An Air Force Special Operations Command CV-22 Osprey out of Hurlburt Field, Fl., went down last night in the nearby Eglin training range, injuring all five airmen on board, according to the Air Force.
The service isn’t saying much about the crash, other than it happened around 6:45 pm yesterday and that three of the airmen were hurt badly enough to warrant being flown by helicopter to local hospitals while the other two were taken via ambulance.
This is the second loss of one of the Air Force’s special operations-variant CV-22s in the last two years. A special ops variant Osprey went down in Afghanistan in April 2010 — an incident the Air Force officially blamed on pilot error despite indications than an engine may have lost power and the fact that tiltrotor’s flight information recorder was never recovered by accident investigators.
Two months ago, a Marine Corps MV-22 Osprey crashed in Morocco, killing two Marines during Exercise African Lion.
Here’s an excerpt from NorthWest Florida News’ report on the latest crash:
A fire was put out on the plane, according to Holley-Navarre Fire District Chief Ron Norton. Units with Holley-Navarre and Florosa Fire were called to assist when the plane went down in a heavily wooded area off of Range Road.
“When we got there we were told to standby,” Norton said. “They had already taken care of the patients and were waiting for water supply to put out the hot spots that remained on the plane.”
Eglin and Hurlburt Fire were also on scene.
{ 83 comments… read them below or add one }
Prep for the haters in 3…2…1…
Im curious to see the report, but there will be the usual crowd who will rush to jump the gun before the official reports are out.
Yeah, damn those "haters"! It was clearly the pilot's fault. Just wait until the final report PROVES me right.
They'll have trouble finding someone to blame if no one died. There's no SOP for this scenario.
Not sure what you think SOP is, but the majority of aircraft incidents dont involve any crew fatalities.
Yeah, they'll blame them alive or dead. It's just less messy if they have the decency to die.
There will be no report until Congress approves the new five year buy, which boost the unit cost for each V-22 by $14 million each, all pure profit for Bell. They still haven't even made a simple media report as to what happened the V-22 in Morocco.
Hmm- so what is the accidents per flying hours now?
Is it better than a 40 year old Sea Knight?
Just need another $ billion to get the bugs out-
Hope they pull through
"an incident the Air Force officially blamed on pilot error despite indications than an engine may have lost power and the fact that tiltrotor’s flight information recorder was never recovered by accident investigators."
Does the Air Force blame everything on pilots (like the F-22 crash)? Is that their method of "Support the troops"?
It's cheaper to blame the pilot than to fix the airplane, therefore they are all the pilot's fault. This despite the fact that UAV's crash at 10 times the rate of manned aircraft.
that's just because they don't have the autolanding feature (the usaf ones). that's the main source of crashes actually.
That's the most likely time for both manned and unmanned aircraft to crash.
This short thread for some reason made me think of the Black Ops II trailer when Woods says, "No one thought of what happens when the enemy steals the keys!"
UAV's are technically remotely piloted – the worst of both worlds.
Commercial aircraft auto-pilots are actually safer than pilots.
Uh huh, right up to the time they quit and tell the pilot, "it's to f'ed up for me to fly, you fly it." Isn't automation wonderful?
The AF calculated they would lose a certain number of UAVs per year, and it was a accepted risk for them. I can tell you right now, the Safety Investigation board who does the crash investigation is not gonna be influenced, nor care, about the cost to "fix" the airplane. They only care about how to prevent it from happening again.
Just check out Youtube for the crazy things pilots can do , when they should know better. Planes have crashed because the pilot wa fumbling for a dropped ballpoint pen or even reading their text messages during finals
Right, that's what you should worry about is the pilot who dropped his pen on landing and kills everyone on board. Clearly a video on "Youtube" proves it happens all the time. After all, who would pay attention to actual statistics when there's a video some nut made for Youtube?
In ghost's defense he never said anything about pilots doing that sort of stuff all of the time, he merely said that pilots can do that sort of stuff when they should know better.
Laying the ground work for the Accident Investigation Report already? Your mother must be so proud…
There is no video on Utube for that particular instance, I got it from a summary of the accident report. You would find the accident reports of a majority aeroplane crashes find the pilot as a primary cause. Utube just gives a quick look at say some pilot of a military helicopter in Afghanistan doing loops with inevitable results.
Theres a reason pilots are the primary cause in many instances, people make mistakes. Its simple really
And people make airplanes. Go figure.
and these a/c are going to the Marine One fleet?
Don't forget they got rid of a bunch of brand new Marine 1 aircraft to make the MV22 our new Marine 1—way to go on fiscal responsibility.
They were Marine 1 aircraft that were getting teched out the gills and going into Overrun Land. Overruns are only permitted for products with enough generals/admirals behind them.
And it was the Secret Service who insisted on loading everything they could think of including redundant tie presses onto the things.
But the 22's won't be used for regular Presidential transport.
You are joking right. They got rid of brand new CH53's ?
They're going to HMX-1 Squadron, but they won't be used as "White Tops".
True, they are considered too unsafe for the White House VIPs, who will fly in helos. Only military support personnel will fly in the V-22s.
More likely too big and expensive to convert into a VIP transports. Could you imagine what a V-22 would do to the White House lawn?
That's probably not the reason at all, but ok whatever. The rotorwash alone is a huge reason they won't go to the white side
By the way, don't thank me for pointing out the article. No really…
Crappy heliplane is crappy all the time since it left the design board, and innocent people pay for its flawed design.
I agree with you but it would be cool to ride in one
Helicopters crash all the time, its because they are well…helicopters
I hope all airmen recover fast and painlessly as possible. One of a few reasons Id had a choice id stay with my CH-53 or CH-46 over one of these this plane is far less stable than conventional choppers and while kept in minute 100% condition dose fine. But with thousands of men doing things to the bird all the time its imposable to make sure every plane is 100% flyable.
I know you Osprey fans will blast me on your thumbs count but. Id say stick with normal choppers leave hybrids like this for R&D only.
You realize what they said when normal choppers were developed? Same thing. Maybe the Osprey needs work, but last I checked we have lost somewhere around 450 choppers since 9/11, they still crash the same as an Osprey.
the statistics do not support your claim.
"But with thousands of men doing things to the bird all the time its imposable to make sure every plane is 100% flyable."
This statement makes absoluetly no sense…
Lets just land the copters at a mid point to refuel before proceeding- like that worked before.
Longer range, faster flight higher altitude – who needs those nice to haves
That was just dumb…..
You sound like people back in the day talking about how great biplanes And Airships were.
Of course blame it on the pilots even thought the people who make this and do matienance need to check it it even says in the article alot of people are leaning towards engine failure and the tilting system o well I hope the pilots are ok
This is what happens when you rush something into production. I'm sure we'll see similar things happen with the F-35 and LCS.
25 years of development is not exactly what I'd call a "rush to production".
Let me rephrase that: This is what happens when you rush something into the field and it never passed the wisely set safety requirements that were placed on it in testing.
That's aerospace for you. Always time to do it over. Never time to do it right.
Sad thing is, they could still turn the V-22 into a successful design if they'd put ducts around the props. It would have a small negative impact on the already slim lift margins, but it would eliminate the asymmetric ring vortex state and allow them to go to 27 foot rotors instead of the current 38 foot monsters. I believe they could land the V-22 like an airplane with 27 foot rotors. That's pretty signficant given that it can't auto-rotate with the free propellers. Any aircraft should be able to do a dead stick landing. The V-22 as it is right now can't do one.
Very good point. Id prefer the new sikorsky designs with push-prop like the S-97, very fast and still able to autorotate if the engines are dead.
That is a load crap.
That's funny to hear, especially coming from a guy who's constantly complaining about how long the F-35 testing is taking.
If you listen to my recent complaints you would see that I complain more about the LACK of real testing with the F-35. Why hasn't it used live ordinance yet? Why hasn't it done departure from controlled flight spins testing? Why is it that it still can't do an arrested landing?
We have found new ways to drag out testing. Thanks to our wonderful Systems Engineering processes, we now test against every single requirement whether we need to or not. Back in the days when design engineers wrote design documents, we only tested the critical functions, and through the 1980s we had our arms twisted off to keep us from testing even those critical functions. Now that companies make a profit on every day they drag out development and testing, they make us test crap that's just stupid. Your tax dollars hard at work, as usual.
"ordinance" ?? so you're going to drop "authoritative directives" and "laws" on the enemy ? That's pretty Left Wing of you ….
why not drop "ordnance" on them, and stop this Global Force for Good nonsense ??
Who knew English majors had so much interest in the defense industry. It's almost like they get paid to have an opinion.
"so you're going to drop "authoritative directives"…."
No can do. There's something in the Hague Accord prohibiting that.
Regards & all,
Thomas L. Nielsen
Luxembourg
If it's pilot error, then it's probably too complicated an aircraft to be flown without further computer aided assistance enhancements for human control? These aircraft aren't new in any way, the program started as far back as 1981, has gone through several redesigns since then, as well as several years worth of groundings, and even almost scrapped at one point. I would have thought by now they might even have turbine only propulsion, instead of just rotor blades, over 30 years later, but that's government for you? But then again some people think Blackhawks are modern technology, not realizing they were started all the way back in 1972 during the Vietnam War. Unfortunately it is not uncommon, with our government so far behind the ball, that by the time they fully roll out a new weapons or equipment program, it's already almost obsolete and old technology. Blackhawk, Hummer, Osprey, Hydrofoils, M-16 and more. But with all the drones out there now, that's all going to change. Take the human pilot out of the equation, the race for the future grows exponentially, and yet the technology will ultimately land back in the pilots hands one day again. The rocket came first, then the astronaut, not the other way around!
Let me ask you this: what determines if the technology is obsolete or old? How old is too old. Those weapon systems you just named are still more advanced than a vast majority of what the rest of the world can produce. What makes them obsolete?
A turnine doesnt provide enough lift at low speeds. Its the same for all helicopters, why they use rotors for lift, even when they have a turbine powering the gearbox.
Your ideas about drones dont match reality. They still have pilots, just they arent onboard. Their crash rates are even worse than helicopters , even when they takeoff and land on normal runways
its not a bad airplane, they're not bad pilots and aircrew, its a bad theory.
with out a way to transfer power from one plant to the other… this thing will continue to be dangerous.
it was a good run, alot of smart people gave it their best shot but, its never gonna "be" and "do" what we were sold.
Incorrect. The turbines on each wingtip are continuously interconnected by a shaft.
No different than the Chinook,
incorrect. they were suppossed to be "interconnected" (able to share power between turbines) but, that system doesnt work as advertized, in fact it doesnt work a all.
much different the a chinook. a chinook has two turbines driving a shaft witch drives both sets of rotors each with they're own transmition* and timing.
thank you for playing, next…
Dont work as advertised ? Didnt know they advertised ?. But still they ARE interconnected which is a way to transfer the power.
Under normal, two engine operations, each engine delivers its power to its corresponding proprotor through the PRGB. Only a small amount of power (511 hp max) is transferred down the pylon mounted drive shaft, through the TAGB and down the interconnecting drive shaft to the MWGB. The MWGB contains the auxiliary power unit (APU), the constant frequency generator and the variable frequency generator. The MWGB transmits power between the left and right interconnecting drive shafts without changing speed or direction of rotation.
During single engine operation, power is distributed from the remaining engine to both proprotors through the interconnecting drive shaft. -Global Security.
Doesnt work as 'required under their contract'- I dont think so, they wouldnt even clear it for flight if there was any significant problems
"incorrect. they were suppossed to be "interconnected" (able to share power between turbines) but, that system doesnt work as advertized, in fact it doesnt work a all. "
?
Wtf are you talking about? have you worked on any helicopter in your life? Where did you come up with this BS?
Believe there have been at least 45 fatalities in the Harrier program. Seems no one ever talks about that system being a failure and the concept is being continued with the F35.
There was a lengthy series in the LA times a few years back about the flawed Harrier. At least they have ejection seats.
I'm sure the Air Force has nothing to hide, just like how they have been perfectly forthcoming about the F-22.
————————————-
The rate of hypoxia or hypoxia-like incidents reported among F-22 pilots through May 31, 2012 was 26.43 per 100,000 flight hours, according to the latest Air Force disclosure. The F-16, in contrast, has a rate of 2.96.
The Air Force also says that there have been “a total of six unknown cause ground incidents involving a maintainer having hypoxia-like symptoms since return to flight in September 2011. The most recent incident occurred in December 2011. These incidents are not included in the in-flight rates since they occur on the ground.”
The new information differs sharply from previous reports. As recently as this week, according to the press release, the Air Force said that the F-22 hypoxia rate was “relatively low.” — http://pogoblog.typepad.com/pogo/2012/06/air-forc…
There are lots and lots of things that could cause a failure. The reoccurring one here seems to be spelled CV-22. I am 60 years old, I cane remember seeing the test birds struggling into the air back in the 1960. Overall a good idea, however a black widow is still a spider that bites. And this widow maker has bitten too many times already. There's an old saying, Airplanes fly because they pump money into them. That being the case the CV-22 should be the best flying machine in the world.
I can only hope that the crew recovers quickly. Our thoughts and prayers are with them and their families.
If the Air Force just needs a fast heavy lifter; how about strapping a couple of rocket engines on a Chinook.
Nuff said…
Or a couple of pusher propellers along with a small canard that could provide some additional pitch and roll control and some stubby wings in the back to mount the pushers to — since it might want to go fast longer than the rockets would last.
Uh, you didn't see the test birds in the '60s. They didn't even exist then. If you're thinking of another tilt rotor/tilt wing design, that's fine, but that's like saying the Space Shuttle was designed in the 1950s when they made sketches of the DynaSoar.
Another moron speaks!
Says the man who seriously contemplates a rocket-powered Chinook…
Dgr you called it right. Not a clue about details, yet the "experts" have stuff to say.
80% of all aircraft mishaps across all type/model/series are pilot error. Fact, not conspiracy.
For another example, there have been two AH-1W Cobra crashes, both with 100% fatalities just in the last 9 months. Pilot error, you say? They weren't the fault of the aircraft, you say? IT'S A CONSPIRACY! WE MUST GROUND THOSE UNSAFE AIRCRAFT! IF YOU THINK DIFFERENTLY, YOU'RE A CORPORATE SHILL!
I just got back from the Quonset Air Show in Rhode Island where the Air Force Thunderbirds did their display.
It was awesome but terrifying at the same time. I hadn't been since I was a teenager. They are immensely powerful jets, and sounded "terrifying", but I remembered the Blue Angels crash of 2007 .
The pilot greyed out but the jet never objected to slowly descending into a residential neighborhood. This was supposedly a state of the art jet fighter. A good portion of the price tag of these airplanes is in computers and avionics. So shouldn't these systems object to pilot error and understand when they are about to smack into the ground? Or pulled a maneuver that probably blacked out the pilot , or at least shouldnt it ask if the pilot is ok? And depending on the answer back take over flying until the pilot can recover?
I mean for 100+ million, you would assume these fighters jets should be able to fly themselves, or at least object to them crashing when mechanically they are in good working order.
Maybe when I goto my next airshow, I can have some confidance that people arent going to die in a fireball. Because I sure felt the danger in the air.
They still have those shows? I havent been since the late 80's.
I think the enemy has stolen the keys to our system of weapons procurement. No job is going to be perfect, but this industry has been a total CF since the early 1990s.
You were fired from Bell because of your conspiracy theories and spreading propoganda.
Thank you for confirming the doubts many have. I have followed the aircraft since its initial test designs, and I have yet to see a more trail and error and error aircraft to date. To recollect that it never flew in test phases without a problem, and the tilt was always a part. It saddened me to see being elected for service, as it should just have remained a nice idea waiting for a better design. This way people die, and it is not like it is a Starfighter – widow maker, because of desired instability and center of gravity, is is flawed, and as we know in the air everything flawed – kills. Many people continue to support the idea that people should die because of the corrupt system and decision makers that have greased pockets, however look what happened to F-22, the same faith awaits this one to coincidentally also of 22 designation.
How about waiting for the investigation? Actually early reports sound like pilot error in that case.
You don't say! Did anyone here see that one coming?
The building side design flaws can be fixed, production processes improved, its called testing. And they learn the next time they build a similar plane .
Pilots…. well they have to be trained from scratch each time. The accident reports confirm the pilot is the weakest link but are getting much better.
Testing! Why didn't they ever think to test pilots? Golly gee, they're just not as smart as you.