U.S. Osprey with 6 aboard crashes into ocean near Yakushima; one death confirmed

Safe as houses, never been any trouble with this aircraft. Why the people of Okinawa don't want it flying over their houses is a complete mystery.

This aircraft has the worst safety record ever.

Crashed in Japan again?

https://www.scmp.com/news/asia/east-asia/article/2054481/us-osprey-flights-japan-halted-after-crash-okinawa

Best wishes for all aboard.

Luckily,there isn't much swell running,and the sea temp is still relatively high.

Crossing my fingers for the safe rescue of all eight personnel.

Good luck to everyone onboard.

I wonder how the Japanese media will run with it since the Japanese government has started to buy these aircraft and the media is controlled by the government?

When there was a spate of crashes 20 or so years ago the Marine Corps was left out to dry by the Japanese media, but since things have changed so much since then it will be interesting to see their take.

This aircraft has the worst safety record ever.

Not even close!

https://aerocorner.com/blog/worst-aircraft-still-in-service/

Don't always throw this kind of garbage in the air, better completely recycle it, before the next people die. Anyway, they won't listen and learn and I even know already what will happen instead. Here thumbs down, and there the next stubborn Osprey starts, tragedies and dead counts.

It is incapable of autorotation.

Huge design flaw.

Yes the Osprey has had its challenges. USMC or the Department of Navy should take action on this aircraft.

Ground them and decommission them and just go back to and updated  CH-53K King Stallion or something known for reliability.  

We got 8 Marines out there. Hoping for the best.

I think there is an 'incident' involving an Osprey at least once a year either in Japan or globally, and the reaction from the "Team America" peeps is always "They are safer than helicopters". Hmmm, maybe they should think about either correcting the design flaw or leaving Asia all together.

Dang. That sucks. No wonder Okinawans don't them anywhere near their land.

Hope the crew is ok.

Since it's introduction the Osprey has a mishap rate of a little over 3/100,000 flight hours. That's not a bad track at all and a lot better than many more traditional rotary wing and fixed wing aircraft that many of you consider safe without a second thought. If you're decrying the Osprey as overly dangerous and accident prone you don't know what you're talking about.

That one of the engines burst into flames doesn't exactly inspire confidence.

 If you're decrying the Osprey as overly dangerous and accident prone you don't know what you're talking about.

The jury is unconvinced. As others have suggested here, the Osprey seems to an unusually accident prone aircraft. "Death traps" would be another way of putting it. I don't see how you could dispute that. What are these "many" other traditional aircraft that have worse track records? Do you have any evidence to support such claims?

Since it's introduction the Osprey has a mishap rate of a little over 3/100,000 flight hours. That's not a bad track at all and a lot better than many more traditional rotary wing and fixed wing aircraft that many of you consider safe without a second thought. If you're decrying the Osprey as overly dangerous and accident prone you don't know what you're talking about.

Shhhh.... you can't tell facts to people who already believe the fiction!

The Osprey is a widow maker and always will be since its inception! ! ! !

Can it even fly on one engine?

Very few people pay any attention to the far greater fixed wing and rotary accidents which occur all the time all over the world. But if an Osprey is involved the media hypes it up and the anti-osprey crowd get to go wild. AS already pointed out the Osprey has less accidents per flight hours than other craft.

I was talking with an American serviceman a couple of years ago. "What do you do?" I asked. He replied that he was an aircraft engineer. Seizing my chance, I asked him what he thought of the Osprey, as an aircraft engineer. "I won't touch them. I will not work on them. They are a death trap." He replied. His words, not mine.

AS already pointed out the Osprey has less accidents per flight hours than other craft.

Who is AS and, more importantly, where is the evidence for these claims?

We got 8 Marines out there. Hoping for the best.

There were six on board and it flew out of Yokota so the aircrew were like Air Force.

I was talking with an American serviceman a couple of years ago. "What do you do?" I asked. He replied that he was an aircraft engineer. Seizing my chance, I asked him what he thought of the Osprey, as an aircraft engineer. "I won't touch them. I will not work on them. They are a death trap." He replied. His words, not mine.

Can't even count how many times the thing crashed. They need to just ground the plane at this point, I don't think it will be the last time that this will happen.

Coffin with wings! Just shows how much the US cares about its personnel!

BertieWooster

I was talking with an American serviceman a couple of years ago. "What do you do?" I asked. He replied that he was an aircraft engineer. Seizing my chance, I asked him what he thought of the Osprey, as an aircraft engineer. "I won't touch them. I will not work on them. They are a death trap." He replied. His words, not mine.

He couldn't refuse an order.

Dr MaybeToday  07:45 pm JST

AS already pointed out the Osprey has less accidents per flight hours than other craft.

Who is AS and, more importantly, where is the evidence for these claims?

Please learn how to use Google.

"the Osprey is statistically among the safer military aircraft if you look at the numbers. While 13 crashes and 51 fatalities in 33 years might sound like a lot, crashes are an unfortunate fact of life in military aviation, particularly when you have to fly low, fast, and in the dark. For example, the excellent F-15 Eagle has experienced around 125 aircraft losses in mishaps, though none in air-to-air combat.

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.”

Hollings references General Jorge Martinez, who says the V-22 has a lower crash death rate per 100,000 flight hours than the Harrier, the F/A-18 Super Hornet, the F-35B, or the Sikorsky CH-53E Super Stallion."

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

Dr MaybeToday  07:45 pm JST

AS already pointed out the Osprey has less accidents per flight hours than other craft.

Who is AS and, more importantly, where is the evidence for these claims?

Please learn how to use Google.

"the Osprey is statistically among the safer military aircraft if you look at the numbers. While 13 crashes and 51 fatalities in 33 years might sound like a lot, crashes are an unfortunate fact of life in military aviation, particularly when you have to fly low, fast, and in the dark. For example, the excellent F-15 Eagle has experienced around 125 aircraft losses in mishaps, though none in air-to-air combat.

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.”

Hollings references General Jorge Martinez, who says the V-22 has a lower crash death rate per 100,000 flight hours than the Harrier, the F/A-18 Super Hornet, the F-35B, or the Sikorsky CH-53E Super Stallion."

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

What qualifies as a "mishap"?

An emergency light coming on in the cockpit or falling from the sky killing all the occupants?

I would like to express my condolences to the American military personnel who lost their lives in the line of duty.

May the remaining bereaved families find peace.

Why are Osprey accidents reported so often?

It is well known in Japan that Japanese news organizations are pandering to China and South Korea.

The Osprey is seen as a very dangerous weapon for China.

This is because they have an overwhelmingly longer cruising range than helicopters and are better at transporting people than helicopters.

China does not want Ospreys deployed in various parts of Japan.

Therefore, it goes without saying what kind of coverage China wants Japanese media outlets to report on Ospreys.

If the Japanese people recognize that the Osprey is dangerous and launch a movement against its deployment, the Japanese media will have fulfilled its role.

Over many years the Osprey has had many malfunctions resulting in accidents . . . . hopefully the aircraft engineers will continue to work on better solutions . . . .

I can’t believe the misinformation spewed among the comments here. The Osprey isn’t any worse than most other rotor wing aircraft when it comes to safety. Here’s just one example: In the 33 years since the Osprey started flying, 51 service members have died in crashes. In the first 33 years the H-60 Black Hawk flew, more than 180 American service members and civilians died in non-combat-related crashes. Fear-mongering is unbecoming. Accidents happen with any and all aircraft and motorized equipment, but to say that the Osprey has the worst safety record of any aircraft is false and an outright lie.

Ban these death traps from flying and crashing in Japan!

KumagaijinNov. 29 06:28 pm JST

I think there is an 'incident' involving an Osprey at least once a year either in Japan or globally, and the reaction from the "Team America" peeps is always "They are safer than helicopters". Hmmm, maybe they should think about either correcting the design flaw or leaving Asia all together.

Those are two completely incongruous solutions, but always good for the anti-Americans to identify themselves.

This aircraft has the worst safety record ever.

Far from it. Among current active aircraft in the Navy/Marine Corps inventory the C-20 Gulfstream IV has far and away the highest mishap rate, more than double that of the V-22. Older F/A-18C and D models also have higher mishap rates. and I believe the old CH-53E does too. They don't crash as frequently because they don't fly as much. They are difficult and hideously costly to maintain, and are down a lot. We used to joke that our Navy CH-53Es were static displays they were broken so often.

Historically there were aircraft like the F-104 that were so difficult to fly that some air forces crashed a quarter of the F-104s they ever bought ( while the JASDF had the best safety record of any F-104 operator ). The USAF crashed 288 B-47 bombers, 203 of which were destroyed out of some 2,000 procured. Ten percent of the fleet crashed. Going back further the USAF managed to crash over 2,400 F-86 Saber Jets, these are non combat mishaps, of these 1,422 were a total loss. The follow on F-100 Super Saber wasn't much safer with 1,161 Class A mishaps and 889 of these written off as a total loss.

What qualifies as a "mishap"?

That is the official term for pranging and aircraft. Depending on the dollar value of the repairs needed, or if the aircraft is a total loss, there can be a Class A, B, C, D, or E mishap. Here are the current definitions.

https://navalsafetycommand.navy.mil/Resources/Current-Mishap-Definitions/

I think there is an 'incident' involving an Osprey at least once a year either in Japan or globally, and the reaction from the "Team America" peeps is always "They are safer than helicopters". Hmmm, maybe they should think about either correcting the design flaw or leaving Asia all together.

In 90% of aviation mishaps, the "design flaw" is the human flying it. 90% of aviation mishaps are pilot or maintenance error, mistakes traceable to human shortcomings and often shortcomings in leadership. That is true for pretty much every aircraft operator in the world.

What qualifies as a "mishap"?

Serious question for our US military folks?

What does this actually mean?

What does this actually mean?

Anything that causes personnel injury or death and/or material damage or destruction of property

"Mishap" is a euphemism.

Definition: A mishap is an unfortunate but not very serious event that happens to someone.

An aircraft crashing is a very serious accident.