MV-22 Osprey crash report

[Verbal]

USMC Blames Fatal MV-22 Crash In Norway On Pilot Error
Aviation Week 08/15/2022
Author: Steve Trimble

A five-month investigation released on Aug. 15 by the U.S. Marine Corps blames pilot error for a crash of a Bell Boeing MV-22B Block C Osprey that killed all four crew members in Norway on March 18.

The pilot or co-pilot deviated from the planned route, entered a valley at low level and then banked the aircraft at angles far beyond the MV-22B’s limit for maintaining altitude, the final report concludes.

The investigation report rules out weather and equipment failure as a cause of the accident. Although bad weather disrupted a search-and-rescue attempt by a Norwegian helicopter crew three hours after the accident, a recovered video from a GoPro device found at the crash scene shows the aircraft was flying in clear weather at the time of the accident, the report says.

The presence of the unauthorized GoPro device on the aircraft prompted the investigators to make a recommendation for an equipment change on the MV-22B. The crew may have been flying more aggressively than necessary for the benefit of the GoPro recording. The MV-22B should be equipped with an authorized video recording system in the cockpit, which can be reviewed in flight debriefings to discourage unauthorized or unsafe maneuvers.

“If the unauthorized employment of a video recording device can be construed as negatively influencing aircrew to make bad decisions, then the authorized employment of an institutional video recording device may encourage sound decisions and positive safety outcomes,” the report says.

The crew, which was participating in Exercise Cold Response, deviated from the flight plan at 4:22 p.m. to enter the Gratadalen Valley. The aircraft descended to 557 ft. above ground level and at a speed of 259 KCAS, or 39 knots faster than the VMM-261 squadron’s default planning speed for low-altitude flying.

The investigators could not determine whether the pilot or co-pilot was flying at the time of the crash. Within seconds of entering the valley, the pilot banked left at 68 deg., then over-corrected with an 89-deg. bank to the right, the report says. The MV-22B loses altitude rapidly at bank angles over 60 degrees. During the 89-deg. turn, telemetry data shows the aircraft was descending at a rate of about 4,000 ft. per minute, the report says.

The aircraft crashed into the eastern wall of the Gratadalen Valley about 4 sec. after 4:23 p.m., with photographic evidence suggesting that all four crew members were killed on impact.

The crew members were Capt. Matthew Tomkiewicz, the aircraft commander; Capt. Ross Reynolds, the co-pilot; Gunnery Sgt. James Speedy, the aerial observer; and Cpl. Jacob Moore, the crew chief.

[Not_Karl]

...ban ALL GoPros?

[Gabriel]

Sorry, that's not pilot error.

[Verbal]

Are you saying intentional pilot action? CFIT? Please explain yourself.

[Gabriel]

Are you saying intentional pilot action?

Exactly. All except crashing itself, of course. But what caused the crash was intentional and criminal disregard for safety and for the taxpayers' money, and most likely a safety culture that tolerates these actions. It is highly unlikely that it was the first time this pilot did stupid tricks, it is highly unlikely that he was the first pilot doing stupid tricks, and it is highly unlikely that he pilot flying was fighting the other 3 Marines on board that were desperately trying to stop him.

[elaw]

Yeah but it's still pilot error - the pilot's error being thinking that they could get away with it.

[Gabriel]

Yeah but it's still pilot error - the pilot's error being thinking that they could get away with it.

That's not the cause of the accident. Even if the pilot know with 100% certainty (let's say by divine revelation) that he was able to get away with it, he still should not have done it and he knew it.

If a tree falls in the forest and there is nobody there to hear it, the falling tree still makes noise.

[elaw]

Yeah but I meant "get away with it" not just in relation to the culture/punishment but also in relation to being able to perform the maneuvers he did without did_dieing.

On a more technical note, do we believe that going to 68 deg. left bank to 89 degrees right was in fact "overcorrecting" in the sense it was unintentional, or something more intentional? Obviously this is parlour talk but it seems to me that a pilot with any significant level of skill/experience would not accidentally overshoot more than 100% trying to correct an over-banked condition.

[Gabriel]

Yeah but I meant "get away with it" not just in relation to the culture/punishment but also in relation to being able to perform the maneuvers he did without did_dieing.

On a more technical note, do we believe that going to 68 deg. left bank to 89 degrees right was in fact "overcorrecting" in the sense it was unintentional, or something more intentional?

The answer to your question is, of course, I don't know.

Obviously this is parlour talk but it seems to me that a pilot with any significant level of skill/experience would not accidentally overshoot more than 100% trying to correct an over-banked condition.

Thinking of a normal airplane, roll PIO can easily get nasty at height angles of attack when roll control is reduces, eliminated or reversed, in combination with a loss of roll dampening and an increase in adverse yaw. You have situations where once you achieve a certain roll rate you can just not stop it with ailerons only. You need to either use rudder or reduce AoA first and then use ailerons.

Thinking of the Osprey in particular, again, I don't know. Big engines at the wing tips increase a lot the roll and yaw moment of inertia. The huge rotors have huge gyroscopic and torque effects as well as aerodynamic effects of the wings due to the propwash and slipstream. And we don't know if the rotors were in the full horizontal position or something else where thrust vectoring may be a factor.

[elaw]

Good points!

I would have thought the FBW code in that thing would have some anti-stupidity features but if it does they were clearly not effective in this case.

[ocelot]

It's quite possible the Osprey has some holes in its envelope at such attitudes; it wasn't intended to be flown that way and likely hasn't been tested, and it's not exactly a normal aircraft. If you try that move in a 152 you might break the wings or fall out the cockpit door or whatever, but you at least know it'll respond aerodynamically in the expected way.

[flyboy2548m]

"The ONLY thing that Goddamned thing is good for is killing Marines!"

-my first-ever OE check airman, a retired USMC test pilot, both fixed- and rotary-wing.