Home » Air » CV-22 Down in Florida

CV-22 Down in Florida

by John Reed on June 14, 2012

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.

Share |

{ 77 comments… read them below or add one }

DGR June 14, 2012 at 10:56 am

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.

Reply

Dfens June 14, 2012 at 1:17 pm

Yeah, damn those "haters"! It was clearly the pilot's fault. Just wait until the final report PROVES me right.

Reply

Nick June 14, 2012 at 3:36 pm

They'll have trouble finding someone to blame if no one died. There's no SOP for this scenario.

Reply

DGR June 14, 2012 at 3:51 pm

Not sure what you think SOP is, but the majority of aircraft incidents dont involve any crew fatalities.

Reply

Dfens June 14, 2012 at 4:05 pm

Yeah, they'll blame them alive or dead. It's just less messy if they have the decency to die.

Reply

rayburn June 15, 2012 at 9:28 am

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.

Prodozul June 14, 2012 at 11:16 am

Hope they pull through

Reply

Anonymous June 14, 2012 at 12:48 pm

"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"?

Reply

Dfens June 14, 2012 at 1:12 pm

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.

Reply

asdf June 14, 2012 at 1:46 pm

that's just because they don't have the autolanding feature (the usaf ones). that's the main source of crashes actually.

Reply

NathanS June 14, 2012 at 11:04 pm

UAV's are technically remotely piloted – the worst of both worlds.

Commercial aircraft auto-pilots are actually safer than pilots.

Reply

Dfens June 14, 2012 at 11:20 pm

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?

Reply

Vaporhead June 15, 2012 at 3:13 pm

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.

Reply

ghostwhowalksnz June 14, 2012 at 7:21 pm

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

Reply

Dfens June 15, 2012 at 8:15 am

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?

Reply

Riceball June 15, 2012 at 10:50 am

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.

Reply

Dfens June 15, 2012 at 1:27 pm

Laying the ground work for the Accident Investigation Report already? Your mother must be so proud…

ghostwhowalksnz June 15, 2012 at 5:08 pm

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

Reply

Dfens June 15, 2012 at 11:57 pm

And people make airplanes. Go figure.

jamesb101 June 14, 2012 at 1:04 pm

and these a/c are going to the Marine One fleet?

Reply

Chops June 14, 2012 at 1:12 pm

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.

Reply

blight_ June 14, 2012 at 1:18 pm

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.

Reply

DanS June 14, 2012 at 6:55 pm

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.

Reply

ghostwhowalksnz June 14, 2012 at 7:05 pm

You are joking right. They got rid of brand new CH53's ?

Reply

Guest A June 14, 2012 at 3:00 pm

They're going to HMX-1 Squadron, but they won't be used as "White Tops".

Reply

rayburn June 15, 2012 at 9:30 am

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.

Reply

Riceball June 15, 2012 at 10:52 am

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?

Reply

6113 June 15, 2012 at 11:04 am

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

Reply

JackBlack June 14, 2012 at 3:37 pm

Crappy heliplane is crappy all the time since it left the design board, and innocent people pay for its flawed design.

Reply

Medic10Zulu June 14, 2012 at 3:49 pm

I agree with you but it would be cool to ride in one

Reply

ghostwhowalksnz June 14, 2012 at 7:06 pm

Helicopters crash all the time, its because they are well…helicopters

Reply

Lance June 14, 2012 at 3:44 pm

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.

Reply

DGR June 14, 2012 at 3:54 pm

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.

Reply

mpower6428 June 14, 2012 at 5:22 pm

the statistics do not support your claim.

Reply

6113 June 14, 2012 at 3:58 pm

"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…

Reply

ghostwhowalksnz June 14, 2012 at 10:06 pm

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

Reply

tiger June 15, 2012 at 8:59 pm

That was just dumb…..

Reply

tiger June 17, 2012 at 5:44 pm

You sound like people back in the day talking about how great biplanes And Airships were.

Reply

Medic10Zulu June 14, 2012 at 3:48 pm

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

Reply

Black Owl June 14, 2012 at 3:49 pm

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.

Reply

Dfens June 14, 2012 at 4:08 pm

25 years of development is not exactly what I'd call a "rush to production".

Reply

Black Owl June 14, 2012 at 4:12 pm

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.

Reply

Dfens June 14, 2012 at 4:21 pm

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.

Reply

tiger June 15, 2012 at 9:00 pm

That is a load crap.

Reply

Ben June 14, 2012 at 9:28 pm

That's funny to hear, especially coming from a guy who's constantly complaining about how long the F-35 testing is taking.

Reply

Black Owl June 14, 2012 at 11:03 pm

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?

Reply

Guest June 15, 2012 at 7:31 am

"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 ??

Reply

Dfens June 16, 2012 at 8:48 am

Who knew English majors had so much interest in the defense industry. It's almost like they get paid to have an opinion.

Thomas L. Nielsen June 18, 2012 at 4:23 am

"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

Guest B June 14, 2012 at 3:56 pm

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!

Reply

Black Owl June 14, 2012 at 4:19 pm

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?

Reply

ghostwhowalksnz June 14, 2012 at 7:25 pm

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

Reply

mpower6428 June 14, 2012 at 5:29 pm

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.

Reply

ghostwhowalksnz June 14, 2012 at 7:17 pm

Incorrect. The turbines on each wingtip are continuously interconnected by a shaft.

No different than the Chinook,

Reply

mpower6428 June 14, 2012 at 8:18 pm

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…

Reply

ghostwhowalksnz June 14, 2012 at 9:53 pm

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

Reply

blight_ June 14, 2012 at 11:46 pm

"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. "

?

Reply

6113 June 15, 2012 at 7:43 am

Wtf are you talking about? have you worked on any helicopter in your life? Where did you come up with this BS?

Reply

Michael Stewart June 15, 2012 at 6:37 am

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.

Reply

dan June 15, 2012 at 9:31 am

There was a lengthy series in the LA times a few years back about the flawed Harrier. At least they have ejection seats.

Reply

Dfens June 15, 2012 at 1:42 pm

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

Reply

tiger June 15, 2012 at 9:05 pm

Dgr you called it right. Not a clue about details, yet the "experts" have stuff to say.

Reply

phrogdriver June 17, 2012 at 1:02 am

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!

Reply

tetrachoric correlation March 29, 2014 at 10:24 am

If some one wishes to be updated with latest technologies then he
must be pay a visit this web site and be up to date every day.

Reply

Black Owl June 14, 2012 at 4:22 pm

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!"

Reply

Dfens June 14, 2012 at 4:37 pm

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.

Reply

Vaporhead June 15, 2012 at 3:14 pm

You were fired from Bell because of your conspiracy theories and spreading propoganda.

Reply

JackBlack June 16, 2012 at 2:42 pm

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.

Reply

tiger June 15, 2012 at 8:56 pm

How about waiting for the investigation? Actually early reports sound like pilot error in that case.

Reply

Dfens June 15, 2012 at 11:56 pm

You don't say! Did anyone here see that one coming?

Reply

Dfens June 16, 2012 at 8:59 am

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.

Reply

phrogdriver June 17, 2012 at 1:05 am

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.

Reply

ghostwhowalksnz June 16, 2012 at 5:23 pm

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.

Reply

6113 June 18, 2012 at 8:57 am

They still have those shows? I havent been since the late 80's.

Reply

Dfens June 19, 2012 at 5:19 pm

Testing! Why didn't they ever think to test pilots? Golly gee, they're just not as smart as you.

Reply

Dfens June 19, 2012 at 5:25 pm

Another moron speaks!

Reply

phrogdriver July 8, 2012 at 9:37 pm

Says the man who seriously contemplates a rocket-powered Chinook…

Reply

Leave a Comment

Previous post:

Next post: