Home » Air » Grand Ole Osprey » Osprey Aeromechanics and Pilot Error

Osprey Aeromechanics and Pilot Error

by Ward Carroll on August 21, 2012

Bryant Jordan at our sister blog DoD Buzz wrote about the Headquarters Marine Corps’ explanantion behind what happened last April when an MV-22 crashed during an exercise in Morocco that killed two crewmembers.  Here’s an excerpt from Bryant’s post:

The accident occurred as the Osprey was taking off, turning to avoid a busy landing field even as it was rotating its proprotors to transition from helicopter mode to fixed wing.

As it did that, the center of gravity moved forward – pointing the Osprey’s nose down – and a strong tailwind pushed the plane forward and downward. The co-pilot, he said, failed to adjust the nacelles during the turn to overcome the effects of the nose-down altitude.

“The aircraft is now committed and it flies into the ground,” said Marine Corps Lt. Gen. Robert E. Schmidle Jr., deputy commandant for Marine Corps Aviation. The Osprey only reached an altitude of about 50 feet above the ground before it crashed, killing two Marine aircrew members, Cpls. Robby A. Reyes and Derek A. Kerns.

Had the pilots kept the aircraft in helicopter mode until they had gained speed and altitude, the accident probably would not have happened, Schmidle said.

Longtime DT readers may remember a post back in 2006 where I predicted there would be six Class A V-22 mishaps within the first three years of fleet introduction.  Among my itemized flight scenario predictions was this:

The test pilots (both active duty and civilian) did amazing work during the High Rate of Descent (HROD) phase of developmental test at NAS Patuxent River back in 2002 and 2003. They validated the V-22’s vortex ring state (VRS) envelope. (DT readers will remember that VRS was what caused an Osprey to crash near Marana, Arizona back in 2000, killing 19 Marines.) Improvements have been made in the vertical speed displays and aural warning systems. But the fact remains that — while there are no “unknown unknowns” about VRS and that there is a buffer between the operational rate of descent limit of 800 feet per minute and where VRS occurs — the rate at which the V-22 develops a high rate of descent is unique to the V-22. Basically, the crew has to hawk the VSI gauge constantly during a descent. A moment’s inattention can result in the vertical speed getting out of hand. (The test pilots actually had an inadvertant VRS entry during HROD testing because they got distracted for a second.) So imagine junior pilots during high op-tempo periods (deployed) at night, on goggles, and operating with not enough sleep (never happens if you follow NATOPS, right?) Yes, this is a training issue in that crews can be taught to watch the VSI readout on the display, but in spite of the comprehensive understanding Osprey crews have of the phenomenon (thanks to the Developmental Test Team at Pax River), somebody’s going to be tired and distracted (and maybe under fire) and will enter VRS close to the ground. The outcome won’t be good.

And in the case of this Morocco crash the outcome wasn’t good.  Doubtful VRS was the issue, but vertical speed obviously was.

The comments with Bryant’s post vividly show the two camps most interested parties fall into:  Those who believe that pilot error will always be part of the equation as long as humans are in the loop, and those who believe the V-22 is inherently flawed because of its design, etc.

No airplane is crash-proof.  If a pilot wants to fly a JSF into the ground he can.  Even drones crash on occasion.  But sometimes airplanes have aeromechanic tendencies that make them crash–prone.  (Along with having worked in the V-22 Joint Program Office for three years as the spokesman, I have 2,800 hours as a Tomcat RIO; talk to me about inducing yaw rates at high angles of attack with that airplane.)

The V-22’s operational mishap rate would suggest the airplane is NOT crash-prone.  However, certainly relative to conventional rotary wing aircraft, the Osprey has — literally — more moving parts, and that can bite a pilot when operating near the ground.  As Gen. Schmidle said, had this co-pilot done everything but program the nacelles forward at that time he probably wouldn’t have hit the ground.

A couple of flight adages come to mind:

  • There are no new mishaps; just new pilots causing the same old mishaps.
  • You can only tie the record for low flight.

Ward Carroll is the editor of Military​.com. During his 20-year Navy career Ward served in four different F-14 squadrons. After his retirement from the Navy, he served as the the public affairs officer for the V-22 Osprey program at the Naval Air Systems Command.

Share |

{ 98 comments… read them below or add one }

Nick August 21, 2012 at 1:04 pm

Oh, are the dead people at fault? SOP

Reply

Curt August 23, 2012 at 11:01 pm

No, both the pilot and copilot survived, you might want to actually read the post.

Reply

Tiger August 21, 2012 at 1:54 pm

WDEC 3DDDDDDDD CCCCCCCCCCCCCC 7041

Reply

tiger August 21, 2012 at 5:30 pm

Cat pilot error post. Bobbi likes to type too……

Reply

Dfens August 22, 2012 at 7:49 am

Apparently the cat deserves to die. And when he does, all the other cats can tell us how he had it coming — because they'd never do anything like that!

Reply

Mitch S. August 21, 2012 at 1:55 pm

Another scenario for the simulators.

Reply

Dfens August 21, 2012 at 1:57 pm

What does it take to put a warning system in the V-22 that tells the pilot he doesn't have the airspeed nor the altitude to push the rotors forward as far as he is commanding them? The aircraft would need a pitot probe and a radar altimeter, both of which are already in place. This aircraft has been under development at taxpayers' expense for decades and doesn't have something so basic as a simple warning on the nacelle angle? It is a wonder it flies at all.

Hopefully the Safety Investigation Board will recommend that at least a warning is put in place. The Accident Investigation Board remains the usual white wash at the taxpayers' and pilots' expense as usual. I hope Ward got his 30 pieces of silver for selling out.

Reply

Guest August 21, 2012 at 3:05 pm

I wonder if the pilots frquently violate the NATOPS in this manner while performing expedited takeoff accelerations, or whether this was truly a one time incident.

Reply

elmondohummus August 21, 2012 at 3:21 pm

I confess to ignorance, since I'm neither a pilot nor military, but I do have a question about something: Are pilots supposed to avoid rotating the nacelles from vertical to horizontal until they've gained a certain altitude? If not, wouldn't that be the common sense reaction to this crash: Implementing a minimum "nacelle rotation" altitude?

Or, is the issue that such a restriction exists, but the pilots did not heed it?

Reply

LoSul August 21, 2012 at 3:45 pm

Its not strictly based on altitude but also airspeed. NATOPS refers to 40 ktas in helicopter mode before transition at low altitudes.

Reply

RunningBeard August 21, 2012 at 6:21 pm

Yes, it is in place,
No, he did not heed it.

Thus, co-pilot error. Sadly, he will live with the knowledge that two marines died because of his mistake. Three casualties from the simple adage, not enough lift under the wings and you can't fly. The pilot probably had his eyces out the windows looking for obstacles, until he heard the engine pitch change (coming off of load) at the wrong time. Shucks! :(

Reply

Dfens August 22, 2012 at 5:05 pm

There was plenty of lift. What was lacking was control authority. In this case, the opposite of lift.

Reply

Harry August 21, 2012 at 10:42 pm

The computer automatically dips the nose 5% as the nacelles rotate forward to offset PUWSS, which occurs when the rotor wash impacts the tail area. However, a strong tailwind can offset that too, so it was the software that dipped the nose as it moved forward, causing it to crash. Google PUWSS V-22 to learn move.

Reply

LoSul August 22, 2012 at 10:20 am

Yes, but pitch up with side slip is mitigated by flying the profile specified in NATOPS, which is to get some airspeed before the transition. To claim the software "caused" the crash is a bit disingenuous.

Reply

Dfens August 22, 2012 at 5:03 pm

Because if the pilot pitches the nose down it is his fault for crashing the vehicle, but if the software does it, then it is God's gift to the world of aviation. It doesn't matter that the software has more data available to than the pilot has, nor can software ever be at fault because it was insufficiently designed. After all, the pilot exists to serve the vehicle. Blessed be the vehicle and the program from wince it came. And f the pilot. If one crashes or dies, then get another one.

Reply

Pilgrimman August 22, 2012 at 5:08 pm

You have severe mental problems.

Reply

Dfens August 23, 2012 at 12:22 am

Right, comrade, clearly I need reeducating.

Rob August 30, 2012 at 12:43 am

This crash had absolutely nothing to do with pitch up with side slip. That occurs when the wind is 30-60 degrees off the nose. The empennage is ineffective because it is in the rotor wash. The nacelles are automatically driven down at a rate faster than the pilot is able to command them in order to give the pilot more stick margin. Most commonly occurs when landing on the boat, not taking off with a tailwind. Completely separate things here.

Reply

jamesb August 21, 2012 at 10:57 pm

May I remind people that V-22's are SUPPOSED to become part on HMX-1….

Reply

jamesb August 21, 2012 at 10:58 pm

part of the HMX-! fleet…..

but WILL NOT carry the POTUS

Reply

Harry August 21, 2012 at 11:07 pm

They are support aircraft for HMX-1 because our Generals decided they needed the CH-53Es from HMX-1 in Afghanistan rather than new V-22s, so the V-22s replaced them, but not for VIP use, only for Marines.

Reply

Winston August 22, 2012 at 10:37 am

Unless the Osprey program employs a design modification to include some anti-gravity device….

This aircraft was and is NOT worth the lives lost.

Reply

LoSul August 22, 2012 at 11:20 am

So whats your opinion of the CH53?

You know, the helicopter that killed over 330 service members in ACCIDENTS since 1969.

Reply

6113 August 22, 2012 at 4:00 pm

I've heard my fair share of 53 class A's during my time as active duty. Most of them were due to pilot/aircrew error and the rest were maintenance malpractice. The same can be said for everything else in the inventory.

Reply

LoSul August 23, 2012 at 10:18 am

Yes the point being, relative to other rotary wing aircraft, the Osprey has a stellar safety record, despite what people like David Axe, Carlton Meyer, Bob Cox, and our esteemed colleague with a second grade aerospace education Dfens want everyone to believe.

Reply

6113 August 23, 2012 at 3:57 pm

Oh, no question.

Winston August 22, 2012 at 10:38 am

Really! If the Osprey is so great, why not give it to POTUS?

Reply

Vaporhead August 22, 2012 at 11:42 am

Probably not as easy to transport a CV22. Can the wings and nacelles fold back so it can be shoved into a C-17?

Reply

6113 August 22, 2012 at 1:14 pm

Yes they can.

Reply

Curt August 23, 2012 at 11:23 pm

Requirement for Marine 1 is that it not damage the rose garden lawn. The V-22 is too heavy.

Reply

Czar August 24, 2012 at 11:36 pm

Its not that it's too heavy, or that its too big for the pad, or the rotor wash. The exhaust coming from the nacelles will scorch the grass and it will not look nice. That's why POTUS won't use it. That and other defensive reasons.

Reply

Tiger August 24, 2012 at 6:50 am

It’s a bit big for the White house pad.

Reply

6113 August 24, 2012 at 6:53 am

It's not that it's too big, it's the rotor wash that is the problem.

Reply

tiger August 24, 2012 at 8:35 am

So is that program dead or in limbo? Last I heard, we sold the unused choppers to Canada.

Reply

6113 August 25, 2012 at 9:02 am

As far as I know it's still in limbo. The airframes were sold to Canada.

Czar August 24, 2012 at 11:42 pm

If you can name a current operational (gray) Marine Corps helicopter that transports the president, your argument can be valid but you cant. The president only flies in H-3 or the H-60. The Marine Corps doesn't use either of those operationally. So we should get rid of all Marine Corps helos. How about all the Army and Navy ones too since they don't transport the president.

Reply

Apache SP August 22, 2012 at 11:18 am

The problem with this accident was that the copilot (the pilot on the controls during the accident) turned from facing into the wind during takeoff to turning away to avoid blowing over tents. The resulting tailwind at low speed coupled with the rotating nacelles is what caused this accident. No pilot should willingly take off with a tailwind due to the negative aerodynamic factors. They could have fixed the tents.

Reply

Czar August 22, 2012 at 5:05 pm

The software did not dip the nose. It is not programmed to do that. You can takeoff with a perfectly level deck. And there is a system in place that lets the pilots know how fast they can transition safely. It is depicted graphically on the MFD. Pilots flying outside of NATOPS is absolutely not a common practice. Doing that will get your wings pulled in a heartbeat. These pilots will not fly in the military again, but neither will the crew chiefs.

Reply

Czar August 22, 2012 at 5:07 pm

The software did not dip the nose. It is not programmed to do that. You can takeoff with a perfectly level deck. And there is a system in place that lets the pilots know how fast they can transition safely. It is depicted graphically on the MFD. Pilots flying outside of NATOPS is absolutely not a common practice. Doing so will get your wings pulled in a heartbeat. These pilots will not fly in the military again, but neither will the crew chiefs.

Reply

Helfyr August 22, 2012 at 7:25 pm

More lives and another $110 million gone. This extremely complex aircraft sounded great thirty years ago. Unfortunately, no matter how many times requirements were lowered it continues to struggle. The reasons Marine Corps leaders and politicians who forced this machine on us are apparent and they have little to do with national defense. The Army declared the Osprey “unsuitable for combat operations”. The single small machine pointing backwards tells a lot.

Reply

ghostwhowalks August 22, 2012 at 11:24 pm

Just as well you have the final word and not all the experts , who do this for a living.

Bit of course sitting in your armchair is just like flying the real thing and putting yourself in danger

Reply

helfyr August 23, 2012 at 4:51 pm

Just to set the record straight, I am one of the experts. I am a retired military pilot who has done my share of combat tours. Currently have over 18,000 hours as P.I.C.
In my current job I am regularly flying and landing in the mountains at night on NVG, often at MGW.

This Osprey has not delivered on its promises. It has seriously reduced hover payload above 3000 P.A. It has a small inadequate cabin. It is very expensive to buy and maintain. Availability rates are well below acceptable levels. Based on the evidence, it is difficult to fly. It has has far too many limitations and restrictions for a frontline military aircraft. Finally, it is incapable of defending itself from even minimal threats.

Reply

Thomas L. Nielsen August 24, 2012 at 1:57 am

Question: Have you flown the Osprey?

Also, please clarify for me:

"It has seriously reduced hover payload above 3000 P.A.": Seriously reduced, compared to what?

"It has a small inadequate cabin": Based on what criteria is the Osprey cabin "small and inadequate"?

Regards & all,

Thomas L. Nielsen
Luxembourg

Reply

Tiger August 24, 2012 at 6:57 am

If you want to talk undelivered promises, try the AH-64 Apache & atack choppers in general.

Reply

Tiger August 24, 2012 at 6:53 am

Folks said the same stuff about the M-16 50 years ago. Still here, still working.

Reply

James August 22, 2012 at 8:24 pm

Bottom-line…if you put ANY aircraft in an aero situation is shouldn't be in, bad things are going to happen.

As for whether or not automation is needed to prevent this from happening…NO. We have almost 150,000 hours flying this aircraft & for 99.9% of them the training that is given early on & reinforced through out works.

Reply

jamesb August 22, 2012 at 10:06 pm

You DO have some V-22 driver here, eh?

Follow the flight rules seems to be the call….

But the a/c does have a rep….
Like it or not….

Reply

ghostwhowalks August 22, 2012 at 11:27 pm

Boeing 727s had a bad rep too , when first indroduced the new style T tail meant pilots were slow to change their flying practices to avoid the type of stall.
Eventually it went on to be a workhorse of passenger fleets

Reply

jamesb August 22, 2012 at 10:07 pm

drivers…..sorry about that

Reply

tipover August 23, 2012 at 12:05 am

The F-15 had a bad rep, so did the CH-53, F-104, the B26(?) Marauder and the Boeing Stratofortress. Some were in service long enough to finish long term development, others you flew by the numbers in the flight manual or died. Too many here have opinions developed 15 years ago and can't let go no matter the facts w/r to the current V-22.

Reply

Dfens August 23, 2012 at 12:27 am

Poor little V-22. Everyone's being mean to it. Breaks my heart. Who cares that it's killed over 40 people? People aren't important. Weapons programs are important.

Reply

tiger August 24, 2012 at 6:46 am

The 747 has killed many times more. Want to bash it?

Reply

James August 23, 2012 at 1:33 am

Conversion protection IS good. It is designed to prevent damage to aircraft components. TRANSITION protection would be bad IMO…it would hamstring pilots and prevent them from being able to fly the aircraft (with in limits) when they need to.

Reply

LoSul August 23, 2012 at 10:26 am

We have a winner here!

This is it in a nutshell. Without conversion protection, you WILL damage rotor components and COULD get into an unrecoverable position. Without transition protection, you COULD get into an unrecoverable position but the rotor can handle it.

The protection systems are in place to prevent the pilot from exceeding the limits of the machine, not getting out of evnelope in all situations.

At altitude or without a tailwind, there is nothing that would nor should have limited this pilot from performing the same maneuver.

Reply

Dfens August 23, 2012 at 1:27 pm

No, we have 2 winners here.

Reply

PrometheusGoneWild August 23, 2012 at 5:24 pm

Call me crazy, but we have the technology to make it so the pilots cannot get cocky and crash the plane.
While I understand that the pilots would not want a "box" limiting their flying, it seems these accidents keep happening in much the same way.
It reminds me of the attempts to test "stall" on the early flying wing aircraft. It just made them crash. The pilots seem to be treating the craft like its boundaries must be pushed.
With this aircraft, flying precision is staying well within the flying boundaries. Not on the edge of them.
The situation also reminds me of the Harrier Jump Jet. When they first introduced them they only allowed veteran pilots to fly them.
Then they started bringing in brand new "Nuggets" into the program. The crash rate skyrocketed.
I do not know how you become an Osprey pilot, but if it is not already this way maybe it is time to make it so you have to have a certain amount of hours with another platform before you can switch over…..

Reply

tiger August 24, 2012 at 8:55 am

Even great pilots have done dumb things.

Reply

Dfens August 27, 2012 at 8:29 am

Don't you listen to the reports? Our pilots suck and our aircraft are perfect just as they are. We hear the same old refrain every time a military aircraft crashes. Hell, it's not even limited to military aircraft.

Reply

Tiger August 27, 2012 at 3:22 pm

Steve Fawcett, John Denver, Scot Crossfield,Tommy McGuire. The list is endless… Sometimes, the guy at the stick does screw up.

Reply

Dfens August 27, 2012 at 4:11 pm

Several of those bimbos are not even in the same league with our military pilots, so don't even go there. There's no excuse for spending billions of taxpayer dollars over 30 years of development, putting a pilot in a f'ed up vehicle and then blaming them for every single crash that's come along. That's the biggest difference between when Crossfield died and now. Back then we did research and test pilots died so line pilots wouldn't have to. Today we kill them all and blame them so the program's funding won't be in danger. No excuse for that.

Army Helo Pilot August 24, 2012 at 9:46 am

To complex for the combat environment- Slope limits/ Limited LZ-PZ availabitity/ Brown out- rotorwash signiture/ maneuverability/ lacking forward/ side door gunners/ limited anti/de-icing capabilities. Keep 3 to do airshows with the A/F. Besides, if the Chinese and Russians aren't copying it, that should tell you something.

Reply

Riceball August 24, 2012 at 1:59 pm

Funny how AFSOC seems to have no problems with their Ospreys and, from what I understand, like them every bit as much as the Corps. Just because the Army doesn't want Ospreys doesn't automatically make it bad, I imagine the Army doesn't want them because A) they need the money elsewhere like for replacing everything printed in that god-awful UCP, B) I don't think it fits any real Army need since the Army doesn't have a medium lift helo like the CH-46 that needs replacing.

Reply

Czar August 24, 2012 at 11:25 pm

Too complex for combat? Lets talk about these issues you bring up. Slope limits: 9 deg all the way around, 3 more than the phrog on cross slope. Limited LZ: Not sure what you mean by that. It can land anywhere a helo of comprable size can land as long as you don't want the grass scorched i.e the White House. Brown out: can land in a complete brown out with the pilots completely on an instrument scan on the glass inside the cockpit. Rotor wash is large because of high disk loading. Not much you can do about that if you want to land on a boat. Maneuverability: max AOB is 60, max nose up 35 degrees, max 4g's, negative g's limited to 10 seconds per flight. Belly Gun can face in any direction. Anti-ice/de-ice equipment on the windshield, engine inlet, spinner, proprotor, wing, pitot tube, AOA sensor. I wish people had their facts straight.

Reply

Czar August 24, 2012 at 11:26 pm

Haha they censored c0ckpit.

Reply

Czar August 24, 2012 at 11:28 pm

caulk pit?

Reply

Mitchell Fuller August 30, 2012 at 9:28 pm

Army Helo Pilot. Succinct synopsis of liabilities. I like the concept of V 22: takes off like a helicopter, flies like a plane, lands like a helicopter (always have). But the reality is this is a dangerous a/c to operate. It's more dangerous to its crew and passengers then the enemy

Marines would be better served by a modernized CH 46 (four bladed, larger fuel tanks, more powerful engines) and the CH 53 K

Reply

LoSul August 31, 2012 at 3:59 pm

"But the reality is this is a dangerous a/c to operate. It's more dangerous to its crew and passengers then the enemy "

Where do you get this idea? Be specific. Because the facts are its is objectively less dangerous than almost every other flying machine in Marine inventory. Do you believe the CH53 series is dangerous? Because it has a much worse record in its service…to the tune of 330+ killed in USMC accidents. I wonder if it has literally been more dangerous to its crew than the enemy.

Also, a CH53K is a totally different class of aircraft. Replacing a V22 with a 53K makes absolutely no sense. I do not understand the constant comparison of the two with respect to mission replacement.

Reply

blight_ August 21, 2012 at 1:55 pm

Perhaps we need to properly flesh out the safety envelope where it is safe to transition from rotary to fixed wing operation. Testing at Pax River is one thing, but…

Reply

LoSul August 21, 2012 at 3:22 pm

I think theyve got it pretty well nailed down. NATOPS says avoid this specific situation, and they've gone over 150k flight hours to this point transitioning just fine.

Reply

6113 August 22, 2012 at 1:12 pm

I used to work on the program at Pax, and I've never seen them rotate lower than 45 degrees, under 50 ft. on takeoff ever, under any conditions.

Reply

Yaakov August 22, 2012 at 4:54 am

“If you wanted to program every combination of warnings into a helicopter or tiltrotor, you end up overloading the pilots with information” so why not to integrate and combine all those warning devices to few or even to one device so the pilot will not be end up overloading with information?

Reply

Dfens August 22, 2012 at 7:43 am

Did it make a man out of you? Apparently not.

Reply

Dfens August 22, 2012 at 7:45 am

How about putting a warning in the flight deck for the things that kill? You know, just like we put attitude, altitude, and airspeed information in there. Kinda seems like a good idea to me, but then I get paid to think, not to spin.

Reply

Dfens August 22, 2012 at 7:46 am

Seems to me like they were able to keep a lid on things for a while, but now the lid has blown off the pot.

Reply

HeavyArrow August 22, 2012 at 8:19 am

Because if you put more warnings and whistles in the cockpit, the pilots would be overloaded with information. The goal is to not overload them with information, so they can actually fly the airplane, plus the fact that it would cost more money to have every single MV/CV-22 outfitted with the new avionics.
You obviously haven't flown a complex airplane before have you Dfens?

Reply

Zak August 22, 2012 at 2:52 pm

Why do you folks even try reasoning with Dfens?

Reply

Dfens August 22, 2012 at 4:36 pm

That's what you call it…

Reply

Dfens August 22, 2012 at 5:10 pm

Hell yeah, a note in a manual is way better than a red light that tells the pilot he's over rotated the nacelle for the airspeed and altitude. Ask any defense schill. They'll all tell you that.

Reply

ghostwhowalks August 22, 2012 at 11:18 pm

Good point , in this case it was the passengers who died

Reply

Dfens August 23, 2012 at 12:14 am

As the pilot moves the nacelles aft with the thumbwheel, a feature called “conversion protection” factors into the equation and stops the nacelles from moving too fast, as that might either damage the aircraft or cause a stall. Similar to the flaperons, the conversion protection corridor is airspeed-based and varies with altitude. At the lower portion of the corridor, nacelle movement will be modulated so the Osprey will not stall; the upper portion of the corridor protects loads on the rotor system from too much airspeed. If the pilot tries to continue moving the nacelles aft while the airspeed is to too high, the system will actually stop and move the nacelles forward by overriding the pilot’s inputs. The pilot has a visual indicator on the primary flight display that notes where the nacelle angle is in relation to the protection corridor; keeping the nacelle angle near the middle of the corridor during the conversion is the key to a smooth deceleration. — http://verticalmag.com/news/articles/20112-flying

So they already have a system that protects the aircraft from hurting itself on slow down, but nothing to keep it from going nose first into the ground on take off. Brilliant.

Reply

Dfens August 23, 2012 at 12:20 am

Wow, this puts the defense schills in an awkward position, because they've already told us a system like the existing "conversion protection" is bad, but it is already on the aircraft and therefore good. Don't hold your breath, though. They're very snake like and will wriggle out of this. You watch.

Reply

6113 August 23, 2012 at 7:18 am

All Naval aircrew are supposed to know that manual backwards and forwards, and follow it to the letter. When they don't, it's a bad day at the office, and things like this happen.

Reply

Dfens August 23, 2012 at 1:20 pm

I wonder how many people died before the military industrial complex put the "conversion protection" on the V-22? Maybe we could use that as an indicator of how many more will have to go nose first into the ground before they at least put a "forward conversion" warning system on that piece of crap.

Reply

Dfens August 23, 2012 at 1:25 pm

Hell yeah, we're coddling the bastards giving them any warnings at all. In my day we flew in the snow up hill both ways. We didn't have any warning systems! And we liked it.

Reply

6113 August 23, 2012 at 4:00 pm

Until you've actually been around real working aircraft and know what you're talking about, I suggest you kindly STFU and let the adults talk about it…

Reply

Dfens August 24, 2012 at 9:54 am

I'm not the one who helped f up the V-22. You are. Now you're trying to spin this turd into a bouquet of roses, but no one is buying it. Who wouldn't get just a little frustrated?

Reply

Dfens August 24, 2012 at 9:58 am

Funny how the schills moved on after some actual facts were introduced. I wonder what the tell their mom's they do? I guess if you can't make a living playing video games, this would be the next best thing.

Reply

Tiger August 24, 2012 at 2:46 pm

Every advance in Aviation or auto racing since day one has been paved by crashes.

Reply

Dfens August 24, 2012 at 10:04 am

Another V-22 program schill weighs in, and guess what, he wants to keep his job? Who would have seen that coming?

Reply

LoSul August 24, 2012 at 12:12 pm

So is your new modus operandi to regurgitate the commentary the dozen of other posters have made about you and try to apply it to everyone else?

Because you are the one who has run from every factual technical discussion brought to bear against your paltry "knowledgebase". I can only assume your reading comprehension is what is preventing you from understanding that your arguments have been repeatedly struck down. Repeating them afterwards and claming other moved on does not make them valid.

And I am still wondering what a "schill" is.

Reply

LoSul August 24, 2012 at 12:17 pm

Yes, because if the V22 was somehow terminated, all USMC Osprey pilots would be immediately discharged from the service and not moved to other rotary wing assets.

Your refusal to believe that V22 pilots like the aircraft and anyone with anything to say counter to your brainwashed propaganda is a "schill" (sic) is beginning to border on psychosis.

Reply

M167A1 August 27, 2012 at 2:01 pm

In reading your posts I detect two common (fallacious) arguments.
Calling someone a “shill” is an ad hominem argument. You are countering another’s claims or conclusions by attacking the person, rather than addressing the argument itself.

Yes he is a Marine or works for Bell. But that doesn’t make him wrong, conversely the fact that you don’t work for Bell doesn’t make you right.

You also frequently employ an ad ignorantiam approach. This is an argument from ignorance stating that your opinion is true because we don’t know that it isn’t true.

But since they understand the aircraft and you don’t all you can do is call names because you lack any other argument to support your position.
Please try harder with your posts. All you are doing is being a jerk, this is no way to convince anyone of anything except the fact that you really need an atomic wedgie.

Reply

Riceball August 24, 2012 at 1:55 pm

You've read my mind, I was thinking the exact same thing, they should run new V-22 pilots extensively through the simulators before they ever get behind the stick/wheel of a real Osprey. Once they've learned the basics of flying the Osprey you then start to throw every possible curve ball their way to try to break them of any bad habits they might have picked up from flying other platforms. Only when you're certain that they've unlearned everything instinct from flying other platforms that can get them killed in an Osprey do you let them near the real thing.

Reply

Dfens August 24, 2012 at 5:00 pm

I'll bet you are.

Reply

Czar August 24, 2012 at 11:12 pm

Osprey pilots already get a bunch of sims before they can fly the real thing. Thats not a mind blowing new concept. Its common sense. In addition, pilots are required to complete an emergency procedure sim every three months and a quiz on emergency procedures every 30 days. Thats minimum requirements.

Reply

6113 August 25, 2012 at 8:50 am

Yeah, I really screwed it up being a knuckle dragging mech. I'm not trying to spin anything, I just know what I'm talking about because I have first hand knowledge on the subject.

Reply

tiger August 27, 2012 at 6:10 pm

I'd hardly call the 2nd best fighter Ace in US history a bimbo….

As for the plane, it's far from the widdow maker you make it to be. The numbers back this up. The facts of the crash are what they are in this & the other crash.

Reply

6113 August 29, 2012 at 11:03 am

Well put.

Reply

Leave a Comment

Previous post:

Next post: