V-22 Article Blowback by Boeing Booster?

14.10.11

Categorie: Accidents, Air, David Axe, Industry, Marines, Wired |
Tags: ,

V-22. Navy photo.

V-22. Navy photo.

by DAVID AXE

So I published a story at Danger Room about the Marine Corps manipulating the V-22 Osprey tiltrotor’s safety record. There’s been surprisingly little blowback. Here’s one bitter response, from someone named Mark Bradley, who may or may not be the Mark Bradley quoted in a Boeing press release regarding the Osprey:

David,

I read your story on the Osprey. You did a great job of identifying a lot of apparent loopholes and inconsistencies in mishap reporting. But here is a blind flash of the obvious for you. The MV-22 flies hundreds of flight hours daily from North Carolina to Afghanistan and off U.S. Navy ships in between. If there was a legitimate safety concern, you and the world would know it by now. Yet in the absence of fiery crashes with multiple fatalities, narrow-minded individuals like you continue efforts to report the Osprey as a “dangerous experimental aircraft.” It is simply an aircraft the Marine Corps flies. It is effective and as safe, or safer, than any other.

Let it go man. I mean “wow,” you managed to uncover the fact a military organization reports its success and safety rate in the best light possible consistent with established standards … amazing!! Curious if you attempted to contact a Marine or soldier medically evacuated by an MV-22 from a combat zone that would have been inaccessible by air a few years ago.  Your fact manipulation exceeds any claims you make in your story.

Mark

|

2 Responses to “V-22 Article Blowback by Boeing Booster?”

  1. Dick Spivey says:

    David,
    No wonder you got very little blowback. Your story wasn’t worth commenting on. You just rehashed all the old stuff that critics have been using for years. There just wasn’t any new news to consider. I am amazed that magazines pay for articles like that.
    Cheers,
    Dick

  2. Prestwick says:

    At the end of the day if there are concerns about unexplained problems then they need to be investigated. Independently.

    I would have no confidence in a military that broke rules on tests and showed frequent lack of care and attention to mission critical areas. Examples such as taking extraordinary amounts of time readying bombers with nuclear weapons – some took 30 hours in 2007 – yet STILL passing LNSI tests and was so incompetent that it can’t even account for the location of some of its nukes sometimes (the “bent spear” incident anybody?).

    If there are legitimate concerns about the V-22 don’t pooh-pooh them and definitely don’t shoot them down without giving a complete and thorough explanation. Have these problems been resolved? Great! Then let us know what the problem was, how it was resolved and when!

    It is this approach that gets people killed and causes a crisis. Want an example? Go talk to the mothers in the UK who were told by the British MoD to their faces that armoured Land Rovers were perfectly adequate in a warzone like Iraq and had to see their sons trundle on hearses through Royal Wootton Basset as a result of that lazy and frankly outrageous approach to buying kit.

Leave a Reply