Chinook stuck in the mud

[TimC]

Residents of the island of Okinawa, Japan have complained about Ospreys since they first arrived on the large US base there, not least because there have been several crashes.

Okinawa contains several US bases and around 30,000 US forces personnel and another 50,000 US nationals as dependants and in support roles, so I can understand why the locals might be fed up with American service people. However, only one Osprey has been lost in an accident there, on 13 December 2016. It was offshore, and no-one was injured.

[orienteer]

Besides the crash there have been other incidents, as in this link:

https://mainichi.jp/english/search?q=okinawa+ospreys

[TimC]

Besides the crash there have been other incidents, as in this link:

https://mainichi.jp/english/search?q=okinawa+ospreys

There's a reference to the incident I quoted, but no others where an aircraft was lost or significantly damaged. There's a specious reference to an 'emergency landing', but the press is usually completely wrong about such things and will turn an emergency call in to a 'narrowly avoided schools and hospitals' story with no justification. All the other items are basically 'Americans go home because we don't like you'. That's fine, but it's not justified by problems with the Osprey in Japan.

The early days of the aeroplane (in the USA) were traumatic; 30 people lost their lives during testing. But it got sorted out and its in-service record is pretty good. The Ockinawans may well have a good case for not liking the Americans, but basing it on the Osprey is disingenuous.

[orienteer]

My impression is that because Ospreys showed signs of control problems, the population didn't fancy having them flying continuously over them and their houses. Seems reasonable to me 

[ElyDave]

they've always seemed to be able to fly in a straight line round here

[Mr Larrington]

they've always seemed to be able to fly in a straight line round here

That’s fine, but what happens when they want to go round corners

[“A good question!” – TE Lawrence]

[TimC]

My impression is that because Ospreys showed signs of control problems, the population didn't fancy having them flying continuously over them and their houses. Seems reasonable to me 

Sorry, but I think you're clutching at straws here! I think you have conflated your own impression of the Osprey, drawn from little relevant evidence, with the well-known and possibly well-justified antipathy of the local population of Okinawa to the overwhelming American presence on the island.

Your original post:

Residents of the island of Okinawa, Japan have complained about Ospreys since they first arrived on the large US base there, not least because there have been several crashes.

I have shown to be false. There has been one crash, offshore, in which no-one was injured.

Your attempt to draw support from the local press:

Besides the crash there have been other incidents, as in this link:

https://mainichi.jp/english/search?q=okinawa+ospreys

Shows possibly one other incident (an 'emergency landing'), and a lot of references to the December 2016 incident - some indeed using that incident as the justification for protesting further Osprey deployments (though in Tokyo, not Okinawa) - with non-specific references to 'other accidents', which are presumably referring to accidents during testing in the USA.

As the Osprey has been deployed in Okinawa for over 10 years there will be a number of minor incidents on record, but there is only one accident. The aircraft has a sound safety record in the region, despite a difficult gestation in its early development. The press coverage does not seem to present any evidence of any other accidents apart from one in Australia. The combination of this and the 2016 accident off Okinawa, appears to constitute 'a series of accidents' for their purpose, which is the closure of Futenma MCAS.

Now, as I say, the locals may well have good reasons to resent the Americans and to wish they weren't there (well, those who aren't employed by or because of them, anyway) but for you or the Okinawans to suggest the Osprey is a credible reason for this is laughable!

[jsabine]

My impression is that because Ospreys showed signs of control problems, the population didn't fancy having them flying continuously over them and their houses. Seems reasonable to me 

Sorry, but I think you're clutching at straws here! I think you have conflated your own impression of the Osprey, drawn from little relevant evidence, with the well-known and possibly well-justified antipathy of the local population of Okinawa to the overwhelming American presence on the island.

Your original post:

Residents of the island of Okinawa, Japan have complained about Ospreys since they first arrived on the large US base there, not least because there have been several crashes.

I have shown to be false. There has been one crash, offshore, in which no-one was injured.

Your attempt to draw support from the local press:

Besides the crash there have been other incidents, as in this link:

https://mainichi.jp/english/search?q=okinawa+ospreys

Shows possibly one other incident (an 'emergency landing'), and a lot of references to the December 2016 incident - some indeed using that incident as the justification for protesting further Osprey deployments (though in Tokyo, not Okinawa) - with non-specific references to 'other accidents', which are presumably referring to accidents during testing in the USA.

As the Osprey has been deployed in Okinawa for over 10 years there will be a number of minor incidents on record, but there is only one accident. The aircraft has a sound safety record in the region, despite a difficult gestation in its early development. The press coverage does not seem to present any evidence of any other accidents apart from one in Australia. The combination of this and the 2016 accident off Okinawa, appears to constitute 'a series of accidents' for their purpose, which is the closure of Futenma MCAS.

Now, as I say, the locals may well have good reasons to resent the Americans and to wish they weren't there (well, those who aren't employed by or because of them, anyway) but for you or the Okinawans to suggest the Osprey is a credible reason for this is laughable!

Meh

A cursory google (osprey crash okinawa) gave a Grauniad report as the 4th link: this talks of "several fatal accidents in other countries, including one in Hawaii in May 2015 in which a crew member died."

The 1st link talks more generally about the Osprey's perceived safety and lists its record, at least until 2017:

The Bell Boeing V-22 Osprey is an American military tiltrotor aircraft with an accident history that has generated some controversy over its perceived safety. The aircraft was developed by Bell Helicopter and Boeing Helicopters; the companies partner in its manufacture and support.

The V-22 Osprey had 12 hull loss accidents that resulted in a total of 42 fatalities. During testing from 1991 to 2006 there were four crashes resulting in 30 fatalities.[1] Since becoming operational in 2007, the V-22 has had seven crashes including two combat-zone crashes,[2][3] and several other accidents and incidents that resulted in a total of 12 fatalities.[4]

While nearly half the deaths appear to have been in one crash during testing, and a crash every couple of years of operating service probably isn't *that* much, I'm not sure I'd be sanguine about them operating near my house with any regularity.

And given there were two incidents *on the same day* in December 2016 at the Futenma base, it's a bit dismissive to say that the Okinawan's fears about the Osprey are 'laughable.'

Statistically unfounded, almost certainly, but two crashes, of the same aircraft type, operated by the same people, on the same day, would give me the willies if they were anywhere nearby.

[TimC]

Here is a list of all Osprey accidents and incidents. Although there is mention of a 'belly landing' at Futenma on the 13 December 2016, there's no documentary evidence of this alleged incident. All US Forces' accidents and incidents outside warzones are fully recorded in the same way that civilian ones are, so it's interesting that there appears to be no supporting evidence of it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accidents_and_incidents_involving_the_V-22_Osprey#December_2016

To give a sample of the level of reporting that's fuelling this campaign - and why I think it laughable - this is as good an example of crap reporting as I've ever read (and this was a specialist defence publication!):

A U.S. Marine Corps Osprey has reportedly made two emergency landings in the past two months, the recent one made at Oita Airport on August 29.

Tuesday's incident at Oita Airport, which caused no injuries, is the latest in a series of emergency landings and crashes involving the aircraft in and outside Japan that have further stoked safety concerns.

The tilt-rotor aircraft is apparently the same one that touched down at a U.S. airfield on Ie Island, near Okinawa's main island, in June after a cockpit warning light came on, Kyodo News learned based on photos that showed the two Ospreys bearing the same aircraft number and unit name, The Mainichi reports.

Moreover, the same aircraft was spotted emitting white smoke while it was parked at the U.S. military's Iwakuni base in Yamaguchi Prefecture on August 28.

The Osprey involved in these problems belongs to the U.S. Marine Corps Air Station Futenma in Ginowan, Okinawa Prefecture.

[jsabine]

Here is a list of all Osprey accidents and incidents. Although there is mention of a 'belly landing' at Futenma on the 13 December 2016, there's no documentary evidence of this alleged incident. All US Forces' accidents and incidents outside warzones are fully recorded in the same way that civilian ones are, so it's interesting that there appears to be no supporting evidence of it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accidents_and_incidents_involving_the_V-22_Osprey#December_2016

Aye, that wiki article is the same one I linked to.

There are further references to the apparent second incident at Futenma in, inter alia, both a complaint from the local prefectural assembly to the US ambassador and in https://www.marinecorpstimes.com/news/your-marine-corps/2016/12/16/second-osprey-incident-on-okinawa/, which suggests that as it was a controlled (albeit wheels-up) landing onto padding and did not result in damage, it would not be recorded as a 'mishap.'

[ElyDave]

I've had an RTB due to an engine warning light in a cessna, does that bring all 150/152 into question? I've also been in a C130 with an engine failure, but would have no issue (other than noise) getting in another one.  I'd suggest that an emergency landing due to a warning light is prudent piloting, not a dangerous aircraft

[orienteer]

If I lived in Okinawa, I wouldn't be taking much comfort from Boeing's most recent aircraft control system development history.

[ElyDave]

So you'll never fly Boeing again? I'm really struggling to follow your logic here, considering the complaints you cite are pre 737 max

[Feanor]

Hmm, I'd not say I'd never fly in a Boing again.
But that choice is largely out of my hands, if I actually need to go somewhere.

But my confidence in the certification process is certainly dented.
It seems that they had powers of persuasion they should have not.

But things are no better here.
Airbus hellichopters have their own issues.

The industry has not, in general, adopted the Risk Assessment approach, where *they* have to look at what they do, and perform a risk assessment.
They still take the proscriptive-rule approach and look to regulators to tell them what they need to do, provide boxes they have to tick.

That was the case in the oil industry, up to Piper Alpha.
"We checked all the boxes!"

Now, you need to tell us why what you are doing is safe.
Risk assessment versus prescriptive rule check-boxes.
But the aircraft industry has been slow to step up to this, to say the least.

I'm saying this from the PoV of someone who has some knowledge of the Clutha crash, and how Eurocopter defended themselves in the proceedings.

[ElyDave]

Having been an occupant of G-REDL the day before it went down, I share some of your opinions.

I could also tell you some interesting tales of blind spots in risk based approaches

[Gattopardo]

Am I the only one that has been in a chinook crash 

[TimC]

i crashed my Claud Butler Chinook on L2B many years ago...

[PaulF]

Am I the only one that has been in a chinook crash 

I’ve helped prevent one cutting itself in two.

[orienteer]

So you'll never fly Boeing again? I'm really struggling to follow your logic here, considering the complaints you cite are pre 737 max

I never said any such thing. I'm getting fed up with the bile directed at me for simply reporting the feelings of people who feel threatened by questionable safety standards. If you want to take issue with them, do it directly rather than use me as a proxy.

Boeing has demonstrated typical US company disregard for anything other than profits with the 737 scandal. How long has that attitude prevailed?

[Mr Larrington]

It’s what happens when beancounters get put in charge instead of engineers.  A similar phenomenon was observed with Mercedes-Benz, though at least when a Merc breaks down it doesn’t generally fly off the road and kill its occupants and, optionally, innocent bystanders utterly to DETH.

[ElyDave]

So you'll never fly Boeing again? I'm really struggling to follow your logic here, considering the complaints you cite are pre 737 max

I never said any such thing. I'm getting fed up with the bile directed at me for simply reporting the feelings of people who feel threatened by questionable safety standards. If you want to take issue with them, do it directly rather than use me as a proxy.

Boeing has demonstrated typical US company disregard for anything other than profits with the 737 scandal. How long has that attitude prevailed?

There is no bile from me, I'm just struggling to understand your logic that one Osprey crash equates to a terrible safety record and is directly linked to the 737 scandal. I know there is a big antiUS sentiment in Okinawa, but it is a fair question whether that is caused by a poor safety record by the Osprey, historic sentiment of 50 plus years, or something else.

[TimC]

So you'll never fly Boeing again? I'm really struggling to follow your logic here, considering the complaints you cite are pre 737 max

I never said any such thing. I'm getting fed up with the bile directed at me for simply reporting the feelings of people who feel threatened by questionable safety standards. If you want to take issue with them, do it directly rather than use me as a proxy.

Boeing has demonstrated typical US company disregard for anything other than profits with the 737 scandal. How long has that attitude prevailed?

Thing is, what you reported was based on bad reporting locally, which tried to conflate the non-issue of the Osprey’s safety record with the genuine issue of anti-American sentiment in Okinawa. Now the latter is something the Japanese will have to deal with, but until China changes its ways I don’t see any remote chance of the Americans moving out. But that’s their problem.

You apparently have something against the Osprey. Fair enough, it’s a very unconventional aircraft and it did have a difficult development period, but other than all helicopters being offensive to the Earth and science, the Osprey has no particular safety issues. The company that make the aircraft, while nominally part-labelled ‘Boeing’, has extremely little connection with the company that makes the 737. It’s essentially Bell Helicopters, in conjunction with Boeing-Vertol which is a peripheral military helicopter specialist part of the Boeing group. It has about as much to do with the 737 as Airbus does.

[orraloon]

To deflect the Chinook topic even further    is the VC10 still flying, though officially retired?

Today I saw a (military looking) large jet, swept back wings, 4 engines at the tail, quite noisy.  Too far away to see any details but as in Oxfordshire looked to be headed for Brize Norton, was pointing that way anyway.

Or are there other makes with that configuration?

[hatler]

There is (was) a Russian lookalike.

[spesh]

There is (was) a Russian lookalike.

Ilyushin Il-62.

According to the al-Wiki scrolls, it's still in use with the governments of North Korea and Sudan, plus the Russian Air Force:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ilyushin_Il-62#Current_operators

ETA - the only other aircraft with four engines mounted in pairs at the rear of the fuselage is the Lockheed Jetstar, but that is business jet-sized, and only in use as a corporate/private jet these days.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_JetStar