MikeCT From United States of America, joined May 2008, 137 posts, RR: 0 Reply 1, posted (11 months 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 12913 times:
Yikes. I try not to do too much armchair quarterbacking, but I'm not sure how you can mistake a 3600 X 100 runway for a 11,400 X 150 runway. Not to mention the size of the surrounding airport. Looking at a sectional, it looks like the runway at TPF lines up perfectly with the runway at MCF. Just about 5 1/2 miles to the northeast.
Mainliner From United States of America, joined Aug 2005, 367 posts, RR: 0 Reply 3, posted (11 months 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 12638 times:
It sounds bizarre, but it could easily happen to anyone flying to an area with which they aren't familiar. Maybe that crew isn't based at MacDill and had never been there before, and were thus unfamiliar with the area? Not sure. It probably didn't help that both airports have runways with the same configuration (4/22).
MikeCT From United States of America, joined May 2008, 137 posts, RR: 0 Reply 8, posted (11 months 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 12511 times:
There's not much that isn't on video these days.
It's pretty incredible how quickly they stopped the thing. I'm sure they briefed for a 11,000+ foot runway. If they noticed, even if on short final, the discrepancy, it's curious that they continued the landing.
I also noticed that TPF is currently NOTAM'ed closed. The picture in the link from the OP shows them not near the second runway. I wonder why they closed both.
canoecarrier From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 2671 posts, RR: 12 Reply 11, posted (11 months 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 12444 times:
The fiance of my wife's friend flies C-17s and he told me once he nearly landed on a POW compound in Iraq once by mistake. If some alert Marine in a guard tower didn't turn on a searchlight his plane would have been wrapped in barbed wire.
Mainliner From United States of America, joined Aug 2005, 367 posts, RR: 0 Reply 12, posted (11 months 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 12392 times:
Quoting MikeCT (Reply 8): I also noticed that TPF is currently NOTAM'ed closed. The picture in the link from the OP shows them not near the second runway. I wonder why they closed both.
I believe the airport will remain closed until the aircraft is removed. I also wonder if the runway asphalt was damaged. If the two runways intersect, that would compromise the portion of the other runway at the intersection.
PHX787 From Japan, joined Mar 2012, 5102 posts, RR: 14 Reply 13, posted (11 months 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 12367 times:
Quoting Mainliner (Reply 12): I believe the airport will remain closed until the aircraft is removed. I also wonder if the runway asphalt was damaged. If the two runways intersect, that would compromise the portion of the other runway at the intersection.
HOW are they gonna remove it? If you saw the video you saw the guy filming was quite concerned about that.
Well I can think of 3 options:
1. If the runway is long enough for a lightly loaded C-17 to take off.
2. Take the wings off and put her on a truck.
3. Airport gets a free runway expansion courtesy of the US Air Force.
The photo below is Altus AFB - the C-17 training base. The center runway by the yellow line is the 3,500 ft assualt strip. C-17 pilots have to land and takeoff from that strip several times before they complete their training. The C-17 is designed to takeoff and land on short runways. Of course it has to be loaded at less than MLW/ MTOW - but it can do it.
The only question is can the runway surface support the weight of the C-17 for takeoff.
Quoting MikeCT (Reply 1): but I'm not sure how you can mistake a 3600 X 100 runway for a 11,400 X 150 runway. Not to mention the size of the surrounding airport.
A pilot makes that mistake because visibility is poor and the intended landing airport isn't visible. He sees a runway and assumes that he is high, and puts down short. That is how the Northwest aircraft landed at Ellsworth AFB rather than Rapid City (RAP)
If the C-17 pilot could not see McDill - it could happen. It shouldn't - but as noted above - it has happened in the past.
I realize the video shows what looks like pretty good visibility - but it doesn't show if there was a haze on the water at the time.
Another complication for landing at McDill - not only is TPF about five miles short of Rwy 22 at McDill, but SPG is seven or so miles long of Rwy 22 at McDill - for a new to the area pilot - the line-up of three airports with runways almost aligned could be very confusing.
AirNav shows the runway is constructed for 20,000 lbs single wheel aircraft.
Also from the TPF page on AirNav
Quote: - BE ALERT: MACDILL AFB LCTD 4 MILES SW.
From the McDill page on AirNav
Quote: CAUTION: ON INST APCH TO MACDILL AFB RY 22, USE CAUTION DUR OVFT OF PETER O. KNIGHT ARPT DUE TO LGT ACFT TFC BLW APCH LEG 4 AND Mount Cook Airlines (New Zealand)">NM NE.
CAUTION: COMMERCIAL ACFT CROSS APCH TO MACDILL AFB ENROUTE TO TAMPA INTL ARPT AT AND ABV 2100 FT. ON INST APCH TO RY 04, USE CAUTION DUR OVFT OF ALBERT WHITTED ARPT DUE TO LGT TFC BLW APCH LEG 6 N-M SW. MAINT RY AND TWY CNTRLINE WHEN EXITING RY.
CAUTION: UNCTL VFR TFC IN VCNTY OF KMCF BLW 1200'. OFFL WX OBSN PT IS E-SE. OBSN MAY NOT ALWAYS BE REP OF COND OVER THE RY OR AT EITHER APCH END
MISC: FIRST 1000 FT RY 04-22 CONCRETE, MID 9420 FT ASPHALT.
flyingcello From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2010, 106 posts, RR: 0 Reply 21, posted (11 months 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 12149 times:
What do they say...never criticise a man until you've walked a mile in his shoes.
There are numerous examples of aircraft landing at the wrong airport...here in Northern Ireland we've had a Ryanair flight land at Ballykelly (disused) instead of Eglinton, and a Loganair land at Langford Lodge instead of Belfast International. So it's not beyond experienced professional airmen to make a simple mistake. Seems that despite the electronics on the flight deck, the Mk 1 eyeball can still convince the brain that your aircraft isn't where the electronics say it is!
wjcandee From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 4594 posts, RR: 18 Reply 24, posted (11 months 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 11833 times:
Nobody has yet mentioned that it was coming from Southeast Asia, flown by guys from McGuire. Who knows how long they had been awake. Fatigue could have been a factor.
Just looked at the arrival video. Unimpressive airmanship getting into that situation. Very impressive airmanship getting it stopped on that runway in time. Fast reactions saved a lot of lives.
Looking at the departure video, smooth as silk. I'm betting the crew that brought her in was sitting in a room somewhere being interrogated while senior Central Command brass hand-picked the crew to take her out, well aware of the scrutiny the maneuver would receive. Those guys made it look easy.
[Edited 2012-07-20 19:16:52]
25 HaveBlue: Here's video I found on YouTube of it taking off this evening. My dad and I have taken off from that airport a few times in a Huey about 10 years ago.
26 n92r03: Local news is reporting that soon after it landed there was a "rushed police escort" of either people or cargo or both. Anyone have any info on that?
27 eksath: One source has General Mattis of the US Central Command on board when it landed.
28 HaveBlue: Doh! If people thought those pilots were in the hot seat before.. if this is true, can you imagine the repercussions?
29 BoeingVista: And she started her roll from beyond the piano keys and spooled up with brakes on.. clearly they were erring on the side of caution here as they prob
30 HaveBlue: I'm thinking the normal rules were ignored and the USAF wanted that bird out of there before more media attention had the time and chance to particip
31 XT6Wagon: I doubt it was all that "sporty" of a takeoff. Don't forget they only need enough fuel to make 5 miles + a couple of go arounds worth.
32 HaveBlue: What I meant was this.. do you think the C-17 could get up to V1 or even Vr speed, have a problem, and be able to stop if needed? I don't think there
33 BoeingVista: Yup, I doubt you could decelerate a 140 tonne C-17 from 120 Knots to zero in 1000 feet