Search efforts continue after U.S. Osprey crashes into sea; one death confirmed

At least another army has good common sense for not using that aircraft,

https://www.military.com/defensetech/2013/10/18/will-the-army-ever-buy-the-v-22-osprey

while another branch outside army think that personnel are expendable. So they keep using that, this is not first osprey accident in Japan.

https://www.marinecorpstimes.com/news/your-marine-corps/2016/12/16/second-osprey-incident-on-okinawa/

That scrap is a danger for it to fly over Japanese territory, return all that flying garbage to where it belongs..

Poor soldiers! They can't say "I don't wanna get in Osprey".

I thought Japan was supposed to be buying a load of these. Does this mean the deal is off?

I thought Japan was supposed to be buying a load of these. Does this mean the deal is off?

Japan took delivery of their 17 Ospreys. All are operational.

Why do they crash regularly?

That big propellers make glitches over time. Bigger propeller makes more severe vibrations. Those always need perfect maintenance. If engineers overlook a little glitch, then it crashes.

No backsies?

Japan took delivery of their 17 Ospreys. All are operational.

I would like to see how the Ospreys compare with Helicopters according to their rates of accidents.

Why do they crash regularly?

Poor design, poor maintenance, or poor piloting.

poor souls, RIP

Sadly, the widowmaker strikes again...

So many aviation engineering experts commenting here........

Have any of these "experts" who are decrying the operational abilities of this aircraft type ever actually worked on aircraft of any type?

I have. 22 years on active duty, 16 years in military aviation, 8 different types.

Maybe reserve your criticism to topics you actually know about.

And how about a little compassion for those still missing, likely dead, and their families, friends and colleagues.

I understand the accident rate for this aircraft per 100,000 hours of flying time is relatively good, but the bigger question to me is crew survivability with this design if anything goes wrong with either engine.

Only the Japanese will decide if the US troops are needed or not. For the time being, the answer is yes.

Two types of Ospreys: 1)Those that have crashed and 2) Those that are going to crash.

Only the Japanese will decide if the US troops are needed or not. For the time being, the answer is yes.

but they don't want Osprey flying over residences. US helicopter crashed into city in the past.

virusrexToday  08:38 am JST

I would like to see how the Ospreys compare with Helicopters according to their rates of accidents.

It's not hard to look up.

"If you look at the death rate per 100,000 flight hours, the Osprey is not even close to the “most lethal” to fly. Alex Hollings of Sandboxx media points out that the UH-60 Black Hawk helicopter has resulted in far more deaths (more than 180 military and civilian deaths in non-combat-related crashes in its first 33 years of service), and is still considered “the safest helicopter the US military has ever flown.”

https://ig.space/commslink/v-22-osprey-does-it-deserve-its-controversial-reputation

David BrentToday  08:22 am JST

Why do they crash regularly?

They don't. But every time they do the media and osprey-haters jump on it. Nobody pays attention to the far greater number of of non-osprey crashes.

I heard some eyewitnesses saw the crash. They say that Osprey's one engine was burning and suddenly blew up in the sky before landing. The accident seems not pilot's fault. The engine was a cause, so called mechanical problem. If maintenance engineers did good job (maybe changing parts), this accident would not have happened there.

The nefarious history of the Osprey is marked by crashes almost yearly resulting in the deaths of many US servicemen. Initially the US Department of defense had strongly opposed the development of the Osprey because it was determined to be unreliable and deficient in meeting operational requirements. The four year battle to stop the development of the Osprey was overcome by Republican members of Congress who wanted to have the Osprey built in their constituent States.

These flying lemons should all be thrown on a giant garbage heap.

Ospreys are flying on a thin rope of computerized systems. So if there occurs any glitch in the aircraft’s system, it loses the balance of the aircraft instantly, leading to a serious accident like this, it seems to me.

Okinawa’s public opinion is boiling over this incident, demanding no Osprey be deployed here.

Japanese culture being so risk adverse, it's likely those 17 Ospreys that JSDF purchased will rust away in some hanger unused.

Still, Kishida says they need to raise taxes.

The delusion of "complete safety" with VTOL turboprops as well as helicopters seems believable when you can safely land these machines with an engine failure or both engines out even on a tennis court.

Even in a ditching you have far less impact forces than if you had to ditch and airplane.

The EXTREMELY serious risk is the rotary wing part of the equation:

Break a single rotor blade nearly any phase of flight and the aircraft is unsaveable you are never going home.

Nor can you make effective emergency procedures for this scenario. Today's materials are very good and maintenance scheduling is extremely effective but no guarantee if you hit a flock of birds with your rotor it will stay intact...

MAYBE after we have mature nanotechnology materials revolution and you can make them out of carbon nanotubes with graphene coating they will be practically indestructible. till then ...

A witness says the aircraft went upside down suddenly, with one of the engines exploding and inflaming, nose-dived and crashed into the sea in no time.

He also noted the propellor flying off as the engine exploded.

"If you look at the death rate per 100,000 flight hours, the Osprey is not even close to the “most lethal” to fly. Alex Hollings of Sandboxx media points out that the UH-60 Black Hawk helicopter has resulted in far more deaths (more than 180 military and civilian deaths in non-combat-related crashes in its first 33 years of service), and is still considered “the safest helicopter the US military has ever flown.”

If you ever saw how Blackhawks were used in Germany during the Cold War, the way the Army conducts a heliborn assault and the kinds of snowstorms they would fly in, plus the wire strikes from always flying below 50 feet above ground level, necessary to defeat Soviet air defenses of the time, you might understand why the Army wadded up a lot of helicopters. They trained the way they would fight and it the equipment was used to the limits of its performance. You had to be a military pilot back then but we were very much afraid of a Soviet attack and trained like they were going to attack tomorrow.

Japanese culture being so risk adverse, it's likely those 17 Ospreys that JSDF purchased will rust away in some hanger unused.

Based on images in the defense press they seem to be used regularly. But I will bet the Japanese manage to achieve the best safety record of any V-22 operator, just as the JASDF did with the F-104.

I understand the accident rate for this aircraft per 100,000 hours of flying time is relatively good, but the bigger question to me is crew survivability with this design if anything goes wrong with either engine.

The CH-46 had a bad reputation for breaking in half in flight, but that was because the crew figured out a way to bypass an interlock so they could use a feature in forward flight was supposed to only be used in a hover (the co-pilot would stick his hand out of the side window and put a finger over the pitot tube to fool the flight control system into thinking the helo was in a hover). This over stressed the aft pylon and caused in flight break ups.

All the cough cough "experts" swore the aircraft was inherently dangerous. I have over a thousand hours in them and they are safe if you adhere to the flight manual and respect the various operating limits.

Like the CH-46, the rotors of the V-22 are connected with a synch shaft. If an engine fails a sprag clutch, a one way clutch, disconnects the engine from the drive line and the good engine powers both rotors. Pretty much every multi engine helicopter I am acquainted with has something similar. Both the CH-46 and CH-47 have a long shaft connecting the mix box to the forward transmission and a shorter "quill shaft" to the aft transmission. I have survived an engine failure in a civil CH-46. But it sounds like this Air Force CV-22 had an in flight engine fire over blue water. That's a tough one. They have on board fire fighting systems but sometimes it isn't enough. I won't second guess the aircraft commander whether or not they should have tried a controlled ditch first. I know the Air Force crews go through the same water survival training Navy and Marine Corps pilots do. because I have rode the "Helo Dunker" with them when I was active duty.