Announcement

Collapse

Terms of Use Agreement

1. You agree, through your use of these public Forums, not to post any material which is unlawful, libelous, defamatory, obscene, vulgar, sexually orientated, abusive, hateful, harassing, threatening, harmful, invasive of privacy or publicity rights, inflammatory or otherwise objectionable. You also agree not to post any copyrighted material unless the copyright is owned by you. You further agree not to use these public Forums for advertising or other commercial enterprise purposes. Any questions directed to, or concerning the administration of this website, will be sent to admin@popasmoke.com and not posted to the public Forums.

2. All postings express the views of the author, and neither the administrators nor POPASMOKE will be held responsible for the content of any postings submitted by the Members or anyone else. The administrators of these Forums reserve the right to remove, edit, move or close any postings for any reason. Members who make postings on the Forums which are not in accordance with the Terms of Use Agreement, risk having their posting privileges withdrawn.
See more
See less

VERY SAD NEWS-CV-22 Crash.

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • VERY SAD NEWS-CV-22 Crash.

    I do not know the date of this Crash, but it has happened. The Air Force has let out a report on it, as I read it last evening. A CV-22 has crashed on a Combat mission. There were 4 Dead, and 16 injured. The report goes,'There are 10 factors that combined to doom the Flight, which was the Crews first Combat Mission. They are, Inadequate weather planning, a poorly executed low visability approach, a tail wind, a challenging visual environment, the mishap Crews task saturation, the mishap Co-Pilots distraction, the mishap Co-Pilots negative transfer of a behavior learned in a previous Aircraft, The mishap Crews pressing to accomplish their First Combat Mission of the deployment, an un-anticipated High rate of decent, and Engine Power Loss. The CV-22 Crash was caused by Pilot error, with 'Engine Power Loss', which may have contributed to the crash that killed 4 including the Pilot, and injuring 16 others. From the Accident investigators actual report states: Close analysis of Video indicates that there is an un-identified Contrail Type Emission from the MA during the last 17 seconds of Flight. The Greater weight of credible evidence indicates that the abnormal and intermitent emission could be heat , OR Fuel Mist from an attempted engine re-start, or Smoke. " it was determined by the greater weight of credible evidence, that One or Both the MA's Engines was degraded below accepted standards". I believe this is a Terrible Loss at a time very Critical of the AirCraft. I Pray God be with the lost, and their Families, and all that were injured. S/F.
    Last edited by Ace Hunt; 12-18-2010, 15:39. Reason: added a statement.

  • #2
    Air Force Changes story on V-22 Crash

    A Lt.Gen., Kurt Cichowski,vice commander of Air Force Special opps wrote.""He finds the preponderance of evidence does not support a determination of engine loss as a substantially contributing factor in the crash"". Now they are covering up the fact the engines did not have enough power to climb out of the landing, make an orbit, and land beyond the 2 foot ditch that was the determing factor in it doing a flip-flop, killing 4, and injuring 16. He is covering it up. That is good to know, as I will never ride on one. He is not accepting engine loss. Still say if there was power in the engines, the well eperienced Pilot would have pulled out, and made a better landing somewhere else. The Lt.Gen. seems to be playing politics with peoples lives. If there is a problem with the 30 year old project let it be found out. Each one costs 87 plus million dollars apiece. How much money do you put on a persons Life that has to ride on one? When they take the engine apart that survived, they will have the evidence to hang the General, and hope he has to retire, as he is playing with lives. Wonder how many times he has ridden on one? That is will he ever ride on one again? I do doubt it. All this about the crash has been posted on this site of ours, since yesterday, the 18th. of Dec. at 11:43 am. Semper Fi.. and READY-APP.
    Last edited by Ace Hunt; 12-19-2010, 20:56. Reason: corrected words.

    Comment


    • #3
      Early crashes

      Ace
      When you were in fixed wings and before,the CH-46A's were crashing all over south Viet Nam. Military aviation is inherintly dangerous and the pioneers in most ANY aircraft have paid for that progress with their lives! The early Phrogs with their station 410 problems are legendary. I don't understand your negative comments surrounding the MV-22. I have visited those proud Marine flying them and they are dedicated to their bird, just like we were! These birds have already flown thousands of sorties in the sandbox and undoubtedly will fly many more before we leave the theater. They will continue to improve and gain reliability the more they fly.....Let's not be so quick to judge....
      Semper Fidelis
      Joe


      Phu Bai tower:
      YW-11 for Phu Bai DASC-
      Remember, These are "A" models!
      YW-11 BuNo-151939
      '65 Model CH-46A

      Comment


      • #4
        Early Crashes.

        Come on Joe, there has never been an Aircraft that is still having trouble after 30 years like the 22 has, and aparantly still is. The very 1st actual crash in I would believe Afghanistan, as they didn't say, and they are trying to cover it up.(it was engine failure). The Air Force said it was the crews 1st Combat mission. How many more 30 year's they going to waste money on this boon-doggle. They fixed the 46 in no time, but its been 30 years since they started on the 22, and its still, I'd say eperimental. You bet they are dedicated and love it, but I bet they will still be having problems with it in 60 more years from now. I laugh at it. Semper Fi, and READY-APP.

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by John Ace Hunt View Post
          I do not know the date of this Crash, but it has happened.
          It happened in April.

          Comment


          • #6
            CV-22 crash

            April? There is a Cover-UP big time. The engines did not have the power when needed. I bet the brains of boeing sleep well at night, or whenever, dreaming how they are going to spend the many Hundreds of Billions of dollars they have made off a guillable Military on this thing, period. I have the guts to tell them this. Semper Fi, and READY-APP.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by John Ace Hunt View Post
              Come on Joe, there has never been an Aircraft that is still having trouble after 30 years like the 22 has, and aparantly still is. The very 1st actual crash in I would believe Afghanistan, as they didn't say, and they are trying to cover it up.(it was engine failure). The Air Force said it was the crews 1st Combat mission. How many more 30 year's they going to waste money on this boon-doggle. They fixed the 46 in no time, but its been 30 years since they started on the 22, and its still, I'd say eperimental. You bet they are dedicated and love it, but I bet they will still be having problems with it in 60 more years from now. I laugh at it. Semper Fi, and READY-APP.
              The initial research and prototype aircraft may have started back in the 1980s, but the Osprey has only been in the inventory since 1999 with the first A models going to VMMT-204. The first combat squadron VMM-263 didn't activate until 2006.

              From 2000 -2010 Ospreys have had 4 Class A mishaps with 23 fatalities (those were back in 2000). Since 2000 CH-46s have had 6 Class A mishaps with 16 killed. The most recent of those was in 2007 in Iraq.

              Comment


              • #8
                back and forth

                I guess it can go back and forth on this jack rabbit. The 22 has had 23 fatilities, plus 4 in this last april crash which equals 27,from 2000-2010, and the 46 has had 7 with 16 killed in the same amount of time. Its a 40 year old in service Airframe, and still has an 11 pack better survival rate than the 22 from 2000-2010. I'll take the 46,- 40 years from now, than the 22. My understanding is they may have thousands of hours on them, but are not allowed to land in a Combat zone, just close to it, where the 46 lands in them still. Semper Fi, and READY-APP.

                Comment


                • #9
                  CH-46 or V-22

                  Glad I ain't on either one !BUT if someone let me I'd limp one of them backpack nukes to ole salami been hidden (osama ben lying ) and push the button on his A$$ !
                  non illigitimus carborundumMAF gripe ... deadbugs on windshield...action taken...R&R with live bugs!

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Engine Power or Poor Planning?

                    Originally posted by John Ace Hunt View Post
                    April? There is a Cover-UP big time. The engines did not have the power when needed. I bet the brains of boeing sleep well at night, or whenever, dreaming how they are going to spend the many Hundreds of Billions of dollars they have made off a guillable Military on this thing, period. I have the guts to tell them this. Semper Fi, and READY-APP.
                    The report on Military.com today indicated that the LZ was over 5,000 ft: I can remeber when my Huey gun ship had trouble geting out of Ky San and the 46 boys had trouble also. No, sounds like a pre-plan math screw up put them outside of the envlope and they just flat ran out of luck.....

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Engine Power or poor planning

                      Bart, the Bird was coming in I believe fixed wing, and the pilot noticed the 2 plus ft. ditch. He had no power to climb out again, go around and do it over, as both the engines didn't have the power to do it. The nose gear hit the ditch, and did a flip or two, end over end. The only engine that wasn't destroyed, was the left one. I believe if the experienced pilot had power when he needed it he would have orbited, and landed away from the ditch, and it would have been a good landing. Then it would have been a repair of the engines. Now they are trying to say it wasn't the engines, but pilot error. Why did it have something like smoke, or fuel like in a re-start, coming out of it, the last 17 seconds? Thats why I say cover up. Semper FI, and READY-APP.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Landing fixed wing?

                        Ace, They can't land fixed wing, the blades are way too long. They can only land as a helo. I was lucky enough to do a simulator Carrier approach in New River in 2008 and they are quite maneuverable, approach at a 45* angle from the flight deck. Interesting ride!!
                        Semper Fidelis
                        Joe


                        Phu Bai tower:
                        YW-11 for Phu Bai DASC-
                        Remember, These are "A" models!
                        YW-11 BuNo-151939
                        '65 Model CH-46A

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          landing Fixed wing

                          Well the piece of junk can not land with the wings in full fixed wing, but the Air Force report said they were doing a run on landing. Guess I wasn't specific as to the letter, but the nacells had to be in a 45 degree angle for it, and why the pilot didn't see the ditch, and pull up over it we will never know, just speculation, as he is dead. The 22 is susposed to be able to do a Helo landing, well why did he do a roll on landing instead? I did say the 46 could do an orbit and land somewhere else, well you suposed to be a 46 man, didn't you ever have to dump fuel, and get light enough to go around, or move over to a better set down spot? I have and did. Depends on wether you have a Pilot that instinctly does it, and pulls it off, or not. We had Pilots that did. I have my feelings bout the alunimum, titanium, composit disaster, and will keep them. Why wasn't I cut down on not including the titanium body as well? I had 2 years in fixed wing, and a lot of flying in the 46, and do know as much as I care to know about either one. What I did, or you did will not change the fact it has features for a 86-90 million Aircraft that leaves a LOT to be desired. The Air Force Bird had engine failure, wether the general wants to admit it or not, and its a matter of time before the Marine Corps Birds start doing the same thing. How happy are the Crews going to be then? It would be the best thing in the world if boeing had to give all the 22 money back, and another company start all over. I mean 30 years, just how much more time are the people going to need on this thing? It will be problamatic from now on. The problems will never be all found. I picked the 46 because it was the best Bird Flying, and still is. YES, Picked. I'm not full of crap, as I took care of that some time ago. Good healthy movement, big long ons. I'm not going to defend myself every day on this 22, to everyone that doesn't like what I say about it, and I do have the right to say what I feel I want to say. I will say I was a Very Good Plane Capt. in fixed wing, and flew as 46 Crew Chief to the complete satisfaction of my Pilots, and Officers in Charge, and did well, never having to abort a mission. SO, Semper Fi, and READY-APP.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            AF Accident Investigation Report

                            The has the report online.
                            http://www.afsoc.af.mil/accidentinve...oard/index.asp

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              AF Accident Investigation Report.

                              Everything stated, is what I reported. The Black box was not destroyed, it was not even looked for until much later that they found out it had one, then went back to the crash site to find it, and it just happened to be gone. The aircraft is susposed to land like a chopper, but did a roll on landing ,(with the nacells in a 45 degree attitude). The Pilot is dead, so can not find out why he landed as he did. In my expert opinion, he didn't have to. READY-APP.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X