JAAlbert From United States of America, joined Jan 2006, 1194 posts, RR: 1 Posted (3 months 3 weeks 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 3897 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:
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.
PI4EVER From United States of America, joined May 2009, 599 posts, RR: 2 Reply 2, posted (3 months 3 weeks 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 3740 times:
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.
rfields5421 From United States of America, joined Jul 2007, 6150 posts, RR: 25 Reply 6, posted (3 months 3 weeks 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 3481 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
ptrjong From Netherlands, joined Mar 2005, 3771 posts, RR: 20 Reply 8, posted (3 months 3 weeks 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 3427 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)
rfields5421 From United States of America, joined Jul 2007, 6150 posts, RR: 25 Reply 9, posted (3 months 3 weeks 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 3386 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.
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)
817Dreamliiner From Montserrat, joined Jul 2008, 1408 posts, RR: 1 Reply 11, posted (3 months 3 weeks 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 3291 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.
Blast Reality, Burst it into shreds! Banishment, This World!
Oroka From Canada, joined Dec 2006, 789 posts, RR: 0 Reply 12, posted (3 months 3 weeks 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 2983 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.
Oroka From Canada, joined Dec 2006, 789 posts, RR: 0 Reply 14, posted (3 months 3 weeks 22 hours ago) and read 2697 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.
Oroka From Canada, joined Dec 2006, 789 posts, RR: 0 Reply 16, posted (3 months 3 weeks 21 hours ago) and read 2684 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.
ptrjong From Netherlands, joined Mar 2005, 3771 posts, RR: 20 Reply 17, posted (3 months 3 weeks 20 hours ago) and read 2646 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)
cargotanker From United States of America, joined Oct 2009, 118 posts, RR: 1 Reply 18, posted (3 months 3 weeks 20 hours ago) and read 2631 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.
XT6Wagon From United States of America, joined Feb 2007, 3133 posts, RR: 4 Reply 20, posted (3 months 3 weeks 7 hours ago) and read 2469 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
cargotanker From United States of America, joined Oct 2009, 118 posts, RR: 1 Reply 22, posted (3 months 2 weeks 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 2068 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.
Sponsor Message: 
From United States of America, joined Jan 2006, 1194 posts, 
From Montserrat, joined Jul 2008, 1408 posts, 
From Vatican City, joined Dec 1999, 2739 posts, 
From Netherlands, joined Mar 2005, 3771 posts, 
From Canada, joined Dec 2006, 789 posts, 
Sponsor Message: 
Printer friendly format
