Home » Aviation » BREAKING: Two Aircrew Bail Out of MV-22 in Persian Gulf, One Rescued, One Missing


BREAKING: Two Aircrew Bail Out of MV-22 in Persian Gulf, One Rescued, One Missing

MV-22 Osprey attached to Marine Medium Tiltrotor Squadron (VMM) 163 (Reinforced) launches from the flight deck of amphibious assault ship USS Makin Island (LHD 8) on Aug. 16, 2014. US Navy Photo

MV-22 Osprey attached to Marine Medium Tiltrotor Squadron (VMM) 163 (Reinforced) launches from the flight deck of amphibious assault ship USS Makin Island (LHD-8) on Aug. 16, 2014. US Navy Photo

The U.S. Navy and Marine Corps are searching the northern part of the Persian Gulf after two crew “bailed out” from a Bell-Boeing MV-22 Osprey tilt-rotor aircraft on Wednesday.

The Osprey, which was operating from USS Makin Island (LHD-8), lost power on takeoff from the amphibious assault ship at around 10:10 a.m. (EST).

One other crewman who also jumped from the aircraft was later rescued and is in stable condition onboard the ship, according to the Navy.
There are currently a number of Navy ships and aircraft looking for the missing crewman.

Meanwhile, the Marine Osprey pilot managed to save the aircraft and recover the MV-22 onboard Makin Island. The ship is embarked with elements of the 11 Marine Expeditionary Unit (MEU) to support operations in Syria and Iraq. Makin Island deployed on July 25, 2014, to relieve the Bataan Amphibious Ready Group (ARG).

The Navy and Marine Corps will investigate the cause of the incident, the service said in a statement.

The following is the Oct. 1 statement from the service on the search.

MANAMA, Bahrain (NNS) — U.S. Navy and Marine Corps forces in the North Arabian Gulf are conducting a search and rescue operation for a missing aircrew member who went into the water at 2:10 p.m. (GMT), today, when the aircraft the member was aboard lost power on takeoff from USS Makin Island (LHD 8). Two air crewmen bailed out of the aircraft into the Arabian Gulf with one safely recovered and now in stable condition aboard Makin Island. The pilot of the aircraft, a U.S. Marine Corps MV-22 Osprey, was able to regain control and safely land aboard Makin Island.

U.S. Navy ships, aircraft and boats are taking part in the search and rescue effort.

The Navy and Marine Corps will investigate the cause of the incident.

USS Makin Island with embarked elements of the 11 Marine Expeditionary Unit is currently on a scheduled deployment to the U.S. Central Command Area of Responsibility where it is supporting operations in Iraq and Syria.

  • lewis b puller

    yes , these things happen in war but that osprey does not inspire confidence. and to fly the osprey in combat without adequate weaponry borders on gross negligence.

    • 2IDSGT

      Military helicopters crash every month and no one bats an eye… a V-22 crashes and EVERYONE LOSES THEIR MINDS!

      • lewis b puller

        what about the lack of guns sarge?

        • lewis b puller

          and sarge the mv22 costs a helluva lot more than our venerable ch46s.

          • 2IDSGT

            Seriously? You couldn’t even wait an hour to see if your first troll got a reply?

          • lewis b puller

            we are route-stepping sir. its all about the infantry, the grunts.

          • lewis b puller

            dont you think our enemys will know that ospreys are defenseless? what if there are problems with the escort aircraft? you want us flying naked without weapons? at least give us a fighting chance.

          • 2IDSGT

            To see if you even speak English, please give detailed technical essay on the matter. Remember, I can use Google too.

          • lewis b puller

            WHAT COMMANDER WANTS TO INFORM THE PARENTS OF A MARINE KIA THAT HIS SON OR DAUGHTER DIED NEEDLESSLY BECAUSE WE WERE TOO CHEAP OR STUPID TO PROPERLY ARM THE AIRCRAFT USED TO INSERT OR EXTRACT THEIR KIDS IN COMBAT SITUATIONS. WHY WAIT FOR A BATTLEFIELD TRAGEDY TO CORRECT THIS CLUSTER____.? ONE OF THE BLOODY LESSONS OF VIET NAM, (MY WAR) IS THAT ADEQUATE SUPPRESSIVE FIRE IS IMPERATIVE WHEN INSERTING, EXTRACTING OR DUSTING OFF IN HOT LANDING ZONES. THE NVA WERE HEAVILY ARMED AND WELL TRAINED BY THEIR RUSSIAN SPONSORS. SUPPRESSIVE FIRE KEPT THEIR HEADS DOWN UNTIL WE COULD TAKE OFF. WHY WOULD WE WANT TO FORGET A HARSH LESSON PAID FOR WITH MARINE CORPS BLOOD? BUT I’M SORRY SEARGENT SIR. I HAVE NO RIGHT TO SPEAK IN DEFENSE OF MARINE CORPS GRUNTS IN THE PRESENCE OF A GREAT AIRWING LIFER LIKE YOURSELF. ME AND MY DAD WERE BOTH JUST DOWN AND DIRTY GROUND-POUNDING GRUNTS AT THE BATTLE OF OKINAWA ON THE SHURI LINE WITH FIRST MARDIV AND AT FOXTROT RIDGE IN THE DMZ WITH MY 3RD MARDIV. . HOW DARE US RIFLEMEN VOICE AN OPINION TO AN ELITE AIRWING LIFER. CAN I MAKE IT ANY MORE TECHNICAL THAN LIFE AND DEATH SEARGENT SIR?

          • CSA Ware

            Hey I’m only a Cadet, but I know to read a report before making an idiotic comment. The osprey had a power failure when in takeoff. I have veterans going back 4 generations and everyone of them never said they called anyone sarge. The osprey is a transport vehicle. Not an assault vehicle. I’m not sure how having any more weapons would help a power failure

          • Bat Man

            Is this a trick question? What do they tell the parents of the numerous people lost in Ch-46 accidents?

            So just so I can get the story straight– The -46 has more guns, but has far more crashes and thats a good thing. And the Osprey has one fewer gun and crashes far less often with a much better safety record… but that is bad? And then you want to play the “casualty card”?

            Bottom Line, more people have died in -46s than Ospreys. especially when you compare their first 7 years in service. So if you really care, you want people in Ospreys not -46s. You seem to think its a tragedy if someone dies from a lack of firepower, but its fine if dozens are lost from being shot down, crashing, catching fire, suffereing mechanical failure, etc.

            2ID SGT… betcha that ID stands for “Infantry Division” and I’m an 03 so don’t play the “grunt card” on me. You don’t have to be an “airwing lifer” to know some basic facts. The “Venerable” CH-46 dates from the 60s and is painfully slow. It has to expose itself to danger to a a degree than an extra MG really doesn’t matter. Its much more accurate to call it the “Vulnerable” Ch-46. While the 46 has all guns blazing trying to buy itself some time as it crawls away from danger the Osprey is thousands of feet up and past the danger in moments with its speed.

            please try making your case for the 50 year old aircraft using facts and not emotional arguments, that fall under the “tyranny of the single casualty” logic. You can write in caps all you want, and I thank you for your service if you did serve, but this is a conversation that seems beyond your depth, and you don’t seem interested in educating yourself and accurately comparing facts.

            Semper fi

        • 2IDSGT

          Right… explain how many guns are typically carried a transport helicopter and how carrying more would have prevented this particular accident.

          I am of course assuming you were actually there to witness the whole thing.

          • lewis b puller

            we do not want to fly on defensively impaired aircraft. if one marine is in harms way then we are all there in spirit.

          • 2IDSGT

            Didn’t answer the question.

          • lewis b puller

            isnt it time for your daily 12 pack sarge?

          • Bat Man

            Ospreys are far from “defensively impaired” they fly at altitudes small arms and RPGS can’t reach at hundreds of knots, the same is not true for Ch-46s. which fly at lower altitudes and have been hit by rudimentary “AA” like RPGs. They recently had to uparmor them in fact.

            Also I don’t when you served in the USMC, but we don’t call our Sgts or anyone elses “sarge”

          • lewis b puller

            tell it to the marines

          • Bat Man

            Is Marine. Will make sure to tell myself.

          • 2IDSGT

            Dude… the guy doesn’t even speak English, at this point, it’s pretty obvious he’s just using copy/paste from Google-Translate.

          • lewis b puller

            HOW DO WE SUPPRESS ENEMY FIRE AT THE LZ? IN QUANG TRI PROVINCE ON THE DMZ I USED TO CALL GUYS SARGE. BUT PERHAPS MY VIET NAM GRUNT INFANTRY SERVICE IN 68 AND 69 DOES NOT QUALIFY ME AS A REAL MARINE LIKE YOU ELITE AIRWING LIFERS. IF THE OSPREY IS THE BEST THEN OUR CORPS IS SINKING IN DEEP EXCREMENT.

          • Jimmy

            So, in Nam, enemy fire was suppressed at an LZ by the aircraft landing at the LZ? Isn’t it an Infantry job to secure and hold an LZ BEFORE the aircraft show up? I have spent all but 3 years of my career on the ground side. I made sure LZ’s were secure before choppers land. Not one time have I heard ” don’t worry about securing the LZ, we will get it when we land”.

          • Bat Man

            “We’ve got 3 MGs each, it will work out”

          • Jeff

            Was this aircraft going to an LZ? Incredible as it may seem, not all flights are combat missions.

          • Secundius

            @ 2IDSGT.

            In the case of of the V-22 Osprey, a single M249 7.62x51mm Nato, on the rear ramp. What about the GAU-19 12.7x99mm, 3-barrel gatling promised or the M-134C Minigin promised.

          • lewis b puller

            WELL DAMN. MAYBE WE CAN ASK OUR ENEMY TO ENGAGE US FROM THE REAR SO WE CAN RETURN FIRE.

          • lewis b puller

            IN THE NAM OUR BIRDS SPORTED MACHINE GUNS

        • Secundius

          @ lewis b puller.

          I don’t see how having guns aboard the V-22 Osprey, would have prevented power loss, and then crashing just after taking-off. And to answer your question 2IDSGT. typically three, (2) side mounted M-134C Miniguns mounted on each side of the fuselage and (1) M2 or M3 12.7x99mm HMG. Mounted on the stern ramp. And in the Osprey case, an additional GAU-19 3xBarrel 12.7x99m turreted HMG. Mounted just under the nose. Or, a turreted M-134C Minigun, also mounted under the nose. And better yet, a turreted M-197 3-Barrel 20mm auto cannon under the fuselage, that can be retracted/extended, while in flight.

  • Secundius

    @ 2IDSGT.

    You ask what the differences are. The first operational “Rotorary-Winged Aircraft”, was the Focke-Wulf Fw-61 in 1936. 78-years ago. The first production “Helicopter” , the Sikorsky R-4 in 1942 with an pre-war production order of 100, and end of war production of ~400. 72-years ago. The first mass produced helicopter, was the Bell 47 in 1946/47. Numbering in the thousands. 67-years ago. The first V-22 produced in March 19, 1989. Barely 25-years ago, and with a trouble production & development run. The first operational V-22, in June 13 2007. Barely 7-years ago. And, the first mass produced V-22, in 2009. barely 5-years ago. When the V-22, has almost 70 to 80-years under its belt. Then, and only then, those people may not have a “Kiniption”, when one of its aircrafts losses power and crashes into the sea, just aifter take-off. I hope you can see the differences, The Helicopter is PROVEN technology, the Tilt-Rotor is NOT.

    • Bat Man

      Thats a fine history lesson there, and yet PROVEN helicopters still have power complications that lead to crashes. Along with lots of other technical issues that also lead to crashes. The internet as we know it is under 25 years old, do I have to wait until its 80 years old before its PROVEN Technology?

      What are the rules? Doesn’t avaition typically use other metrics to measure success and safety rather than just time in service?

      Lastly, you use the “v-22” and “tilt rotor” interchangeably. the first tilt rotors were flying in the mid 1950s. Google Bell XV-3 while you are at it (1960s) and XV-15 (1970s). Sorry to call you out on that wonderful history lecture. It really was inspiring

    • 2IDSGT

      I didn’t ask for a subjective opinion on the course of technology history (in the early 20th century, steam was the proven/safer technology for propelling cars).
      I asked an idiot to explain how arming the V-22 with more weapons would have prevented an accident on takeoff.

      • Secundius

        @ 2IDSGT.

        Where in my comment does it talk about arming, or defensive/offensive weaponry, of any kind!!!

    • Jimmy

      Since you are in the job of giving history lesons, how did the Helicopter become a PROVEN technology? My guess is they used it is situations to test it. I may be wrong though. I would like to see the service records of the beginning aircraft and compare/contrast it to ALL aircraft we have now. I am willing ot bet that there is not much dliniation betwen any of them.

  • Jimmy

    First off, the Osprey did NOT crash, it lost power and the pilots recovered. Second, the mission of the Osprey is assault support, and it is perfectly capable of defending itself against anything that can shoot down ANY helicopter. Therefore, it is safer than say a Blackhawk, a 46/47 or any other traditional Helo. There is alot of technology integrated in newer aircraft. No offense, because none is intended, this is not Vietnam, it is a new age of war. I have the most respect for any Vietnam veteran, thank you. THe Osprey was built for a certain mission set in mind, and it is the best we have for that mission. As far as what weaponry they do have, there are different versions of load outs. Yes there is a tail gun. Oh by the way have you ever heard of the belly gun? Do some research about it, and get back to us.

    • Jeff

      I agree with most of what you said, but “perfectly capable of defending itself against anything that can shoot down ANY helicopter”? No. Any fighter can lob a missile from several miles, even many miles, away and the Osprey is screwed. A Strike Eagle lobbed a bomb at a helicopter in the first Iraq war and hit it. It’s a good aircraft, but its ability to defend itself against the air-to-air threat is no better than any helicopter and worse than many.
      .
      And since you didn’t specify only an air-to-air threat, the Osprey is just as susceptible to ground fire as any helicopter — with the added problem that if battle damage can prevent it from tilting its rotors from horizontal to vertical, then it cannot land.

  • buzzard315

    Some of you aren’t comparing apples to oranges here. The V-22 Class A mishap rate per 100,000 flight hours is currently higher than that of the H-46, however, the mishap rate of the H-46 is for the entire life cycle of the aircraft. As the V-22 fleet grows and the number of flight hours increases, it’s mishap rate will decrease. In addition to that, you’re lumping all of the aircraft mishaps in one bucket and saying the aircraft is unsafe when, in fact, some of the mishaps are unfortunately pilot error. I’m sure some of the mishaps on the H-46 were pilot error as well, but my point is that doesn’t necessarily make the aircraft unsafe to fly or be around.
    As for arming the aircraft, there is currently a ramp mounted gun and some of the fleet have a belly mounted gun. Not that it makes any bit of difference in this case or any other mishap the aircraft has been involved in. There has yet to be a single mishap involving an aircraft taking enemy fire where the aircraft was lost. The plane is just too fast on ingress and egress to an LZ and flies too high. If additional covering fire IS necessary, it is handled by ground forces, or aircraft such as the A-10 Warthog, AH-1 Cobras, AH-64 Apaches, or other aircraft.
    I’m tired of people saying the aircraft is unsafe or a death trap. It’s no more dangerous than any other military aircraft in it’s early life stages.