|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.