Parents of Marine killed in Osprey crash at Bellows sue
ASSOCIATED PRESS
This May 17, 2015 photo shows debris rising as a Marine Corps Osprey aircraft, not pictured, makes a hard landing on Bellows Air Force Station near Waimanalo,. (AP Photo/Kimberly Hynd)
The parents of one of two California-based Marines who died from last year’s crash of a MV-22B Osprey in Waimanalo are suing the manufacturers of the twin tilt-rotor aircraft.
Lance Cpl. Joshua Barron, 24, of Spokane, Wash., and Lance Cpl. Matthew J. Determan, 21, of Ahwatukee, Ariz., died from injuries they suffered when their Osprey crashed at Marine Corps Training Area Bellows while attempting to land.
Barron died May 17, the day of the crash. Determan died two days later.
There were 19 other Marines and a sailor aboard the Osprey. Most suffered injuries.
Determan’s parents, Michael J. and Charlesa A. Determan, filed a lawsuit against the Boeing Co., Bell Helicopter Textron and Eaton Aerospace in U.S. District Court on Monday. Each of the companies designed, developed, manufactured and assembled various parts of the aircraft.
The Osprey’s tilt rotors allow it to take off and land like a helicopter, yet fly like a plane.
The lawsuit claims that the aircraft was defective in that it did not conform to design specifications spelled out by the U.S. government and required for operating and hovering in reduced visibility environments. It also alleges that the defendants failed to include adequate safety measures and warnings.
Boeing and Bell Helicopter spokesmen referred requests for comment to the Marine Corps.
Marine Corps spokeswoman Capt. Sarah Burns said in a statement the Marines are committed to ensuring their aircraft are safe and that air crew who fly them are thoroughly trained. She said the Marines diligently investigate mishaps.
The Marine Corps said that particular Osprey, called Mayhem 11, went into free fall after its left engine stalled due to repeated, sustained flight time in severe brownout or dusty conditions. The Marines said a buildup of sand and dust on the turbine blades and vanes caused the engine to stall, which decreased lift and resulted in the crash.
The Marines said the pilots did not violate any regulations or flight standards, but faulted them for not choosing an alternate flight profile, path or landing site after their first landing attempt indicated that the dust cloud created by the aircraft was thicker and higher than expected.
In direct response to the crash, the Naval Air Training Command changed operating procedures for the Osprey reducing the amount of time the aircraft should be operated in reduced-visibility landings.
The Marines later published a more than 2,200-page report of its investigation into the crash that found there was no on-site examination of the landing zones, the Mayhem 11’s landing zone did not meet the recommended size for reduced-visibility conditions, the plan for the possibility of a mass-casualty event was inadequate and not all of the participants in the mission knew or understood the medical evacuation plan.
——-
The Associated Press contributed to this story.
14 responses to “Parents of Marine killed in Osprey crash at Bellows sue”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
What’s the actionable cause? That the Osprey maker didn’t include an engine that can fly even when clogged with dust, dirt and sand?
Don’t the Marines fly the Osprey in that kind of conditions in Iraq and Afganistan?
The Osprey can operate in dusty conditions if need be, but its dwell time under those conditions is extremely limited. That this fatal crash occurred during a training mission and not under battlefield conditions or an actual emergency mission makes this doubly tragic and likely unnecessary.
The engine used by the Osprey is akin to a hybrid (plane engine/helicopter) and it is susceptible to getting crap sucked into it. Is that the short and sweet of it?
There’s an Engine Air Particle Separator (EAPS) – a glorified dust filter – at each engine inlet, but like all filters there’s only a finite amount of time they’re effective. Osprey pilots were once told to linger no more than 60 seconds in dusty conditions. That limit was later reduced to 30 seconds. (Most experienced pilots don’t risk taking it to even half that limit in really dirty conditions.) In ideal and clean conditions, a properly maintained and operating Osprey can actually fly and even hover safely on one working engine if lightly loaded. The problem in the Hawaii crash was that the right engine didn’t have the power to keep the aircraft from falling after the left engine crapped out.
DeltaDag – The real problem is at less than 1,000 feet, the loss of lift from a single engine failure will almost certainly cause a crash because the aircraft drops at a much faster rate than the remaining engine can spool up. And the aircraft cannot auto rotate. It just drops straight down. It’s a mess.
The drawback that can’t be eliminated in the Osprey’s design is lack of options once the aircraft is loaded to any useful degree. A single engine failure might be recoverable in an aircraft carrying zero passengers and no gear. Unfortunately, this isn’t the way the Osprey is typically flown except when being demonstrated to VIPs or the media. It’s possible the Osprey remains in our military’s inventory because of bitter memories lingering from the disastrous Iranian hostage rescue mission in 1980. Sea Stallion helicopters used in the mission did not prove to have the required endurance.
Thank you for the explanations.
ALLU, well, thanks. It always kinda surprises me somebody actually takes time to read this stuff. As the airlines say, “Thank you for choosing us. We know you have many options.”
The Osprey while a novel aircraft it has had a troubled history and many crashes and deaths starting from when it was being developed and tested and since it became
operational. It is a very unforgiving flying machine and it will probably continue to be a very hazardous aircraft to fly and operate.
fiveo–agreed–it’s a Widow Maker. Should send them all to the bone yard!
Wow! A military landing craft that cannot land in dusty areas? That’s a huge limitation.
If that be the case….then surprisingly you would think there would be a lot more crashes in the Afghanistan theater of operations……
The aircraft are flown very infrequently because they are broken down so often – a dispatch rate of about 50%. The military ownership cost of the aircraft is almost $85,000 per hour. It cannot auto-rotate.