WASHINGTON, D.C., UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, February 14, 2024 /EINPresswire.com/ -- Hurrying the troubled CV-22 Osprey back into use would be a cause of disappointment and concern, but not surprise.

With the program’s “sunk cost” reaching into the many dozens of billions of dollars, and amid claims of the Osprey’s essential role, the pressure on defense officials to conclude the Osprey's stand-down and get the aircraft going again must be intense.

Apparently too intense. The Associated Press reported Feb. 6 that “The Pentagon’s Joint Safety Council is now working with the Air Force, Navy and Marine Corps on their plans to get Osprey crews ready to fly again.”

The article made clear the Pentagon’s intent to return the Osprey to the skies. Defense staffs are “getting service-wide input on how many simulator hours are needed to get a crew back to proficiency.”

A mere week after the Air Force Osprey's crash, that certainty was on display. "The stand-down will provide time and space for a thorough investigation to determine causal factors and recommendations to ensure the Air Force CV-22 fleet returns to flight operations," an Air Force official is quoted as saying on Dec 6.

ROA urged Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin in November to ground the Osprey after that crash, that killed all eight of the Air Force crew.

“One day, after a lot of testing and refining, this machine may be reliable; for now, however, it’s time to ground the Osprey. Immediately,” ROA wrote Secretary Austin. ROA subsequently commended the secretary for his decision in December (just two months ago) to ground the aircraft.

The Air Force crash has been attributed to some mechanical failure, which the military – all-too-predictably – has not disclosed. We are simply told that "mitigations" can be put in place. “Trust us.” Mitigations circumvent or reduce the severity of problems, they don't fix problems.

More concerning yet is this from the AP article: “While each service will determine when it returns its own fleets to the skies, the council is talking with,” according to a Pentagon official, “commanders across the services on what are their plans to come back to flight . . .”

Does this mean that a technical or mechanical issue affecting the aircraft regardless of which service flies it will be finally adjudicated, not by a centralized process that ensures reliability across the board, but by commanders using their own judgement under their own circumstances?

ROA is all for commander discretion, but not when it’s a matter beyond the ken of the average commander: this is an issue of engineering, technology, and sheer physics. Not command and staff . . .

What ROA wrote the secretary – and means – is that a lot of testing must occur if and before our sons and daughters are again told to fly in the Osprey. By a lot, we envision hundreds of hours in the hands of expert test pilots, in all flight envelopes, with engineers and technicians aboard.

Commanders having a role in any return of the Osprey to service, we would find it commendable to see generals and admirals occasionally on board in an oversight role during such test flights. Additionally, there should be oversight beyond that provided by the Pentagon: “trust and verify.”

The Pentagon must resist any pressure to return to use a piece of equipment that has not been exhaustively tested and proven reliable in the hands of normally trained operators using it under all conditions that can be reasonably foreseen.

Anything less is a disservice to these wonderful young warriors and their families -- and risks weakening the credibility of a military leadership that is already struggling to attract young Americans into uniformed service.

Matthew Schwartzman
Reserve Organization of America
mschwartzman@roa.org
Visit us on social media:
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Instagram
YouTube

Legal Disclaimer:

EIN Presswire provides this news content "as is" without warranty of any kind. We do not accept any responsibility or liability for the accuracy, content, images, videos, licenses, completeness, legality, or reliability of the information contained in this article. If you have any complaints or copyright issues related to this article, kindly contact the author above.