CMV-22B Osprey Rollout

[Griz882]

How does that number compare to other platforms? If COVID has taught me anything, it's that Americans don't understand statistics. (I don't mean you, I mean regular people.)

As was already noted, people don’t really think in terms of “platforms,” rather human losses. When someone says SIX people died in a V-22 crash that is six times worse than ONE guy dying in a jet crash. This is why people freak out about airline crashes. Sure, it is among the safest ways to travel but when you hear TWO- HUNDRED people died in an airliner crash people go nuts even if the airframe has millions upon millions of hours of successful flight time. Another oddity in this discussion, the way some people are weird about helicopters.

 

[ChuckMK23]

Japan Asks U.S. to Suspend Local V-22 Osprey Operations - USNI News

Japan’s government on Thursday called on the U.S. military to suspend MV-22Bs and CV-22Bs Ospreys in operations Japan, save for search-and-rescue missions, following Wednesday’s crash of an Air Force Special Operations CV-22B in the waters off the island of Yakushima. Local media outlets...

news.usni.org

 

[number9]

As was already noted, people don’t really think in terms of “platforms,” rather human losses. When someone says SIX people died in a V-22 crash that is six times worse than ONE guy dying in a jet crash. This is why people freak out about airline crashes. Sure, it is among the safest ways to travel but when you hear TWO- HUNDRED people died in an airliner crash people go nuts even if the airframe has millions upon millions of hours of successful flight time. Another oddity in this discussion, the way some people are weird about helicopters.

Yeah, I understand that. And if you have two platforms with the same incident rates but big differences in carrying capacity (e.g. a two-person jet versus a 24-person tiltrotor) then you are obviously going to see more deaths in one versus the other.

 

[Spekkio]

As was already noted, people don’t really think in terms of “platforms,” rather human losses. When someone says SIX people died in a V-22 crash that is six times worse than ONE guy dying in a jet crash. This is why people freak out about airline crashes. Sure, it is among the safest ways to travel but when you hear TWO- HUNDRED people died in an airliner crash people go nuts even if the airframe has millions upon millions of hours of successful flight time. Another oddity in this discussion, the way some people are weird about helicopters.

Dodging the question here...

The USAF's class A mishap rates for manned aviation over the last decade oscillates around 1 per 100k flight hours. The Navy's class A mishap rate is similar.

If the Osprey's class A mishap is 3 per 100k flight hours, that's indeed 3x the average... not even accounting for the death multiple by carrying a larger number of pax.

 

[Bad_Karma_1310]

Dodging the question here...

The USAF's class A mishap rates for manned aviation over the last decade oscillates around 1 per 100k flight hours. The Navy's class A mishap rate is similar.

If the Osprey's class A mishap is 3 per 100k flight hours, that's indeed 3x the average... not even accounting for the death multiple by carrying a larger number of pax.

What’s the mishap rate compared to rotary wing though?

 

[Brett327]

Dodging the question here...

The USAF's class A mishap rates for manned aviation over the last decade oscillates around 1 per 100k flight hours. The Navy's class A mishap rate is similar.

If the Osprey's class A mishap is 3 per 100k flight hours, that's indeed 3x the average... not even accounting for the death multiple by carrying a larger number of pax.

That's still not a very useful number without looking at other platforms. Some like TACAMO and VP fly lots of hours with a very low mishap rate, while other platforms like TACAIR and RW are inherently more risky.

 

[Spekkio]

That's still not a very useful number without looking at other platforms. Some like TACAMO and VP fly lots of hours with a very low mishap rate, while other platforms like TACAIR and RW are inherently more risky.

I'll play your silly game... what are the actual numbers we should be comparing? And what is the flaw in pointing out that a platform that has 3x the average class A mishap rate among all platforms is relatively unsafe? That's like saying "driving an F-150 is less safe than other cars" and you reply with "but it's about the same as a Silverado."

More to the point, I'd normally expect an airframe whose sole purpose is to carry pax and materials from point A to point B in favorable weather conditions to have a lower class A mishap rate than virtually anything, particularly airframes that are launched and regularly crash-landed on aircraft carriers at hundreds of miles an hour.

 

[jmcquate]

VSTOL is difficult. Go back and look at the AV-8A class I mishaps from the late 70s, early 80s. The Marine Corps will fix any issues the 22 may have, and the Air Force will follow. The loss of life is tragic, but it's nothing new in the technological progress in military aviation.

 

[Brett327]

I'll play your silly game... what are the actual numbers we should be comparing?

I don't have those in front of me, but it's helpful to compare apples to apples. Comparing an apple to the aggregate of all fruits gives you some info, but not enough to properly evaluate the relative safety of a specific platform.

 

[IKE]

I'll play your silly game... what are the actual numbers we should be comparing? And what is the flaw in pointing out that a platform that has 3x the average class A mishap rate among all platforms is relatively unsafe? That's like saying "driving an F-150 is less safe than other cars" and you reply with "but it's about the same as a Silverado."

More to the point, I'd normally expect an airframe whose sole purpose is to carry pax and materials from point A to point B in favorable weather conditions to have a lower class A mishap rate than virtually anything, particularly airframes that are launched and regularly crash-landed on aircraft carriers at hundreds of miles an hour.

This is silly. Of course mishap rates are going to differ by mission, method of employment, operating environment, etc. Saying a Volvo V90 is much safer than a Camaro ZL1 isn't telling the whole story. The Volvo buyer is far more likely to drive slow, brake early, yada, yada, yada.

This is the very reason we have control groups in medical studies and retrospective studies find matching records with similar demographics, history, etc. before jumping to conclusions.

 

[sevenhelmet]

Perhaps it would be instructive to compare the V-22 mishap rate to that of aircraft it has replaced, such as the C-2A.

 

[croakerfish]

I'll play your silly game... what are the actual numbers we should be comparing? And what is the flaw in pointing out that a platform that has 3x the average class A mishap rate among all platforms is relatively unsafe? That's like saying "driving an F-150 is less safe than other cars" and you reply with "but it's about the same as a Silverado."

More to the point, I'd normally expect an airframe whose sole purpose is to carry pax and materials from point A to point B in favorable weather conditions to have a lower class A mishap rate than virtually anything, particularly airframes that are launched and regularly crash-landed on aircraft carriers at hundreds of miles an hour.

Ospreys do a lot more than that. Maybe the current mission set of VRM can be described this way but certainly not AFSOC or the Marines.

 

[Griz882]

Perhaps it would be instructive to compare the V-22 mishap rate to that of aircraft it has replaced, such as the C-2A.

More accurately, the V-22 (with reference to the Marines) replaces the H-46. The -46 had an accident rate of around 3 per 100K hours. It’s hard to find a direct correlation to a USAF replacement but the closest is the UH-1 that had a Class A rate close to 5.5 per 100K.

 

[sevenhelmet]

More accurately, the V-22 (with reference to the Marines) replaces the H-46. The -46 had an accident rate of around 3 per 100K hours. It’s hard to find a direct correlation to a USAF replacement but the closest is the UH-1 that had a Class A rate close to 5.5 per 100K.

In other words, a similar order of magnitude.

IMO, as much as everyone wants zero mishaps, I think it’s unrealistic to expect mishap rates to drop much lower than they are, unless the services want to spend a lot more money and time attacking the “problem”, at the expense of other priorities.

 

[exNavyOffRec]

More accurately, the V-22 (with reference to the Marines) replaces the H-46. The -46 had an accident rate of around 3 per 100K hours. It’s hard to find a direct correlation to a USAF replacement but the closest is the UH-1 that had a Class A rate close to 5.5 per 100K.

The media makes it seem that Ospreys are plagued with all sorts of issues and falling out of the sky on a regular basis, I am not surprised as that results in clicks, which leads to more advertising dollars.