Osprey makes unwanted big arrival

[aeromed202]

From EMS1.com

10 injured in Memorial Day aircraft show in NYCAn Osprey MV-22 aircraft sent debris flying into a crowd as it landed

<STYLE>.related-content-container a{font-size: 11px;}</STYLE>By Jennifer Peltz
The Ledger
NEW YORK — A U.S. Marine Corps aircraft's powerful propellers whipped up a wind that sent branches hurling off a tree and into a crowd of about 150 people watching a Memorial Day demonstration in a park, leaving 10 people with cuts and other minor injuries, officials and a witness said.
As the Osprey MV-22 aircraft landed at Staten Island's Clove Lakes Park on Monday morning, the wind generated by its twin rotors stirred tree limbs, dirt from a nearby baseball field and other debris into a swirl that sent spectators scattering, witness Ann Hirsch said.
"It was like a storm of sand and garbage and people running," said Hirsch, 66, of Staten Island. "Branches just came down. They were all over the park. ... It was really scary."
One tree lost all its branches on one side.
The MV-22 is a Marine Corps version of the V-22, which combines airplane-like wings with rotors that let it take off and land vertically. It "stirs up a lot of wind, and that's apparently what did it," Marine Corps spokesman Lt. Josh Diddams said.
Seven people were taken to a hospital and were released later Monday, Navy officials said in a release. Three other people refused medical attention for their injuries, firefighters said.
The V-22, a joint venture of Boeing Co. and Textron Inc.'s Bell Helicopter, is designed to carry 24 combat troops and fly twice as fast as the Vietnam War-era assault helicopters it was to replace.
The Osprey program was nearly scrapped after a history of mechanical failures and two test crashes that killed 23 Marines in 2000. But development continued, and the aircraft have been deployed to Iraq.
While the General Accounting Office questioned the V-22's performance in a report last year, the Marine Corps has called it effective.
================================================== ====================
Maybe NY needs to keep up on arbor chores.

[Allen]

I gess people haven't figure out that Osprey is not a helicopter and it has more wash from it blades.

/In before the Osprey haters.....:kilroy:

[tigisfat]

I hope this doesn't get out of hand or stir up litigation. Surely those people deserve apologies, and in the gentlemanly tradition of the modern military, I'll bet personal apologies will be given if they haven't already. It shouldn't go any further than that unless gross negligence was displayed. I'll await a video at the minimum before I speculate upon whether the crew were jerks. Everyone I ever met tried extremely hard to be good neighbors with their loud and dangerous military toys whenever possible.

[tigisfat]

Tig delivers:

i4iw2-n-Uzc




My verdict? The alarmist, scandal seeking, military hating media strikes again. The reports are WAY overboard unless there's a lot more I'm not seeing. A sincere apology is what is deserved, and I have full confidence they will get one from from, at the minimum, the aircraft commander.

[warchild]

Wasnt the commanders fault tig.. Look where he landed. he was in perfect deployment position behind the first osprey. That means the wing commander didnt plan the first ospreys landing spot well enough.. The pilot was perfect, did his absolute gentlest, but he was positioned wrong for that landing and that falls on the wing commander or whatever the marines call them..

[deathfromafar]

Rotor LZ's have a red zone where debris can be kicked up and cause injuries and protective gear should be in place/utilized for those in the red zone. The V-22's vortex is higher velocity and more constricted than regular rotor downwash. Seeing this up close at New River and Camp Davis told me the V-22 is exceptional for debris blast risk. Nothing to play with!

[tigisfat]

Wasnt the commanders fault tig.. Look where he landed. he was in perfect deployment position behind the first osprey. That means the wing commander didnt plan the first ospreys landing spot well enough.. The pilot was perfect, did his absolute gentlest, but he was positioned wrong for that landing and that falls on the wing commander or whatever the marines call them..

I don't know about the USMC, but in the USAF a wing commander (0-6) isn't likely to assume all the mission planning details, because they would never have time to. Personally, I was referring to the aircraft commander, with I've seen at the Captain level with large crews like the MV-22 features. My spidey sense is tingling, there must be a communication breakdown between us somewhere....

[Ken Stallings]

That was WAY too close. Soon as I saw the Osprey crest the trees I knew it was WAY too close. Did you see the large branch with green leaves laying in front of the crowd!

Oh yeah, that was dangerous!

Whoever planned that display should be disciplined. It was grossly negligent and we are very fortunate no one was seroiusly injured and in the hospital.

The pilot also is the blame because as the aircraft commander he is primarily responsible to ensure he operates his aircraft so as not to be a hazard to the public. So, even if he was ordered to do it, it doesn't matter. It does not relieve the pilot in command of his basic requirements under federal law, and federal laws do apply to the military. There are waivers to the FAR allocated to the military, but those waivers do not include rules about hazarding the public.

Ken

[Wing_Z]

Here's another view - it's a good way to defoliate alright!
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=bc3_1275329146
I'm intrigued...the Chinook surely must've come in the same way, yet it didn't look as if the place had been shredded before.
Why then does the Osprey have such a devastating effect?

EDIT: I went looking, disk loading might be a clue:
Osprey is: 20.9 lb/ft²
Chinook: 9.5 lb/ft²

I don't like that Osprey thing methinks, love the Chinook.

[Quixoticish]

Here's another view - it's a good way to defoliate alright!
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=bc3_1275329146
I'm intrigued...the Chinook surely must've come in the same way, yet it didn't look as if the place had been shredded before.
Why then does the Osprey have such a devastating effect?

EDIT: I went looking, disk loading might be a clue:
Osprey is: 20.9 lb/ft²
Chinook: 9.5 lb/ft²

I don't like that Osprey thing methinks, love the Chinook.

It's not a Chinook, it's a Sea Knight, so the correct figure would be 4.2 lb/ft².

[TomSteber]

Here's another view - it's a good way to defoliate alright!
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=bc3_1275329146


Holy Crap! This view makes all the difference. Wouldn't have wanted to be under that.

[safn1949]

Wow,it shredded that tree.I have never been near a Chinook when it landed but have seen an HH 53 Super Stallion land (forgive me if my terminology is incorrect,I'm a tanker) and that was a bit breezy.

Stood behind a B-17 that was taxing,holy cow.:d

[TARPSBird]

Not exactly one of Marine Aviation's stellar moments. :frown: Somebody could have been seriously injured. And these things operate from amphib ships... don't think I'd want to be a flight deck crewman.

[GT182]

Not sure where it was going to or coming from but I saw one fly over the house here in New Castle yesterday around 11am. Could have laneded over at the airport tho for fuel.... but it looked like it just kept heading north towards PA.

That's the first time I've ever seen one in the air. Impressive, and doesn't look like anything else I've seen fly. Those props are huge, and with each one rotating opposite each other and towards the wings tips, it does look weird.

[jmig]

Frankly, I saw nothing wrong with the approach and landing. The second video shows the pilot was well above the trees. The small tree just split down the middle. He or the person who set up the display had no way of knowing the tree would split, like it did.

I doubt that every time an Osprey lands it knocks down trees.

To me it was more about bad luck than negligence. Of course, the lawyers will have a different opinion.

[Wing_Z]

It's not a Chinook, it's a Sea Knight, so the correct figure would be 4.2 lb/ft².

Of course, Marines...I should've thought.
Disk load even lower, so no warning there.
I guess after that incident, Ospreys will be limited in where they deploy for public display.

[Bone]

Frankly, I saw nothing wrong with the approach and landing. The second video shows the pilot was well above the trees. The small tree just split down the middle. He or the person who set up the display had no way of knowing the tree would split, like it did.

I doubt that every time an Osprey lands it knocks down trees.

To me it was more about bad luck than negligence. Of course, the lawyers will have a different opinion.

I agree. But, as it is with aviation, this incident will foster a number of rule and policy changes.

[Ken Stallings]

Frankly, I saw nothing wrong with the approach and landing. The second video shows the pilot was well above the trees. The small tree just split down the middle. He or the person who set up the display had no way of knowing the tree would split, like it did.

I doubt that every time an Osprey lands it knocks down trees.

To me it was more about bad luck than negligence. Of course, the lawyers will have a different opinion.

Oh it was destined from the start, I'm afraid! You have to appreciate the massively greater force of downwash from the rotors of the Osprey than for other helicopters. It is amazingly more powerful.

Remember, it was so strong that new ropes had to be custom designed just so the Special Forces could fast rope off the AFSOC CV-22. These special ropes have very heavy weights attached at the bottom to keep the rope from flaying around. The ropes are then too heavy to bring back in so the Engineer simply cuts the rope and lets it fall to the ground!

The rotorwash also required the total abandonment of the rope ladder tactic.

So, I compare the offset distance to what I know is required for the MH-47, MH-60, or MH-53 -- all of them I have personal experience being around when they landed, hovered, and took off. Trust me, the Osprey would knock you on your arse when these other three would simply whip your pants hard!

In those other three helicopters, after the SF troop would reach the ground on the fast rope, they would run to their assigned positions. With the Osprey the SF troops lay on the ground immediately on the rope and wait until it is cut away and the Osprey flies away! That's an insight into the difference. And these guys are equipped with safety goggles and helmets!

Ken

[Bone]

Presumably, Osprey pilots are up to speed on making approach's to LZ's out in the rough, and the effect the Osprey has on the environement as they make the approach. The wild card here is the weak tree and the close in spectators....oops.

[Ken Stallings]

Presumably, Osprey pilots are up to speed on making approach's to LZ's out in the rough, and the effect the Osprey has on the environement as they make the approach. The wild card here is the weak tree and the close in spectators....oops.

The close-in spectators, yes.

The trees, weak or strong, at a training LZ, the crew doesn't care -- tear 'em apart at the seams!

Give me a set of safety goggles, ballistic head protection, and I'll stand where the spectators stood. But, that's because I know what it's going to be like. They didn't. That's why they got scared, and without any of that protective wear, the risk of injury was signficant. Then again, for a young child (as were in the audience) that was absolutely terrifying.

Kind of like a power circular saw. Carpenters -- just another day at work. A three year old child -- absolutely wants to run away in terror!

Ken

[euroastar350]

I hate the Osprey with a passion:monkies:Give me a conventional helicopter anyday!!!:wiggle:

[Ken Stallings]

I hate the Osprey with a passion:monkies:Give me a conventional helicopter anyday!!!:wiggle:

Why?

Ken

[tigisfat]

I hate the Osprey with a passion?


Why? Because it's perfect for air assault, clandestine, CSAR and SAR operations, is incredibly hard to engage with the profiles it flies, is efficient, fast, has an appreciable loiter time and unprecedented all weather capabillity, can IR, can slingload, is reliable or cool?

http://i595.photobucket.com/albums/tt32/walkeramerican/forum%20commentary%20pictures/hatersgon.jpg

[Ken Stallings]

Why? Because it's perfect for air assault, clandestine, CSAR and SAR operations, is incredibly hard to engage with the profiles it flies, is efficient, fast, has an appreciable loiter time and unprecedented all weather capabillity, can IR, can slingload, is reliable or cool?

Left out a few vital strengths .... it can hover and perform VTOL or VSTOL landings and takeoffs.

Ken

[Bone]

Left out a few vital strength .... it can hover and perform VTOL of VSTOL landings and takeoffs.

Ken

Anecdote:

Speaking of hovering. I was a flight instructor at the Arlington, Texas airport back in 1989 and 1990. Bell Helicopter had a test facility on the west side of the airport, and the flight schools were on the east side. About two to three times a week, Bell would roll the red and white Osprey out and hover taxi up and down the runway for 30 minutes to an hour...very annoying when you're already in the pattern or about to go up. They didn't announce the test schedule either, so you just didn't know when it was going to happen. But, I have to say it was cool to watch, and even cooler when you were a few miles south out in the practice areas, and the Osprey was flying around doing their thing in the same airspace. It's a good thing it was red and white...

[Bone]

Here's a look at some of the things Bell would do when the pattern was full.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G1c4YsWTLRw&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kaB9-a1Pou0&feature=PlayList&p=EED47335269CE424&playnext_from=PL&playnext=1&index=27

[tigisfat]

Here's a look at some of the things Bell would do when the pattern was full.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G1c4YsWTLRw&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kaB9-a1Pou0&feature=PlayList&p=EED47335269CE424&playnext_from=PL&playnext=1&index=27


While watching your links, I found a video of that BA-609 thing at Farnborough 2008. The video is obviously not a fake and shows it at Farnborough, but I worked at Farnborough 2008 in what was called the DOD corral, and I never once saw the BA-609. I've lost it.

[Wing_Z]

I'm wondering if the tilt-rotor is not a bit like the flying car:
Not Very Good at either mode.
Certainly the civilian model has had a prolonged gestation period - almost 15 years.
I suspect the economics might not work out all that well.
As far as I know the US Marines are the only tilt-rotor customers to date.
Their special requirements might not be all that cost-sensitive.

[Ken Stallings]

I'm wondering if the tilt-rotor is not a bit like the flying car:
Not Very Good at either mode.
Certainly the civilian model has had a prolonged gestation period - almost 15 years.
I suspect the economics might not work out all that well.
As far as I know the US Marines are the only tilt-rotor customers to date.
Their special requirements might not be all that cost-sensitive.

I'm sorry, but there are a lot of errors in what you just posted.

The USAF and the USMC both currently fly the Osprey operationally. It was co-developed by the Marines and also by Air Force Special Operations Command.

The Osprey is about twice as fast as the fastest of operational helicopters. In fact, it is only marginally slower than a C-130! It has excellent range and is capable of in-flight refueling with a C-130.

Yes, the airframe had a number of developmental issues, but it seems those have been worked out. The Osprey is another classic example of a revolutionary type of aircraft experiencing a series of development problems and being criticized by many people. It suffered a number of deaths and I do agree that for a while the program was frankly mismanaged some.

But, those problems have been worked out.

I'm not sure what you mean by the term, "cost-sensitive?" Do you mean, "cost effective?"

If so, then my reply would be to realize that with the speed advantage and range advantage, the Marines can put a lot more troops ashore faster and farther than they could with the helicopters. The Marines love the Osprey. So, it's here to stay. It's fully operational now, and AFSOC is expanding the number of units flyng it. A squadron worth is soon to stand up at Cannon AFB.

Cheers,

Ken

[euroastar350]

I never liked the design of tilt-rotors. Sure they are advanced aircraft for todays battlefield, but they don't appeal to me.

[Wing_Z]

I didn't think the USAF CV-22, nor the US Navy's HV-22, had become operational.

I accept that for the Marines mission it does the job: speed and payload are prime objectives, almost irrespective of cost. It appears tailor-made to that specific task.
The USMC are also the prime movers of the project, scheduled to get 4 times the number of Navy and AF combined, which tells me the other services see it as an expensive way of doing the job.
Around double the cost of a Chinook, say. Twice as good?
Don't know, that is why I used the term cost-sensitive, which defines only whether a project is go or no-go, not whether it is a good way of doing the job.

It will certainly be a very thirsty beast.
The civilian role is different, and it might be a very expensive toy to buy and to operate.
Be interesting to see if tilt-rotors succeed in the marketplace.
Bit like the flying car ;)

Back on topic:
In the development programme, the following limitations were placed on the Osprey:
- not cleared to hover over unprepared landing zones until OT-IIC
- no operational internal or external loads or passengers
- moderate gross weights only
- not cleared to hover over water.

So they should've known better...

[tigisfat]

Back on topic:
In the development programme, the following limitations were placed on the Osprey:
- not cleared to hover over unprepared landing zones until OT-IIC
- no operational internal or external loads or passengers
- moderate gross weights only
- not cleared to hover over water.

So they should've known better...

No kiddin', eh? That sure sounds like a lot of developmental or test projects. You don't test the extreme limits of an aircraft immediately, and waivers are given specifically for DT flights that involve pushing limits. I'm sure the F-16 wasn't walked out to 8gs on its first flight. There was probably a formal g-limit placed on initial F-16 operations, and that wasn't indicative that F-16s would be dangerous under g loading.

[Ken Stallings]

I didn't think the USAF CV-22, nor the US Navy's HV-22, had become operational.

The Navy doesn't fly it. The Marines and the USAF (AFSOC) do. And yes, they are operational.

I am retired USAF, spent 24 years in AFSOC, and it is one of my former squadrons who has deployed the CV-22 to Afghanistan.

Ken

[Ken Stallings]

Back on topic:
In the development programme, the following limitations were placed on the Osprey:
- not cleared to hover over unprepared landing zones until OT-IIC
- no operational internal or external loads or passengers
- moderate gross weights only
- not cleared to hover over water.

So they should've known better...

Again, that is very misleading. During the initial test phase (which is concluded) those were true. But, limitations are placed on aircraft during testing all the time. Your very own quote says it was not cleared to hover "over unprepared landing zones until OT." OT means Operational Testing, which again, has been completed!

What are you trying to do here?

Ken

[Wing_Z]

Just an observation really...you're right: on re-reading it sounds misleading.
However it was flagged at an early stage in the programme, and presumably would be in the manual now in some form.
It does have a formidable downwash, and you'd need to be aware of it, operationally.
Same would be true for hovering over water, it must make a hell of a bow wave.

[tigisfat]

Same would be true for hovering over water, it must make a hell of a bow wave.

I sure hope that noone finds out whether the Ospreys make bow waves or not, because that would mean the nose was submerged.;)

[Wing_Z]

What's it called when rotorwash hits water?
I didn't know...

Rotorwash is of course a major issue in many scenarios:
The Chinook as noted in post #9 above, has half the disk loading of the Osprey, but is the focus of rotorwash discussion in the US Air Force proposed Combat, Search and Rescue (CSAR-X) platforms

http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story_channel.jsp?channel=defense&id=news/5CSAR060508.xml

[Piglet]

I first thought the title to this thread was
"Oprah makes unwanted big arrival"

[Bone]

I first thought the title to this thread was
"Oprah makes unwanted big arrival"

she makes a hell'ava bow wave, so I can see where you might have thought that.

[Wing_Z]

Can't be...because that would mean her nose was submerged...
:d