|
Hot-Breathing Osprey Sparks Five-Acre Fire
Eagle-eyed Osprey-watcher Springbored noticed some differences between the Marine Corps explanation of the event and the coverage on a local news channel in North Carolina, where the incident occurred. In the official version, the aircraft landed due to mechanical problems at 7 pm in Holly Shelter Game Land in Pender County, NC. When it was preparing to take off, the heat from the exhaust ignited the grass underneath it. “The grass fire was quickly extinguished by the crew chief, but caused an undetermined amount of heat damage to the aircraft exterior,” according to a rather bland Corps statement. The News 14 version is more colorful. They say that fire-fighters did not bring the blaze under control until 11 pm, implying a larger conflagration that could not be put out by one man with a portable extinguisher. Springbored quotes another local news source saying that brush was set on fire. Local emergency management director Eddie King added, “It burned a little less than five acres.” Springbored can claim some foresight on this one. In April, he stated, “we’ve known for years that V-22 downwash is notorious for setting nearby vegetation afire” and questioned how this would affect training exercises in Southern California during the dry season” “Are MV-22s going to be restricted to landing at only neatly-groomed, nicely leveled backwoods landing sites? Or do Marines just like hopping off their transport with fire extinguishers?” (Cue the joke about arriving in a hot Landing Zone.) A few fires are one thing, but the hot exhaust can also cause trouble on board a ship, where it can warp steel. Last month Aviation Week reported that as well as reliability issues, the exhaust was a problem: It was discovered that on smaller deck amphibious ships, heat from the downward-pointing nacelles could potentially warp the stringers [horizontal structural beams] underneath the deck plates. “We’re concerned with heat on the LPD and LSD decks because the steel is so thin,” Trautman said, adding that the service has “worked through that challenge.” There are two suggested solutions. One is to angle the nacelles forward rather than leaving them vertical, which would allow the aircraft to remain for about half an hour. The alternative is to add deck plates which would give ninety minutes of protection. Secrecy and a refusal to disclose details of the aircraft’s operational rate in Iraq (rumored to be poor) have increased the rumblings of doom; a Marine general has suggested buying less Ospreys and more helicopters. At least the Osprey involved in last month’s incident avoided serious damage: explaining how your $73 million aircraft came to be destroyed by a forest fire it had started would be really embarrassing. ALSO:
http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2009/06/hot-breathing-osprey-sparks-five-acre-fire/ |
I lived 70 miles south of the Marine Base at Camp LeJeune where the Ospreys are based and distinctly recall hearing news reports of the fire mentioned in the latest post by Dan Reno.
It was not put out by the Crew Chief.....it took a full response by the local fire department and units from the State Forestry Service as I remember it. The difference in the reporting may be the crew chief was able to put out the fire in the immediate surrounds of the aircraft itself but not the rest of the blaze. Once the broom straw catches fire it burns like blazes! With the rotor wash fanning the fire it would spread faster than a scared man can run. We routinely get fire warnings over the radio and TV stations in the area when the humidity drops and the winds pick up. It is not unusual to have brush fires in those conditions. Vehicles with catalytic converters can start fires if they stop in tall grass so the hot exhaust of the Osprey is an absolute certainty to start such a fire. What of this aborted takeoff that is reported??? Local TV Station Report Osprey emergency landing sparks Pender Co. fire Posted: May 27, 2009 11:19 PM EDT Updated: May 28, 2009 05:16 PM EDT Reported by Claire Simms - bio|email Reported by Gavin Johnson - bio|email Posted by Debra Worley - email PENDER COUNTY, NC (WECT) - A military plane made an emergency landing Wednesday evening around 8:30 in Pender County. Now, military officials are trying to determine how to get the Osprey back on base. Emergency officials say the pilot landed the plane in a swampy area of the Holly Shelter Game Land off Lodge Road. After hours of repairs, crew members tried taking off with the aircraft, but smashed into swamp mud nose first. "Exhaust from that attempt to take off actually ignited some grass and brush in the area that was around the aircraft," said Emergency Management Director Eddie King. "It burned a little less than five acres." Firefighters and the forestry service worked throughout the night to contain the blaze. No one was hurt because the shelter is closed to hunters for the season. According to a statement provided by the Marines, training engine problems began when the plane was at a low altitude. "One thing this [the situation] enables us to do is make some contacts with some folks over at Camp Lejeune and at New River and to develop standard operating guidelines with the military and county," said King. Another Osprey crashed in 2000 in the Jacksonville area killing four military personnel. The Marine Corps Version Osprey damaged after precautionary landing Staff report Posted : Saturday May 30, 2009 8:57:11 EDT JACKSONVILLE, N.C. — An MV-22 Osprey made a precautionary landing Wednesday night in a national game land after one of its engines ran low on fuel, officials said. The aircrew, of the Marine Corps Air Station New River, N.C.-based with Marine Medium Tiltrotor Training Squadron 204, was conducting low altitude training when an engine ran out of fuel, according to 2nd Marine Aircraft Wing statement. The pilot landed about 7 p.m. in a field in Holly Shelter Game Land in Pender County, which is south of the air station. After the Osprey was fueled, it was ready to take off until the grass underneath it caught fire from the heat exhaust. “The grass fire was quickly extinguished by the crew chief, but caused an undetermined amount of heat damage to the aircraft exterior,” the Marine statement said. The extent of the damage has not been determined, but the Osprey was flown back to New River on Thursday afternoon, said 2nd MAW spokeswoman Maj. Aisha Bakkar. |
After hours of repairs, crew members tried taking off with the aircraft, but smashed
Talk like that isn't allowed to leave the county never mind get on the national news. The last time a volunteer fireman reported the details on TV about the last V22 accident there, that resulted in the aircraft being flat bedded back to New River, the Fire Chief said "That man is not authroized to speak for the fire department."
Cover-ups for this gooney bird are many and run deep. (SASless isn't where you live near Holly Ridge?) |
I was docked on the Cape Fear river at Wilmington but now have moved about the same distance south of Norfolk....in a town that could be "Mayberry".
|
See, this event is a classic example of how you cannot believe anything the military releases to the public.
On the surface, we're told that it was a simple case of "one engine running low on fuel." That's all, nothing serious, just one engine running low on fuel. Happens all the time! It landed at either 7 PM or 8:30 PM on Wednesday evening depending on which spokesperson or report you choose to believe. After "hours of repairs" to this low fuel situation it tried to take off. This would be around 11 PM, maybe? But, according to the newspaper report, it smashed "nose first" into the swamp, and that's about when the fire started...the fire that the firemen had to "work throughout the night" to get under control? Whatever, the V-22 RON'd in the field, and the Marines did manage to get it back to base the next afternoon. Spokesman Maj. Bakkar says they flew it. Perhaps they did. Well that's muddy enough. I'm no Lt. Columbo, but google, msn, and airnav.com provide pretty good maps of that area. The V-22 landed near Lodge Road, just about smack-dab in the middle of the Holly Game Preserve. That would have put them about 15 miles north of the big airport at Wilmington, NC and about 20 miles south of their base at New River Airport. But their own Camp Davis outlying field was only 9 miles away, and there is a paved private strip about 7 miles away. Just how low on fuel was that engine?? No, let's just admit that it wasn't a simple, little low-fuel problem. That was a lie. It was some sort of maintenance issue. A maintenance issue that caused them to want to be on the ground RIGHT NOW. Defenders of the V-22 do not realize the huge credibility problem events like this generate for the military. If we cannot believe what they tell us about a "relatively" minor problem (i.e. not a fatal accident), why should we believe ANYTHING they tell us with respect to bigger, more important things like availability rates, maintenance issues, compressor stalls, engine life... My personal opinion is that the military and the manufacturer have been lying to us all along about the V-22. They've told us only what they think we need to know, shading and coloring the "facts" in a way that doesn't ever make the V-22 look less than the bestest aircraft that's ever been invented. I know that some of this goes with the territory. No manufacturer wants bad stuff about their product to get out, and they'll go to great lenghts to prevent it. So too the military leaders in charge of the project only want to accentuate the positive. But in the case of the V-22, this process has been perverted to the point where NOTHING negative will ever be released, even if they have to lie about it. It's one thing to put the best "spin" on things that you can, but when you start to compromise honesty you've just put your foot on that steep, slippery slope. Without guys like Bob Cox, Dan Reno, Carlton Meyer and others, we'd probably never know some of the less-flattering things about the V-22. They might not be correct 100% of the time, but I don't believe they intentionally lie to us like the military and Bell-Boeing so obviously does. Let's give them credit for that. Heh. I just had a chuckle as I was thinking about this post. If the exhaust from a V-22 can melt the steel deck of a naval ship, what would that exhaust do to an asphalt pad? I'm thinking about the 609 and the little holes it's going to be making on asphalt airport ramps all over the country. And the fires it's going to be starting when it lands at the corporate headquarters of companies that don't already have big, concrete tiltrotor landing pads built. The V-22 - and tiltrotors in general - work better in theory than in reality. They'd be great if their downwash wasn't so damaging, and noise (in helicopter mode) wasn't so objectionable. They'd be terrific if they just didn't have that danged jet blast coming out so close to the ground when the nacelles are up. They'd be super if they weren't so dad-blamed complicated and maintenance intensive. (I mean, did we ever think we'd see something invented that made a helicopter look simple?) They'd be wonderful if there was an IFR system that was even remotely prepared to handle their unique capabilities. And if there just wasn't that pesky A-VRS thing... Dump the V-22. We've wasted enough money on it as it is. |
Low on fuel on 1 engine? No transfer from tanks? No X over of fuel supply? or 1 engine non serviceable? Will it only fly on 2 engines? even in aircraft mode?.
"The V-22 landed near Lodge Road, just about smack-dab in the middle of the Holly Game Preserve. That would have put them about 15 miles north of the big airport at Wilmington, NC and about 20 miles south of their base at New River Airport. But their own Camp Davis outlying field was only 9 miles away, and there is a paved private strip about 7 miles away. Just how low on fuel was that engine??" Lots of questions no answers |
FH100 Unfortunetly, there's no one in high places within this program now and past with any honor. False pride and greed has laid waste to many in the aviation side over this flying junk pile.
(SASless Twenty five years ago, I trudged around Hyde County and ended up buying 200 foot of shoreline on the northwest end of Mattamuskeet for a retirement home. Wish I still had it.) |
500e, that's just it, the "low fuel on one engine" thing was just bullsh*t. A misstatement. A ruse. A falsehood. What most of would simply call a "lie."
Now. If they lied about that, what ELSE have they lied about? |
If there was a headline every time a regular helicopter landed somewhere in a very-low-on-fuel state, the newspapers and TV would have no room for the ads that keep them in business.
And if you want some "How dumb was I?" stories like the grass fire incident that followed, see the other thread on Rotorheads! Someone somewhere else must have some proportion about this, I hope! |
The issue was not "a headline" but rather the plainly different accounts set forth by the Marines and the local press which quoted persons at the same site the Marines were at. Reading the two accounts one would think there were two incidents and not just the one as they differ so much from one another.
The question begged is which one is more correct? If the local account was correct then there is far more to the incident than the Marine Corps is owing up to. What of the aborted Takeoff....did it happen or not? If it did....what caused the abort? Why if it were a fuel quantity issue....why the "several hours working on the aircraft"? Would you not just top off the tanks and fire up both and head for the barn about ten miles away? Did the aircraft have "other" engine problems? If the Marine Crew Chief put the fire out.....why the five acre brush fire that was fought by fire and forestry units all that night? I don't know about you Ramen...but when I read differing accounts of a single event....I have to ask those kinds of questions and base my assumptions that are unanswered by trying to figure out who has a reason to LIE. Anyone with any kind of techical , aviation, or investigative background who is used to analyzing empirical data and the like would be enclined to do the same I would think. People, beyond Liberal Politicians, seldom are pathological liars thus usually there is some motive, reason, or need to not tell the truth when they with malice aforethought LIE. (I consider non-Liberal politicians to be liars as well....just not pathological liars as their Liberal colleagues!) |
I guess you cant figure it out, but I can. A V22 gets very very low on gas, and lands off site. They refuel it, and when they start, it causes a grass fire that scorches the bird.
Sounds like a typical Darwin award. What do you expect from Marines? How is this other than a typical human dumb mistake? OK, all guilty, so who do we hang? |
SASless how is it that you stated you never called Marines liars, but here you are doing it again. We definitely know the liar now.
As to the V-22 it is certain that Dan, SAS, FH and Carlton (who ever the f*** that is) do not know **** about the V-22, its operations, or what it is doing. The war fighter wants it and that is all there is too it (god knows enough died needlessly in 53's that they would want something better). The Sultan Also where can I fine the H-60 thread discussing why one seems to crash into the sea every few months with no survivors and no cause published. The V-22 record is far superior to that porked up POS. |
SULTAN
I suggest you file a Freedom Of Information Request regarding the Seahawk crashes you mentioned. I've done several over the years and their easy to do. In fact, they may simply redirect you to another department where you can view the info on-line. These requests only cost money if they require over 30 minutes of investgation and reproduction time. Mine have been all free and a couple were on-line. Be sure to ask a for accident photos too and be as specific as possible. Go here: FCC Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) Home Page |
Sultan, *now* I get it! Why didn't I see it? It's so simple. If the military wants something, then that's enough reason to buy it.
Even if it hasn't been completely invented yet. Got that about right? |
Sultan,
May we have your Resume' and Bona Fides so that we might qualify you as an "Expert"? If you wish....I did call someone a "Liar"....but did not specify whom as I recall. What I did say is the Marine Account varies from the Civilian Account and the physical evidence supports the Civilian Account. As no one was waterboarded then I have to assume the two accounts were volutarily given thus ignoring the small issue of an aborted takeoff and a five acre brush fire that rolled out teams of fire fighters....then I guess maybe it was only an oversight. Funny how these oversights always favor the Marines and the Osprey, wouldn't say? As the source of the Marine Account was a Marine as named in the Navy Times article (it also is a civilian company....and not military), then one could parse words I guess like Bill Clinton and say there was only a civilian version of events presented. As I have "O" Club privileges and live so close to Camp LeJeune.....you reckon I might just know a bit more than you suspect? Reckon I might even go fishing with maintenance officers sometime? I do anchor out on Camp LeJeune from time to time....no telling who might show up for a drink or dinner on weekends. However, until you can prove you are more than a (banned word removed) Rag Wipe at Amarillo.....we'll just continue to consider the source and try to ignore your comments. |
By Amy Butler and Douglas Barrie
LE BOURGET http://www.aviationweek.com/media/im...OspreyUSAF.jpg The U.S. Marine Corps MV-22 squadron preparing to deploy to Afghanistan in the third or fourth quarter of this year is now flight testing a turreted gun to beef-up the aircraft’s fire-power. The Bell/Boeing MV-22 unit is likely to be deployed to Camp Bastion in the Helmand region as part of the U.S.’s ramp-up of forces in the country. The BAE Systems turret uses a GAU-17, 7.62mm cal. mini-gun in the belly or “hell hole” of the tiltrotor aircraft. USMC Lt. Gen. George J. Trautman III, deputy commandant for aviation, says some “basic” testing work is now being carried out by the squadron, and that next month will see full operational tests. Trautman is “fairly confident we’ll meet the fall objective.” Along with the turreted gun, the USMC is also qualifying a 50-cal. weapon for the ramp station. The MV-22 now includes an optional M240 on the ramp. Air Force Special Operations forces are now training to use the 50-cal. gun on their CV-22 fleet because it provides superior coverage for the back of the aircraft. The MV-22 will, says Trautman, help support dispersed force operations, providing troop and cargo transport, as well as medical evacuation. Trautman says he hopes to improve the 62% mission capable rate of the aircraft supporting operations in Iraq. However, one contributing factor to that mission capable rate is that nearly one-third of the fleet are MV-22A models, which lack some of the reliability qualities designed into the B version. “We accept that and we realize that,” he says, noting the MV-22s were deployed to Iraq sooner in its maturity than most systems would have been sent abroad. Trautman is also monitoring problems with recently delivered UH-1N and AH-1Z aircraft delivered to the Navy/Marine Corps from Bell. Bad parts from a subvendor caused problems with the transmission in these aircraft. Fixes are underway, and by mid-July, these helicopters will be back in service, he says. The USMC is also planning to deploy the new Hueys to the Afghan theater later this year. Operational testing of the AH-1Z is expected to finish next year, Trautman says. |
Seems there is more than a small bit of concern about USMC availability data....along with other issues.
A good source for articles on the V-22... Defense Tech: Grand Ole Osprey Archives Panel to examine V-22 cost, maintenance, performance By BOB COX [email protected] A congressional committee that has been asking hard questions about Bell Helicopter’s V-22 Osprey aircraft is scheduled to meet today to examine the aircraft’s performance in Iraq, along with ongoing maintenance and cost issues. The House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform hearing was scheduled for May 21 but was postponed when the Marine Corps and Defense Department did not provide an extensive amount of requested data ahead of time. The committee submitted a detailed list of questions seeking specifics about the condition and status of all V-22 aircraft produced, maintenance requirements and operating performance of aircraft in Iraq, and copies of internal Marine reports on the aircraft’s performance. "This hearing will provide a thorough and public examination of the Defense Department’s V-22 Osprey, an aircraft with a controversial past, a troubled present, and an uncertain future," Rep. Edolphus Towns, D-New York, the committee chairman, said in a statement. "The American people deserve to know that this $120 million aircraft, paid for with taxpayer dollars, is working as advertised and does the best job of protecting our troops and helping them accomplish their missions." Bell and Boeing developed and build the V-22. Procurement costs of aircraft now being delivered to the Marines are about $75 million each, according to budget documents. The committee commissioned a study by the Government Accountability Office of V-22 operating performance and costs that will be made public at the hearing. Senior Marine leaders have praised the performance of the V-22 during the 19 months it was deployed to Iraq but have acknowledged that reliability and heavy maintenance requirements are a concern. Twelve V-22s were sent to Iraq beginning in October 2007. Three Marine squadrons deployed and operated the aircraft during that time, and they returned to the U.S. in April. A squadron of Ospreys is now making the aircraft’s first seaborne deployment, aboard the USS Bataan, an amphibious ship, and the Marines say they intend to send a squadron to Afghanistan this year. Lt. Gen. George Trautman III, deputy commandant for Marine aviation, said last month that the Osprey’s performance in Iraq was "marvelously successful. The performance thus far tells us that the aircraft completed every assigned mission . . . flying faster, farther and with safer flight profiles" than helicopters. Ospreys continue to have more reliability problems than the Marines would like, but Trautman said Bell and Boeing are working on them. In a recent interview at a meeting in Grapevine, Col. Matt Mulhern, the Marines’ V-22 program manager, said the aircraft has about a 70 percent mission capable rate — meaning the percentage of aircraft ready and fully capable of flying a mission. A report in Aviation Week last week cited Trautman as saying the mission capable rate was 62 percent. Mulhern said Marine maintenance crews strained to keep up with the repairs. Witnesses scheduled to testify at the hearing include Trautman and Lt. Col. Karsten Heckl, commander of a Marine squadron sent to Iraq. Representatives of the GAO will appear, as will Dakota Wood, a senior fellow at the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments. A retired Marine, Wood wrote a study last year suggesting that the Marines buy fewer V-22s and supplement them with lower-cost helicopters. A recent addition to the witness list is A.R. Rivolo, an Air Force veteran, aviation expert and former analyst on the Pentagon’s V-22 testing staff. He has written a number of critical reports about the Osprey. A committee staffer said that the 1 p.m. CDT hearing will be webcast and that a link will be posted at oversight.house.gov. |
V-22 Reliability Statement
21st Century,
Gen. Trautman quoted as follows in your note: Trautman says he hopes to improve the 62% mission capable rate of the aircraft supporting operations in Iraq. However, one contributing factor to that mission capable rate is that nearly one-third of the fleet are MV-22A models, which lack some of the reliability qualities designed into the B version. “We accept that and we realize that,” he says, noting the MV-22s were deployed to Iraq sooner in its maturity than most systems would have been sent abroad. "Sooner in its maturity than most systems.." CH-53A test aircraft made its first flight in the fall of 1964 and six production ships were sent to Danang in late 1966. A well managed USMC program all around. Thanks, John Dixson |
Quoting USMC Major General Kelly......
Kelly also partially answered the question of the Osprey's suitability in Afghanistan. He said the CH-46 can only carry about four passengers and crew in the summer and about 10 pax plus the crew in the winter. The 53 does well in Afghanistan, but is in short supply. "The 46 is very, very limited in what it can do over there. That's why the 53 is so important over there, it's got the legs and it's got the power. But the V-22 will do it all." |
Hey! That's not fair to compare the H-53 to the V-22. Th V-22 can go faster..so there.
Here's the latest: Panel to examine V-22 cost, maintenance, performance By BOB COX [email protected] A congressional committee that has been asking hard questions about Bell Helicopter’s V-22 Osprey aircraft is scheduled to meet today to examine the aircraft’s performance in Iraq, along with ongoing maintenance and cost issues. The House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform hearing was scheduled for May 21 but was postponed when the Marine Corps and Defense Department did not provide an extensive amount of requested data ahead of time. The committee submitted a detailed list of questions seeking specifics about the condition and status of all V-22 aircraft produced, maintenance requirements and operating performance of aircraft in Iraq, and copies of internal Marine reports on the aircraft’s performance. "This hearing will provide a thorough and public examination of the Defense Department’s V-22 Osprey, an aircraft with a controversial past, a troubled present, and an uncertain future," Rep. Edolphus Towns, D-New York, the committee chairman, said in a statement. "The American people deserve to know that this $120 million aircraft, paid for with taxpayer dollars, is working as advertised and does the best job of protecting our troops and helping them accomplish their missions." Bell and Boeing developed and build the V-22. Procurement costs of aircraft now being delivered to the Marines are about $75 million each, according to budget documents. The committee commissioned a study by the Government Accountability Office of V-22 operating performance and costs that will be made public at the hearing. Senior Marine leaders have praised the performance of the V-22 during the 19 months it was deployed to Iraq but have acknowledged that reliability and heavy maintenance requirements are a concern. Twelve V-22s were sent to Iraq beginning in October 2007. Three Marine squadrons deployed and operated the aircraft during that time, and they returned to the U.S. in April. A squadron of Ospreys is now making the aircraft’s first seaborne deployment, aboard the USS Bataan, an amphibious ship, and the Marines say they intend to send a squadron to Afghanistan this year. Lt. Gen. George Trautman III, deputy commandant for Marine aviation, said last month that the Osprey’s performance in Iraq was "marvelously successful. The performance thus far tells us that the aircraft completed every assigned . flying faster, farther and with safer flight profiles" than . mission . helicopters. Ospreys continue to have more reliability problems than the Marines would like, but Trautman said Bell and Boeing are working on them. In a recent interview at a meeting in Grapevine, Col. Matt Mulhern, the Marines’ V-22 program manager, said the aircraft has about a 70 percent mission capable rate — meaning the percentage of aircraft ready and fully capable of flying a mission. A report in Aviation Week last week cited Trautman as saying the mission capable rate was 62 percent. Mulhern said Marine maintenance crews strained to keep up with the repairs. Witnesses scheduled to testify at the hearing include Trautman and Lt. Col. Karsten Heckl, commander of a Marine squadron sent to Iraq. Representatives of the GAO will appear, as will Dakota Wood, a senior fellow at the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments. A retired Marine, Wood wrote a study last year suggesting that the Marines buy fewer V-22s and supplement them with lower-cost helicopters. A recent addition to the witness list is A.R. Rivolo, an Air Force veteran, aviation expert and former analyst on the Pentagon’s V-22 testing staff. He has written a number of critical reports about the Osprey. A committee staffer said that the 1 p.m. CDT hearing will be webcast and that a link will be posted at oversight.house.gov. BOB COX, 817-390-7723 Source: Panel to examine V-22 cost, maintenance, performance | Nation | Star-Telegram.com |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 02:54. |
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.