Talk:Accidents and incidents involving the V-22 Osprey/Archive 1

Archive 1

Fires

Should the Dec 2006 nacalle fire be seperated from the 29 March 2007 hydraulic leak and engine-compartment fire? That'd make two 1 line entries. -Fnlayson 13:18, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

April 2000 Event

It is commonly known within the aerospace industry (I previously worked as a subcontractor on a product for the V22) that the V22 has a problem with its sink rate being compatible with combat conditions (see http://www.g2mil.com/V-22safety.htm then scroll to section 2 OPERATION INTO Vortex Ring State) which contradicts what is stated in the wikipedia article: "enhancing its ability to enter and depart hostile landing zones quickly and safely" especially in combat, part of the reason for its withdrawal from the Combat Search and Rescue (CSAR) helicopter bid. 10:48 GMT, 16th June 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.111.141.210 (talk) 10:49, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, what you have linked to is a blog, which is not considered to be a reliable source for Wikipedia's purposes. Looking at the citation in the article, it seems to be a year more recent than the blog posts (2005 vs. 2004) and includes information that states a more recent V-22 test has been made that indicates VRS is actually quite hard to enter. Can you identify more recent information published in reliable sources that counter this? That would be a help. Askari Mark (Talk) 18:30, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Are there any other sources to resolve the differences between Wired.com article (7/2005) and G2mil article (12/2003)? Thanks. -Fnlayson (talk) 16:15, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

June 2008 incident

I've removed the following text:

On 21 June 2008 a Marine V-22 crew experienced a serious engine problem which forced the crew to quickly find a place to land. An internal Marine memorandum described the problem as follows:

WHILE IN FLIGHT, PILOTS NOTICED THAT THE R/H ENGINE TORQUE WOULD NOT GO ABOVE 66 PERCENT. THE AIRCRAFT WAS UNABLE TO HOLD ALTITUDE, AND HAD TO MAKE AN EMERGENCY LANDING IN THE FIELD. AFTER REPLACEMENT OF THE ENGINE, A BOROSCOPE INSPECTION WAS CONDUCTED TO INSPECT THE ENGINE INTERNALLY. IT WAS DISCOVERED THAT COMPRESSOR BLADES WERE DAMAGED FROM POSSIBLE FOD INGESTION. A BOROSCOPE INSPECTION OF THE COMBUSTION CHAMBER SHOWED THAT THE LINER HAD BROKEN INTO PIECES. THESE PIECES ENTERED INTO THE GAS GENERATOR, CAUSING SIGNIFICANT DAMAGE. INTERNAL FAILURE OF THE ENGINE CAUSED FOR A

LOSS OF ALTITUDE CONTROL. THE AIRCRAFT WAS UNABLE TO STABILIZE OR HOLD AN ALTITUDE, AND WAS FORCED TO LAND. THIS COULD BE FATAL TO PERSONNEL ABOARD THE AIRCRAFT, AND CAUSE DETRIMENTAL DAMAGE TO THE AIRCRAFT. THE MISSION WAS ABORTED DUE TO THE FAILURE DefenseTech, July 14, 2008

To me, this is a minor, non-notable incident, at least as written. Also, all-caps text is unacceptable from a style viewpoint, and it's generally not necessary to include text whole like that. Second, the source appears to be an editorial or blog-type entry, and as such I am not certain its info qualifies as a reliable source, as thus cannot assert notability due to its bias. I do note that only the all-caps USMC report was included in the added material, so perhaps Cefoskey realized this as well. - BillCJ (talk) 19:47, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

I left the all-caps text intact due to the fact that it was directly block-quoted from the memorandum in this style. I felt this report was noteworthy because it highlighted the fact that the V-22 was unable to contiune flight with one engine operable and the second engine at 66%. Recall that V-22 proponents claim the aircraft can maintain controlled flight on a single engine.--Cefoskey (talk) 19:57, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

The quoted article makes the supposition that the aircraft could not hold altitude at all, contrary to claims or data, based on the memo, but does not take into account the flight profile the aircraft was in; hovering flight versus transition versus cruise flight. An engine failure in a two-engined rotorcraft requires that the aircraft be at a certain airspeed in order to maintain enough lift for continued flight, depending on the atmospheric conditions at the time.

Any two-engined rotorcraft in Iraq is going to have problems with single-engine performance depending on the flight profile at the time of the engine failure. In the summertime, the high temperatures create significantly high density altitudes that seriously decrease the envelope for single-engine performance. Flight profile and altitude combine to give the pilots a window of time in which to evaluate the conditions and their effects on the performance of the aircraft, diagnose the malfunction and its effect on the operation of the aircraft, and arrive at a decision to remedy the situation.

The article goes on to say that the official comment from the Marines specifies that the aircraft had just departed a Forward Operating Base (FOB) when it experienced the engine problem. Rather than the aircraft fails to meet the performance claims of its supporters, it is more probable that the temperatures in the desert in the Anbar province of Iraq reduced the V-22s single-engine performance to the point where the aircraft was unable to maintain altitude for the profile of flight; transition from hover to cruise flight after departing the FOB.

I believe this section of the article gives too much weight to the V-22 opponents by quoting the memo and carrying forward the speculation of the cited article, and fails to maintain NPOV. The speculation of the cited article creates a misleading conclusion that should not be transferred to the article. --Born2flie (talk) 15:44, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Your last sentence illustrates the problem we've had with almost all material on the V-22. Fix it if you can, or provide a source with a counter-point. You have a better idea of the issue involved than I do, so do what you wish with it. - BillCJ (talk) 20:18, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Three months being long enough for proponents to have found a reliable source, I've removed the above section per WP:RS, WP:V, WP:NPOV, and WP:UNDUE. - BillCJ (talk) 20:03, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

• I've looked months ago and recently and could not find an article from a reliable source on a V-22 emergency landing in 2008. I think the blogger inflated a minor incident. -Fnlayson (talk) 20:29, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

2010 incident

http://www.latimes.com/news/nation-and-world/la-fg-afghan-helicopter-crash10-2010apr10,0,5674021.story —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.60.101.242 (talk) 23:59, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

There does not seem to be agreement on pilot error being the sole cause.

• Generals clash on cause of April Osprey crashGeo8rge (talk) 00:34, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

And this: http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2011/10/osprey-crash-cover-up/

I'll revise later this week. Hcobb (talk) 18:26, 17 October 2011 (UTC)