Deep Intel on the Fatal CV-22 Crash off of Japan
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 10 сен 2024
- On November 29, 2023 an Air Force Special Operations Command CV-22 impacted the water one-half mile off the coast of Yakushima Island, Japan killing all eight of the Air Force personnel aboard.
The crash caused the Naval Air Systems Command better known as NAVAIR, that has ultimate authority over the V-22 program, to ground all variants of the aircraft. About three months later that grounding order was lifted with a number of training requirements placed on squadrons before they could return to full mission status. And then two months after that, the Pentagon revealed that the Osprey was restricted from flying greater than 30 minutes away from home base, a severe operational limit.
NAVAIR has been mum about root cause behind the fatal crash throughout the months following the grounding order, return to flight, and follow-on operational restriction, but now the U.S. Air Force has released the accident investigation board report.
Subscribe to THE MOOCH REPORT (this channel's free weekly behind-the-scenes update) here: eepurl.com/hDfbsj
Support this channel by using the SUPER THANKS (heart icon above) or by becoming a Patron at / wardcarroll
Buy one or all three of the books in the PUNK'S TRILOGY, Ward's popular first three novels about life a Tomcat squadron, in KINDLE format here: www.amazon.com...
And as an audiobook here:
PUNK'S WAR: www.audible.co...
PUNK'S WING: www.amazon.com...
PUNK'S FIGHT: www.amazon.com...
Get official channel gear at my-store-b7f9c...
Not a Helicoper pilot, can't even spell it. Got UH1 ride out of Indian Springs, Nevada (late 70s). Less then 20 minutes into the flight they announced we were making a precautionary landing due to a chip detector indication. They landed in some quite rugged terrain, literally the middle of nowhere. After what seemed like forever another UH1 "with a mechanic" arrived. Mechanic pulled some panels and did some checks. When he showed the aircrew of "our" UH1 the chip detectors the pilot literally turned white and the copilot looked up and dropped to his knees. As a PAX I / we didn't get to see anything just took the "rescue" aircraft on to our destination. On a return trip a few days later we overflew our first ride. It was surrounded by vehicles and was in the middle of some kind of major maintenance. These many many years later, SOOOOO grateful we had that aircrew. Rest in peace to the crew of this CV22.
Those were the birds I worked on. Small world!😊🤝 BTW, they were changing the trans on your bird, probably the engine as well. If we had to tear them apart enough to get to the trans, it was not that much more work to change the engine also, not to mention depending on hours, could have pushed back the next phase job several months!
I cant speak for the Huey as I was not a Huey guy.. I was an Air Force HH60G Combat Search and Rescue Flight Engineer. The chip detectors have what is called a "fuzz" burn capability. If the chip detector (magnetic sensor) "detects" metallic material, it will attempt to burn off that material for 45 seconds. If after 45 seconds, that material remains, it illuminates the light in the cockpit. There are three conditions that end every emergency checklist procedure. Land as soon as practical, land as soon as possible, and land immediately. If memory serves me correctly, a chip detection light is land as soon as possible. This is because you don't know if it is just a stubborn piece of metallic material from normal wear and tear caught in the detector, or if the transmission is literally coming apart. I have had this light during flight. Once in South Korea, where we put it back down on the pad, and once flying in Afghanistan where we made the collective decision to fly to the nearest FOB. The one in Afghanistan was calculated risk, and we put ourselves in a single engine and auto rotation profile if it did come apart while flying over bad guy land. Your UH1 crews probably saw some nice size chunks on the detector indicating the transmission was coming apart.
Sadly you rode with an aircrew who decided safetly was high abovej yahoo top gun BS and got the machine, which was yelling at them to do so, on the ground.
@@DoublePlus-Ungood..... I understand what you're saying but he did say they were over enemy territory in Afghanistan when the light came on. Just putting the aircraft down would have meant the crew was highly likely to be captured and appeared on video on Al Jazeera having their heads cut off. I would have done the same thing. I served in the Marine Corps infantry. I have flown on countless CH 46's, CH 53's, UH 1's, and even a Blackhawk on a medevac. There are times while flying that the only valid reason we would set down would be if we crashed due to being over enemy areas where there were no friendly ground forces anywhere nearby. In this instance this crash was avoidable and the crash was a result of pilot error and poor training.
@@DoublePlus-Ungood Perhaps you missed the part about me being an Air Force HH60G Combat Search and Rescue Flight Engineer. I was the aircrew. I was the systems expert. There was no "Top Gun BS" (whatever that means). It was a decision based on many environmental factors, a large one being we were flying at night in the most dangerous country on Earth. You don't just "pull over" in combat. Tell me you were never a combat aviator without telling me you were never a combat aviator.
In my close to 4000 hours flying the SH-2F and SH-60B, you get a gearbox chip light, you find a place to land...like now!!! A gearbox making metal chips is not the recipe for continued flight.
can you expand on the meaning of a "chip burn "
@@repairitdontreplaceit Chip detectors have a magnet in the center and if a piece of metal attaches to it completes a circuit to indicate a "chip" in the gearbox oil. Could be small, could be big you just don't know. That is why helicopters make a precautionary landing. Chip burn function is added to burn away small slivers causing nuisance indications. In this case the system just died trying to eliminate chunks larger than it was designed to eliminate.
Thank you for your feedback. I know too little of all this to determine what is in play.
Land as soon as possible* unless there are secondary indicators that require Land immediately (vibrations, noises, loss of pressure).
Its crazy that we have all of these case studies of pilots not landing when gearbox chips are detected and then it being a fatal mistake, yet it keeps happening. Helicopters and tilt rotors can not auto rotate when they have gear box failure. I under stand that chip detectors can fail, but its not worth the risk to continue. They were not even in a ditch situation, they had many chances to land. Really sad.
I'm flabbergasted. In Halifax we have an emergency landing pad out at the tip of Eastern Passage. It's only a few kms from the airfield, but in an emergency it's what our crews are trained to use, as it's the nearest point of land if they are offshore... We even had a Sea King land in a grocery store parking lot once due to a hydraulic smell (o-ring failed on a fitting) rather than try to cross the harbour. "Land ASAP" doesn't mean fly past several potential sites.
Yeah, those Hanger Queen oer Sea King choppers don't have the best reputation.
@@surferdude4487 They were safer than the Cyclones we replaced them with. Our issue the last few years was with parts availability, which is also hitting the Cormorant fleet. That's why we jumped at the chance to pick up the VH-71 fleet from the US when they cancelled...
@@Blowinshiddup Leave it to the Canadian government to find something less reliable than the Sea King. I didn't know it was possible, but then again, I should stop underestimating how resourceful idiots can be.
@@surferdude4487 Its a Sikorsky and the company like Boeing cares about profits not safety. They got the replacement for the Marine One flight after the VH-71 Kestrel was cancelled and its another variant of the H-92 just like our cyclone and I still don't think its reached a reliability point where they trust it to actually fly the president or vice president so the VH-3D soldiers on. The commercial S-92 btw had a rather high profile off-shore crash when its gearbox failed in flight. Sikorsky had claimed a 30 min run dry capability to the main gearbox in event of an oil pressure loss but in reality it was only about 15 mins. The S-92 platform with more than 300 constructed has had 40 crashes and 26 fatalities since 2007.
Damn, they passed two landing sites, stopping at either would have saved their lives. Such a shame. Saddens me. As always, thank you Ward.
I'm quite surprised that he didn't get his wingman to join up with him either. Really seems like he didn't believe that warning was an actual warning.
V22 has been nothing less of a failure
@@cwit189 How do you figure? And how can you seriously comment that in a video that explains rather clearly that the aircraft gave ample warning to the crew that a problem was occurring but was mostly treated with little concern?
@@cwit189 I'm not sure what technical, operational, or programmatic data causes you to come to that opinion. I'll just inform you that you are 100% wrong. The V-22 has an outstanding operational record and one of the best safety records of any aircraft in service with our armed forces. This accident was 100% preventable and unfortunately the decisions of the flight crew, in particular the aircraft commander, are the primary cause of the event. The aircraft systems operated as designed, and given that no V-22 in its over 35 years of flying has ever suffered this failure prove the design is sound. Unfortunately, no system can fully compensate for human error. Please, before expressing such ill-informed, general opinions, you should really do some basic research.
It’s obvious this is related to the Boeing 737 max. I’m sure the govt will charge Boeing again.
I was a Marine 1st Lt infantry officer recently returned from Vietnam where I was a platoon commander and assigned to the Marine's The Basic School where I had been an instructor after returning from Vietnam.
During a live fire demonstration called the "Mad Moment" that allowed parents and others to view the demonstration in stands well out of range of the live ordinance demonstration, I was one of the safety officers. During the demonstration, a young teenager with her parents was struck by a freak piece of artillery shrapnel in the leg and needed to be evacuated.
A UH-1N helicopter on standby alert was activated to fly her to the Quantico Naval Hospital. I was to accompany her with a Navy Corpsman. On the flight to the hospital, the chip detector light in the UH-1 came on and the pilot wisely decided to land on a dirt road in the back of the base. Another helicopter arrived to transfer the patient, me, and the Corpsman to the Naval Hospital at Quantico.
The chip detector light indicates that there are metal particles in the engine oil which means that there is a problem with the transmission.
I stayed with the teenage female at the Naval Hospital until her parents arrived. Her wound was not serious. Her father was a former Marine with WW II combat experience. He said that it was just a minor wound and she was a tough girl. The parents didn't try to sue the Marine Corps.
But the point is that the pilot recognized the potential danger of metal particles in the engine oil and made and emergency landing in the middle of nowhere.
Once the CV-22 pilot saw multiple warnings of metal filings in the engine oil, he should have landed at the nearest airfield. There should not be any metal in the engine oil.
The pilot should have made a better decision to make a controlled ditch in the ocean so that the rafts, etc. could have been in play.
Metal fragments in the engine oil: Bad dog--no bone if the pilot doesn't take is seriously.
I was bever a military pilot. But I was a private pilot with commercial and instrument ratings. The aircraft I flew never had a chip detection indicator. But for 21 years I flew on military helicopters and metal particles in the engine oil was a big deal.
In fairness, the V-22 is a VERY unique and specialized air vehicle. They have a procedure for dealing with the chip detector and the pilot missed opportunities to land. I'm going to give my opinion here.....I think the nature of people who work in "Special Operations" is that they are brave and proactive and assertive and have a "git er done" mentality.....and these are good things. But it didn't serve them well when dealing with the peculiarities of the V-22.
Also.....the system failed them in giving them an aircraft prone to so many maintenance issues. The training system for operators of the V-22 need to do a better job of training for these and other scenarios.
I totally agree with you except that according to Mr. Carroll's analysis of the report, there could be three such warnings before the order goes from land as soon as practical to land as soon as possible. I mean, there's a big difference there right?
@@rickcimino5483 Yes there is a difference but that difference is only important to the manufacturer trying to maintain the reputation of his product. The warning level that recommends "Land Immediately" means for them to DUMP the power and hit deck immediately where ever they are because their aircraft is about to break up. You see......that is 100% impractical in the real world. So it turns out that "Land ASAP" actually means land immediately. So the warning before "Land ASAP" means find an alternate landing site immediately. The military set these guys up because the warning levels were bogus from the beginning.
Not on a training mission. What's the point of taking risk. Practical is an unclear point. Minutes before landing would've served better... no?@@rickcimino5483
They didn’t even need to ditch. They passed by several possible divert fields while the pilot waited for the gearbox to become critical and fail. They could so easily have had a story like yours.
My husband is former navy rotary wing guy & he found it mind blowing that the Osprey crew kept on going rather than landing 'as soon as possible', which in an aircraft capable of vertical landing gave them many much earlier options. Gearboxes are such complex pieces of kit & so vital for helos or tilt rotor survival. It also struck him (as a former RN Observer) that the crew seemed to be almost entirely P1 oriented, with neither flight engineer nor P2 having the sort of input that he would have expected in a crew aircraft.
This comment is in line with what I heard from the only guy I knew who flew helicopters. He said he spent most of the flight looking for places he could set down in an emergency.
Pressonitis is fatal. RIP this crew.
I was involved awhile back, with Marine CH-46 D and E model Helo's .... They had chip detectors in the Fwd and Aft tramsmissions... The method(s) of determining the Levels of severity, I don't know... What I DO clearly remember, is when ANY of the chip warning light(s) were lit, the aircraft was landed ASAP, If not immediately.... In Fact one of our aircraft had to make an emergency landing at a public beach, that happened to be part of a Nudist Colony... The photos were awesome!!! Ample middle aged Butts & B(.Y.)Bies Swinging and shaking as they were scurrying out of there😮😊😂!!! It made the stadium event 'Streaking' look Tame, by comparison!!!
I was surprised that the pilot of the V-22 flight (described in this episode), continued to keep flying the same course, Then asked another crew member, what the effect of the illuminated chip (FOD) lamp is, as if completely un-aware of what it meant... Then, additional chip lights were being illuminated as they were continuing the same course... Wow... Finally, after 4 chip lights were illuminated, they finally started to divert the planned flight path to head to a suitable LZ... Then 5 chip lamps illuminated, and not long afterwards , the Port gearbox began to seize-up, and the aircraft lost control because of assymetrical thrust from the rotor heads...
My guess, (and this is just a guess) is those drive rotor gearbox's are operating far too close to their ultimate designed limits with a lack of a reasonable safety factor of 35 to 40% additional torque capacity, for extremely critical components such as these.... If that is the case, it is a similar situation of the tail rotor drive system failures that the early 3- engine CH-53 helo's had... Too much torque being applied to that drive system that was originally designed for the earlier twin engine (CH-53) aircraft...
God Bless the loved ones, who suffered from these loss's... 14:03
They literally could've landed at any time (including in the water). While not ideal it would have been far better than falling 700 feet into the water 😢
@@monguzzle lack of maturity -gung ho ?? to be expected -heat later or crash now??
I have been around Aircraft all my life. RAF England Tornados. This is unbelievable. Chip detector gives increased warnings, which the whole crew ignored. Holy Shit.
Part of the problem nowadays is too many false errors leading to blaise responses.
And I bet crews yank craft around far too much for what it is, leading to aforementioned cracks.
How about a LAND FUCKING NOW! warning?
YUP!
As soon a practical is just a polite way of saying that.
Is it? I’m not a pilot. To me, the ‘soon a practical’ doesn’t sound like it is urgent? I get it that your thousands of feet in air, flying hundreds of MPH, but why doesn’t it state ‘LAND NOW - CLOSE AS POSSIBLE’? Maybe they get these errors a lot and are desensitized? To me the wording of the instructions is bad and partially at fault- no?
In Bitching Betty’s voice, of course.
@zefdin101 the NATOPS for the MV and CMV have three different landing criteria
-"Land as soon as pratical" is basically the lowest level where extended flight is not recommended, but a lot of discretion is given to the aircraft commander to balance the nature of the emergency and the context of the situation.
"Land as soon as possible" requires a landing at the nearest suitable spot. There is a lot less leeway with this one and the discretion is more limited to scenarios where you are judging the risk/reward of landing in a field directly in front of you or extending a couple miles for an airfield to land on a prepared surface with rescue services. Some, but not much wiggle room to push the envelope.
And lastly "land immediately" which means land without delay. Doesn't matter if there's no field below and only ocean. You are landing in the water because you have a better chance of surviving that then trying to make it to a shore line.
As things progressed, the Gundam crew received warnings from the aircraft that went through all three landing criteria. There aren't many Land Immediately emergencies with the V-22, but Gearbox chips with secondaries is definitely one of them
Replacing a proprotor gearbox is the most intensive maintenance task performed at the O-level on that aircraft, because it is so integral to the operation of the aircraft. As an Osprey maintainer, it's incredibly frustrating to hear that the aircraft was doing exactly what it was supposed to do and the warnings of a failing gearbox were being given, yet the crew failed to recognize and respond to the impending disaster, which was completely preventable. I would have happily changed out another proprotor gearbox than see that loss of life.
How long does it take to replace the proprotor gearbox? under a month?
@@generfeld Obviously, there are many factors that go into the duration, not least of which includes supply chain and proficiency of the maintenance crew/command (all maintenance shops have related maintenance tasks to complete this evolution). But, I've seen it generally take a week or so. But that's only for the actual swap, then there's a bunch of testing and tuning that has to take place after that. From the time the bird goes down for maintenance and is back to a mission-capable status is probably within a two week timeframe.
I hear you brother. Listening to Ward's narration of it and the impeding disaster is just disheartening. All they had to do was take one of the warnings seriously and act fast and immediate. We're all human. I dunno maybe the osprey gives pilots the feeling they're on a fixed wing aircraft and they just become less wary than what a rotary wing aircraft require.
@@caseytaylor1487 great description thanks
Recognizing an emergency takes training. There is a period of time that will pass before a pilot allows his mind to accept he/she is in an emergency situation. That delay is deadly. This reminds me of the MU-2 that has killed many well trained pilots.
Check yourselves! When mission is critical. Your belief system delays the recognition of the obvious .
I remember a UH-1H Huey landed one day in the overflow parking lot (gravel) of a local church. It is located in the middle of a crowded area full of businesses so it was very much out of the ordinary. I was driving to the local electrical utility to pay my bill when I saw the Huey obviously about to land. I drove up and the crew was getting out. This was an Alabama Army National Guard crew. The crew chief approached me and asked if I had a crescent wrench on me. I replied no. He said they had a chip indicator light and needed to pull the detector to inspect it for chips. He said "once they get a chip light they have 60 seconds to get on the ground and this was the closest spot". Sounds like erring on the side of caution has lost it's priority nowadays. Thanks for the elaboration on this tragic chain of events Ward.
Yes, it’s very puzzling that the pilots didn’t seem to take the issue as being a serious one. There’s a post by timf6916 who flew helicopters in combat and made it clear this was an issue that needed to be dealt with as soon as possible.
@@mako88sbNarcissists think they are god until they kill everyone protecting them. Then they get to meet a certain saint.
My name is Peter.
Yes, have had three inflight shutdowns in helicopters and airplanes over the years. Lots of precautionary landings. Don’t get complacent but also don’t panic either.
Often they are a nuisance indications, but i follow manufactures guidance at all times. If you can read part numbers your crew-day is over.
In helicopters land as soon as practical is normally interpreted as the closest facility such as a heliport staging area, ship or airport. Land as soon as possible literally means the closest landing area. Land immediately is to save the souls on board, thats if you have secondaries.
This is a wakeup moment for anyone that flies aircraft with chip detectors period. There are lots of different systems, don’t take chances. This goes for smoke in the cabin as well. Just get it on the ground and do the paperwork.
You fly by the book. Follow the flight manual Err on the side of caution
@@mako88sb Between this incident and the accident report for the B-1 that crashed it seems like the USAF is having discipline issues. I know that's typical SNCO speak anytime something goes remotely wrong in the military, but to effectively ignore so many warnings I can only wonder what kind of culture is being/has been bred in their schools.
After nearly 40 years in aviation I’ve come to the conclusion that pilots have not found any new ways to crash an airplane. Given the complexity and history of the Osprey I would have assumed that an abundance of caution would be a major driver in any Osprey aircraft commander’s decision making paradigm. The fact that the aircraft (and mission commander) was an experienced instructor on the Osprey makes this sad story even more tragic.
The Osprey is, as you very clearly explained, a crew served system with two pilots and an engineer. As a former wide body captain I always believed it was incumbent upon me to get as much information as possible when I was dealing with Caution and Warnings. Three words; “Crew Resource Management.”
It’s the fact he had to ask if anybody had experienced this failure before . He’s an instructor apparently
An instructor just..ignoring chip lighs is really mindblowing.
@@IvanTre “it’ll probably fix itself if we just give it time…”
Anything related to gearbox issues in a helicopter is potentially catastrophic, as in you could die. Why this crew was nonchalant and didn't have a sense of urgency is mind boggling. Multiple warnings.
Hope the Air Force has learned something.
mistake thinking a Osprey is a fixed wing. it's a bastard machine.
@alainrouleau - I believe that this issue goes well beyond the Air Force, or the Navy or the Marine Corps or ANY of the operators of these planes... This in an inherent design flaw, and is evidenced by how Nav-Air is trying to skirt the actual issues with these designs...Gearbox failures on helicopters is no joke, just as you quoted here.... It is difficult to believe the pilot actually was asking other people on that flight what the seriousness of the chip light was.... I just don't buy it...
Somebody at Boeing hit the panic Disc on this issue... And now this ridiculous story was created to make it look like it was caused by pilot error... No way... Maybe the chip light never lit up the way that it was supposed to.... And Boeing and/or the manufacturer of the failed gearbox is trying to cover this up...
When I was in the Air Force I got to go on a ride along on my B-52H. On one flight it was a CCTS crew. (Combat Crew Training Squadron) We entered the low level route and this is where the combat training kicks in. Things gradually descended into chaos as the young navigator had us .....not on track. I was sitting in the instructor pilot's seat and there was an instructor navigator downstairs giving the student a hard time. Pretty soon the IN started really riding the student and chastising him....really giving him a hard time. Mind you....we were off course in a low level route......we were below high terrain on the wrong side of a river. I tapped the Aircraft Commander on the arm and said "Why doesn't he leave him alone long enough to get back on course?" The co-pilot yells "We're on the wrong side of the river!" The AC gives me a "wait" hand sign and tells the nav team, "Give me a correct heading right now or we are blowing off this low level route." Well....instead of just giving him a good heading the instructor again rides the student's butt and acts like a complete jerk. I start to spin out of my seat to go give the IN heck and the AC grabs me by the arm and spins me RIGHT BACK into my seat. ....at which point he tells the co-pilot to climb out and call ATC. "We're blowing this off." Once ATC gave us a good heading to fly the AC calls the nav team and says, "I'll need to see the Nav team when we get back." Not a peep on the intercom the whole way back.
On every flight the AC told me as a rider....."You aren't just along for the ride. If you see something say something." That incident with the incompetent Instructor was the only time I felt like speaking up. I don't know if my input had anything to do with the AC aborting the low level run but I never felt bad about speaking up.
Excellent anecdote! Not many would believe that the BUFF ever actually had a NOE flying mission!
@@jazzandbluesculturalherita2547 They sure did. I wonder if they still fly the BUFF low level. I wonder what they say at the war college......does it make any difference? And for me not being a pilot I was hanging on for dear life. Not that it flies low level as hard as a fighter.....but because as high terrain gets closer you know that big plane can't dodge it as well. These young pilots were strafing ranchers out on dirt roads and making like they had a machine gun in their hand as they passed over him. One time the windshield started to get obscured with insects and they had to abort the low level run. They were worried that they couldn't see well enough to land back at base.
Most likely, you saved your and all other crew members' lives.
This is all on the pilot.
As any Helo pilot will tell ya.......... you get metal in the gearbox indicator, you set that thing down lickety split.
Not sure how much time the pilots spend looking at how those things are put together, and hang out with the maintenance personal......but, it's always good to know how your machine works.
RIP Airman :-(
Most underrated comment here. I grew up sitting in the La-Z-Boy of the POW in _Burst of Joy_ and have a few other interesting connections. Pilots who bounce checks and landings should not be trusted.
I'd say more so with this aircraft even. A regular helicopter can at least auto rotate while the CV-22 can't auto rotate or glide, its powered flight or nothing.
While I agree the pilot should have treated it more seriously and searched for a closer more immediate divert field. I don't think its fair at all to say its all on the pilot. The command sets the tone for the overall safety culture on base as well as the procedures the pilots follow. I think the greater responsibility lies with NavAir and other Commands and the procedures surrounding the Chipburn alerts. For an aircraft where the loss of a single engine will result in the certain loss of the aircraft. The V-22 can't glide land like an normal airplane or autorotate like a normal helicopter (at least I don't think). The whole land as soon as practical/possible/immediately escalating process, probably should have been treated more seriously in procedures to be Land as soon as possible or just Immediately. The process they had is classic case of how the swiss cheese effect of aircraft accidents occur, by stretching things out and allowing for more things to go wrong.
NavAir wasn't flying this bird.@@LakeCoffee
Exactly. This was training. No reason to push the envelope. In 15,000 hrs of rotary wing flight I never took gearbox issues lightly.
I crewed Marine UH-1E and laterflew as non crew in UH-1N. A chip light (on the Master Caution panel) means land immediately. There are chip detector plugs in the main transmission and the 45 and 90* gear boxes. You land and pull the plug, clear the piece of metal and ground turn to see if you get another chip. If you don't--- you fly low and slow back to a suitable airport/military base. If you get a second chip, you stay put and do maintenance right where you are. Many years ago there was a USMC CH-53D flying from PI to Oki and they got a main transmission chip detector light. They were over open ocean. The seas were high. Instead of slowing down and limping back or until there was someplace that you could make an emergency landing---the pilots---both real low time--- pressed on at max power. At the end when the pilot keyed the radio you could hear the main transmission in destruct mode. They hit the water doing about 160 MPH. No survivors---about twenty Marines. When the transmission was tearing itself up---he could have gone into a hover five feet over the ocean and just settled in.
Was that in 1985? I was in Iwakuni at the time and a CH-53 was there for the annual Friendship Day from Okinawa. On the way back to Oki it crashed due to, what we heard was a transmission seizure. Sad.
Sorry to read that this loss was 100% preventable. RIP
Most "accidents" are preventable.
It wasn't. Only in hindsight.
Tis plane is a nightmare in many facets.
@@doctordetroit4339 It really is. These things shouldn't be allowed to fly.
@@doctordetroit4339 No, did you even watch the video? There were many warning on this flight that they just brushed off and their ego cost them and those crew members their lives. It was 100% preventable.
@@doctordetroit4339 The aircraft it has or is replacing have much higher Class A Mishap rates and fatalities per 100,000 flight hours, so the V-22 series are provably safer. It’s just that the news never covered CH-46 or CH-53 accidents and fatalities in the modern era.
Great report Mooch, thank you for sharing. Allow me to add something from my background as a commercial helicopter pilot. For us rotary pilots, definitions are very important because they drive our responses in emergencies. In the civilian rotary wing community, "Land as soon as practical" means: "Continued flight is at pilot discretion; however, flight past an airport is not recommended." Further, "Land as soon as possible" means: "Land at the nearest suitable landing area (e.g., open field) without delay. Be prepared to enter autorotation at any time during the landing approach." For whatever reason (probably years of false alarms in these gearbox chip detectors?), this crew did not have the sense of urgency to get the aircraft on the ground ASAP. Tragic. Thirty minutes between Chip Burn #4 and final failure. Damn. "There, but for the Grace of God, go I."
seeing the damage and knowing that in "plane" mode gearbox is stressed significantly less (due to wings contributing to lift), it isn't guaranteed that they would have landed safely had they tried to do it earlier, especially full vertical landing, meaning there would be more load on the gearbox which could make that gear shatter sooner and cause a crash
I don't think these things can autorotate, so if the gearbox fails, that is basically it, you flip near instantly
and the range limitation makes me think they changed the procedure to return/land immediately after the first warning goes off
during down time probably all of the gearboxes got opened to check for any signs of damage that could lead to this result, and most likely they didn't like what they found, hence the range limitation
@@dsfs17987 correct, no autorotation in CV-22.
This comment is most excellent. What are your thoughts on Osprey pilots without significant full autorotation training being cleared to fly an aircraft without autorotation capability?
@@dsfs17987 you beat me to it who are you, do we know each other?
@@dsfs17987that’s a really good point about the transition to rotors up (rather than time in horizontal flight) being a likely determining cause of when the gearbox finally croaked. Thank you!
The aircraft systems did all they could to warn the crew. The crew failed the aircraft.
This seems reminiscent of the V-22 Potomac River crash where the pilot flew past several airports with a “land as soon as practical” hydraulic leak light because he didn’t want to get home late. Leak got bigger and pooled and caught fire during transition to hover.
FYI, the AZ crash was the result of both crews greatly exceeding published descent rates so as to maintain mission time. This caused an asymmetrical Vortex Ring State. Further testing by a test pilot with HUGE balls, determined that 1) VRS is easily mitigated by tilting the rotors forward.
2) confirmed the V-22 has the highest resistance to VRS of any other US military rotorcraft.
Former maintainer (USAF) here. I've been out 25 years - and this kind of thing still hurts every time. I thought about every bolt, every torque spec, every wire... every time. It's hard to be human and perfect at the same time.
Right there with you brother. I grounded an E-3 with the red end of a "crew chief" pencil to replace a pitot tube in the side of the pressurized cabin. Cure time on the sealant was 12 hours. Not one second sooner. Our line expeditor backed me all the way! E-3s were about 350M per copy back in the 70s/80s. It boggles me to think that is what a MV-22 costs today.
Thankful for you two and the work you did.
@@Khronogi 👍🤝
Never assume a warning light is a false indication. RIP all who perished.
I have over 13000 hours and 36 years in heavy helicopters. Also a lifetime of studying heli accident/incidents
I would say that once you get a second chip light, its time to land as soon as possible. Maybe even immediately where a safe landing can be made. Keep up the good work Ward.
I was a machinist/mechanic for 30 years. I worked on and around reduction gears 100 times the size of these rotor gear boxes. The foreign material (FM) controls just to open an inspection/lubrication checkpoint are extensive so as not to have ANY FM is introduced. I state this because these babies are SENSITIVE and not to be underestimated.
A chip burner tells me that these gears wear out (no kidding) and is a brilliant addition to the CV aircraft for safety and maintenance reasons. These indicators and burners indicate your gears are about to wear out.
2 Chip burner warnings would tighten up my shorts, but 3 or more indicates real problems. They must happen often as this pilot with almost 1000 hours didn’t even flinch.
The rulebook was ignored, the engineer left his post and missed indicator warnings, the pilot flew past several alternate landing sites and seemed not to know he had a serious issue.
I know pilot error is always the first reason they look for in a crash concerning after the fact investigations, but this crash sounded very avoidable.
The only other point I come away with is that these gear boxes, to make them “more affordable” on an already expensive aircraft, have these redundant warnings to switch them out. The materials needed to beef up these gear boxes would be very cost prohibitive, so indicators and chip burners were built in to detect the need of a replacement.
Thanks for this update! Keep us posted.
@@jefreagan The 'flight engineer' does monitor the confition of the aircraft and help with communication and Navigation, if necessary.... However the chip lights are on the FE panel AND both pilot's instrument panels...The Pilots MUST be properly trained and tested on emergency procedures... I'm inclined to believe that the chip lights are very high priority items on the 'Emergency Procedures' checklist... The main pilot could have prevented this tragedy, if only They were familiar with the 'Emergency Procedures' of this aircraft... God bless all 8 of those Hero's that we lost...
The video says the crew discussed the chip burner warnings and none of them had actually seen one before.
Any idea what a "successful chip burn" is? What is a chip burner warning compared to a regular chip detector warning?
@@jefreagan There us NO DOUBT that the rotor drive components are expensive... 'Chip burner' lights is an extremely AMBIGUOUS way to describe what their intended purpose is... Like you described those lights are strictly there to detect ferrous materials in the lubricating oil of those components... That's all they do... They do not 'burn' away any of the debris so the plane can continue to operate... Just as you described, they strictly alert the pilots of a possibility of a rapidly approaching failure... My inclination of WHY there are 3 lamps and 3- seperate sensor's on each of these drive components, is NOT to show the level of severity of the problem... I feel the reason that there are 3 sensors connected to 3 seperste annunciator lamps is because of these units rotating 90° , and the oil in these gearbox's staying level... That is main reason of the multiple sensor's... To be able to detect ferrous metal chips in the lubricating oil of the gearbox, regardless of WHAT position that gearbox happens to be in... There is the Possibility that the Pilots did not understand the level of severity if ANY if the chip lights illuminate...
Do You Remember Cmdr. Carrol's interpretation of what the multiple chip 'burner' lights meant? And the way these multiple lamps were used to determine the LEVEL OF SEVERITY of those EXTREMELY CRITICAL COMPONENTS ???
This , is where I Feel an error has been made... If the NAV-AIR manuals (POH) described that method to determine the level of severity , of those 'chip-burner' lamps... That is very probable to be Serious Mis-Information, from the manufacturer of the Components, the technical publications division for these military aircraft (NAV-AIR), or possibly from the airframe manufacturer (Boeing)....
Boeing has lately been dealing with a lot of scrutiny because of their questionable methods to design and manufacture their aircraft... In this case and because of certain situations that occured in the recent past... As Boeing acquired other companies, their upper management structure made decisions that ONLY THEIR QUALIFIED ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT.SHOULD HAVE BEEN MAKING DECISIONS WITH... NOW, BOEING is in very Hot water, with the general public and various aviation related safety oganizations, because of numerous infractions and EXTREME cost-cutting and production volume increase measures... And I believe that the general public is not being FULLY informed of what ACTUALLY caused these mis-haps... Just look at this program of the V-22... It's first flight was well over 35 years ago (March of '89)... And the various Military Services are STILL Having mechanical problems , with it.... That is even a longer amount of time than most of the post WW2 'Century Series' aircraft operated, the sold to other countries for more successful service... This thing has Staggering levels of complexity, and the idea of tilt rotors is not new.... It was tried in numerous aircraft from numerous companies back in the 50's 60's And 70's.... Way too complex and inherently dangerous.... It's interesting that Boeing THINKS that only THEY can do this, but BOEING should have recognized Their Own Limitations BEFORE moving on with this program....
For clarification, they are NOT talking about "computer chips", but rather chips of metal: debris. When mechanical systems with metal parts start to fail, often gears, shafts, and pulleys start to rub and scrape, creating metal dust and chips that float around in the lubricant. Special detectors are placed in the housing for such mechanic systems/modules to detect these metal bits floating about in lubricant. They are only considered "samplers", meaning for every one bit they detect, there are probably many others. Occasional detection is usually a normal part of wear, but lots of detection events spells trouble. There are lubricant filters that can clean occasional bits, but not an onslaught.
Bottomline, the aircraft told the crew it was beginning to degrade long before the catastophic failure occured. Furthermore, thecrew failed to recognize multiple secondary indications from the aircraft that turn the landing criteria from land as soon as practicable early on into a land immediately situation in the end. It's a tragic event that could have been easily avoided if the written emergency procedures had been followed instead of trying to push for the training event.
Another great brief of events. Another awesome shirt. As a pilot myself I can see where complacency of chip light detectors and improper crew coordination led to this. I have a lot of helo time and fixed wing time and chip lights always give me pause. Most are in fact a non event however in this aircraft that can't glide like an airplane and doesn't auto like a helo you cannot play with these types of events. Had they landed earlier they would still be alive. I pray for the crew and their families. I served for 21 years and lost friends as well. This hurts my heart.
As you say it can't auto. It can probably glide a bit though badly. So as you say the Osprey has to be yet more biased toward aborting in this case. It's not clear they could have landed though: the plane could cruise but as soon as they shifted back to vertical it failed. It's possible it'd have likewise failed after even the first warning, or possibly even before. The pilot screwed up big-time making light of the warning, but it's not a sure thing that he could have landed at all.
thank you again. my young teenage son adores the osprey, and still sees them overhead from time to time. this prompted a conversation about judgment, preparation, training, consequences, obligations, and victims. thankfully, he still has time to grow into these things.
thank you also for commemorating the lives lost.
Wow, in my opinion, the pilot and copilot were both very responsible for this action. And they did pay a HIGH price. I did fly in combat ( OH-6A ) and when we got a chip detector warning that was a Deal. And in that aircraft that would have been a very big deal since they have issues with the gears in them.
I hate to say it, but the flight engineer bears a big chunk of responsibility too. He's supposed to be the technical expert on how the machine works, and he needed to assert himself when the warning lights were coming on. I never would have left the cockpit to look at the avionics in the tail when there were gearbox warnings.
I retired with 2000+ hours in the C-130 FE seat, over half that as combat time in Iraq & the Persian Gulf region.
WTF?! When I was in the navy and we had a LAMPS Mk II HSL detachment onboard our frigate, they would IMMEDIATELY head to the nearest landing site on the FIRST chip warning light. On any given deployment I would guess at least five times the helicopter had to return earlier than expected due to a chip light and I don't know how many times they had to return to a closer landing pad. The point is, when did pilots become so complacent about metal shavings accumulating in the gearbox you're betting your crew's life on? This pilot rolled the dice not once, but FIVE times before he came up "craps".
The real basic problem here is that the command pilots have their careers "cashiered" if they drop an aircraft unless they are actually shot down. This is common. As such, some fast-tracker looking for a promotion, is going to try get a "soft landing" at a mission preplanned spot, so as not to get a demerit. That is imbedded into them at the academies. IF you are taught to be an actual "warfighter" you will try to continue the mission, or die trying. That part is good. However, if you are on a training mission, your first objective is to Not Kill your own trainees.
The mentioned abnormal situation and emergency procedures regarding the gearbox chip burn are similar to most modern medium and heavy helicopters. If this condition happens to a helicopter and the crew do not react promptly, the outcome would be the same. No helicopter can fly with a destroyed gearbox.
but they can begin autorotation. It seems thats impossible if the torque imbalance caused them to invert.
@@fathead8933 Can't auto with a wrecked gearbox . . .Even in a Chinook
@@user-jq2rf4nf3o What do you need the gearbox for? If the rotors spin and you can control the collective (?) you should be able to do it?
@@Timoohz A Hiller H 12 c will, any other will not, A seized gear box will stop everything rotors and all. 45+ years flying fixing designing helicopters
@@user-jq2rf4nf3o Ok, thanks. It seems the "free-wheeling unit" is usually between engine and gearbox so unless the gear box fails in an un-seizing way you're sol.
The Air Force has battled with Crew Resource Management for a very long time. The Flight Engineer had the check list, made the proper call, and was over-ruled by the Aircraft Commander.
Sounds like the aircraft tried multiple times to warn of impending failure....which weren't heeded in time so it's hard to blame the aircraft in this one.
Are chip warnings happening often enough that they're not taken seriously? Seems these guys were very casual about them like they didn't believe they were real until it was too late.
Sounds like only one crew member had experienced it before so doesn’t seem that often. It would be interesting to see the stats for that.
49mins after the 1 warning went off. 49mins .. thats an aweful lot of time to land
It's apparent to me that this sort of behavior is LEARNED or TAUGHT BEHAVIOR in the Osprey community, taught to "hack it", to "work around it", to "press on with the mission", because DoD says the NOT common common airframe is a MUST HAVE, MUST DO, MUST FLY, MUST COVER UP FOR the deficiencies of the Osprey, aviation asset.
The US military has an INTENSE culture problem due to leadership having... Certain political views.
A tragic outcome that seemed avoidable. Thanks for the update, Ward.
It might not have been avoidable. The gearbox may have been incapable of vertical lift after even the first warning, or possibly even starting BEFORE the first warning. Remember it cruised fine, but when they finally put it in vertical to land it failed. Either it was a very bizarre coincidence, or, the two were connected.
Very sad Ward. I'm retired a AECS that flew as an FE on the P3 Orion for 18 of my 20. Not an ounce of crew communications took place on this aircraft. During my time in crews, we talked about procedures and made sure we understood each other and the responsibilities of our actions. I would have been on the ground at the third light..
I had the pleasure of meeting one of the test pilots for the Osprey. He said it was a great platform, but needed the right pilot and maintenance.
Pay attention to those warning lights and act accordingly. Better to land with a false alarm than risk crashing. May they all rest in peace.
A common thread I keep noticing through most,although not all, aircraft accidents (be they civilian or military) is a failure to take system warnings seriously, declare an emergency and land ASAP! I don’t understand this as my flight instructors drilled into me if something happens: get control of the aircraft, call “Mayday! Mayday! Mayday!” over comms & flash the transponder to 7700! We drilled that all the time through my maneuvers in training & my instructors would spring emergencies on me out of the blue and have me work & talk through what I should do, including quizzing me about which enroute divert airport was nearest. I can’t imagine this is emphasized less in military training or airlines training! So what is happening in the culture or institutions of professional pilots that makes them so resistant to declaring an emergency & getting their mechanically suspect/diminished aircraft on the ground ASAP? Is there cultural/institutional pressure to “get there” i.e. the destination or mission and major career blowback if the mechanical fault was later deemed “minor?” Are punitive measures taken against pilots by the FAA or military brass for declaring an emergency? Is it fear of more paperwork? Normalization of deviancy? Do there need to be better whistleblower protections?
A pilot with Allegiant Airlines noticed smoke/burnt electrical smell in the cockpit during a flight and decided to make an unscheduled early landing. Well Allegiant Airlines fired him for it! Allegiant Airlines serviced our local airport for a while until the local paper ran an expose on their safety practices (or lack thereof) and they decided to skip town. At the time Allegiant Airlines bought 25 year old planes really cheap to add to their fleet. I flew them a few times before I wised up.
As an aircraft mechanic, I would have been demanding a landing just after the 2nd chip burn. Always obey your sensors, even if they might be faulty. When doing engine ops checks on the ground, an immediate shut down is required if any faults occur. The fact that this pilot just keep ignoring it is insane.
Ignoring numerous warnings is never a good thing. This pilot seemed more focused on not aborting the mission than the safety of the aircraft and crew.
"PULL UP! PULL UP!"
"Ahh, that can't be right, we're plenty high enough. Turn it off."
Common problem with metric driven organization where mission success is rated higher mishap avoidance…. ie reward completion, punish mishap avoidance is a recipe for failures like this.
Yeah, I wonder how much of the mentality, "I need to set an example for the men not to panic or be scared," went into this commander's thinking rather than, "I need to set an example of prudence." Was it that or was it a failure of the program to make sure everyone knew how serious these warnings were? Given no one else in the cockpit spoke up, I'm assuming it was a program failure.
Sounds like an Air Force "if I call an emergency, I'll get grounded."
PILOT FAULT.
I don't think that is the case. The report said there was no discussion among the crew regarding the warnings other than "Have you ever seen one of these before?" I do not believe they took the warnings seriously.
I wonder if he considered a vertical landing off field but was afraid of the blowback from command
The part where the pilot decided the chip detector failure warning meant the detector was bad reminds me of the story about “Juan,” the grouchy old Eastern Airlines mechanic back in the radial engine days. He supposedly told an airline crew “don’t worry about the engine fire warning light, it will go off after awhile.” It would indeed - because the sensor would burn up and stop sending a signal. Motivated reasoning when interpreting warning lights is an under appreciated killer.
In my day, crewing a multi engine fixed wing, a chips light was an automatic engine shutdown and land someplace smart (fuel/Wx/safety). A post flight exam of the chips determined your status. FUZZ was a clean the plug, change the oil, perform a penalty run, reexamine the plug, if clean, go fly. CHUNKS was an engine change. Find a hotel. I have never heard of a 'chip burn' system. I am going remove all doubt about my Osprey ignorance... Why would you design a powertrain that burns metal chips again and again and again during a sortie and you keep flying?
A "fuzz buster" not meant to burn off serial numbers on chunks. 4 indications ? I'd land on the beach and pull a plug
stupid to ignore this stuff
@@Sometungsten there are people who do this to Automotive Transmissions all the time.
Fuzz burn is normal for rotary design and employment. Chip burn is not.
The Osprey has 3 additional gearboxes a fixed wing airplane would not have. One additional gearbox on each side for tilt-axis of each engine nacelle, and a center mid-wing gearbox that allows one engine to drive both prop-rotors through an interconnecting driveshaft. Intentionally shutting down one engine due to chip fuzz exponentially increases the risk. A rotary wing aircraft must have turning rotors and therefore turning gear boxes in order to either land normally or autorotate. A plane with no gear boxes can still glide . If this pilot had simply landed as soon as possible in accordance with the Air Force and Navy manuals, it would have exponentially increased their chances of a safe landing
It all comes down to the pilot's decision not take the warnings seriously -- incompetence that got his crew dead .
It must always typically is.... But you have people who do the same thing every day with your car. How many times have you seen somebody drive with brake pads screaming?
It’s not incompetence, but something more insidious: complacency. That’s the word you are looking for.
…and complacency. R.I.P. to all the aircrew and prayers to the families. Just an aside, I was discharged (honorably) from the U.S.Marine Corps in 1976 and the medium helo was the CH-46. I never did like the V-22 and after the crashes, I liked it even less. Isn’t there another platform that the military can use until they can figure out what to do next. With all due respect to all those who have worked on this project from the beginning of the V-22 project till this moment, I still have a truck load of reservations about this platform and always will.✝️
@@Ostenjager
Incompetency , the PIC had 1K hrs . He had to know the history of the aircraft and chose to ignore that & the warnings. Either way he got his crew dead. Sorry for the loss of the crew .
When a pilot kills themselves that's one thing but when bad airmanship kills innocent crew members that is truly dishonorable.
That is how I see this, too. His carelessness, arrogance, or incompetence murdered innocent people with families.
@@user-ni2zo5zo3c easy to say, sitting in your lawn chair drinking a beer. Ward did a though breakdown of the crash, but there are MANY sections missing. To assume the pilot, who I'm sure has more hours than you do, just said "screw it, we're flying it" is a pretty stupid comment. Yes, mistakes were made (and that's why reports like this are so valuable) but your "assumptions are just irresponsible.
How about we acknowledge the sacrifices our service members make each and every day, so that you and I can have a discussion such as this? I do, however, appreciate your concern for the families left behind. They are the true victims, and have my prayers.
@@thomream1888 , thank you for your different perspective. You have been persuasive, giving me a new outlook on this incident. I am in your debt.
@@thomream1888 I acknowledge how much of our hard-earned tax money they're sacrificing with their antics. It's the biggest welfare program in human history, and they still demand that we thank them for their "service". Is it not enough that I am forced to fund children playing with the most expensive toys in the world?
Sad news. Sounds avoidable in hindsight. Thank you Sir!
I'm a Search and Rescue responder for the county that I live in. Several years ago my team and I plus the helo crew spent the night in the desert after the helo threw a chip light when they tried to take off to ferry us SAR people back to the LZ so we could go home after a rescue. Pilot explained that it was a big deal, and we were happy to stay.
This a training issue. This crew were essentially ambivalent to the seriousness of chip detectors going off. I had an engine chip detector go off in my Australian Navy Bell 206 about 2 miles from the ship but I was above a beach. I landed on the beach, the chip was inspected and judged as just a bit of fuzz so we returned back to normal ops. Two days later another engine chip detector but this time I was about 3 miles from the ship over remote territory that would be troublesome to reach on foot. I chose to land immediately in the bush, despite the ship being 'just there'. This time the detector revealed major bearing failure and we ended up doing a difficult engine change in the bush. Unless you are at war, all chip detectors should result in looking for somewhere to land immediately. In the case of a gearbox chip like in the osprey, if I couldn't land in the next 2-3 mins, I would drop to a hover taxy put most of the crew into their dingys and hover taxy towards either an island of the nearest ship that I could land on.
> In the case of a gearbox chip like in the osprey, if I couldn't land in the next 2-3 mins, I would drop to a hover
The craft cruised fine until it went into vertical lift mode. That could have been a totally crazy coincidence, or, the thing was broken to the point it simply couldn't hover. And if it was that broken, we don't know at what point it broke like that. It might have been broken that significantly at or before the first warning. In other words, it's not a given they COULD have gone into a hover, or landed, even after the very first warning.
Tragic. Thank you.
Did you ever get more detail about the Marine F-35 in the Carolina's?
Still waiting on the report. Stay tuned.
You have a real gift for dealing with both the practical facts, and emotional needs of incidents such as this. Thanks for your efforts.
The MP was self medicating on an antihistamine. Wonder how, or if it affected his decision making?
Remember that the pilot of the Prowler that crashed on the Nimitz in 1981 was doing the same thing.
The crew received five warning messages concerning issues with the left gearbox which should have resulted in a landing ASAP or a landing immediately.
Once the left gearbox failed and froze, the aircraft became unrecoverable.
This mishap should not have happened.
The late LTGEN Hal Moore stated that the most important characteristic that a military leader should have is good judgment.
That seems to be lacking here....
@AlanToon-fy4hg I am curious about the self medicating issue. I’m a former tin knocker on A-4 Skyhawks, and definitely recall that self medicating for air crew was a no go. Fast forward about 15 years and I was assigned as a door gunner on UH-60s based at LSA Anaconda. The crew chiefs would have me wrenching on the helos with the often because of my background. I had just over 300 hours flying in that tour. I never once heard the self medicating issue mentioned or monitored etc. Obviously that’s saying it didn’t exist, it’s just that it was never brought to my attention.
@glenpiro313 It was a no-go in this case as well. The MPs body was recovered and the drug was found in his bloodstream upon autopsy.
Could be a contributor, but this was such an egregious failure on the part of the navigational crew, pilot, and copilot that it would be hard to believe that it was the cause.
@@glenpiro313 As a doctor with a keen interest in aviation this would depend on the type of anti-histamine. Centrally acting, sedating antihistamines would almost certainly cause impairment, others not so much.
You can't argue with a mechanical system, no matter how simple or complex. You can only respond to an emerging situation, or dismiss the instrument that is revealing that situation. So when the low oil pressure light illuminates in your car, you can dismiss it as a failed pressure sensor, and drive the engine to destruction, or trust that the warning is correct and take appropriate action. It's remarkable that the constant warnings were ignored in this case, considering that the subsequent ones to the first confirmed what anyone with knowledge of mechanics would understand - conclusive proof that the warnings are not spurious, and that failure is imminent.
I worked as Messenger for 15 years oil checked every morning spare filter and half a case of oil and all tools needed for an emergency oil change if was needed on the road with milk containers to drain into.
My son is attached to VRC-40 at Norfolk as an AE1 just finished resurrecting two C2's for upcoming Deployment to the Med, I'm Air Force Veteran, was always worried about the V22 since it came out years ago. Thanks for what you do.
I'm just baffled about the lack of understanding of the errors indicated by the aircraft to the pilot/crew. This mishap was so preventable. Unfortunately, we will never know why he did not fully grasp the severity of the error messages and why he didn't divert.
Just to clarify, I think the transcript is being misinterpreted. The question 'has anyone else seen this before' was an exercise of CRM, gathering input from the rest of the crew to decide what to do, not asking what it was. This is pretty common in multi crew aircraft. It seems the issue was no one else was assertive or challenged what they were continuing to do.
My son was an MV-22 pilot. I'm forwarding this to him. Thank you!
There are a few bits in the AviationWeek report, that possibly hint at where this may be going:
"The engine was running, but the proprotor gearbox clutch was broken. In fact, I think both engines were running.”
and:
"The command said in a statement that it is exploring with Bell-BOEING potentially installing rebuilt input quill assemblies on all CV-22s-a remanufacture of a key component of the proprotor gearbox that is sheared during a hard clutch engagement-with new inner and outer races and sprag clutches."
As an international airline Captain myself... What where 2 highly trained pilots and a highly trained flight engineer thinking??? They had multiple options to divert, multiple lights telling them "HEY YOU HAVE A SERIOUS PROBLEM", controlled water landing option off coasts, and common sense on their side... God be with all of them!
Ward, Best reporting I have heard all year. All facts. No editorial.
Eerily similar to a CH 53 crash in Okinawa around 1985. Same situation, chip light, but Sikorsky said the transmission was still good for 30 minutes after an indication. Pilot elected to continue flight. Gearbox failed and everyone on board was killed in the crash. Similarly, there were various options to land prior to the crash. Very sad this lesson hasn’t been learned. Another huge difference is that the Osprey seems to become rapidly uncontrollable with asymmetric power/thrust/lift. All the more reason to take chip lights very seriously.
The PIC is always in charge of the aircraft and responsibility for all souls on board is his #1 priority even in a combat operation.
Exactly, being a former slick driver.
This is irritating. Land as soon as a possible. How many warnings do you need before you get the message? Poor headwork. Poor airmanship. Poor crew co-ordination.
SO, is taught behavior, since there have been so many Osprey failures and crashes in its complete history? I think it must be!
Beyond the comments about other divert airports, there was likely open terrain they could have made a vertical landing in - sounds like the crew was overly focused on an airport landing and not a safe, immediate touchdown at the earliest actual opportunity (regardless of whether it was on/off-airport). 😕
I am a civilian weather forecaster at Marine Corps Air Station Iwakuni and I watched the Ospreys take off on that fateful day. We got notice about an hour and a half later that one crashed. Such a sad and tragic loss of life.
I appreciate that you were not yet another V-22 basher and just put out the info you have the best you could. After being on the V-22 program for over 20 years now and have actual time on every CV-22 ever built... there is sooo much I want to say (scream) about this whole thing, but can't. Due to where I am. As I sit here reading the comments, sitting on my hands so as to not reply to soo many, at least I can agree with much that is being said.
Really sucks. I don't know if it was ego or denial, but losing propulsion in tilt rotor aircraft is more than critical.
I have had three inflight shutdowns in helicopters and airplanes over the years. Lots of precautionary landings. Don’t get complacent but also don’t panic either.
Often they are a nuisance indications, but i follow manufactures guidance at all times. If you can read part numbers your crew-day is over.
In helicopters land as soon as practical is normally interpreted as the closest facility such as a heliport staging area, ship or airport. Land as soon as possible literally means the closest landing area. Land immediately is to save the souls on board, thats if you have secondaries.
This is a wakeup moment for anyone that flies aircraft with chip detectors period. There are lots of different systems, don’t take chances. This goes for smoke in the cabin as well. Just get it on the ground and do the paperwork.
I just don’t understand why they didn’t heed the warnings.
By virtue of the PIC asking if anyone had ever seen one before I would say it's a combination of him not understanding the magnitude of the threat, and him being the PIC and mission commander to whom everyone else would naturally defer.
@@fredwilliams6843 same reason the captain of the Titanic didn't slow down....
@@Planeviz Just to clarify, I think the transcript is being misinterpreted. The question 'has anyone else seen this before' was an exercise of CRM, gathering input from the rest of the crew to decide what to do, not asking what it was. This is pretty common in multi crew aircraft. It seems the issue was no one else was assertive or challenged what they were continuing to do.
Small correction, the SecDefs in 2000-2002 were William Cohen and Donald Rumsfeld. Cheney was VP by 2001.
Funny how the AF blamed NavAir instead of looking at itself and their training of aircrew in emergency procedures.
Or go read the publications and see they did not violate any rules as they are written, which points to a failure in the way the rules are written. Judgment of course is still primary, but NAVAIR explicitly states a land as soon as possible over water is no longer 'at the next available site', but a/c discretion if they believe a safer landing can be made by continuing. Of course don't fly an extended period, but they followed the letter as NAVAIR wrote it.
Man, the craft did everything it could to warn them 😞
I helped build the Ospery parking lot in Bastion for the 09 deployment. Small world. Go Seabees!
Great report Ward. There were some seriously negligent decisions made by the aircraft commander and copilot in this one. RIP
PIC FAIL. On the fifth PRGBCB they had 18 minutes and as a preemptive move they should have gotten down to the deck even over the water and bee-lined back to Kuroshima. The pilot acted as if it was all no big deal.
Since you can’t dead stick or autorotate those things I’d think one would set it on the ground and discuss the warning before moving on.
Thanks, Ward.
Seems like poor training. Asking if anyone else had seen the light in flight, indicates he was not really trained on how critical it was. Or did not know his aircraft systems well enough. As the PIC you should know your aircraft's' systems regardless of training and better training could have prevented this. It is amazing that the aircraft gave them 40 minutes of warning.
It's not clear it gave them ANY warning. It failed as soon as they set the blades to vertical, which is required to land. It's possible that setting them to vertical even after the first warning would already have been too late.
@@lqr824 What? They had multiple warning lights for FORTY MINUTES! It is possible that it would have failed no matter what after the first warning, but that is doubtful as the problem seemed to get worse as they proceeded as indicated by the additional warnings. They were not all for the same things. The warnings detect different things, from initial indication of a possible problem, to land now its about to fail. They basically ignored all of them.
Just to clarify, I think the transcript is being misinterpreted. The question 'has anyone else seen this before' was an exercise of CRM, gathering input from the rest of the crew to decide what to do, not asking what it was. This is pretty common in multi crew aircraft. It seems the issue was no one else was assertive or challenged what they were continuing to do.
Quality content as usual. It's shocking that, despite the amount of warnings, the Pilot decided to continue on mission. Growing up, I remember a number of Chinook crashes surrounding complicated gearbox issues and they haven't got any simpler.
Excellent description of what happened.
brings back memories when i was a military helicopter mechanic and a helicopter returned after failing to burn off a chip detection. When we removed the chip detector we found a nut inside the main gearbox which easily could have caused a catastrophic outcome.
There should be a major investigation into why no one in the cockpit knew what that error was and practically disregarded it.
Just to clarify, I think the transcript is being misinterpreted. The question 'has anyone else seen this before' was an exercise of CRM, gathering input from the rest of the crew to decide what to do, not asking what it was. This is pretty common in multi crew aircraft. It seems the issue was no one else was assertive or challenged what they were continuing to do.
@@nicholaskent3942 The fact that they didn't tell air traffic control about the issue until it was too late was not only a fatal mistake, it also shows they did not take the warning seriously. They also thought the error was a false positive and would clear itself. I don't see any misinterpretation here at all. This aircraft falls out of the sky if the transmission fails and they ignored a problem with it.
Wow, as ex Seaking and Merlin crew. This caution was ingrained into us. Out FRC’S, any chip, even a single chip detection was taken seriously and would definitely have gone down the practical, possible and immediate land scenario. An avoidable loss of life and aircraft in my opinion.
A totally trained pilot ignoring the outright pleas of the FE to get it down instead focusing on mission completion. The aircraft tried to tell him 6 different ways to get on the ground. Unfamiliar with multiple chip lights ? How can that be.
Just to clarify, I think the transcript is being misinterpreted. The question 'has anyone else seen this before' was an exercise of CRM, gathering input from the rest of the crew to decide what to do, not asking what it was. This is pretty common in multi crew aircraft. It seems the issue was no one else was assertive or challenged what they were continuing to do.
Beyond heartbreaking, as you bring out, Ward. Many thanks for sharing.
An excellent summary of a tragic situation - in fact, the best I've read or heard. Thank you Ward. Lots of lessons to be learned.
Twice as fast, twice as far..but in my opinion twice as dangerous..thanks for the update Ward 👍🏼
Statistics prove otherwise.
@@WALTERBROADDUS statistics? fleet wide that machine is a failure
@@user-jq2rf4nf3o But facts matter, and the data shows the 10-year average mishap rate for MV-22s is 3.43 per 100,000 flight hours. For context, that places the Osprey's mishap rate squarely in the middle of the other type/model/series aircraft currently flown by the U.S. Marine Corps.
@@WALTERBROADDUS I doubt seriously they have accrued 100,000 hours...
@@WALTERBROADDUS Won't auto, Mission restrictions, you can play with the numbers all day long, V-22 is the worst of both worlds... A Frog's better. Seen then come down cut in half more then once and save the remaining crew and pax, Your V-22 can't do that... Multiple chip lights ignored, Real sad
Sounds to me the pilot didn't take the situation seriously enough soon enough
Thank you for a well presented in-depth break down Ward. Bloody sad sobering listening. Is this a normalisation of deviance with the constant ignoring of the chip detector systems? How many others have been ignoring the same warnings? Such a bloody shame to see the loss of life and an airframe that was preventable.
Amazing how long that gearbox system lasted as well.
Condolences to the families of those lost. 😔
i like your warning about "a normalisation of deviance". Please tell us more about this, in different contexts, as far as you understand it. Thanks.
Thanks for posting the names of the lost Airmen. Thanks for the information and your hard work.
Thank you for providing this update.
Minor correction: Cheney wasn't Secretary of Defense in 2002 - he was Vice President (Secretary of Defense in 1989 - 1993 and attempted to defund the V-22 then). Rumsfeld was Secretary of Defense in 2002).
Thankyou Sir for the video and listing the names of the deceased as you did which honors them. Prayers for the victims, families, friends and comrades. A Salute of Respect and Honor.
This is very sad… and a terrible loss of life. I was involved with this aircraft in aerospace for 23 years…starting in ‘99 ….specifically on the Aircraft Control Systems … For the Roll, Pitch, and Yaw. Each unit had J1 and J2 electrical connectors… for redundancy, for the Feedback systems… to the pilots Yoke and Pedals! We tested these with engineering Simulations, at the Facility in NC where I worked. Prayers for all these families to find peace!
... this has ALWAYS shown up as "GET-HOME+ITIS" - it wasn't WAR - it was practice. SO - practice landing somewhere and turn the thing over to maintenance...
You did a really good job of putting this report together, Ward. well done
CDR, you also need to read the accident report on the B-1B that crashed at Elsworth in January.
It was scathing...
At 260 lbs, one of the crew was overweight for the ejection seat!
@@gordonbergslien30 Should have been on the fat boy program. The limit for the ACES seat was 211 lbs.
Excellent break down as usual Ward, thank you. You don’t skimp on the mechanical side of things during your explanation. Normally the actual descriptions of what broke and why get glossed over. It’s a real shame to hear just how avoidable this incident was. The hubristic attitude that often accompanies a seasoned military pilot strikes again.
If an engine fails can still power its prop from the other - if a gearbox fails you’re done.
@johnwatson3948: The V22 is "supposed to be able to share power from one side to the other" (my layman's description), but it is such a Rube Goldberg design with the clutches, driveshafts and gearboxes, that even a Rapid Clutch Engagement can break the shaft(s) and other things. Another project that should have been questioned at the Concept Stage...and only allowed to proceed if someone had figured out how to power two nacelles/prop, with balancing done automatically and WITHOUT hard parts that have to "feed the other side". Like electric motors, perhaps driving each prop with redundant circuitry?
Man I'm sure glad we recognized that the V-22 wasn't the future of the military and totally didn't decide:
*"You know what would be even better than a V-22, new V-22s for other branches!"*
Blaming NAVAIR for the pilot ignoring warnings until the gearbox tore itself apart? Blame USAF training.
To me this sounds like a case of get-there-itis and I can't help but wonder if there are cultural problems that incentives such disregard for what should have been treated as an emergency.
Didn’t the pilot follow the guidelines? ‘As soon as practical’ is very subjective, no? I really think the wording of the guidelines need to be changed if 1 chip detect or 3 means ‘Right now, soon as possible, as close as possible’. But that’s not what it said. Maybe I’m wrong but it seems subjective. It’s easy to say it after wards.
I have a feeling thats part of the issue is that navair shouldve passed along a training requirement for pilots or a list of alarms too look out for if flying and what to do sort of like a quick go to sheet for critical and non-critical alarms/warnings and this likely was something well known but never put in black and white
What besides the fact that as ward stated, they were in compliance with the NAVAIR guidelines. And, NAVAIR caveats a land as soon as possible when over water, as the aircraft commanders discretion. It essentially becomes a land as soon as practical if the possible occurs over open water. Immediately is a different animal
Such an incredible lack of urgency showed by the pilots and crew, especially given these aircraft's crash and maintenance requirements history. Authors of their own destiny...
Sounds like the aircraft was was telling the pilot "LAND ME NOW GODDAMIT!!!"
5 times to be exact. Pilot decided "Whatever..." and free-balled it for a 150 mile sight-seeing tour over open ocean before augering in. Crazy stuff given the track record of tilt-rotor aircraft.