Page 1 of 1

C-17 Off The Runway In Kandahar

Posted: Tue Dec 30, 2008 5:35 am
by Galaxy5007
http://www.airforcetimes.com/news/20.../12/airforce_c17_accident_122908w/

They need to straighten up the runway, three other incidents (at least), plus this one! What the heck are they doing over there!?

RE: C-17 Off The Runway In Kandahar

Posted: Tue Dec 30, 2008 12:19 pm
by bennett123
In August 2005 at Bagram Airfield, a pilot mistakenly thought the runway lights were 180 feet apart. In fact, the lights were 100 feet apart. When the jet came down, the right main landing gear was 10 feet off the runway, causing the plane to roll off the right side of the runway.

"Not clear why having closer together caused him to go off runway. If they were further apart, that would make sense".

In April 2003 at an undisclosed airfield in Afghanistan, pilots landing a C-17 did not realize the left half of the 180-foot-wide runway was under construction. The plane’s left landing gear rolled through the construction site before the jet came to a stop.

"Surely, a NOTAM or the USAF equivalent would be issued. Also presumably this was in IFR or at night or the PIC would have seen what was going on. Equally would'nt ATC know about the construction work and that a C17 was too big to get down".

And in January 2002, a C-17 attempting to land at Kandahar came down in a minefield 2,000 feet shy of the runway. The pilot was able to get the plane airborne and safely land at Incirlik Air Base, Turkey.

"Do'nt you have lighting of some kind to mark the runway. Equally, what was ATC doing".

Extract from Airforce Times.

RE: C-17 Off The Runway In Kandahar

Posted: Tue Dec 30, 2008 3:09 pm
by UH60FtRucker
Eh... what are you going to do? They are shitty airfields.

We're spending money, modernizing them, but we're basically building off of shitty Soviet quality runways. This isn't Iraq, where at least the airfields are decent.

Thankfully, for the most part, I don't have to worry about it! I can just take straight off from the pad. But the rare day when I am very heavy, and it's very hot, I make my roll-on takeoffs as short as possible!

-UH60

RE: C-17 Off The Runway In Kandahar

Posted: Tue Dec 30, 2008 3:56 pm
by STT757


Quoting UH60FtRucker (Reply 2):
This isn't Iraq, where at least the airfields are decent.

Who built all those airfields and hardened aircraft shelters for Saddam, the French or the Czechs?..

RE: C-17 Off The Runway In Kandahar

Posted: Tue Dec 30, 2008 8:32 pm
by TropicBird
Every time I read about one of these accidents it makes me think about the proposed KC-X tanker. Gen. Moseley wanted it to operate from austere runways in places such as Afghanistan. It seemed to me they would have had even worse problems with FOD and such. These commercial aircraft (767 & A330) are designed to operate from pristine runways. Such illogical thinking by leaders does not instill confidence.

RE: C-17 Off The Runway In Kandahar

Posted: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:45 pm
by dragon6172


Quoting UH60FtRucker (Reply 2):
roll-on takeoffs

You Army pogues have odd terms. We did "roll-on" landings and "running" takeoffs. Roll-on takeoff just sounds odd.

Quoting STT757 (Reply 3):
Who built all those airfields and hardened aircraft shelters for Saddam, the French or the Czechs

Not positive, I know we used to find a lot of literature strewn about Al Asad that was written in Russian.

RE: C-17 Off The Runway In Kandahar

Posted: Wed Dec 31, 2008 12:42 am
by Galaxy5007


Quoting TropicBird (Reply 4):
These commercial aircraft (767 & A330) are designed to operate from pristine runways. Such illogical thinking by leaders does not instill confidence.

For once, we agree on something, a good thing. Very true though. Even if you beef up the gears, if it rolls off the runway like the C-17 has at least 4 times-and has suffered pretty significant damage considering its supposed to take that kind of stuff, the tanker is just going to run its wing and engines into the ground. Alot of bad things can happen there.

RE: C-17 Off The Runway In Kandahar

Posted: Wed Dec 31, 2008 3:06 am
by STT757


Quoting Dragon6172 (Reply 5):
Not positive, I know we used to find a lot of literature strewn about Al Asad that was written in Russian.

Not that I've been there myself, but Al Asad looks like an impressive airfield (from Google Earth). There are aircraft dispersals and hardened shelters all over the place, the base looks huge and quite a distance from anything.

If there were to be any enduring bases in Iraq, Al Asad must be at the top of the list. It looks like an entire Marine Air Wing and a Regiment could operate from AL Asad and most of the Iraqi population would have no clue.

RE: C-17 Off The Runway In Kandahar

Posted: Wed Dec 31, 2008 6:19 pm
by WrenchBender
From the the looks of it a mechanical fault not a human fault this time around.

WrenchBender

RE: C-17 Off The Runway In Kandahar

Posted: Wed Dec 31, 2008 10:12 pm
by dragon6172


Quoting STT757 (Reply 7):
Not that I've been there myself, but Al Asad looks like an impressive airfield (from Google Earth). There are aircraft dispersals and hardened shelters all over the place, the base looks huge and quite a distance from anything.

If there were to be any enduring bases in Iraq, Al Asad must be at the top of the list. It looks like an entire Marine Air Wing and a Regiment could operate from AL Asad and most of the Iraqi population would have no clue.

It is a pretty damn big base. If anything though, it needs more parking. Plenty of parking for fixed wing aircraft but us helo guys had to be strewn out on taxiways. Also needs a lot more infrastructure improvements. I was with one of the lucky units that was living in some old Iraqi barracks vice a tent city, but if it is to become a more permanent base then some better living quarters and others are needed. Fresh water supply also comes to mind. The base is not far from the Euphrates and the Haditha Dam, but the pipes that brought the water to the base were constantly breaking.
I was there over two years ago though, so a lot has probably changed. And, I am sure a lot is the same.

RE: C-17 Off The Runway In Kandahar

Posted: Thu Jan 01, 2009 5:40 pm
by par13del


Quoting TropicBird (Reply 4):
Every time I read about one of these accidents it makes me think about the proposed KC-X tanker. Gen. Moseley wanted it to operate from austere runways in places such as Afghanistan. It seemed to me they would have had even worse problems with FOD and such. These commercial aircraft (767 & A330) are designed to operate from pristine runways. Such illogical thinking by leaders does not instill confidence.

Do you really believe that they said those things because they were practical or reality, they said those things to get the money spent for their new toys, was there not another general who touted the benefits of flying in a tanker all the way into the FEBA or some such, guess he wanted us to belive that the tanker could survive in a hostile environment.

What this does illustrate is the need for purpose built cargo carriers, the cheap solution of taking the biggest pax airline that suits your needs and converting it to a tanker / cargo carrier has the potential to save and loose money just as easily.

Quoting Dragon6172 (Reply 5):
You Army pogues have odd terms. We did "roll-on" landings and "running" takeoffs. Roll-on takeoff just sounds odd

Cut UH60 a break, he beats the air into submission to fly, no niceties there.  Smile

RE: C-17 Off The Runway In Kandahar

Posted: Fri Jan 02, 2009 1:04 am
by Revelation


Quoting STT757 (Reply 7):
Not that I've been there myself, but Al Asad looks like an impressive airfield (from Google Earth). There are aircraft dispersals and hardened shelters all over the place, the base looks huge and quite a distance from anything.

If there were to be any enduring bases in Iraq, Al Asad must be at the top of the list. It looks like an entire Marine Air Wing and a Regiment could operate from AL Asad and most of the Iraqi population would have no clue.

Your point made me do a little Googling. I found an article with an obvious political axe to grind, but it state a few things that I am presuming are relatively factual:

Quote:
In its current state, the sofa appears to be firm on the withdrawal of troops. But, even now, the document does allow for individual basing agreements to be negotiated by a “Joint Military Operations Coordination Committee” (jmocc). The jmocc, according to American and Iraqi officials interviewed for this article, will give provincial authorities a major role in negotiating the leases of bases in their areas. The fact that the Iraq agreement does not establish the terms of these leases (unlike nearly every other sofa America has signed with countries from Uzbekistan to Germany) strongly indicates that the agreement will be amended down the line.

What’s more, both the Kurds and Sunni Arabs in western Iraq, where the Al Assad Airbase is located, are likely to facilitate a U.S. military presence for a long time. A Washington representative for the Kurdistan Regional Government, Qubad Talabani, whose father Jalal is president of Iraq, told me last week, “As Kurdish leaders have said in the past, American forces will always be welcome in the Kurdistan region, and we look forward to working with our American friends within the framework of this law to discuss America’s long-term presence in our region.” Far from booting U.S. forces out of the country, he believes that the sofa “gives America the legal cover for expanding their already good relations with Iraqi security institutions.” And the influential Sunni leader Sheik Ahmad Rishawi, head of the Anbar Awakening, told me in an interview in June that he had hoped a long-term treaty with America would be based on “mutual friendship” and compared the future sofa to similar accords struck with postwar Japan and Germany, where American troops are garrisoned to this day. The committees established in the new agreement are expected to be the vehicles by which Sunni Arabs and Kurds negotiate longer-term leases for the U.S. bases in their respective areas.

Ref: http://www.ripda.org/?p=242

So, it seems there's interest in a long term presence at Al Assad.

RE: C-17 Off The Runway In Kandahar

Posted: Fri Jan 02, 2009 3:45 am
by STT757


Quoting Revelation (Reply 11):
So, it seems there's interest in a long term presence at Al Assad.

The Iraqis of course want to assert their Sovereignty (as they should), plus the US even under the Bush Administration wants to draw down combat forces. However at the same time a lot of precious blood and money have been invested in Iraq and I feel the US has both the political and moral authority to continue to participate in some (reduced) level in the area.

As pointed out in the article the Kurds and the Sunnis want the US forces to stay in their areas as protection and a counter balance to the Shia majority who are now controlling Iraq, it's ironic that the Sunnis in Anbar Province were the ones giving the US the biggest, bloodiest fighting of the entire Occupation but are now working hand in hand with the US and are US allies.

The transformation of US force structure in Iraq is already underway, the US just turned over the green zone to Iraq and the Marines are now out of Fulujah the scene of some of the fiercest combat of the occupation. US forces will continue to draw down and pull out of the Cities and onto fewer but larger "enduring" bases, by purpose everyone involved are vague about details but for the most part US Forces from what I can gather from various articles and interviews will eventually remain in Iraq at a much reduced force level on 4-5 major bases (mostly airbases) spread throughout the Country. One definitely as we're discussing is Al Assad. It's really perfect because it's a huge sprawling facility in the Middle of the Desert with no Iraqi population center anywhere near the place, air operations and training can be conducted there and no one would know. It's also in a key location near the Syrian Border.

Besides Al Assad the only other base I would assume would be at the top of the enduring list would be Balad (Camp Anaconda), besides those two the other 2-3 enduring bases I'm not so sure of.

From what was written in that article and from what I've read elsewhere the Kurds would like US forces in their area for protection as well as to keep an eye on their oil fields, that would mean Camp Renegade (Kirkuk Air Base) would be the 3rd Enduring base. The good part about Kirkuk is that it's near the largest Oil fields in Iraq plus it's very close to the Iranian border, the downside is that it's right near a large city.

Al Assad, Balad and Kirkuk are definitely not going anywhere, the fate of some other large bases I'm not sure of:

Tallil Air Base (Southern Iraq)
Camp Speicher (Tikrit)
Camp Taji (North of Baghdad)
Al Taqqadum air base (West of Baghdad)
Camp Liberty (Baghdad Airport)
Camp Victory (Baghdad Airport)

RE: C-17 Off The Runway In Kandahar

Posted: Mon Jan 05, 2009 9:57 pm
by TropicBird


Quoting Par13del (Reply 10):
What this does illustrate is the need for purpose built cargo carriers

I thought that is what the C-17 was for and look what has happened to it running off the runway.

Quoting Par13del (Reply 10):
Do you really believe that they said those things because they were practical or reality, they said those things to get the money spent for their new toys, was there not another general who touted the benefits of flying in a tanker all the way into the FEBA or some such, guess he wanted us to belive that the tanker could survive in a hostile environment.

Problem is that Gen. Moseley was the former AF Chief of Staff and Congress listens to him and the others sell these stupid and costly ideas time and again. The KC-X program is perfect example.