Japan Today
national

Japan Osprey crash caused by cracks in gear and pilot’s decision to keep flying, Air Force says

39 Comments
By TARA COPP

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

© Copyright 2024 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed without permission.

©2025 GPlusMedia Inc.


39 Comments
Login to comment

That's a finding indicating serious and unacceptable problems. Both a mechanical fault and flagrant human error.

The planes and their pilots need to be grounded and the manufacturing issue and training must be overhauled before it ever flies again.

1 ( +9 / -8 )

Interesting. In the helicopters I flew if you had a chip light you could try "zapping" it, meaning a jolt of electricity to see if the chip burns off and was just some fuzz floating around in the gearbox oil. If not and the chip light persisted it became either a "Land as soon as possible" or in the SH-3 a "Land Immediately" emergency. You never messed with a chip light. In peace time the mission is never so important that you risk losing an aircraft and crew. You just don't.

Now the JPOs problem will be to determine if the problem with the pinion gear is confined to one production lot due to a manufacturing or material defect, or something that affects the entire Osprey fleet.

16 ( +17 / -1 )

No more flying crap "made in USA" over Japan..

-17 ( +6 / -23 )

And over the rest of the world..

-13 ( +7 / -20 )

-The planes and their pilots need to be grounded.

No. Now that the failed part is identified it can be managed. We used to do 50 hour inspections on the forward gearbox of the Chinook looking for cracks in the big ring gear after a deadly crash of a Civil Chinook in the North Sea. On the CH-46 there was an identified weakness in what is called the "quill shaft" which transmitted the power from the two engines to the aft main gearbox that forced us to reduce the max airspeed we could use form 145 knots to 120 knots. We lived with that for a few yeas until the entire fleet of CH-46s went in for a major upgrade program that included a strengthened quill shaft. Overhauled and modified '46s were cleared for 145 knots again. On the SH-3 you had to exercise great care on touchdown to consciously move the cyclic stick forward an inch or, as you lowered the collective, the rotor blades would droop and chop the tail boom. I've seen that one happen! That is better than the Russian Mi-8 Hip, the Soviet answer to the SH-3. If the pilot used too much back stick in one of those while flying they could chop the tail boom off. Same problem with the Mi-24 Hind gunship because they are based on the Mi-8.

Every aircraft has something like that you have to work around. This is nothing new in aviation. If the Marines in particular park the V-22 you might as well not have a Marine Corps. They literally cannot do their mission without it.

9 ( +11 / -2 )

That's a finding indicating serious and unacceptable problems. Both a mechanical fault and flagrant human error.

The planes and their pilots need to be grounded and the manufacturing issue and training must be overhauled before it ever flies again.

There’s no indication in the article that the damaged gear was a result of a manufacturing issue

-1 ( +4 / -5 )

What causes cracks in the Osprey's gears in the first place? Apparently, it's because of the excessive load that is the structure of the Osprey. 

In other words, Ospreys are mechanically defective by nature from the very beginning, I assume.

-4 ( +4 / -8 )

Why does the USA still have Ospreys flying over Japan? Why does it still occupy Japan? Blows my mind.

-18 ( +4 / -22 )

Why does the USA still have Ospreys flying over Japan? Why does it still occupy Japan? Blows my mind.

What occupation? Do you understand what the word occupation means? If you understand what it means, why are you using it incorrectly? If you don’t understand what it means, why are you using it?

Don’t worry, I’ll educate you: U.S. military bases in Japan are located under the Japan-U.S. Security Treaty. If Japan wants to unilaterally remove U.S. military bases, it must abrogate this treaty. It is stated that both countries can abrogate the treaty at any time, and if abrogation is declared, it will cease to be effective after one year.

Now can you please explain to me how anything I just posted regarding the relationship between the U.S. and Japan is an “occupation”?

5 ( +9 / -4 )

What causes cracks in the Osprey's gears in the first place? Apparently, it's because of the excessive load that is the structure of the Osprey. 

In other words, Ospreys are mechanically defective by nature from the very beginning, I assume.

If this was the case, then wouldn’t logic dictate that all ospreys would have this problem? Again, using your logic this is the natural result of the osprey itself so more should be having this issue, no?

-3 ( +2 / -5 )

There’s no indication in the article that the damaged gear was a result of a manufacturing issue

That's what I'm saying. They now have to figure out if the failure was due to a manufacturing flaw or some shortcoming in the materials used, and if that flaw is confined to one lot of pinion gears or is common to the all of them.

5 ( +6 / -1 )

If this was the case, then wouldn’t logic dictate that all ospreys would have this problem? Again, using your logic this is the natural result of the osprey itself so more should be having this issue, ===

They apparently don't know enough yet to say that. They know what component failed but have not determined why. Once you know why you can then find out if the problem is common to every pinion shaft ever produced or only applies to one defective lot. Stay tuned. They will figure this out. I worked in that arena for a time. They have smart people who are tenacious.=

5 ( +6 / -1 )

Sensor warning ignored six times? On the same flight?

Sorry, but that's pilot error. I feel for the others that were killed by this idiot.

12 ( +13 / -1 )

Boondoggle project from start to today burning billions of dollars and leaving dead bodies (RIP) in its wake.

Don't forget the DoD wanted to cancel the program and then the pork barrel was rolled out.

-9 ( +1 / -10 )

Don't forget the DoD wanted to cancel the program and then the pork barrel was rolled out.

Naval Air Systems Command, the agency charged with developing it for the Marines (who are part of the Navy and who's pilots are Naval Aviators trained alongside Navy pilots) tried to cancel the program several times but the Marines always went over the Navy's head to Congress to keep it funded. The Marines did much the same decades earlier with the AV-8 Harrier. The Brits probably would not have operated the Harrier if the US Marines had not pushed so hard to complete its very difficult development. It too was difficult to fly and has a much higher mishap rate then the V-22 but like the V-22 the AV-8 makes certain things possible that no other aircraft can do for the Marines.

As it turned out the ubiquity of modern anti ship cruise missiles and ballistic missiles that allow an enemy to sit back hundreds of kilometers and pound the invasion force and landing beach with ordnance makes old fashioned beach landings a suicide mission. Something like the V-22 makes amphibious assaults possible across great distances keeping the ships over the horizon well away from enemy radars and missiles, and making it very hard for an enemy to predict where your forces are going to show up. Amphibious warfare without the V-22 or something very much like it is probably not possible today (something that is equally true for the Chinese btw). Never giving up on the V-22 was prescient as it turns out, the right tool for the job when nothing else can do the mission.

In any event you can go all the way back to the late 1950s to find examples of early US experimental tilt rotor and tilt wing aircraft including a big four engine XC-142 tilt wing transport that very nearly made production in the 1960s. It's a capability the US has pursued for many decades.

8 ( +8 / -0 )

Man, what was Major Hoernemann thinking?

3 ( +3 / -0 )

When engineers design systems that are critical they also use logic by embedding caution and warnings in these systems when systems are not functioning properly or when a fault is detected. Sometimes the fault occur in flight and depending on the severity and level of the fault they continue. Reading the statement below it appears this is what Hoernemann was looking for. Perhaps they saw a yellow caution light and because it was not a red warning light he continued on because of the built in redundancy of the system. Most often we see most pilots don’t trust their instrumentation and this is why most of the accidents are fatal. He should have did a RTB and land as soon as practical instead of completing his mission.

According to the voice data recorder, Hoernemann and the crew were looking for secondary indications of a problem, such as the proprotor gearbox overheating, but saw none. So Hoernemann instead directed his co-pilot to keep monitoring the situation and elected to continue the 300-nautical-mile flight over water to Okinawa.

3 ( +3 / -0 )

They were flying over water. Where were they supposed to land?

1 ( +2 / -1 )

A dictionary at my hand says the word "occupation" means "the invasion, conquest and control of a nation or territory by foreign armed forces."

Allied forces, spearheaded by U.S. forces, had functioned as such until Japan recovered its sovereignty in 1952 as a result of the San Francisco Peace Treaty. But when Japan became independent, all occupation forces of the Allies had to withdraw, except for the U.S. forces that maintained bases and facilities the same as before.

Now, the U.S. forces had turned from occupation forces to treaty forces under the so-called security treaty that was forced upon Japan on the same day when the afore-mentioned Peace Treaty was signed.

On the surface, U.S. forces in Japan aren't occupation forces, but substantially they are. Come to Okinawa to see the true state of affairs’

-5 ( +1 / -6 )

voiceofokinawaToday 04:20 pm JST

Japan can terminate the security arrangement with the US at any time.

4 ( +6 / -2 )

That's a very detailed explanation, much more than what we usually get

Can't remember the last time we got such detailed explanation of any crash

Why does the USA still have Ospreys flying over Japan? Why does it still occupy Japan? Blows my mind.

The last current occupation in Japan is at the northern Kuril Islands

2 ( +3 / -1 )

Japan can terminate the security arrangement with the US at any time.

This. Your post will just get ignored though. These people can never let facts get in the way of their feelings

3 ( +5 / -2 )

The irony of USA military service people repeating over and over again that Japan is not an occupied nation.

-10 ( +0 / -10 )

The irony of USA military service people repeating over and over again that Japan is not an occupied nation.

Do you think that having foreign military service members in your country makes you occupied?

So according to you The U.S. would be occupied by Germany because the German Armed Forces Command is located in Reston Virginia, correct?

4 ( +5 / -1 )

deanzaZZRToday 12:13 am JST

The irony of USA military service people repeating over and over again that Japan is not an occupied nation.

The irony of a dictatorship fan promoting disarmament.

5 ( +6 / -1 )

The irony of USA military service people repeating over and over again that Japan is not an occupied nation

Talk to us about “human rights” Deanza…or will your “local authorities start paying close attention”

6 ( +6 / -0 )

TaiwanIsNotChina,

Japan can terminate the security arrangement with the US at any time.

 

Of course, Japan can terminate the security treaty itself anytime it considers suit. But that's when Japan and the U.S. go antagonistic against each other.

 

Do you want to wait till such a time will come?

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

voiceofokinawaToday 07:03 am JST

Of course, Japan can terminate the security treaty itself anytime it considers suit. But that's when Japan and the U.S. go antagonistic against each other.

I wouldn't say antagonistic, but Japan will be doing its own security until something else is agreed with the US. Of course if you then move the Chinese or Russians in, THEN the US would be antagonistic.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

TaiwanIsNotChina: Aug. 3 09:33 am JST,

You haven't denied my contention that USFJ are basically occupation forces because they retain all rights to bases and areas they took as occupation forces.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

Occupation forces which never left. The one chance was the first Security Treaty renewal in 1960 with the huge protests across Tokyo. Of course the LDP under Uncle Sam's thumb played dirty.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anpo_protests

-4 ( +0 / -4 )

They were flying over water. Where were they supposed to land?

They flew no more than 16 miles from a good landing site and the co-pilot wanted to land there as a precaution but the pilot in command elected to continue over water. Bad headwork.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

You haven't denied my contention that USFJ are basically occupation forces because they retain all rights to bases and areas they took as occupation forces.

Just as with the Philippines in 1992 or Libya a few decades before that if the Japanese government asked US Forces to leave they would. US forces are there because the Japanese government wants them there. If they change their mind US forces would leave.

3 ( +3 / -0 )

deanzaZZRToday 12:56 pm JST

Occupation forces which never left. The one chance was the first Security Treaty renewal in 1960 with the huge protests across Tokyo. Of course the LDP under Uncle Sam's thumb played dirty.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anpo_protests

It was the 60s. Can you imagine the Japanese today protesting like that?

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Desert Tortoise: Today 01:12 pm JST

Didn't U.S. forces leave the Philippines because it was much cheaper for them to be stationed in Japan?  If you were to be in the Philippines, you had to clean up the thick ashes fallen from the Pinatubo Volcano.

By contrast, base land is provided to U.S. forces free of charge; more than 70% of base maintenance costs is borne by Japanese taxpayers.; U.S. service members enjoy a lot more perquisites in serving in Japan thanks to Tokyo's generosity.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

the philippines terminated the agreement for u.s. forces. the uss midway and accompanying vessels transferred to yokosuka and clark airbase closed.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

voiceofokinawaToday 05:40 pm JST

By contrast, base land is provided to U.S. forces free of charge; more than 70% of base maintenance costs is borne by Japanese taxpayers.; U.S. service members enjoy a lot more perquisites in serving in Japan thanks to Tokyo's generosity.

Japan gets the security of having US troops in the line of fire, base jobs, and base spending in exchange for its paying a fraction of the cost of hosting the troops.

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

The irony of USA military service people repeating over and over again that Japan is not an occupied nation.

They're wrong; Japan is still an occupied nation - their northern Kuril Islands are still occupied by Russians

1 ( +1 / -0 )

TaiwanIsNotChina,

 There's no doubt that USFJ are basically occupation forces. For there was a seamless transition for them to transform from occupation forces to treaty forces. Bases and areas they used during the occupation have remained the same as ever before. You haven't refuted that.argument of mine.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites