Posted on 12/17/2010 5:03:04 PM PST by Yo-Yo
USAF officers disagreed over the cause of the first combat loss of a V-22 Osprey tilt-rotor, according to a report in the Fort Worth Star-Telegram, with a senior general ultimately overruling the investigation team and declaring the cause to be pilot error. The April 9 accident killed four people, including the pilot, and injured 16. The full report is here.
A major complicating factor was that the CV-22B wreckage was bombed hours after the accident to prevent sensitive equipment from being removed, and the flight incident recorder was never recovered.
The CV-22B unit had ferried its aircraft into Afghanistan eight days before the accident, which took place on its first operational mission, infiltrating a special operations team into an unprepared site. The report notes that the three-aircraft formation encountered unexpected tailwinds on the approach.
Following a low-visibility approach that the investigators described as "poorly executed" and a rapid rate of descent, the aircraft landed with a 75-knot forward speed. The nosewheel bounced, then collapsed, and the aircraft slid forwards until it struck an irrigation ditch, separating the cockpit from the forward fuselage and causing the aircraft to flip over and break up.
Brig Gen Donald Harvel, president of the board, determined "from the preponderance of the evidence" that the Osprey had experienced power loss on the approach, leading to a high rate of descent and making it impossible to go around. Video of the accident and of strike marks on the ground showed that the proprotor speed was 78-80 per cent of nominal RPM, which could only be caused by substantial power loss.
Engine power had been measured on April 6, but Harvel finds it possible that after four subsequent austere landings, including one where the engine air particle separator (EAPS) failed, "one or both of the mishap aircraft's engines was degraded below acceptable standards". Harvel believes that the accident crew recognized an excessive descent, found a go-around impossible due to lack of power, and attempted a "near perfect roll-on landing".
However, Lt. Gen. Kurt Cichowski, vice commander of Air Force Special Operations Command, the convening authority for the investigation board, ruled that engine power loss could not be considered as a major factor in the accident.
Harvel notes that had the nose gear not collapsed and if the aircraft had not struck the ditch, damage and injuries would have been much less severe. Separate testing by the Navy has shown that the V-22's STOL performance is limited by the nose landing gear, which early trials showed cannot clear a 2-inch bump at more than 25 knots.
Because they don’t want an aircraft problem to kill this program.
A 2 inch bump at 25knots causes the front gear to fail?
“the first combat loss of a V-22 Osprey”
To understand this “combat” loss one need understand the mil expanded the idea of “combat zone” for operations for the Osprey that will guarantee it will never come anywhere near any actual combat. It is a boondoggle, but a boondoggle worth protecting, for some.
Is Lt. Gen. Kurt Cichowski an Aviator? Sounds like these guys screwed up, but power, or lack there of, could have contributed.
75 knots seems way to fast to contact the ground on a non prepared surface. It almost makes you wonder if the pilots were trying to wave off their approach and contacted the ground in the process.
It is one thing for a mishap board to present its report to the convening authority and have a finding rejected in the convening authority's endorsement. Happens all the time, not a big deal.
It is another thing entirely to have a convening authority taint a mishap board by telling it that it cannot consider a causal factor. That would undermines the integrity of the mishap investigation process and would be extremely damaging to the entire Air Force safety program.
The question is which one happened in this case.
Exactly.
Do you have an argument if you were to remove the talk of “boondoggle?”
Take a look at how many helicopters have been brought down because they are slower and can’t overfly the manpads threat.
Consider what it means when you’re the initial landing party and turn around time for follow on chalks is a lot longer because platforms are slower and don’t have the turn around times.
Factor in the threat to the amphibious landing vessels that need positioned closer to shore and within threat range when you don’t have something like the V22.
Sounds like the Navy/USMC has reverted to protection mode. Do/say anything to protect the program.
It's interesting what effect the 2008 threat of finding another engine manufacturer had on RR. I'd venture that the individuals at RR whose calculations were utilized in the earlier PBL estimates were not the same ones calculating the most recent PBL estimates.
Concur, carrying 75 kts into most LZ’s is not going to generally turn out well. One would do that on prepared hard surfaces. In CH-46’s we called this “powered descending flight” this was where the weight of the aircraft exceeded the lift being produced, usually as a result of a engine failure. It sounds from the limited details that they were attempting a downwind landing, this did not help their cause any. They may have thought that they could get some help with ground effect but with a high sink rate that would not have been an option. With rotor speed decaying, they could have transitioned back to fixed wing mode, this might not have been an option for them. I recall reading a while back that there were engine issues in Iraq and Afghanistan.
“Do you have an argument if you were to remove the talk of “boondoggle?””
Yeah, no 1., the military’s action in Iraq in not using the Ospreys in “combat” and the bureaucrats’ redefinition of combat zone to pretend the Ospreys are used in combat.
Of course they are not shot down, they don’t go near combat, and our current enemies don’t have intermediate range AA threat.
And how about the fact that senior Pentagon officials tried to dump it in the past, but it was saved by Bell and Boeing giving money to politicians?
It’s a political weapon system, not a battlefield one, but some pretense of it being the second has to be made for appearances purposes.
An assertion contradicted by the aircrews operating the aircraft in Iraq and Afghanistan.
I don’t think the Taliban threaten Navy ships. Maybe resources should fit the threat. Anyway, a 90 million, fragile system, isn’t as good as three, or four heavy lift helicopters, where if you lose one, you still have 66%-75% of your lift. Manpad threat is the same, the Osprey doesn’t bring anything new.
I got from the report that the approach, miles out, was too fast. Pilot error, not the craft in this case.
Is it your contention that LtGen Kurt Cichowski USAF is taking his marching orders from Col Gregory L. Masiello USMC?
What planet are you on?
Go look up what Hezbollah did with an Israeli ship.
Ever hear of the USS Stark?
Just because the military bought it doesn’t mean that it was a good idea. The military has invested 30 years and tens of billions of dollars into this aircraft despite a LONG history of crashes, under performance, and other problems. It is a good idea that has been poorly executed.
Thank you, sir. That was the exact story I had wanted to link to with my "assertion" but failed to find it. You, of course, are on top of things and found it easily.
From the March 2008 story:
"Rolls-Royce cannot support the current strategy, Mulhern said. They are unable to recoup the cost of engine maintenance under the power-by-the-hour plan. "We'll have to move to more traditional engine support," he said.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.