MV-22 Osprey crash in Okinawa Crew survives..

bunk22 said:
Nope, you don't need to be military to question things in the military but knowing what you are talking about, doing research before making a comment gives your credibility and makes you looks much less ignorant. One, we don't report to civilians. Two, all mishaps in the military are looked into and if there is a common theme, a trend, steps are taken to reduce what may be causing the mishaps.

As far as the MV-22 goes, in 2015, it had a mishap rate of 3.2 per 100,000 flight hours. I know that in the C-2A community, folks are not happy with the CV-22 replacement, most citing the number of deaths during the introduction of the V-22. Again, research is their friend, during the first 8 years of the C-2A Greyhound, there were 6 crashes, every aircraft destroyed, with 59 people killed. Here it is, 2016 with C-2A's still going strong. A few have been lost since but no loss of life. The military operates in different environments, elements than civilians and there will be inherent dangers in how they operate.
Click to expand...

Hey that's fantastic. How's that working? Because it seems like you're top brass don't even agree with you: http://breakingdefense.com/2016/07/non-fatal-accidents-double-for-marine-corps-aircraft/

The rate of non-fatal accidents has doubled in Marine Corps aviation since last year, and the Marines are turning to outside experts to figure out why.

So-called Class C mishap rates — nonfatal incidents that cause $50,000 to $500,000 in damage or loss of work time — have occurred in 2016 at double their previous rate, thedeputy commandant for aviation told Congress. Lt. Gen. Jon Davis later told reporters he is so alarmed by the increase that he has hired an outside consultant to study its root causes.

What do I know, though, I'm just some lowly corporate strategist who advises my employer to take steps to avoid critical failures before they happen.
 
My sister unit had a class C last night because of a bird strike.

Circle the wagons. Helicopters aren't important to the Army's mission.
 
'Tis the season!

IMG_1759.JPG
 
Murdoughnut said:
Hey that's fantastic. How's that working? Because it seems like you're top brass don't even agree with you: http://breakingdefense.com/2016/07/non-fatal-accidents-double-for-marine-corps-aircraft/

The rate of non-fatal accidents has doubled in Marine Corps aviation since last year, and the Marines are turning to outside experts to figure out why.

So-called Class C mishap rates — nonfatal incidents that cause $50,000 to $500,000 in damage or loss of work time — have occurred in 2016 at double their previous rate, thedeputy commandant for aviation told Congress. Lt. Gen. Jon Davis later told reporters he is so alarmed by the increase that he has hired an outside consultant to study its root causes.

What do I know, though, I'm just some lowly corporate strategist who advises my employer to take steps to avoid critical failures before they happen.
Click to expand...

The rate of Non-Fatal and Fatal accidents across military aviation has dramatically increased over the last decade. It's not specific to a platform.

The fact that we are flying less training hours per aviation personnel and flying equipment that is being beaten like a rented mule to support mission without reinvestment has everything to do with it. Not the sudden adoption of the Osprey, which is still far safer than the CH-46 it replaced.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Lawman said:
The rate of Non-Fatal and Fatal accidents across military aviation has dramatically increased over the last decade. It's not specific to a platform.

The fact that we are flying less training hours per aviation personnel and flying equipment that is being beaten like a rented mule to support mission without reinvestment has everything to do with it. Not the sudden adoption of the Osprey, which is still far safer than the CH-46 it replaced.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

To be fair, I never called out the Osprey. The Marines are burying plenty of Hornets as well.
 
Murdoughnut said:
To be fair, I never called out the Osprey. The Marines are burying plenty of Hornets as well.
Click to expand...

The Army has had a multitude of Class A and other accidents suddenly uptick in recent years.

A lot of it has to do with refocusing training to the peer/bear-peer threat which involves flying aircraft in map of the earth profiles. It's necessary, it's dangerous, and we've accepted the increased risk. That means we are going to lose friends and bend metal in training, but rather that than going across the berm in the dark with live rounds on the two way range and guys that are trying to OJT that stuff.

That's why "identifying trends" are so difficult to actually interpret. Flying around in a 3-4K foot high non maneuvering profile doesn't correlate to flying at 60 feet in poor illumination in a dust environment, so why compare loss rates for the two like they are. The Marines environment (maritime) is arguably the same kind of increased danger just to the nature of tactical aviation in that setting.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
MikeD said:
Harrier and Osprey are both considered Powered Lift, by FAA Category.

A jet pilot not liking being in placed in the same category as rotor-wing-centric bretheren. And the ribbing that goes with it. :)
Click to expand...

Yup. The Feds helped the DOD with their retention with that one… :/
 
Derg said:
Yup. The Feds helped the DOD with their retention with that one… :/
Click to expand...

Which is odd because the Harrier spends far more of it's general mission/employment, as well as flight profile, time flying as a conventional jet. It's VTOL-type qualities are more a feature it can do.

The Osprey on the other hand, spends far more of its time in a vertical mode of operation by nature.

Even looking at the background/lineage of where the aircraft came from: AV-8A/C from former A-4 squadrons, MV-22s from primarily former CH-46 squadrons.
 
MikeD said:
Which is odd because the Harrier spends far more of it's general mission/employment, as well as flight profile, time flying as a conventional jet. It's VTOL-type qualities are more a feature it can do.

The Osprey on the other hand, spends far more of its time in a vertical mode of operation by nature.

Even looking at the background/lineage of where the aircraft came from: AV-8A/C from former A-4 squadrons, MV-22s from primarily former CH-46 squadrons.
Click to expand...


Thread jack...


Tel the FAA that! Per their definition of powered lift they're both the same though. Never mind that the Airplane Areas of Operation are completely nested within the overall skill set of the Harrier. The line of thinking goes that you wouldn't let the Airplane rated guy fly the Powered Lift because it's a different skill set so we obviously can't let the Powered Lift guy have an Airplane rating. It gets even weirder when you try to add CFI-Airplane to your CFI-Powered Lift rating. There isn't even a P-Lift column on the Additional rating task table since it is an afterthought as a Category anyway.

As for not being able to transition, the two problems are finding 250 hours as PIC in an AIRPLANE as well as being the ONLY fixed wing aviators in the US military that don't have any multi time. Both are simply fixed with buckets of cash. I am going the MEI path so it can be somebody else's buckets of cash after that check ride.

/threadjack
 
MikeD said:
Which is odd because the Harrier spends far more of it's general mission/employment, as well as flight profile, time flying as a conventional jet. It's VTOL-type qualities are more a feature it can do.

The Osprey on the other hand, spends far more of its time in a vertical mode of operation by nature.

Even looking at the background/lineage of where the aircraft came from: AV-8A/C from former A-4 squadrons, MV-22s from primarily former CH-46 squadrons.
Click to expand...

Welp. Retention is retention according to the DOD.

Get out and fly for a major, sounds great! Get out and be sitting reserve on the CRJ in Greenville-Spartanburg? Not so much.
 
Murdoughnut said:
Hey that's fantastic. How's that working? Because it seems like you're top brass don't even agree with you: http://breakingdefense.com/2016/07/non-fatal-accidents-double-for-marine-corps-aircraft/

The rate of non-fatal accidents has doubled in Marine Corps aviation since last year, and the Marines are turning to outside experts to figure out why.

So-called Class C mishap rates — nonfatal incidents that cause $50,000 to $500,000 in damage or loss of work time — have occurred in 2016 at double their previous rate, thedeputy commandant for aviation told Congress. Lt. Gen. Jon Davis later told reporters he is so alarmed by the increase that he has hired an outside consultant to study its root causes.

What do I know, though, I'm just some lowly corporate strategist who advises my employer to take steps to avoid critical failures before they happen.
Click to expand...

Again, you talk out of your ass, arrogant as you are ignorant. Look at what I wrote, the specific aircraft. I know very well what a Class C, B and A mishap is and that was not my discussion. Are we talking about the overall Marine Corp mishap rate? I will give my opinion on that and I agree, you are a lowly corporate no load when it comes to military mishaps. Remember that every night when you rest your big egotistical head on your little pillow. I've sat on aviation safety boards, administration boards and completed two JAG investigations for two different T-45C Class A mishaps and have little to no patience for trash talking, arrogant civilians who have not been there done that.

As far as Marine Corp aviation goes, IMO, the less they fly, the less training missions they get, the less training the aviation maintenance personnel get, the less money we have for spare parts, the less money we have for training exercises, the higher the mishap rate will be if everything else is held constant. That may be why the Marines are experiencing a higher mishap rate as of late. In the case of the MV-22, it is a relatively safe aircraft but given the mission it does and if the above is applied to the MV-22 community, its mishap rate can and may increase but not due to any reason of the aircraft design itself.
 
bunk22 said:
Again, you talk out of your ass, arrogant as you are ignorant. Look at what I wrote, the specific aircraft. I know very well what a Class C, B and A mishap is and that was not my discussion. Are we talking about the overall Marine Corp mishap rate? I will give my opinion on that and I agree, you are a lowly corporate no load when it comes to military mishaps. Remember that every night when you rest your big egotistical head on your little pillow. I've sat on aviation safety boards, administration boards and completed two JAG investigations for two different T-45C Class A mishaps and have little to no patience for trash talking, arrogant civilians who have not been there done that.

As far as Marine Corp aviation goes, IMO, the less they fly, the less training missions they get, the less training the aviation maintenance personnel get, the less money we have for spare parts, the less money we have for training exercises, the higher the mishap rate will be if everything else is held constant. That may be why the Marines are experiencing a higher mishap rate as of late. In the case of the MV-22, it is a relatively safe aircraft but given the mission it does and if the above is applied to the MV-22 community, its mishap rate can and may increase but not due to any reason of the aircraft design itself.
Click to expand...

You know I never once made a suggestion of what might be the cause. Your attitude is scary dangerous - the whole "nobody on the outside can contribute anything" mindset is incredibly narrow-minded and works against a holistic safety culture. It's an attitude prevalent in nearly every industry right before it fails. I hope you plan on being a lifer - there's probably not much for you in the real world.

The fact that you're being so defensive about the fact that I pointed out that the mishap rate is unacceptable tells me everything I need to know.
 
Last edited:
Murdoughnut said:
You know I never once made a suggestion of what might be the cause. Your attitude is scary dangerous - the whole "nobody on the outside can contribute anything" mindset is incredibly narrow-minded and works against a holistic safety culture. It's an attitude prevalent in nearly every industry right before it fails. I hope you plan on being a lifer - there's probably not much for you in the real world.

The fact that you're being so defensive about the fact that I pointed out that the mishap rate is unacceptable tells me everything I need to know.
Click to expand...
Curious why you have such a hard on regarding this. You're arguing with people that have an actual interest, and their own skin in the game and you're trying to advise them. Go back to sleep lollipop, those guys you don't like will keep you safe regardless of your opinion.
 
knot4u said:
Curious why you have such a hard on regarding this. You're arguing with people that have an actual interest, and their own skin in the game and you're trying to advise them. Go back to sleep lollipop, those guys you don't like will keep you safe regardless of your opinion.
Click to expand...

What advisement did I give?
 

That I stand by based on sheer hull losses and loss of life - and from the way it sounds, it's acknowledged all around that there's a serious problem.

There's no inside information one needs to realize that whatever they're doing, it's not working.
 
Last edited:
Good grief, combatants, this is yet another example of why if I was King of America, I would decree that airline pilots absolutely MUST smoke a doobie on a 72hr segment free of duty.
 
Derg said:
Good grief, combatants, this is yet another example of why if I was King of America, I would decree that airline pilots absolutely MUST smoke a doobie on a 72hr segment free of duty.
Click to expand...
Agreed, it's been 25 years since I imbibed in the devilweed. Given the opportunity I'd probably tap out, from the casual research I've performed the following is true:
1. This aint your grandpas weed.
2. This aint your grandpas weed.
3. I dont want to get that high.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top