Exclusive: First V-22 Combat Crash Likely “Pilot Error”

Exclusive: First V-22 Combat Crash Likely “Pilot Error”

An investigation of the crash of an Air Force special operations CV-22 Osprey in Afghanistan last month has concluded the pilot of the tilt-rotor aircraft flew too close to the ground, striking an earthen berm, a source who has been briefed on the finding tells Line Of Departure.
The conclusions of the accident investigators — which haven’t been released because they are not yet final — rule out mechanical malfunction and hostile fire as possible causes of the first crash of an operational model of the controversial heli-plane.
The final report is likely to blame the mishap on pilot error, because the evidence suggests the V-22 was flying at high speed, at very low altitude, in airplane mode, with its massive rotors perpendicular to the ground when it struck the berm.
A source says the force of the impact sheared off both engines (nacelles) and both wings before the plane flipped over.
Remarkably of the 20 occupants, 16 survived the crash. The dead included an Air Force pilot, an Air Force flight engineer, an Army ranger, and a civilian whose affiliation was not disclosed.
Proponents of the V-22 have argued the aircraft’s design makes surviving a crash more likely, and the incident would likely lend credence to that argument. It will also dispute statements made by the Taliban, which after the crash on the night of April 8/April 9 claimed credit for shooting the down.
The accident report neither validates the V-22’s proponents, nor vindicates its detractors. It may just postpone that debate until the next incident.
“I don’t think it means anything for the future of the V-22, because obviously that kind of thing could happen to any aircraft if its just a question of flying too fast and too low”, says longtime aviation reporter Richard Whittle, author of the authoritative new book, “The Dream Machine: the Untold History of the Notorious V-22 Osprey.“
Whittle cautions against blaming the pilot for the crash, before the full investigation is released, “Whether a pilot is actually negligent or not is a very difficult question,” says Whittle, “but if that turns out to be the case, then obviously it has nothing to do with the mechanics of the V-22, or possibly even the tactics, maybe the Air Force has to rethink their tactics, I don’t know.”

PHOTO: U.S. Air Force

Tags: , ,

Join the Conversation

I don’t mean to make light of what is a terrible tragedy, but aren’t all airplane crashes ultimately the consequence of flying too close to the ground?

Uh… actually no. There is an old joke about this, but the fact is most crashes have nothing to do with flying too close to the ground, including for example, mid-air collisions. Most crashes RESULT in the the plane coming into violent contact with the ground, but the the effect, not the cause.
I take you at your word when you say you don’t mean to make light of a terrible tragedy.

From my understanding, until this point, there hasn’t been a crash in this aircraft since 2000. I had an opportunity to fly in the V-22 simulator recently and if people understood the true potential of this aircraft, they would understand that it is and will continue to play a very vital role in our national defense. Pilot error, if that is what it is determined to be, occurs in every type of aircraft.

I agree.
Having flown in the V-22, and many times in the old Vietnam era CH-46s and CH47s, there is no doubt in my mid that if i needed to be lifted out of a hot LZ, I would want an Osprey to whisk me away…
I think the problems have been fixed, and all planes have parameters inside which they can be safely operated…

Jamie,
I’m disappointed in your article. In an effort to be the first to publish findings, you got the entire scenario wrong. Mistake 2 was listening to Whittle. You will be looking silly when the AIB (Accident Invesitgation Board) findings are released.

The AC has the lift characteristics of the space shuttle, all drag and no lift surfaces. One possibility is hydraulic failure, which caused the second crash in 2000, so the pilot was unable to control the AC. Another is that it was a controlled crash caused by another problem, i.e., the pilot was making an emergency landing. Would have been difficult for anyone to survive if the AC were going at full speed and clipped the ground.

And Whittle’s book is told from the perspective of the program management and contractors. He never got into how the DD250s showed the AC were accepted with many serious waivers/deviations and that the program office never corrected hundreds of squawks sent to them from people testing the AC.

“All drag and no lift surfaces”? What do you call those 38 foot diameter things whirling at the ends of that 50 foot wing on top of the fuselage? If the pilot were making an emergency landing, he would have done so in helicopter mode, not airplane mode. And your quote about DD250s shows you are an insider. Waivers are documented and risks are assessed, and monetary withholds are taken before the government accepts aircraft. Flight test squawks are also categorized by safety impact. Safety issues are fixed first, other issues are addressed as feasible.

It is common for the program to put out lies to newsmen to cover real problems. The proprotors are not strong enough to shear off the engines. And it was flying at “high speed” and flipped on its back with only four deaths? Complete BS

Will wait for the real report. They have still not released the CV-22 Class for Mar 2 of last year, so this one will remain “pending” for years, until the last one is paid for. Meanwhile, the program will claim “pilot error” and cite this BS article as proof.

Since the CV-22 cannot autorotate, the manual says to belly land in the airplane mode without landing gear (to prevent it from digging in and flipping over) and to keep the props forward so the rotors “broomstick” and don’t slice into the fuselage. I agree with chesty, if it were flying at high-speed, everyone would be dead. Just horrible reporting. “inside” military sources are often directed to lie, and only naive reporters trust them. In this case, Mr. M must be doing someone a favor.

All the info one needs is athttp://​www​.G2mil​.com I know those profiting off this program, or whose careers are tied to it, hate that website because it contains all the facts they hate.

Instead of passing along pro V-22 BS from dubious sources, why don’t you do some real reporting and ask why they refuse to release the results of the CV-22 Class A mishap at Kirkland from way back in Mar 2, 2009?
http://​usaf​.aib​.law​.af​.mil/​i​n​d​e​x​F​Y​0​9​.​h​tml

The proprotors are pure helixes, not lift surfaces, which is why it cannot autorotate. The ability of a helix to lift the AC in helicopter mode is much less than if they were wing segments, which is why the Marana occurred.

The wing loading, such as it is, is approximately the same as the space shuttle. I never heard of a propeller’s characteristics being added into lift calculations.

The items on the DD250s were very serious, not cosmetic. The contractors put them there so USG assumes all responsibility in the event of legal issues resulting from mishaps.

What are you talking about? The proprotor blades have twist to allow performance both as rotor blades and propellers. The fact that the aircraft takes off vertically is ample proof that they are lifting surfaces. Calling them “helixes”, and therefore unable to generate lift, is simply nonsense and has nothing to do with autorotation.

The low inertia of the lightweight, small diameter rotor disk has more to do with autorotation characteristics. Autorotation is needed when both engines are lost. Modern turbine engines are very reliable, so the probability of simultaneous failure is low. Further the V-22 has survivability features (redundant flight control system, interconnecting driveshafts, etc) to reduce probability of crash due to either reliability or ballistic reasons.

DD250 items are reviewed for safety and other considerations (maintenance, mission performance, etc) and are not accepted if safety is compromised. Further, the government witholds payment for all deviations until they are fixed.

One possibility is hydraulic failure, which caused the second crash in 2000,

You fail to mention that aircrew error was a contributing factor in the loss of the Osprey at New River in December of 2000. Either Murphy or Sweaney toggled the FCS reset 8–10 times; contraindicated by NATOPS, which exacerbated the FCS software anomalies resulting in departure from controlled flight. Previous V-22s had suffered similar hydraulic failures without loss of the aircraft.

“All the info one needs is athttp://www.G2mil.com I know those profiting off this program, or whose careers are tied to it, hate that website because it contains all the facts they hate.”

Is the fabricated testimony regarding the Osprey that you were caught trying to pass off as legitimate been culled from your website, Carlton?

If you’re looking for disinformation and lies, Meyer’s g2mil is where you want to be. If you’re looking for facts, don’t go anywhere near that cesspool.

Interested party, have you ever stood next to a V-22 prop rotor? Do you understand how autorotation works?

Wrong on not accepting AC with problems. Have you seen the V-22 DD250s? Look at the one for AC18.

Nice discussion. Perhaps our reporter friend who made it possible can FOIA for some info. 1) DD250s, at least for the AC that have crashed. He will need to get accurate info on what TA, TC, FA, FC mean. 2) Actual performance of the proprotors, including stall characteristics. 3) Minutes of all DCMA meetings to discuss V-22 quality issues.

It’s correct that autorotation is unlikely for anything above a Blackhawk. Huey pilots would do it during training back in the day, but probably has never been one with a CH-46, certainly never with a Chinook. The point with the helix v. wing segment discussion is that a wing segment gets 8–9 times greater output than a helix in helo mode, so that the momentum of the proprotor has much less output in terms of keeping the AC up. The Huey blades are pure wing segments, so their retained motion provides a lot of lift, and the same effect you have in an autogyro is going on as well, converting forward motion, something the helix will not do.

So autorotation is not possible, as every V-22 pilot knows. Trying to glide down is impossible because of the small wing area and high drag.

BTW, was a huge mistake to remove the ejection seats from the V-22 — up through FSD they had ejection seats. Was a political move to ensure the passengers that they were all in it together.

One other thing our reporter friend should do is find the court cases that were settled after the two 2000 crashes and ask that the records of those be unsealed. Sealed court case records can be unsealed if it is in the public interest to do so.

Google “A.A. Cunningham” and you will find him on every V-22 forum conducting attacks against anyone who says anything bad about the V-22. He is a V-22 profiteer working as a covert PR rep for Bell, known as a “flogger.” For example, he pretends G2mil was “caught” passing off bogus things about the V-22, but never provides an exact link. Yes, read G2mil, which had another V-22 expose just days before this crash. Still lots of problems, so much so the USAF don’t even fly them across the Atlantic anymore. Readiness rates in Afghanistan are below 30% for an aircraft that has been in production since 1997. Only 10 of them are there, out of some 180 funded by Congress. Its older than the C-17 program.

If you read that G2mil article, the Corps lost two Boeing F/A-18s the past 16 months when both “highly reliable” engines failed, so the pilots ejected. What’s worse with the V-22 is that if loaded with payload, it cannot land vertically if it loses just one engine, it crashes. Bell-Boeing may dispute this, but a OEI vertical landing has never been attempted, even in testing, they did some in the airplane mode on an runway.

That may have caused this mishap, and the one from Mar. 2, 2009, which they have illegally kept secret.

For more fun, google around for a sealed case about a hidden V-22 mishap in 2004. A Marine LCPL sued for damages after he suffered from burns and smoke inhalation from a V-22 fire. The Corps gave him a medal and discharged him. The case was in New Mexico. It was quickly settled and sealed and no mishap report was filed,

Hi Folks, thanks for the informative discussion. I have a few questions, perhaps someone has answers or partial answers. Where did the crash occur, near a landing location? If the aircraft (AC??) was attempting to land in airplane mode, would it be SOP for the pilot to reduce forward speed to below the tilt disable speed, apparently 100–120 KIAS (Knots Indicated Air Speed). This speed, near the limit to provide adequate lift in airplane mode would seem to me to be the probably meaning of “high speed.” What do you guys thing?
When can we expect the actual report vice this leaked version? Personally I reject on general principles any investigation that blames the pilot exclusively for an accident. I think of that as bayoneting the wounded.
Thanks for considering my questions and comments.

When you are a reporter, you live by the source and die by the source. And NO, Rick Whittle is not the source, in fact I think he’s among the people who thinks maybe my source is mistaken. So all I can say is its a good source, in a position to know, who has always been reliable in the past.
As with any sourced report, eventually the facts will be be released, and we can measure the sourced report with the official release.
Jamie

Because there is no such place is Kirkland! It’s Kirtland and there have been no Class A’s here ever… I don’t know what that site’s source to say there was one is…

sorry; “…as Kirkland!”

The thought the reporter’s standard was two reliable sources. Who is your other source? And don’t tell me your other source is a Marine Corps officer!

H-53 can auto rotate, and they are almost twice the size of a blackhawk

I believe your “souce” did something illegal, the SIB findings has not been released to the public as of yet. It is ballsey that he did that, with this program under such scrutiny.

Here’s the facts reporter. You cannot print facts because you were not there, you cannot print partial facts because you are not to be at SIB/AIB briefings. I have met the families of the fallen including the wife and children of the pilot whom you and your “source” sling mud at. How about you realize what “need to know” means and have a little respect for the families and brothers of those with the guts to try.

malakovich -
There is such a place as Kirkland…in WA state east fo Seattle, home of Costco. No AFB there, though :)

Please a Class A Mishap on the CV-22, could be a gearbox that has seized and wasn’t caught.. Read up on classification of mishaps. I was on the aircraft at that time, and there was nothing hidden or secret about that mishap.. A maintenance person could have dropped an engine on the ground while trying to put it up, there is a class a mishap…

Wow, another CV hater.. Just a little FYI, the AF has flown them across the Atlantic. But through recent discovery it is a hell of a lot cheaper to ship them…

I completely agree, and whoever your source is should have to go to the homes of the families and apologize for the mud slinging and crap they have talked about the program. These men risk their lives on a daily basis, and all you reporters seem to think that it is a big “conspiracy!” Really, get a life!! The operators who fly this plane back it 110%. Although a few of these people that claim it is such a waste of a program have actually gotten to ride on, none of them has seen it work in a war time mission.. Pretty sad to write such garbage!

*required

NOTE: Comments are limited to 2500 characters and spaces.

By commenting on this topic you agree to the terms and conditions of our User Agreement