With the latest CV-22 Osprey crash in Japan resulting in the deaths of eight, is it time to consider declaring the idea a failure and going back to helicopters?
It just seems like every 8-12 months another one is crashing taking a bunch of people with it. I know I wouldn't fly in one.You need to compare flight hour rate to crashes to see where you end up. Comparing this things rate to fixed wing aircraft is not a valid comparison.
Not for long anyway.It just seems like every 8-12 months another one is crashing taking a bunch of people with it. I know I wouldn't fly in one.
A good friend of mine was a USMC O4. He had a beautiful wife and two daughters. He died flying an Osprey with a aircraft load of Marines on board that went down with him. The report was that turbulence brought it down. I knew several of the people that were working on the design/engineering of it at Pax. They knew the Osprey has issues before the first one was even cleared to fly. The DoD pushed it through anyhow. Its initial problem was it was too heavy. Therefore, they got rid of a lot of protective parts of the aircraft to lighten it up. I told the Major that it was a dangerous aircraft from the beginning. But, he was a Marine following orders. "A person who followed orders to his death".With the latest CV-22 Osprey crash in Japan resulting in the deaths of eight, is it time to consider declaring the idea a failure and going back to helicopters?
When the Navy is trying to replace a fix wing aircraft with it I think it is a valid comparison.You need to compare flight hour rate to crashes to see where you end up. Comparing this things rate to fixed wing aircraft is not a valid comparison.
I agree. But, millions are invested in to it and a lot of high paying jobs. Military will risk killing more just to keep the status quo. They will ground aircraft for a period of time until they think it blows over. Then they will let them fly until the next crash. Then groiund again. Wash their hands of it. Then fly. Then ground again. Then wash, rinse, repeat. Wash rinse repeat. Etc. Years ago, a friend of mine was flying one with 19 Marines on board. They all died. I know quite a bit about the aircraft and the politics that go with it. Too much to mention here.With the latest CV-22 Osprey crash in Japan resulting in the deaths of eight, is it time to consider declaring the idea a failure and going back to helicopters?
The H-53 has killed more sailors and marines in its service life than all other navy and marine corp aircraft combined.I agree. But, millions are invested in to it and a lot of high paying jobs. Military will risk killing more just to keep the status quo. They will ground aircraft for a period of time until they think it blows over. Then they will let them fly until the next crash. Then groiund again. Wash their hands of it. Then fly. Then ground again. Then wash, rinse, repeat. Wash rinse repeat. Etc. Years ago, a friend of mine was flying one with 19 Marines on board. They all died. I know quite a bit about the aircraft and the politics that go with it. Too much to mention here.
The fixed wing aircraft it is replacing was a relatively safe aircraft with a low mishap rate considering how long it has been in service.When the Navy is trying to replace a fix wing aircraft with it I think it is a valid comparison.
The fixed wing aircraft it is replacing was a relatively safe aircraft with a low mishap rate considering how long it has been in service.
When the Navy is trying to replace a fix wing aircraft with it I think it is a valid comparison.
That is certainly correct. But, it has been in service much longer.The H-53 has killed more sailors and marines in its service life than all other navy and marine corp aircraft combined.
The old saying is the more moving parts, the more that can go wrong.They blew it, should cut bait and build more C-2's IMO or something else. Proven airframe but not multi mission like the widow maker.
Too many moving parts make Johnny a killer. I can't imagine that pos on single engine.