Site hosted by Angelfire.com: Build your free website today!

Special Report: V-22 Crash

  Page 7  of  8 

Just Added:
Feingold Floor Statement on Proposed V-22 Legislation

Pentagon Test Director Found 177 Osprey Failures Endangered Safety

Feb. 8, 2001 -- Philip Coyle, until late last month the Pentagon’s top tester, last year identified 177 failures of “flight-critical subsystems” in the Marine Corps V-22 Osprey tiltrotor aircraft that potentially endangered safety, according to a briefing obtained by Inside the Pentagon.

Breaking News:

Related Stories from InsideDefense.com:

Related Documents Available on InsideDefense.com (for subscribers only):

The safety-related failures were among a total of 723 malfunctions in critical aircraft components Coyle found during an eight-month operational evaluation period that ended last July for the hybrid rotorcraft, which the Corps views as critical for ferrying large numbers of Marines quickly in and out of a battle area.

The test report for the V-22’s OPEVAL was released last November, when it appeared the program would shortly be approved for full-rate production. But those plans were put on hold after a Dec. 11 crash in North Carolina, which Marine Corps officials suspect was due to a failure of the aircraft’s hydraulics system and problems with its flight software. With two fatal crashes last year alone, then-Defense Secretary William Cohen created a “Blue Ribbon Panel” to review the Osprey program and recommend how to proceed.

It was before this panel that Coyle presented the briefing that contains new details about safety concerns that the former director of operational test and evaluation had not included in his main report on OPEVAL.

Among the flight-critical subsystem failures that Coyle said had safety implications were hydraulics, fuel and oil leaks -- all of which could be dangerous fire hazards to an aircraft, according to the Jan. 12 briefing. The test director found a failure in the flight control computers and abrasions in data lines and clamps, either of which could have a “potential effect on critical flight software,” the document states. A rudder actuator failed, reducing a pilot’s ability to control the aircraft.

Other examples of the 177 safety-related failures include a finding that the “lower crew door will not open after aircraft goes weight-on-wheels,” forcing the pilot to “shut down [the] aircraft and restart in order to disengage door lock pin,” which “inhibits emergency egress.”

According to testing experts, the level of safety-related failures found in the Osprey well exceeds those in other military platforms as they near production.

The briefing also details waivers the Marine Corps received that allowed Osprey program officials to skip 19 testing requirements during the evaluation period; some have yet to be completed six months after OPEVAL ended. The temporary reprieves on specific types of tests were issued because the aircraft ostensibly could not pass those tests when OPEVAL began.

Some of these waivers affected safety-related requirements, while others are related to the Osprey’s combat requirements. Perhaps the most serious of the test waivers affected both the aircraft’s safety and its combat effectiveness. Those included a waiver for tests of the V-22’s performance in “icing conditions” and another for flight tests of the aircraft’s air combat maneuvering capabilities.

Although Coyle ultimately deemed the V-22 “operationally effective,” his briefing to the Blue Ribbon Panel made clear he retains some “areas of concern” in this regard. “While analysis indicates the MV-22 meets range and [key performance parameters], possible weight increases will reduce those ranges,” the document states.

Testing also indicated that the Osprey offers less capability on a cold day than on a hot one. While the V-22 meets operational requirements for carrying loads at high altitude on hot days, “it has reduced load capacity in cold weather,” states the briefing. There is a sharp “fall-off” in the rotorcraft’s carrying capacity at temperatures below -10 degrees Centigrade, Coyle told the panel.

Last year, Coyle judged the program “not operationally suitable,” which pertains to problems the test director found in the safety and reliability of the aircraft, as well as the ability to maintain it. The latter issue sprang to national attention last month when the Marine Corps released an anonymous letter from a V-22 worker alleging his commanding officer had lied in maintenance records to make the aircraft look better.

Even before that allegation surfaced, the Marine Corps found itself defending the Osprey against Coyle’s concerns that the aircraft, if produced, would pose an undue amount of potentially serious maintenance problems. Asked at a Nov. 30, 2000, press conference if the V-22 would always prove to be a “high-maintenance” aircraft, Brig. Gen. James Amos, a top Marine aviation official, replied, “Absolutely not.”

He also dismissed the notion that the Osprey is riskier to fly because of maintenance issues, saying, “It absolutely is not.” Amos said the hours spent on maintenance for the nine aircraft at a training squadron at New River, NC -- just four of which went through OPEVAL -- is on the high side now because maintenance workers are new to the aircraft. He said their ability to fix problems quickly will improve over time.

And, Amos said, quality assurance at the Bell-Boeing contractor team will also improve as the manufacturer works out kinks in production.

Some others are less confident, noting that the V-22 -- an aircraft that the Marine Corps has said would be cheaper and easier to maintain than the aircraft it replaces -- has not proven itself as it stands at the cusp of full production. Some aircraft experts note that after four years of initial production, the V-22 parts Coyle found faulty were largely low-technology items, which might suggest fundamental problems in the manufacturing process.

“In my opinion, this is not ready for low-rate production, let alone full production,” Pentagon tactical air analyst Franklin Spinney told InsideDefense.com on Feb. 8. -- Elaine M. Grossman

Special Report - December 12, 2000
© Inside Washington Publishers

Back to Top | InsideDefense Main Page | About InsideDefense | Subscribe to InsideDefense

NCTimes.net
Today's Weather
  WEATHER  

Our Best Links
Keyword Search
Advanced

Previous Story  ||  Headlines  ||  Next Story

Osprey will be built, lawmaker tells Marines

GIDGET FUENTES
Staff Writer

MIRAMAR ---- The strongest advocate on Capitol Hill of the controversial MV-22 Osprey told Marine Corps helicopter crews this week that he's confident the assault tilt-rotor aircraft will be built, despite two fatal crashes last year that killed 23 Marines.

"We're going to build them," Rep. Curt Weldon, R-Pa., said late Wednesday, shortly after arriving at the Miramar Marine Corps Air Station for an overnight visit. "It will be the premier platform for Marines and for special forces. ... I feel nothing but confidence in that platform."

Weldon, chairman of the Military Readiness Subcommittee, is leading a delegation of lawmakers and defense officials on a four-day, cross-country tour of 21 military installations. The group spent 90 minutes Thursday at the Camp Pendleton Marine Corps Base before going to Texas.

The Osprey's future hinges on whether Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld agrees to proceed with production.

Congressional support remains strong, although military analysts say the MV-22 Osprey is vulnerable as Rumsfeld and the Bush administration weigh cuts to major weapons systems. An April 2000 crash that killed 15 locally-based Marines was the first major threat to the program since then-Defense Secretary Dick Cheney tried to kill it in 1989.

The Marine Corps wants the $40 billion program to buy 360 Ospreys, which take off and land like a helicopter and fly like an airplane, as replacements for its Vietnam-era CH-46E Sea Knight helicopters.

Maj. Gen. Charles F. Bolden, the wing commander at Miramar, said this latest delay could eventually force the military to spend money on costly upgrades to keep the CH-46s flying until they're replaced by the Osprey or some other aircraft.

"We're kind of boxed in the corner," Bolden told the delegation.

For Marines who fly, fix and maintain the Marine Corps' fleet of 30- to 36-year-old Sea Knight helicopters, a replacement couldn't come sooner. Crews grapple daily with oil and hydraulic fluid leaks, airframe fatigue and engine problems.

Experienced Marines said they had expected that by now they'd be flying and fixing the Osprey instead of fretting over backlogs to repair the aging Sea Knight. Maj. Craig Kopel, a Vista resident, noted that one of the squadron's helicopters first flew in 1969.

"Now it looks like this aircraft is going to be around for a while," Kopel, who runs the "Sea Elks" maintenance department of Marine Medium Helicopter Squadron 166 at Miramar, told the lawmakers.

"You're right," Weldon responded. "We've got to do something to keep these birds flying."

8/31/01

Previous Story  ||  Headlines  ||  Next Story
http://www.nctimes.net/news/2001/20010831/73140.html  


webmaster@nctimes.com     ©1997-2001 North County Times     editor@nctimes.com

 

NCTimes.net
Today's Weather
  WEATHER  

Our Best Links
Keyword Search
Advanced

Previous Story  ||  Headlines  ||  Next Story

A few options exist if Osprey delayed or cut

GIDGET FUENTES
Staff Writer
As the Marine Corps struggles to keep its troubled MV-22 Osprey tilt-rotor program alive, military aviation observers increasingly are asking this question: If not the Osprey, then what aircraft will carry Marines into future battles?

Since the early 1990s, Marine Corps officials have looked to the MV-22 program and tilt-rotor aviation in general as the best alternative to slower and less-capable helicopters when it comes to choosing aircraft to carry troops and equipment into combat.

If Defense Department officials decide to order more testing and delay the $40 billion aviation program, or even cancel it, the Marines and analysts say they have few alternatives to fill the critical combat assault or medium-lift role in the short- or long-term.

That mission is now being done by a fleet of medium-lift helicopters designed in the late 1950s and built in the 1960s that Marine Corps officials want to abandon in favor of more modern, technically advanced aircraft.

With the fleet of CH-46E Sea Knight helicopters aging, and some breaking down from wear and tear each year or, at times, crashing, Marine officials say they want to get a replacement sooner rather than later.

Their pilots, air crews and Marines who fly in these war birds say they have to wait and wonder what will be done to keep the aging helicopters safe until a replacement arrives.

"Something has got to happen ---- and soon," said one experienced Marine pilot with a West Coast helicopter squadron, who asked not to be identified.

The Osprey's fate awaits the recommendations of a blue ribbon Pentagon panel formed in December after the Osprey's second fatal crash in eight months. The panel's report is expected to be completed and sent to the defense secretary this spring, a Pentagon official said.

Top Marine Corps officials, who had expected a decision to move the Osprey program into full-scale production in December, continue to defend the program but now must wait to see in which direction the program will go.

To be sure, members of Congress are waiting to see what President Bush wants to cut or fund in the coming 2001-02 fiscal year Defense Department procurement budget.

Likewise, congressional representatives are also wondering what weapons systems will survive a national defense strategy review that's now under way.

 

Upgrades or new helicopters

Several seasoned aviators and aviation experts suggested that the Marines do have a few options, should the MV-22 Osprey program be canceled or further delayed.

Those options include:

Fund the program designed to extend the life of the CH-46E Sea Knight. The venerable twin-rotor helicopter currently continues to get upgraded hydraulic, electrical and diagnostic systems, Marine officials said. But a complete overhaul of 229 Sea Knights the Marines own would be costly ---- one 1994 estimate put the cost of the overhaul at about $1.6 billion.

At the time, Marine officials wanted to spend that money instead on a new, more modern aircraft than the older helicopters. Another option: To fill gaps, the Marines could get the Navy's 35-year-old H-46D transport helicopters, a craft that is similar to the Marines' CH-46E helicopters, as those are retired by the Navy.

 

  • Buy the Navy's new MH-60S helicopter on either a permanent or stopgap basis. The Sikorsky-built helicopter, a modification of the aircraft built specially for the Army, will replace Navy H-46Ds planned for retirement.

    The Army continues to buy UH-60L Blackhawks, which represent the bulk of its combat helicopter troop-hauling fleet.

     

  • Upgrade the existing CH-53E Super Stallion heavy-lift helicopter. This proposal, not yet approved for funding, would upgrade the hulking aircraft's three engines, its main rotor blades and rotor head and would increase its lifting capability. Proposed improvements would also include an upgraded, digitally based cockpit.

     

  • Buy a completely new helicopter. Two on the market include Sikorsky's new S-92A helicopter and the EH-101 helicopter, the latter being built by a European aviation consortium.

    The Sikorsky helicopter could carry up to 22 combat troops and lift up to 10,000 pounds, much like what Marine officials say the Osprey can lift ---- a fact currently in dispute among some aviation industry observers. The British-Italian-designed EH-101 helicopter can carry as many as 24 troops.

    Marine officials have said in recent interviews that the H-60 helicopter is not an aircraft they want as their medium-lift troop transport replacement. But one congressional source said "that's probably going to be the only option if something bad happens to the (Osprey)."

     

    Corps support stays strong

    Marine Corps officials still support the MV-22 Osprey to become the primary modern troop-lift aircraft.

    "Right now, we're not looking at alternatives to the MV-22," Marine spokesman 1st Lt. David Nevers said in a recent interview. "We've decided that the MV-22 was ---- and is ---- the right aircraft for us."

    Nevers noted that seven previous evaluations of the tilt-rotor aircraft's cost effectiveness and capabilities "have all concluded that it is the only aircraft that can meet (our) mission."

    This public confidence continues even after 30 people have died in experimental versions of Ospreys since the early 1992. In the last 12 months alone, 23 Marines have died in Ospreys that crashed, including 15 local servicemen.

    On April 8, 14 men with the Camp Pendleton-based 3rd Battalion, 5th Marine Regiment, one Marine from Miramar Marine Corps Air Station and four Marines stationed in North Carolina died during a night-time training exercise in Arizona.

    The Osprey, one of a flight of four, crashed at the Marana Regional Airport near Tucson, after, according to crash investigators, the pilot descended too rapidly, causing the aircraft to experience an aerodynamic phenomenon called "vortex ring" state.

    When rotary aircraft experience vortex ring state or "power settling," a rotor loses its ability to sustain lift.

    On Dec. 11, four Marines died when their Osprey crashed as they prepared to return home to the New River Marine Corps Air Station, N.C. Top Marine officials blame the crash on a hydraulic failure and computer software glitch, but the final determination hasn't yet been released.

     

    Cunningham asks for review

    U.S. Rep. Randy "Duke" Cunningham, R-Escondido, and others familiar with the investigation said in the December crash a titanium hydraulic line rubbed against a compartment in an area of the aircraft that's not easy to reach or check by maintenance personnel or air crew.

    "Titanium [is] very light and good for holding hydraulic pressure at 5,000 (pounds per square inch) ... but it is very susceptible to wearing and chafing. It's very thin and light," said Cunningham, a Vietnam-era Navy fighter pilot.

    During the December crash, the pilots were going through the emergency procedures, which the congressman said he believes "weren't adequate," and they couldn't control the aircraft. These procedures since have been changed, he said.

    Cunningham said he's discussed at length the Osprey program with Marine Corps Commandant James L. Jones.

    He said he's asked Jones for the Marine Corps to take a "tooth-to-tail" re-examination of the aircraft to make sure there are no other problems in the aircraft to prevent the loss of more test pilots and Marines.

     

    Technology is attractive

    In a interview late last week from his Pentagon office, Jones agreed that this year may be the most critical in development of the troubled Osprey program.

    "When you have accidents and people die, you really have to take a measure of yourself," Jones said.

    Jones said he is concerned but confident that the three ongoing investigations and reviews will answer the important questions that are dogging the Osprey program.

    "No one should think for a minute that we're going to love machines before we love people," Jones said. "I will never, never sign up to putting a Marine in a machine without being fully confident (that it is completely safe.)"

    Jones added that there are, however, three questions regarding the Osprey that must be answered in the months ahead.

    Jones said the Corps' has to know whether Osprey's tilt-rotor technology is fully "mature," whether the Osprey is tough enough for the missions the Marines will expose it to and third ---- depending on the answers to the first two questions ---- whether the commitment to acquire the aircraft in sufficient numbers is both sound and effective.

    Marine Corps officials say the Osprey's draw is in the design.

    What's attractive to Marines is its tilt-rotor design that enables it to fly fast like an airplane and transition its huge prop-rotor blades to get in and out of landing zones that are under enemy fire like a helicopter.

    "We looked at other options as a result of many studies, then decided that the technological leap in tilt-rotor technology was worth the risk," Jones said. "So we have gambled on the leap-ahead technology. We bet on it."

    He later added: "Nothing that we can go to would approach the potential of what tilt-rotor technology (presents)."

    Even critics of the Osprey program agree that there are few aviation alternatives that can meet the Marine Corps' stated needs.

    "A conventional helicopter is not going to beat the Osprey on speed," said Christopher Hellman, an aviation analyst with the Center for Defense Information in Washington, D.C. "With the transit speed, you can't compete."

    But some of the Osprey's problems of late, and concerns like those raised in recent government reports, show up in its hover and prop-rotor transition modes ---- critical aspects of flight for the types of missions the Marines conduct, Hellman noted.

    "If the concern is that you can't come in hot, well, that's not going to work," Hellman said. Without the ability to transition to hover mode quickly and get in and out, "these things are going to be missile bait."

    Critics of the program have called for more testing of the aircraft, citing concerns raised in outside reviews that some tests were eliminated or not funded.

    Jones said the ongoing grounding of the Osprey test fleet, ordered after the December crash, is enabling air crews and program officials to continue to learn more about the aircraft and tilt-rotor technology.

    He said that the trio of reviews may give some direction and, if needed, order additional testing, which he said he would support.

    "I'm for doing anything that restores complete confidence in it," Jones said. "(But) I wouldn't sign up for too long a delay. The important thing is to get it right."

    Jones said the projected last flights of the Marine Corps' fleet of CH-46E Sea Knights ---- expected some time in 2015 ---- may have to be extended should the Osprey program be stalled or killed.

    "We need to do something," he conceded.

     

    The Osprey option

    Hellman and other analysts and aviators say the Marines may have painted themselves into a corner as critics lob shots at their $40 billion program.

    "There have always been alternatives out there," Hellman said. "It's just that the Marines aren't interested in pursuing them."

    A decade ago, the Navy wanted to reduce its logistical helicopter fleet used for mail and equipment delivery, search and rescue and troop transport.

    The talk in Washington was to streamline the defense force and infrastructure, and Pentagon officials wanted the services to reduce the type, model and series of aircraft in the inventories to but a few types of fixed- and rotary-wing aircraft.

    Navy officials decided in 1993 to build its helicopter fleet around the sea-based version of the Army's UH-60 Blackhawk helicopter ---- what sailors call the Sea Hawk ---- and retire the older UH-3 Sea King and H-46D Sea Knight helicopters and, in the process, forgo the MV-22 that the Marines wanted.

  •  

    21st-century war-fighting concept

    "We looked very hard at our helicopter programs," said Richard C. Allen, president of the Alexandria, Va.-based Association of Naval Aviation, a defense think tank.

    The Marines, however, wanted newer technology and stuck to the Osprey, a decision that enabled defense contractors Sikorsky, Bell Textron Helicopters and Boeing to share the work and the accompanying contractor dollars and jobs.

    Allen, a retired pilot and three-star admiral who worked at the Pentagon on the chief of naval operations staff before he commanded the Navy's Atlantic air forces, said he has "full faith and confidence" in the Osprey program.

    He acknowledged it's a "costly program. It's a high-cost program. That is a challenge."

    Allen said the Marines envision the Osprey as a cornerstone of their 21st-century future war-fighting concept "to insert Marines as much as 200 miles inland and operate (in) locations where the enemy is not. You need that type of vehicle to get them to those locations."

    "The Osprey is critical to that capability," he added.

  •  

    Criticism from the GAO

    In a 1996 report, the General Accounting Office ---- Congress' investigative arm --- criticized the Marine Corps for bypassing the H-60 helicopter option as a cost-effective light-utility helicopter replacement. That report didn't address the service's plans to buy the MV-22 for medium-lift transport.

    Marine officials say they don't like the Army's Blackhawk, or the Navy's variant, the Sea Hawk, because it cannot accommodate the standard 13-member Marine infantry squad, noted one congressional aide. The Blackhawk, which was originally built to haul an 11-man Army squad, fits well into the Army's missions but not as well for Marines.

    "The Marine Corps wants a vehicle that can transport an entire squad. The (CH-)46 can do it. The (CH-)53D can do it. You can't move a 13-man squad in an H-60," said a Marine aviator who asked not to be identified. "That's really at the bottom of all this ... That's why the H-60 isn't an alternative."

     

    Contact staff writer Gidget Fuentes at (760) 901-4072 or gfuentes@nctimes.com.

    3/4/01

     

    Previous Story  ||  Headlines  ||  Next Story


webmaster@nctimes.com     ©1997-2001 North County Times     editor@nctimes.com

http://www.nctimes.net/news/2001/20010304/ww.html 

 

A Troubled Past

  the Hyperbolic Morass

http://www.insidedefense.com/public/special.asp