The Osprey's safety issues spiked over five years and caused deaths. Pilots still want to fly it
Posted by Majano57@reddit | aviation | View on Reddit | 41 comments
JP5-LIFE@reddit
The osprey doesn't deserve the hate it gets. It's a complex machine that absolutely excels in the role it was designed for. Most of its crashes have been pilot error and on par with most military rotorcraft.
TheVengeful148320@reddit
Eh, not just pilot error. For example the whole debacle of the most recent one in Japan that was blamed by the air force on "pilot error" but if you actually read the report it talks about how the pilots did everything they were supposed to at the time and the procedures have since been revised.
The air force report reads like "Yeah so the pilots followed all of our procedures and did everything we trained them to and we've since revised our procedures and training. But yeah the pilots caused the crash because they were idiots."
That's just once case but I think the bigger issue with the osprey is it's much more unforgiving than a normal aircraft when things go wrong. For example if either gearbox at a rotor goes out it will straight up stop flying. And as far as more normal issues go, there's no way to crash land it, It's just a straight up crash.
So in summary a lot of pilot error. Definitely some mechanical and design issues. But also an inability to be handled in some emergencies.
And yes still comparable to other military rotorcraft.
conaan@reddit
If a gearbox goes out like it did in that Japan crash, there's no saving any helicopter
TheVengeful148320@reddit
Fair but the osprey has like 5 gearboxes or something insane like that and only one of those gearboxes going out won't cause a crash. That's why it's such a problem for the osprey because on a normal help there's what like 2 or 3? More gear boxes means more potential failures. Plus they also found that in that case the vendor supplied substandard parts.
Marine517@reddit
The Osprey does have five gear boxes but only two of them are "critical" for flight the other three are used for the interconnecting driveshaft system to allow one engine to power the other the nacelles rotorhead in the event of an engine failure. You could lose both tilt axis gearbox and the midway gearbox and still fly as long as both of your engines are operational. Also losing any of the three "non critical" gearboxes would be land immediately criteria. Source, i've maintained ospreys going on 11 years now.
conaan@reddit
Yes they have more gearboxes, but because of the design of the interconnecting driveshaft system, a failure of either TAGB or a failure of the MWGB would not cause a loss of control, just a loss of some redundancy in hydraulics and generators as well losing the ability operate with one engine inop.
Prop boxes have multiple ways they can fail, and in a lot of cases it's a failure that still allows one of the two drive train paths to still run the prop, and the emergency lube system is there to keep a sufficient amount of lubrication all the way to your emergency landing site.
A 60 on the other hand has similar MGB failure modes that allow for the head to still be driven, just by one engine only, or for accessories to be lost but otherwise unaffected. It's a little sketchier when we discuss tail drive shaft, IGB or TGB failures, as continued flight with those failures is possible, but the landing is sure to be more exciting than you typically want
TheVengeful148320@reddit
Oh yeah I was a silly goose, it's only 2 of the gearboxes that will cause a catastrophic issue. But yeah having gearbox failures isn't nominal in any aircraft. I think the big thing is it all still speaks to Boeings issues. I mean yet another Boeing supplier causing an incident because they screwed up, and also the report said a vibration gauge would have given the pilots in that crash the information they needed that would likely have saved their lives. But Boeing didn't include a vibration gauge.
NuclearStrawberry@reddit
It's necessarily that they didn't include vibration sensors, it's that the sensors that record data for maintenance, the VBSS system, didn't talk with any of the systems that present to the crew, so while the aircraft did record the vibrations there was no way for it to have alerted the pilots to the severity of the damage.
There are separate vibration sensors that will pop a caution on the EICAS, but the damage to the PRGB didn't present in a way to trip that caution, unfortuntely.
conaan@reddit
Parts quality is a huge issue, you are definitely on track there. Definitely not happy with how they've been sourcing parts
conaan@reddit
Just a side note, while the 60 only has 3 gearboxes (main, intermediate, tail), the main gearbox has 5 distinct modules (main, #1 input, #1 accessory, #2 input, #2 accessory). The main gearbox all shares the same two lube pumps, while a 22 has separate lubrication systems for both TAGB and MWGB that inherently has more redundancy due to its design. Flying helicopters is just sketchy
TheVengeful148320@reddit
Interesting. Yeah sometimes I think about flying helicopters then I reconsider and go back to my airplanes.
lanky_and_stanky@reddit
They asked me if I wanted to go to Ospreys. IIRC 2 had crashed within 2 months on training missions, just prior to being asked that.
I was like, "No, thank you."
CannonAFB_unofficial@reddit
Yeah we had 2 people in my UPT class of 21 who diehard wanted it, and both got it. One from T-1s and one from T-38s. If you want AFSOC and to be in the actual shit, the Osprey will get you there.
0621Hertz@reddit
How does V-22 selection work in UPT? I didn’t know you can go T-1 or T-38 to the Osprey.
In the Navy/Marines it’s T-6 > T-57 > T-44. You select from T-6 and do a short T-57 course. Then you do the full T-44 course.
Spark_Ignition_6@reddit
Recently changed and only drops to the rotary students now, not UPT students.
0621Hertz@reddit
So theoretically now you can be an Osprey pilot with zero FW experience?
CannonAFB_unofficial@reddit
Honestly these days who knows. It was T-6, track either T-1 or T-38, put ospreys and probably get it. AFSOC had/has a preference of 38 trained if they have any say because of the higher stress and workload with the 38 pipeline but I think they will take anyone who wants the lifestyle. Now I have no clue. I wouldn’t be shocked if people went to Rucker to learn to fly a chopper with the Army like the rest of our RW assets but you still should have fixed time before going to the CV-22 IMO.
0621Hertz@reddit
Interesting thought it was more straightforward.
The only thing the Navy can’t get their mind on right is the E-2. Sometimes it’s T-45 first then T-44, then the other way around, or you select “tailhook” and get it later on jet training. Not sure what it is now but seem to switch it up every 3 years.
alzee76@reddit
Of course they do, because it's safety record is basically perfectly average for rotorcraft but it's capabilities are crazy.
https://www.defenseone.com/ideas/2024/02/groupthink-gives-v-22-bad-rap/394420/
It's a good platform.
babyp6969@reddit
There are a lot of things wrong with this article and conclusion. Part of the problem with the Osprey is in the failure mode that’s killed a couple crews recently (a gear box failure), there is just about nothing the pilots can do. Also, Boeing can’t fix it outright. The “fix” has been inspecting/replacing parts more frequently, which the pilots weren’t happy with.
Safety data, especially comparing apples to oranges like the Osprey and Blackhawk, is easy to cherry pick to tell your story; that’s another factor here. I could easily argue against the author of your article with the same data.
Also, part of the reason the Osprey has a decent safety record is because it tells on itself before you take off. The aircraft has like a thousand tests it runs during preflight, many of which result in failures that prevent a go. In the military, this results in both low mission readiness and a propensity to take bad aircraft flying in higher pressure situations.
These points are kind of random, but my last one: the Osprey is a completely inappropriate platform for the Navy, and the program is in such a sorry state that they’ve considered repurposing the inventory. This goes against the notion that it’s some modern marvel, jack of all trades.
I could write a thesis on why this aircraft sucks, and many if not most of my old pilot buddies feel the same.
Source: I flew it.
Safe-Swimming@reddit
When you say the Osprey is an inappropriate aircraft for the “Navy” do you include the Marines?
I think we are the most heavily invested in the success of the V-22 platform. Come hell or high water it seems that the Osprey is our go-to well into the foreseeable future.
bjornbamse@reddit
So what should it be replaced with?
contrail_25@reddit
I know a few of the CMV folks, there is a surprising level of disgruntledness (new word) towards the osprey in that community, literally from the start. It was very noticeable as I spent more time with them during program meetings and such. Could be the mix of C-2 and ‘60 bubbas, could be a lot of things, either way it was noticeable. I haven’t seen that level with the Marines or my AFSOC friends. So it is something I find interesting. All that said, I completely agree that the CMV is not what the Navy needs for COD.
One of my buddies compared the PRGB failure to that of a wing falling off a normal plane. We get it, it’s fatal, there is nothing we can do. I have a lot of personal views on all these things, but I’m not going to rehash them here every six months one of these articles comes out.
Was kinda funny to see guys I flew with in this article.
Source: I flew it for 12 years.
contrail_25@reddit
I know a few of the CMV folks, there is a surprising level of disgruntledness (new word) towards the osprey in that community, literally from the start. It was very noticeable as I spent more time with them during program meetings and such. Could be the mix of C-2 and ‘60 bubbas, could be a lot of things, either way it was noticeable. I haven’t seen that level with the Marines or my AFSOC friends. So it is something I find interesting. All that said, I completely agree that the CMV is not what the Navy needs for COD.
One of my buddies compared the PRGB failure to that of a wing falling off a normal plane. We get it, it’s fatal, there is nothing we can do. I have a lot of personal views on all these things, but I’m not going to rehash them here every six months one of these articles comes out.
Was kinda funny to see guys I flew with in this article.
Source: I flew it for 12 years.
conaan@reddit
A gearbox failing in that manner is not going to be recoverable on a 60 either, and parts replacement is the exact fix that is necessary for that. I get it, it's not the idea that pilots want to hear, but that's the reality of failure.
Would far rather take an osprey over a shitter, especially after knowing the sketchy work done to make the flight schedule for them, them boys ain't right
nopantspaul@reddit
I think it’s pretty telling that the branch with the most experience procuring rotorcraft (Army) doesn’t operate it.
earosner@reddit
The army is currently procuring a tiltrotor for FLRAA.
Guysmiley777@reddit
That's because the Army got butthurt and took their ball and went home during the design phase, long before even a single prototype flew.
NuclearStrawberry@reddit
Yeah, those are some great points, and that is kind of the prevailing feeling on the Navy side. The Navy got itself into a bad situation by waiting too long to consider the replacement for the C-2, and the Osprey was least expensive of some not great options.
Problem is, a lot of the compromises that were made to allow it to be a flexible aircraft don't make sense for a dedicated COD platform, and the flight time restrictions that came after the most recent red-stripe are much more restrictive for the COD mission than the Marines or Air Force.
I do love the aircraft, but man it's definitely a case of making it work in a job it wasn't made for.
Slogstorm@reddit
It doesn't specify deaths per flight hours for the other crafts though, making it impossible to compare...
Arizonaman5304@reddit
The Osprey has a better safety record than the Blackhawk btw
Reasonable-World9@reddit
Is that total number of incidents or adjusted to reflect the fact that there are a million more Blackhawks in service?
Arizonaman5304@reddit
Fatality Rate / Class A Mishap Rate / Total Deaths / Average Annual Hours All rates per 100,000 flight hours.
H-60 Pavehawk 6.89 / 3.26 / 55 / 19,953
V-22 Osprey 3.43 / 6.00 / 12 / 5,299
Source: https://www.safety.af.mil/Divisions/Aviation-Safety-Division/Aviation-Statistics/
noheroesnomonsters@reddit
So the V-22 is almost twice as likely to be involved in a Class A incident?
GreatScottGatsby@reddit
Some of those class A mishaps are just due to being damaged and the fact that it is more expensive to repair. We once had a v22 have a class a mishap due the landing gear giving out while it was being pushed with a tug. Unlike the Blackhawk, a lot of the structural damage that happens to a v22 can't actually be repaired. Almost every component that has structural damage gets a bcm 9 either due to the fact that we can't weld titanium or due to the fact that a lot of the carbon fiber can't be repaired by the mechanics. So they just order a new part. Everything was always, "beyond maximum allowable damage" and the max was always zero even for depot level repairs.
noheroesnomonsters@reddit
Definition from the posted link.
GreatScottGatsby@reddit
Yes, some structural damage cost well over 2.5 million. The Blackhawk cost six million total meanwhile the osprey cost almost ninety million. A single panel on an osprey could be worth nearly sixty thousand dollars to replace and that is only in parts. So something like tipping over while being jacked for a black hawk is no big deal but if an osprey loses its gear or tips over then there is a chance for a blade strike, damage to landing gear, external sensors, damage to the hub and so much more. A single panel can cost as much as sixty thousand dollars on the osprey. The point im making, it is very easy for the osprey to hit that 2.5 million dollar limit. So yes, the osprey by shear cost alone will have more class a mishaps.
boi_skelly@reddit
2.5 million is less than you think if you hit the wrong parts. A prop strike on a turboprop is gonna be a million mininum for the engine itself, plus you have all the downstream price of engine truss, firewall, thats just parts. You add man hours and engineer hours, that's a hefty chunk of change.
Maydayman@reddit
People have been shitting on journalism for a while now and I get it now. Let’s take a stance, pump as much of it into a shitty article, throw a clickbait title on it and reap that sweet sweet ad revenue.
Guysmiley777@reddit
Lazy, shitty article.
Andreas1120@reddit
Here we go again.