politics

Pentagon officials try to reassure Japan over Osprey aircraft

69 Comments

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

© 2012 AFP

©2020 GPlusMedia Inc.

69 Comments
Login to comment

Looking at the picture, i can see why it had some issues during development, but after 20 years, i'm sure it's all been sorted out.

1 ( +3 / -2 )

If I had to choose between a flight in the MV-22 or an ANA flight I'd be in the Osprey without a second thought! The only thing dangerous about this aircraft is the negative hype the Japanese media is spoon-feeding the population.

-1 ( +3 / -4 )

Very old photo indeed... the V-22 isn't even the same thing as an MV-22 (everything from body to turbines are different)

140000 hours and just 13 crashes? While certainly higher than commercial aviation, it is not worse than helicopter which has an average of 12.7 per 100000 hours (resulting in almost 18 crashes for 140000 hours).

3 ( +5 / -2 )

And the Japanese response? "We don't need you to protect us from a non-existent enemy with your hazardous aircraft."

-7 ( +1 / -8 )

The US military is intending to deploy this aircraft in a highly built up area, with apartments, private housing, schools and hospitals crammed together in an extremely tight space.

The American politicians, like their Tokyo counterparts, are sitting in comfortable, air conditioned offices.

What do they care?

Commercial aircraft coming in and out of Okinawa land and take off over water.

Just ONE of these not exactly foolproof Ospreys crashing in the Futenma area would take tens, possibly hundreds of lives.

Time for the US to get out of Japan altogether.

We don't need your "protection" against imagined enemies.

Bye!

-3 ( +3 / -6 )

the accident was not due to mechanical problem

If so, I wonder if there are really very skilled pilots always to able to control to fly this aircraft. it seems that pilot's little mistakes would make a big crash and it seems to be extremely too difficult to fly this kind of aircraft. I don't think all pilots are always physically and mentally on best condition when they fly. Some of them might possibly be a little tired, a little drunk, a little sick, etc when they fly. This kinds of things would make a big crash. After all, a crash would get involved many residents down there

1 ( +2 / -1 )

The Welcome mat has long been gone.

3 ( +4 / -1 )

Talk about a hard sell - I'd hate to be these Pentagon officials! I can already picture those mobs down there in Okinawa, pitchforks in hand...

0 ( +1 / -1 )

johninnahaJun. 23, 2012 - 05:24PM JST

Just ONE of these not exactly foolproof Ospreys crashing in the Futenma area would take tens, possibly hundreds of lives.

Almost impossible. Ground fatalities in aircraft accidents are rare, even with commercial airplanes that take off and land in big cities. If any were to fall, you may find one or two casualties, only way to get 100 is to accidentally crash into a convoy of commercial car fuel parked under a highrise . And in that case, you should complain to someone else for leaving all that fuel unattended.

2 ( +5 / -3 )

Why do they need to reassure Japan? Japan and Okinawa is an unofficial part of the USA! Japanese must obey or leave the place they are illegal squatters.

-7 ( +1 / -8 )

i told you guys just keep watching no protest going to stop the ospey. japan is practically a us slave

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Time for the US to get out of Japan altogether. We don't need your "protection" against imagined enemies. Bye!

I thought we were talking about aircraft that are statistically safer than the ones being used now. You should be happy about their deployment. If you want a slightly more relevant excuse to rant about Americans having to get out, why not protest about the current Marine helicopters? Or perhaps the American sabotage of traditional Okinawan cuisine with Spam.

-2 ( +2 / -4 )

I thought we were talking about aircraft that are statistically safer than the ones being used now.

No, we're not.

We're talking about hazardous aircraft operated by the USA over Japanese land and citizens. There are no Japanese aircraft falling out of the sky causing damage and death.

We're talking about the Japanese not being cool with that. Japanese not being cool with the USA anymore. The anti-US sentiment growing because of what they stand for. NOt having a need for their so-called "protection" from nonexistent enemies.

On another note... Okinawa is to Japan what Puerto Rico is to the USA. I wonder what would happen if they hold a referendum on a continued "prefecture-hood", independence, or continuance of the "status quo " that includes the occupying US bases.

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

Can anyone answer me, if now after japan has baught off american troops to leave. Will the states be allowed to re-deploy troops to okinawa? or has japan only paid the 'vacations' of US troops until their gradual return to okinawa.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Why can't Japan just be neutral like Switzerland? Answer: MILITARY INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX

1 ( +2 / -1 )

only thing i'm concerned with is flying over schools.

1 crash could send okinawa into a riot situation.

A riot full of people who flew to Okinawa to take part in the anti american stance.

if your going to crash crash it on base.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

We're talking about hazardous aircraft operated by the USA over Japanese land and citizens.

Then demand the closure of international airports in Japan, too. US Airlines fly Boeing jets that have crash records. An American made Fed Ex plane crashed at Narita a few years ago. It's lucky no civilians were injured, but they might have been.

Your case against the Osprey doesn't legitimize the removal of US bases from Okinawa. Pure and simple. You are stretching the facts about the Osprey, making it appear as if this is the straw that broke the camel's back.

What does the "nonexistent enemies" rationale have to do with choice of helicopter? Would you approve if the military offered a noiseless, 100% crash-proof helicopter made of goose down? Of course you wouldn't. The helicopter has nothing to do with your argument. If you're for the elimination of US bases, fine. Just do it in the appropriate forum, and with appropriate argumentation.

Repeat: this story is about the safety of the Osprey. (And the hullaballoo about it.)

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

Japanese not being cool with the USA anymore. The anti-US sentiment growing because of what they stand for. Not having a need for their so-called "protection" from nonexistent enemies.

Clemens-san.

Exactly.

Finally, Japan is waking up.

Ohayo gozaimasu!

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

People in Japan better get used to the idea that the US will deploy new aircrafts and ships into US Forces bases in Japan and elsewhere. It the price of freedom or have you all forgotten about it.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Your case against the Osprey doesn't legitimize the removal of US bases from Okinawa. Pure and simple. You are stretching the facts about the Osprey, making it appear as if this is the straw that broke the camel's back.

After everything else that they were responsible for (do I really need to go into details?!!), I'd say your assessment is the correct one. Thanks for pointing it out FOR me!

Would you approve if the military offered a noiseless, 100% crash-proof helicopter made of goose down? Of course you wouldn't.

Correct again! Let me give you something to think about... Why are there (harzardous) US helicopters in Japan and what/who are they "protecting" the Japanese from? The answer has EVERYTHING to do with my argument regarding the MV-22 and the total elimination of US bases on Japanese soil.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

Japan should just make their own. This way creates jobs at home and they can even export it for extra profit.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

i wonder how many V-22 Osprey are actually flying today? As far as I know, there are less than 50 for Marines and 8 crash accidents so far. I thought so many Osprey aircraft are flying all over the world but actually not many. If so, 8 crash accidents should be a too big number in comparison with other ordinary aircraft accidents. I think commercial airplane crash accident can't compare with Osprey because commercial airplane crash accident rate will be one millionth, completely different rate from Osprey crash. I can't understand the idea that someone is insisting repeatedly Osprey is very safer aircraft or as safe as commercial airplane or safer than any airplane.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

They are just going to take off from Okinawa, most of the training will be done over the rest of Japan, not including Tokyo, Kyoto, Osaka and Fukuoka cities. I believe most of the training will be done flying over Kumamoto, Hiroshima, Aomori and Yamaguchi prefectures. Japanese service people train in the US all the time. Japanese pilots do target practice on an American base in Guam. Having these things buzz around Japan is necessary for Japan to be able to send troops for vital training in the US.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

kwatt - EIGHT out of FIFTY Osprey have crashed?

Wow!

That makes it very dangerous!

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Having these things buzz around Japan is necessary for Japan to be able to send troops for vital training in the US

How on Earth do you work that out?

0 ( +1 / -1 )

basroil... let me help you out!

Where is a patrol helicopter of the Maritime Self-Defense Force likely to crash?

In the ocean... As opposed to a school filled with little kids.

Where did Lieutenant Commander Masahiko Miyanaga actually crash it?

In the ocean.

What was the cause of the crash?

Unknown (as opposed to the facts of the Osprey crashes so far)

How many people were killed?

One. How many have been killed with the Osprey so far?

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

And yet the American media also say that the plane might not be as safe as claimed. http://www.cnn.com/2012/06/22/us/florida-osprey-crash/index.html?iref=allsearch

Are all claims of safety issues equally out to lunch or just when the Japanese people bring it up? Sorry, that does not wash. It doesn't matter who brings up the issue, safety is safety, and if you don't feel safe, you have the right to say.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

johninnahaJun. 24, 2012 - 12:27AM JST

kwatt - EIGHT out of FIFTY Osprey have crashed?

Wow!

That makes it very dangerous!

What nonsense is that? The marines alone have 97 MV-22, so I doubt kwatt has any actual facts to back it up. Additionally the vehicle is reported to have an accident half that of any other Marines rotor vehicle, including the two helicopters it will replace (that Japan also uses)

3 ( +4 / -1 )

Thanks Brad!

From CNN:

Air Force squadron commander removed after Osprey crash

An Air Force squadron commander has been removed a week after a tilt-rotor CV-22 Osprey crashed in Florida during a routine training mission, injuring five, military officials said Friday.

Officials were no longer confident in his effectiveness, said Col. Jim Slife, commander of the 1st Special Operations Wing.

"The challenges of the 8th Special Operations Squadron's demanding mission require new leadership to maintain the highest levels of precision and to reliably support the ground forces which count on the 8th SOS to safely accomplish their missions," Slife said in a statement, without providing details.

Lt. Col. Matt Glover of Austin, Texas, had led the 8th Special Operations Squadron since May 2011, according to the Hurlburt Field website. The squadron is one of nine operating in the wing.

Slife said the new squadron commander has extensive history in the Osprey program.

Yet, he was "able" to crash it....

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

What nonsense is that? The marines alone have 97 MV-22, so I doubt kwatt has any actual facts to back it up. Additionally the vehicle is reported to have an accident half that of any other Marines rotor vehicle, including the two helicopters it will replace (that Japan also uses)

But you're maintaining that the helicopters the Osprey is supposed to replace are actually more dangerous??

Do you actually realize what you're saying here??!!

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

basroil, try this...

If you were to have bough an illuminated (made in China) Christmas tree that caught fire while your kids were asleep in 2011, would you be able to reassure your kids in 2012 with another (made in China - but not of the 2011 production)Christmas tree?

Skip that "be able to?"

Would you even try to assure/persuade them?

Be honest now!

0 ( +1 / -1 )

@basroil

8 out of 97 aircraft is still a big number. the 8 crash accidents happened last 20 years since they started. Japan's commercial airplanes did not crash at least last 25 years and no one died of the crash. Osprey still seems to be not safe enough yet.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Clemens SimonJun. 24, 2012 - 12:56AM JST

Do you actually realize what you're saying here??!!

Statistical facts.

0 ( +3 / -3 )

basroil:

Statistical facts

Yes, and as you continue to provide those facts, I really need to thank you for it (all) as it's becoming clearer that you are really NOT pro-Osprey (or pro-USA occupation of Okinawa for that matter).

After all, you keep contradicting those "statistical facts" so nudge nudge wink wink eh?!

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

basroil:

You will never be able to assure me, my children or my children's (Japanese) friends and their (Japanese) family members who all live on Japanese soil, that your so-called "improved" (read hazardous as reported in the press) 2012 model aircraft or Christmas tree for that matter (as compared to your ever more hazardous 2011 model) is not gonna burn all of us to death. NO WAY IN HELL are you or your Pentagon buddies gonna persuade us to go along with that!

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

Being not a fan of an aircraft is not being "anti-American". Ronald Chan, ANA has not had a fatal accident since 1971. They fly millions of hours per year. The osprey flew about 140,000 hours in 5 years or 280 hours a year for each airframe. There were 2 fatal hours just this year. My numbers are basic but a commercial aircraft can fly 3000 hours a year easy. Given a choice I will fly on any airline before an Osprey.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

Osprey is supposed to airlift many Marines to battle fields or somewhere safely. If the manufacturers tried to apply this aircraft as commercial airplane, FAA would never admit Osprey as commercial airplane because this aircraft is very unsafe transportation if 8 crash accidents happened within 20 years.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Let's simplify...

If I had brought a Halloween prop to your house causing death and destruction during your party in 2011,

would you feel "assured" if I tell you that my 2012 prop works much better and surely won't kill your kids?

-4 ( +0 / -4 )

Osprey is supposed to airlift many Marines to battle fields or somewhere safely.

What battle fields - the ones in their make-believe Hollywood movies?

Last time I checked (65+ years) Japan didn't have any enemies!!!!!!!!!!

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

kwattJun. 24, 2012 - 02:05AM JST

Osprey is supposed to airlift many Marines to battle fields or somewhere safely. If the manufacturers tried to apply this aircraft as commercial airplane, FAA would never admit Osprey as commercial airplane because this aircraft is very unsafe transportation if 8 crash accidents happened within 20 years.

FAA is an USA agency and has no say over Japanese airspace. However, they did allow the 747, which had 14 hull-loss incidents (crashes that scrap the plane) within 20 years of first service. I doubt you think twice before boarding a 747, and so far they had 49 losses (more than one a year, or about 120% more than the V-22 average) and 2852 fatalities associated with them (more than 40 times the fatalities per year).

2 ( +3 / -1 )

I'm PROTESTING!

-4 ( +0 / -4 )

basroil there have been 1435 747's built since 1968. There have been 49 hull loss accidents with 2852 fatalities. To put the numbers in perspective think about the amount of passenger hours flown compared to the osprey. Second a single accident can kill 500 people. One of the hull loses was KAL flight 007 which was shot down by the Russians killing 269. Then there was Tenerife in which 2 747's collided on the runway killing 569 people. Against this number is the 7 billion hours of flight time. The Osprey has how many hours of flight time with 14 deadly accidents?

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

FAA is an USA agency and has no say over Japanese airspace.

I said if Osprey flew as commercial airplane over American airspace, not over Japanese. I'm not sure if your comments are correct. Many posters said many different things about Osprey accidents.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Osprey is an excellent products. However, I am sorry for the families of American military men who were killed when Osprey crushed.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

The Osprey already crashed twice this year alone. The military won't tell us why. But some here want everyone to be cool about it? I suppose they would also like the moon and fries with that too? How about a shoe shine? Anything else sir?

Oh, yeah sure, some people don't know anything about the Osprey, or care, and are just using this hub bub as a vehicle to protest the U.S. military presence in Okinawa. As if its not standard practice to ride on the backs of the hub bub du jour as every protest group in history has since time began. You think all that protesting by blacks was really just about Rosa Parks? If the Osprey deployment leads to the will of the people being recognized and acted on with regards to separate and greater matters, that's fine. Its not the like the rights of the Osprey are being trampled in the process.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

GrandJuryJun. 24, 2012 - 10:21AM JST

The Osprey already crashed twice this year alone. The military won't tell us why. But some here want everyone to be cool about it? I suppose they would also like the moon and fries with that too? How about a shoe shine? Anything else sir?

Why doesn't the Okinawan government release general aviation accidents? I'm sure you would see a fairly extensive accident log.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

YuriOtaniJun. 24, 2012 - 03:27AM JST

To put the numbers in perspective think about the amount of passenger hours flown compared to the osprey.

No, as the osprey is mainly cargo and dropoff. It generally has zero passengers. If you can find the statistics on cargo vehicle crashes, perhaps, though you should really compare it to helicopter crashes.

The Osprey has how many hours of flight time with 14 deadly accidents? Not sure where you got 14 deadly accidents from, that's twice the number I can find of actual crashes, and of those only five were actually deadly. For the MV-22 variant that they have 97 of though, just one deadly crash with four fatalities.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

the osprey is mainly cargo and dropoff. It generally has zero passengers.

b*llshit! Never seen pictures of marines jumping out of one, have you? What about the latest news articles... How many people (on board) were injured in Florida? Five, was it? Right.

Furthermore, the V-22 squadron's former commander at Marine Corps Air Station New River, Lieutenant Colonel Odin Lieberman, was relieved of duty in 2001 after allegations that he instructed his unit that they needed to falsify maintenance records to make the plane appear more reliable. Three officers were later implicated in the falsification scandal.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

"Clemens SimonJun. 23, 2012 - 08:48PM JST

We're talking about hazardous aircraft operated by the USA over Japanese land and citizens. There are no Japanese aircraft falling out of the sky causing damage and death.

That is not factually correct. A Mitsubishi H-60 helicopter crashed Apr. 15th of this year killing the pilot. The H-60 is a Japanese built aircraft for the JASDF. Why has Okinawa not complained about JASDF vehicles that are dangerous?

1 ( +2 / -1 )

Why has Okinawa not complained about JASDF vehicles that are dangerous?

Because they know their government knows why that helicopter crashed. It would say you have a blind spot, but its more like you have a deaf spot. I already explained the point that the U.S. military won't tell us why the Ospreys crashed, and Clemens Simon told you that a cover-up was clearly exposed. But you just are not listening. The Osprey could be the safest craft in the world, but it doesn't matter when the operators proceed like this.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

basroil:

A Mitsubishi H-60 helicopter crashed Apr. 15th of this year killing the pilot.

Yes, a patrol helicopter of the Maritime Self-Defense Force flying over... water, crashed over... water.

The Osprey flying over... wait foir it.... land, crashing over... yes?.... correct!

1 ( +1 / -0 )

I repeat:

falsify maintenance records to make the Osprey appear more reliable

1 ( +1 / -0 )

basroil... let me help you out!

Where is a patrol helicopter of the Maritime Self-Defense Force likely to crash?

In the ocean... As opposed to a school filled with little kids.

Where did Lieutenant Commander Masahiko Miyanaga actually crash it?

In the ocean.

What was the cause of the crash?

Unknown (as opposed to the facts of the Osprey crashes so far)

How many people were killed?

One.

How many have been killed with the Osprey so far?

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Wired has had a series of articles on this. The main issue is the rotors were moved too close together. The additional load on the engines has caused several catastrophic accidents. The only reason it was that close was the Marines wanted a smaller transport foot print so it could fit on a ship. It's the same design even when other branches use it.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

The Osprey is, to the Okinawan people, the tip of the iceberg.

The bit that shows above the surface.

Beneath the Osprey problem lies a gun happy U.S.A. A regime that is so insane and that shows such little trust in people that it imagines that force of arms creates peace!

This is what Okinawans don't want.

They don't want it from China, they don't want it from Honshu and they don't want it from the U.S.A.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Osprey is the most unique aircraft ever that has remarkable functions that can fly vertically like helicopter-hovering and go very fast horizontally like airplane. It seems that Osprey's takeoff and landing are extremely too difficult for ordinary marines pilots before flying fast horizontally. It also seems that most pilots always can not control to fly Osprey safely.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Boeing - Bell receives plenty $$$$ from US government. Can't it make a robot operating Osprey that will shift Osprey toward Pacific Ocean or Sea of Japan when to be crushed? Boeing - Bell does not have to promise of a hefty pay job to Pentagon officials once in a while. Just cargo transporting Osprey. Later, people transporting Osprey.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Clemens SimonJun. 24, 2012 - 12:41PM JST

Yes, a patrol helicopter of the Maritime Self-Defense Force flying over... water, crashed over... water.

I gave one recent example, if I cared enough to research though, I could probably find a dozen fatal crashes in the last two decades. However, it would requires access to reports that JASDF does not like to be made accessible. The US marines (who generally work near water) have been very forthcoming about accidents with their vehicles (when they crash in non-combat regions).

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

The landing strip at Futenma base where the US military in its wisdom wishes to deploy Ospreys is NOT over water.

It is surrounded by a very closely packed residential area, with schools, hospitals, apartment buildings and so on.

Why is it closely packed?

Because the US bases don't allow it any room.

Why is Kadena so widely packed with huge spaces between buildings?

Beats me!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

johninnahaJun. 24, 2012 - 11:20PM JST

The landing strip at Futenma base where the US military in its wisdom wishes to deploy Ospreys is NOT over water.

It is surrounded by a very closely packed residential area, with schools, hospitals, apartment buildings and so on.

You have cause and effect mixed up there. When the base went up, the surrounding towns had a population of just 12000 people (now easily fifty times that). The real question is why the residents who moved to the location built schools. hospitals, and apartments next to an active airfield.

The MV-22 has had very few issues in the last few years, especially compared to the CH-53 they are replacing. The CH-53, also used by the Japanese air forces, has caused fatalities for both the US and Japan, with almost seven times the fatalities as the osprey and an accident rate well above that of any other helicopter or vtol vehicle. The people in the area should be ecstatic that they are replacing the helicopter that crashed into a university with one that has a better flight record.

-2 ( +2 / -4 )

basroil, replacing a hazardous aircraft with a different type of hazardous aircraft doesn't make it safe.

The people you talk about so casually are not "ecstatic" because they see the simplicity in that deduction.

Why can't you?

1 ( +1 / -0 )

"Ours not to reason why. Ours but to do or die!"

Duh.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

No, it makes it more safe .

You mean safer? You're right, though. Let me rephrase...

replacing a hazardous aircraft with a less-hazardous aircraft still makes it hazardous.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Clemens SimonJun. 25, 2012 - 02:22AM JST

replacing a hazardous aircraft with a different type of hazardous aircraft doesn't make it safe.

No, it makes it more safe . This article is about the pressures put on the USM for trying to replace the MV-22, not about whether or not the USM should be in Okinawa.

Cars, trains, boats are also hazardous, yet we never hear them complain about that. In fact, more people involved with the MV-22 have died as a result of other vehicle accidents than from the MV-22.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

Cars, trains, boats are also hazardous, yet we never hear them complain about that.

Maybe that's because you're biased?

I hear Japanese complain about those forms of transportation all the time, in the papers, on tv, on blogs and in the supermarket lines.

Of course, they also demand suspension of operation, recalls and increased safety measures. Something the responsible companies/government operating those forms of transportation (Toyota and JR, to name but two) always comply with.

Why should the US of A be above this?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Clemens SimonJun. 25, 2012 - 01:07PM JST

Of course, they also demand suspension of operation, recalls and increased safety measures. Something the responsible companies/government operating those forms of transportation (Toyota and JR, to name but two) always comply with.

Rarely do consumers ask for suspensions or increased safety measures, it's always the governments and companies that declare that. The marines too stopped the use of V-22 type vehicles until certain issues were resolved. They also went through expensive and questionable necessary upgrades simply to improve safety.

The issues are clearly political ones, not actual engineering issues. The vehicles themselves are safe, and as pilots become more accustomed to the vehicles, accidents will be less and less likely.

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

Rarely do consumers ask for suspensions or increased safety measures

Do you not watch tv, basroil?

It's the mass-media, especially the morning/afternoon/weekend talk shows and evening news programs with all their commentators and talkshow hosts and guests chosen and supported by the public/viewers, that represent the voice of Japan.Look into Japanese TV viewer ratings and statistics...

Have you not watched the outrage on TV that went on for weeks when 52 incidents involving tires detaching from large Mitsubishi vehicles had been reported in 2003?

How about the train that derailed and crashed into an apartment building in Amagasaki in 2005?

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Clemens SimonJun. 25, 2012 - 01:43PM JST

Have you not watched the outrage on TV that went on for weeks when 52 incidents involving tires detaching from large Mitsubishi vehicles had been reported in 2003?

How about the train that derailed and crashed into an apartment building in Amagasaki in 2005?

Those are reactions to events, not to problems. The Mitsubishi one was an issue with vehicles made a decade earlier, and the company had already upgraded the design before any issues were even discovered by the public.

As for Amagasaki, there was nothing wrong with the train! It is just the case of a careless, young, inexperienced driver. The MV-22 is not a beginner craft, and they have several times the training required before a pilot can even get into the craft.

Again, the issues that are discussed are entirely politically motivated.

0 ( +3 / -3 )

replacing a hazardous aircraft with a less-hazardous aircraft still makes it hazardous

Amazing, that some people on here don't see that all aircraft are "hazardous". Some are more safe than others; i.e. MV-22 over the CH-53, hence the replacement. Yes, recently there have been a few crashes of MV-22s. Has no one NOT heard of a Chinnok going down??? Chinnoks go down mechanically MUCH more than most helos do in general. The V-22 has been around for a small number of years but still has a safer/better crash record as the aging Chinnok. As basroil has pointed out, not just any pilot gets to fly the MV-22. There is extensive training that normal helo/jet/plane pilots don't undertake.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

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