Sponsor Message:
Military Aviation & Space Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Vid: C-17 Landing At Wrong Airport (GA Field!)  
User currently offlineJAAlbert From United States of America, joined Jan 2006, 1600 posts, RR: 1
Posted (1 year 7 months 3 weeks 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 6945 times:

Yes, I did a search and yes, I'm probably incompetent, but I didn't see it so I'm posting it anyway ...

While watching the video re: the FedEx plane approaching with wheels up, I noticed another youtube entry -- A C-17 landing at a GA airport to the shock of folks standing on the tarmac. Here's the video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nkuqsd_tRHw

The comments associated with the video state the pilot didn't realize he was at the wrong airport until half way down the very short runway. Amazing bit of footage. I would like to have seen the video of them flying that plane out of there.

I never heard of this incident.

22 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offline4holer From United States of America, joined Feb 2002, 3018 posts, RR: 9
Reply 1, posted (1 year 7 months 3 weeks 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 6906 times:

Quoting JAAlbert (Thread starter):
I would like to have seen the video of them flying that plane out of there.

Here ya go!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=an-UgwM1V8g
and
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wi58Ds3Krgw
Edit: And backing up the runway...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yNvTC3Hxc1g

[Edited 2013-01-29 12:34:32]


Ghosts appear and fade away.....................
User currently offlinePI4EVER From United States of America, joined May 2009, 680 posts, RR: 2
Reply 2, posted (1 year 7 months 3 weeks 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 6792 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

It was not in Georgia, but in Tampa. Plane was headed to MacDill AFB but landed at small Peter O. Knight Airport on Davis Island. A recent report indicates one factor in the accidental landing was that the crew was fatigued from a long flight although they had charts and had been warned that Peter O. Knight is on a direct line to a runway at MacDill just 2 miles away. The final incident report is pending further USAF investigation.


watch what you want. you may get it.
User currently offline817Dreamliiner From Montserrat, joined Jul 2008, 2388 posts, RR: 1
Reply 3, posted (1 year 7 months 3 weeks 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 6707 times:

Thats just Amazing! Seriously That could have ended very badly, Glad it didnt.


Reality be Rent. Synapse, break! Vanishment, This World!
User currently offlineSpacepope From Vatican City, joined Dec 1999, 2930 posts, RR: 1
Reply 4, posted (1 year 7 months 3 weeks 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 6646 times:

Quoting PI4EVER (Reply 2):
It was not in Georgia, but in Tampa.

I'm pretty sure the topic starter meant General Aviation, not Georgia by GA. Passenger on that flight was/is head of CENTCOM.

EDIT: Here's a link, report might be out now. http://www.theledger.com/article/20130124/NEWS/130129611

[Edited 2013-01-29 13:20:42]


The last of the famous international playboys
User currently offlineEMBQA From United States of America, joined Oct 2003, 9364 posts, RR: 11
Reply 5, posted (1 year 7 months 3 weeks 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 6582 times:

By GA I'm sure he means general aviation.


"It's not the size of the dog in the fight, but the size of the fight in the dog"
User currently offlinerfields5421 From United States of America, joined Jul 2007, 7607 posts, RR: 31
Reply 6, posted (1 year 7 months 3 weeks 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 6533 times:

Well, I remember a lengthy thread on this forum when it happened - July 20, 2012.

But I can't find it from the search function.

The plane was arriving from a Southwest Asia flight. While the visibility in the video shows pretty good, it doesn't show the haze which obscured the MacDill runways that day.

The plane was flown out either later that day. The KTPF 3,580 ft runway is longer than the assualt strip at Altus AFB where all C-17 pilots train - that they must demonstrate the ability to land and takeoff on that 3,501 ft strip. Easily within the capabilities of the C-17, especially since it was only flying five miles to MacDill.

EDIT - Found the other thread - by browsing back to six months ago

C17 Lands At Wrong TPA Airport (by Mainliner Jul 20 2012 in Military Aviation & Space Flight)

[Edited 2013-01-29 15:31:22]

User currently onlineXT6Wagon From United States of America, joined Feb 2007, 3409 posts, RR: 4
Reply 7, posted (1 year 7 months 3 weeks 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 6498 times:

Quoting 817Dreamliiner (Reply 3):
Thats just Amazing! Seriously That could have ended very badly, Glad it didnt.

not really, C17 is designed for far worse. Well it could have been worse, but the size of the field wouldn't have been the cause.


User currently offlineptrjong From Netherlands, joined Mar 2005, 3944 posts, RR: 18
Reply 8, posted (1 year 7 months 3 weeks 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 6479 times:

Well, according to some sources, the C-17's landing distance is 3,500 ft, and Rwy 4/22 at Peter O. Knight Airport, 3,580 ft...Not a comfortable fit, I suppose, especially when the pilot is assuming a much longer runway I would think.


The only difference between me and a madman is that I am not mad (Salvador Dali)
User currently offlinerfields5421 From United States of America, joined Jul 2007, 7607 posts, RR: 31
Reply 9, posted (1 year 7 months 3 weeks 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 6438 times:

Quoting ptrjong (Reply 8):
Not a comfortable fit, I suppose, especially when the pilot is assuming a much longer runway I would think

C-17 pilots must make several landings and takeoffs on the 3,500 ft assualt strip at Altus before they get their rating for the aircraft.

The aircraft is fully capable of landing at MLW in 3,500 ft, and like this one with relatively little fuel beyond reserves - much quicker and shorter.

Remember the C-17 was designed as the replacement for the C-130, it only evolved into a C-141 replacement later in the development.

Yes, he was surprised, and was smart enough to go ahead and full stop rather than trying to take back off.

There is a video of the takeoff around the web.


User currently offlineptrjong From Netherlands, joined Mar 2005, 3944 posts, RR: 18
Reply 10, posted (1 year 7 months 3 weeks 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 6421 times:

Quoting rfields5421 (Reply 9):

I realize the aircraft was not at max landing weight, but it's not like a C-17 can land just anywhere. (That is not to say I wasn't very impresssed by the landing I've seen.)

The take-off of course was within safety margins, or it wouldn't have happened.



The only difference between me and a madman is that I am not mad (Salvador Dali)
User currently offline817Dreamliiner From Montserrat, joined Jul 2008, 2388 posts, RR: 1
Reply 11, posted (1 year 7 months 3 weeks 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 6343 times:

Quoting XT6Wagon (Reply 7):
not really, C17 is designed for far worse. Well it could have been worse, but the size of the field wouldn't have been the cause.

Well if they were expecting to land on a longer runway then yes it could have been worse.



Reality be Rent. Synapse, break! Vanishment, This World!
User currently offlineOroka From Canada, joined Dec 2006, 913 posts, RR: 0
Reply 12, posted (1 year 7 months 3 weeks 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 6035 times:

It was definitely a face palm moment for the C-17 pilots, but if it was any other large jet... they would probably be dead. Indeed a testament to the strength of the C-17.

User currently offlineptrjong From Netherlands, joined Mar 2005, 3944 posts, RR: 18
Reply 13, posted (1 year 7 months 3 weeks 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 5989 times:

Quoting Oroka (Reply 12):

Strength? The runway simply happened to be long enough.



The only difference between me and a madman is that I am not mad (Salvador Dali)
User currently offlineOroka From Canada, joined Dec 2006, 913 posts, RR: 0
Reply 14, posted (1 year 7 months 3 weeks 20 hours ago) and read 5749 times:

Quoting ptrjong (Reply 13):
Strength? The runway simply happened to be long enough.

What do you think would have happened if a 767 did that?

The C-17 probably turned itself around, backed itself up to the end of the runway (by itself), and took off again. If that is not a strength in the aircraft design... I dont know what the point of a C-17 is then.


User currently offlineptrjong From Netherlands, joined Mar 2005, 3944 posts, RR: 18
Reply 15, posted (1 year 7 months 3 weeks 19 hours ago) and read 5737 times:

Quoting Oroka (Reply 14):
What do you think would have happened if a 767 did that?

As long as the runway was long enough, nothing.

If the runway had gone off the runway at the end, now that's where the literal strength of the aircaft would come into play.



The only difference between me and a madman is that I am not mad (Salvador Dali)
User currently offlineOroka From Canada, joined Dec 2006, 913 posts, RR: 0
Reply 16, posted (1 year 7 months 3 weeks 19 hours ago) and read 5736 times:

Quoting ptrjong (Reply 15):
As long as the runway was long enough, nothing.

lol

IF a 767 landed on THAT runway, with that length, in that situation. What if the 767 pilot didnt realize his mistake until half way down the runway (as the C-17 pilot did). I dont think a 767 speeding off the end of the short runway into trees would have ended well.

I was also not talking about physical strength (which the C-17 does have in spades), but strengths of abilities.


User currently offlineptrjong From Netherlands, joined Mar 2005, 3944 posts, RR: 18
Reply 17, posted (1 year 7 months 3 weeks 18 hours ago) and read 5698 times:

Quoting Oroka (Reply 16):
I was also not talking about physical strength (which the C-17 does have in spades), but strengths of abilities.

Okay, I misunderstood that then  

My original reply was to someone who suggested that this situation was not a potential problem since the C-17 was designed to land at anything vaguely resembling an airfield. That's juist not true. No matter how impressive it is, it's not a Twin Otter.



The only difference between me and a madman is that I am not mad (Salvador Dali)
User currently offlinecargotanker From United States of America, joined Oct 2009, 158 posts, RR: 1
Reply 18, posted (1 year 7 months 3 weeks 17 hours ago) and read 5683 times:

Quoting XT6Wagon (Reply 7):
not really, C17 is designed for far worse. Well it could have been worse, but the size of the field wouldn't have been the cause.
Quoting ptrjong (Reply 8):
Well, according to some sources, the C-17's landing distance is 3,500 ft, and Rwy 4/22 at Peter O. Knight Airport, 3,580 ft...Not a comfortable fit, I suppose, especially when the pilot is assuming a much longer runway I would think.

No really, this could have been really bad. I'm actually surprised it wasn't.

The C-17 is only able to land on short fields using ASSAULT procedures, which includes full flaps, a steeper approach path (around 4 degrees), lower approach speeds (slower by about 15 knots), and a firm touchdown (very little flare) between 500 and 1000 feet down the runway. An ASSAULT landing is difficult and something that C-17 pilots train for, but rarely used outside of training. In this landing, since the aircrew thought they were landing at MacDill, they executed a normal approach, similar to what any commercial airplane would do. This would involve ¾ flaps, a normal 3 degree approach path, normal speeds and a flared landing about 1000 feet down the runway. An assault landing distance is about 1500-3000 feet shorter than a normal landing distance. And I’m pretty sure that the landing data the aircrew had computed for this landing showed a landing distance greater than 3580 feet. Despite the idiocy of landing at the wrong field, the C-17 crew was able to avoid a disaster by reacting quickly.

The C-17 has amazing brakes. Much better than any other aircraft I’ve flown. On assault landings I’ve had the plane STOPPED after 1000 feet of ground roll before the thrust reversers have had a chance to deploy.

Any other commercial airplane landing at Peter O Knight airfield would be off the end of the runway still moving at 80-100 knots.


User currently offlinerfields5421 From United States of America, joined Jul 2007, 7607 posts, RR: 31
Reply 19, posted (1 year 7 months 3 weeks 16 hours ago) and read 5655 times:

It's been measured from the video by several people. It was shot from near where you see the center field office on Google Earth.

The average is that touchdown is 750 ft from the displaced threshold and full stop 1,650 ft later - at least 750 ft short of the runway end.


User currently onlineXT6Wagon From United States of America, joined Feb 2007, 3409 posts, RR: 4
Reply 20, posted (1 year 7 months 3 weeks 5 hours ago) and read 5521 times:

Quoting cargotanker (Reply 18):
The C-17 is only able to land on short fields using ASSAULT procedures

you are forgetting that the C17 mentioned was hauling people, not a tank. So its way below its max landing wieght with all that implies for stall speed, and braking distances


User currently offlinen92r03 From United States of America, joined Jan 2010, 344 posts, RR: 0
Reply 21, posted (1 year 7 months 2 weeks 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 5409 times:

Quoting rfields5421 (Reply 6):
The plane was arriving from a Southwest Asia flight.

That is what was said back in July, but now that the formal report has been released, the aircraft was actually coming from Rome.

The report said the pilot has lost his cell phone in a taxi (cab) in Rome the night before and most likely "lost sleep" over that issue as well.


User currently offlinecargotanker From United States of America, joined Oct 2009, 158 posts, RR: 1
Reply 22, posted (1 year 7 months 2 weeks 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 5120 times:

Quoting XT6Wagon (Reply 20):
you are forgetting that the C17 mentioned was hauling people, not a tank. So its way below its max landing wieght with all that implies for stall speed, and braking distances

I'm not forgetting that, and those factors don't really matter in my explanation. This crew PLANNED to fly a normal (3/4 flap) approach to MacDill AFB and land on an 11,400 foot runway. They entered their landing data (temp, winds, landing weight etc) into their computer and the computer spat out landing speeds (probably 125 knots) and landing distance (probably 4000 ft). They then FLEW that plan into an airfield that was just 3,580 ft. By the time the wheels touched the runway (when compared to ASSAULT procedures) the crew was fast (by about 10-15 knots) and long (by about 250-500 feet). So, at this point a lot of the C-17's short field effectiveness has been lost. The only things still helping them are massive ground spoilers and a quicking thinking pilot stepping on some very strong brakes with a possible minor contribution from thrust reversers.

Granted, if the plane was heavier, the brakes may not have been able to keep the plane from going off the runway, plus they would have flown a faster approach speed which would add to landing distance.


Top Of Page
Forum Index

Reply To This Topic Vid: C-17 Landing At Wrong Airport (GA Field!)
Username:
No username? Sign up now!
Password: 


Forgot Password? Be reminded.
Remember me on this computer (uses cookies)
  • Military aviation related posts only!
  • Not military related? Use the other forums
  • No adverts of any kind. This includes web pages.
  • No hostile language or criticizing of others.
  • Do not post copyright protected material.
  • Use relevant and describing topics.
  • Check if your post already been discussed.
  • Check your spelling!
  • DETAILED RULES
Add Images Add SmiliesPosting Help

Please check your spelling (press "Check Spelling" above)


Similar topics:More similar topics...
C-17 "Gear Up" Landing At Bagram posted Mon Feb 2 2009 16:02:29 by TropicBird
C-17 At Stansted Airport This Morning posted Mon Apr 19 2004 19:40:08 by Cadmus
Delta 737 Landing At Jnas Question posted Sat Apr 7 2012 22:29:49 by HaveBlue
Space Shuttle Discovery Landing At Dulles In April posted Fri Mar 2 2012 16:36:31 by rjm777ual
Five C-17 Globemasters At SFO Today posted Fri Feb 18 2011 19:25:31 by leamside
Usaf C-17 Detained At SAEZ/EZE 2/11/11 posted Fri Feb 11 2011 13:18:39 by LVTMB
F16 Emergency Landing At Prestwick posted Sat Jan 8 2011 09:08:33 by Alasdair1982
C17 Emergency Landing At Learmonth posted Tue Dec 30 2008 02:28:04 by Cpd
Boeing Set To Extend C-17 Production At Own Risk posted Mon Jun 18 2007 03:34:00 by T773ER
Planecrash At Mog Airport. posted Fri Mar 9 2007 11:32:54 by Alessandro

Sponsor Message:
Printer friendly format