine was one of the KIAs on this flight. I'll be watching this story closely. I begrudge no one if it was pilot error or ground fire, but if the Osprey pulled a stereotypical "Osprey moment" and killed a good Ranger, I will be furious..
Sorry man, good post.
Sincerely sorry for the loss of your friend, Earlydawn. I'm hoping the Osprey doesn't turn out to be a long-term double-edged sword.
Also, sincerely sorry for the loss.
On a different note though, whilst I agree it's unlikely that somebody shot the V-22 down, it can happen. Even a big beast like a CH-53 can come down with a (un-)"lucky" shot. These are all rotating machines, if you create an instability condition (such as damage a blade) or clip a tree/rock etc. it can make the craft un-controllable.
On a seperate note, giving more money to defense research programs (even aircraft programs) allows advanced aerodynamics and advanced control techniques to be developed. For interesting reading – read the NASA aeroelastic design manual. This explains the wonderful advances that (if more funding was given) could be developed to allow better control in unstable regions.
I dont understand all the Osprey hate. Has everybody forgotten the Harriers old nickname?
You also forget that the Harriers had ejection seats…
Where's your favorite ADMIRAL?
My condolences to those who have parish.
I believe the CV-22 was shoot down it may have been accident. This sort of things are bound to happen in new aircrafts but still does not lose my admiration to the V-22, I still believe the V-22 is an asset to the military. I hope an investigation is carried out and a solution can be brought forward to improve the safety of the V-22 and maybe improve training of the future pilots.
sorry my mistake on my first sentence "the CV-22 was not shoot down "
As alaways, G2mil.com has the best new V-22 info. Check the blog too.
g2mil is for the tinfoil hat nutjob crowd. If that's who you want to follow for military news, go ahead.
Afghanistan is an unforgiving environment for men and machines alike. My HMM squadron had 5 mishaps of varying severity in less than 3 months operating there.
I'll wait for the investigation before speculating on a cause, but the great majority of ALL mishaps are due to some form of aircrew error. It would not surprise me if that were the case here. Flying is an unforgiving endeavor, especially in those conditions.
Speculation is always dangerous when fatalities are involved. And, the AF’s safety investigation is in its infancy determining what really happened. Anything beyond that is just hot air or keyboard clicks without meaning.
That said, I wouldn’t be so quick to blame the tilt-rotor. That’s too easy, and will bias how everyone perceives what happened when the SIB results come out.
Earlydawn, I am not sure what an “Osprey moment” is, but I don’t think your loss will change no matter who or what it to blame. It is what it is now. Everyone in the business accepts the risks. Our job now is to take care of the families left behind, and press on doing what we all do so well.
I think he refers to the Osprey's issues in the '90s; which were eventually identified but never quite "fixed". Still, knowing what you can't do that might lead to a crash is pretty good.
earlydawn, how is pilot error acceptable to you? That is somehow better than the Osprey crashing through mechanical error?
Harold, what info was given in the article? That it crashed due to malfunction or pilot error? That is pretty much what is already accepted and has been from the moment the story broke.
How is it so many refuse to let go of the troubled past? Military planes crash all the time while being developed and many still carry on with flaws into service.
My condolences for anyone who lost a loved one, either in this crash or any other incident in the war.
Pilot error is acceptable to me, because I understand that our men and women are fallible, do not always have a complete situational picture, and are under extreme pressure. Also, the standard caveat of "bad things to good people". Similarly, unless any potential report illustrates complete negligence on behalf of the aircrew, I do not feel qualified to pass judgment on an impossibly complex set of circumstances.
From the G2mil.com blog, The links are there.
Apr 11, 2010 – CV-22 Crash Data
A recent "Aviation Week" article "The Need for Speed" quoted Col. Clay Hutmacher from the 160th Special Ops Aviation Regiment:
“Above 4,000 ft., there’s a significant [hovering] limitation on the V-22,” he said. Tiltrotor engineers concede that while the V-22 hovers well in many situations, the special twist and size of its “proprotors” leave it unable to carry as much useful load pound-for-pound as most helicopters hovering in similar conditions.
“I’m not disparaging the V-22,” Hutmacher said. Hovering ability, however, is critical to the 160th, because “at the end of the day, our mission is going to terminate in a hover.”
One CV-22 didn't terminate in a hover, and crashed 7 miles west of Qulat city, Afghanistan, which is listed at 5085 feet altitude, about the same as Denver CO. What does the pilots manual say? Some pilots and aviation experts have quietly expressed alarm that the manual includes old performance objectives in their charts rather than results from testing. If pilots use charts that exaggerate range and altitude performance, they may come up short and crash.
For example, some V-22 salesmen claim that V-22s can hover at 10,000 feet, although official stats have long showed a 7000 feet (HOGE) hover capability. NAVAIR and Boeing recently downgraded that to 5400 feet as V-22s were sent to Afghanistan. The actual figure varies depending on temperature and gross weight (payload and fuel.) Col. Hutmacher said HOGE is less than 4000 feet, yet if the mishap CV-22 pilots assumed it was safe to hover up to 5400 feet, that may have caused their fatal crash!
In comparison, the common Blackhawk helicopter has one-third the engine power and is a third smaller than the V-22, yet its big rotors allow it to lift the same payload vertically. This is because the V-22 has smaller, twisted "proprotors." While the V-22 is limited to landing at 5400 feet, (or perhaps 4000 feet) an Army Blackhawk crashed last year during a routine training operation in Colorado while attempting to land at 14,200 feet!
Apr 10, 2010 – CV-22 Crash
Here is my uninformed knee-jerk analysis of Thursday's CV-22 crash. The pilot was very experienced. Since a pilot and flight engineer died while others survived, I suspect it hit nose first. I will guess at two causes.
1. The CV-22 was performing out of its very restricted flight envelope, trying to hover at mid-altitude with payload to perform a mission helicopters often do. It failed during a landing approach, rolled to one side and impacted nose first. Pilot error of course, but by a senior pilot called a "CV-22 evaluator" by the USAF.
2. The other possibility is an engine failure. The V-22 can fly with one engine out in the airplane mode only! If in the helo mode, it must convert to the airplane mode but needs several seconds and 2000 feet of altitude. If that is not an option, it makes a very hard crash landing since it can't autorotate.
Recall the USAF has still not released the summary of a Class A CV-22 mishap at Kirkland on Mar 2, 2009. Why? And would the timely release of that mishap report provided information to the crew of this CV-22 as how to avoid problems? And recall the recent USAF CSAR report that noted the V-22 cannot safely hover at over 4000 feet.
Apr 4, 2010 – The V-22 Disaster
The V-22 scandal just gets worse. An Army helicopter brigade has been assigned to support Marines in Afghanistan since their new ultra-expensive MV-22s can't do the job: The V-22 Disaster.
First of all, as a V-22 pilot who flew helos for years you have no idea what you are talking about! Now, lets get our facts straight.
1. The V-22 has had no change from Boeing or NAVAIR or anyone else in its ability to hover at 10,000 feet MSL. Where is this document because I have never seen it and I fly this thing every day? Also, I landed one at 7600 feet last summer and it was full of fuel and personnel. ( No problems, you just have to know how to fly it).
All of the data you presented was for (HOGE) or Hovering Out of Ground Effect (or in more simple terms holding a stable hover above 38.1 feet for the Osprey. This is because it is specific to the disc area of every rotor craft). Since when do you land an aircraft stationary at above 40 feet? It would be a long jump for the guys getting out of the back. Even if you are FAST roping out of the back you would calculate your fuel load to provide adequate power for the mission (just like you do in helos). Furthermore, the Osprey "CAN" complete a single engine wave off and fly in Conversion or as you call it "Helo mode" all pilots practice this many times during initial training.
2. I personally spent almost a year in Afghanistan flying a helicopter which struggled in the harsh environment. All helos have to work hard at high altitudes and hot temps.
3. Finally, there are only a hand full of Ospreys in Afghanistan = like one squadron "WOW 8-12 aircraft and maybe on a good day 2-3 CVs". Damn those bad 15 Ospreys for not being able to do all of the work for 21,000 troops.
Ok, so you're going to take the word of an Army LtC, who's never flown the beast to base your incredible speculations?
1. 4000 is just some arbitrary number he pulled out of his @$$. "NAVAIR and Boeing recently downgraded that to 5400 feet …" ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?
Where's that from? They haven't released that info to the users yet!
I doubt they were trying to "hover" if they didn't have hover power. Perhaps a brown-out approach to a no-hover landing, but you would never intend to "hover" in a brownout.
2. The a/c can fly just fine in "conversion" mode on only one engine, depending on weight and ambient conditions (temp/PA). How do you think you land it on one engine…you gotta convert or the proprotors will hit the ground. As far as autorotation, helicopters don't "autorotate" well if within the avoid region of the height/velocity charts either.
3. The USAF hasn't released a summary because the investigation isn't complete, yet. Do you want a speculative analysis from them to back up your own suppositions? How 'bout we just wait for the investigators to do their job and we can get the real story. Sadly, it will be a difficult and long process since the area they went down isn't exactly "friendly" territory (which is why they destroyed.
So, stop speculating and wait for the real answer to come later. You serve no good by your conjectures and false laid hypothesis.
I've been flying them for 6 yrs and, with more than 15 military and civil aircraft in my logbook, I can say that just as with every aircraft, you simply have to know the limits and stay within them. When you stray to the edge, sometimes you fall off.
Read all the comments…which are very good. I was a Marine huey pilot in Vietnam with a number of combat missions and flight hours. The main concern with any helo, as well as the V-22 is…. altitude, outside airtemp, and payload. At altitude where the engine is less efficient and attempting to make a steep approach landing …".power settling" can occur…a very dangerous situation. Just another possibility for the crash.
I recently left this unit and would strongly urge higher heads to look carefully at the avionics section. They recieve sub-standard training, for having only F-16 backrounds. In addition, the experience is lacking. The maintenance section, as a whole, needs better training and experienced techs. Im very sorry for the loss in ops.
First of all, as a V-22 pilot who flew helos for years you have no idea what you are talking about! Now, lets get our facts straight.