Air Forc C-17 lands at wrong airport.

Started by Critical AOA, July 20, 2012, 11:24:02 PM

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Critical AOA

"I learned long ago, never to wrestle with a pig. You get dirty, and besides, the pig likes it."   - George Bernard Shaw

bosshawk

Happens every once in awhile: embarrassed flight deck crew.  No damage done.  I imagine that the Aircraft Commander will be a passenger on the trip back to McGuire.  The key information is that the runway that he landed on is the same orientation as the runway at McDill.

When I flew out of Moffett Naval Air Station in the SF Bay Area, we occasionally had an airliner line up to land, when they really thought that they were landing at San Jose International.  Runways had almost the same orientation and there were two parallels.  Big difference between SJC and NUQ were the three blimp hangars alongside the runways at NUQ.
Paul M. Reed
Col, USA(ret)
Former CAP Lt Col
Wilson #2777

PHall

Yeah, the entire crew is going to get some intense attention from the Stan-Eval folks.
Anybody who was on the flight deck is basically screwed.

Considering that AMC aircraft carrying passengers are required to fly a precision approach, aka an ILS, it makes you wonder if they ever identified the localizer before they shot the approach.

Like I said, all of the pilots who were on the flight deck will be fighting for their careers.

Huey Driver

Ironically the 305th had a large change of command ceremony today at JB MDL, where Col. Paul Murphy handed the wing off to Col. Richard Williamson Jr. Our whole encampment staff was honored to be in formation at the ceremony too.

Anyway, not a great way to start off!  :-\
With malice toward none, with charity for all, with firmness in the right...

Flying Pig

Wow.  My home airport is about 10,000ft and one I routinely land at is about 3500.  I dont see how you wouldnt notice.  And being on ILS too?  Interesting to read the after action report.

MSG Mac

There are three Airports on an almost straight line in Tampa Bay. Knight, MacDill, and one on the St Pete side. In addition you also have Tampa Int A/P 3 miles to the North and St Pete Intl A/P slightly WNW across the bay from MacDill. I guess the Pilot just took the first one in line. Not as bad as the Delta pilot that landed in P'cola bay on a direct approach to the airport a few years ago.
Michael P. McEleney
Lt Col CAP
MSG USA (Retired)
50 Year Member

spaatzmom

There is also the Clearwater Air Park nor far from Clearwater/ St Pete International.  A lot of landing strips in very close proximity to each other and within 3 city limits.

RADIOMAN015

Quote from: PHall on July 21, 2012, 12:50:16 AM
Yeah, the entire crew is going to get some intense attention from the Stan-Eval folks.
Anybody who was on the flight deck is basically screwed.

Considering that AMC aircraft carrying passengers are required to fly a precision approach, aka an ILS, it makes you wonder if they ever identified the localizer before they shot the approach.

Like I said, all of the pilots who were on the flight deck will be fighting for their careers.
Well also the Control Tower personnel at MacDill are not off the hook either.  Generally when aircraft are landing (cleared to land) tower personnel watch the aircraft and also have surveillance radar in the tower that would indicate the aircraft's altitude and position. 
RM

spacecommand

On the news video around the 1:14 mark: "You mean this isn't an Air Force base?"

BuckeyeDEJ

There's TPA, PIE, MCF, CLW, SPG, VDF and a smattering of other smaller airports across the Tampa Bay area. Throw in SRQ to the south of the bay (and it falls under Tampa control) and you see the skies over Tampa Bay can be a little crowded. Largest (most populous) metro area in the state, to boot, and its most densely populated.


CAP since 1984: Lt Col; former C/Lt Col; MO, MRO, MS, IO; former sq CC/CD/PA; group, wing, region PA, natl cmte mbr, nat'l staff member.
REAL LIFE: Working journalist in SPG, DTW (News), SRQ, PIT (Trib), 2D1, WVI, W22; editor, desk chief, designer, photog, columnist, reporter, graphics guy, visual editor, but not all at once. Now a communications manager for an international multisport venue.

PHall

And a airplane with three Flight Management Computer systems on board and you don't know where you're at? :o
Time to hand in those wings...

BuckeyeDEJ

I have a feeling there's more to this story than "oops, we landed at the wrong airport." Remember, the Republican National Convention's in town in mere days. It's a national security event. Not to put the tinfoil hat on or anything, but it's possible that there's more to this story. And this stuff about the runway being too short, I'm not buying. C-17s are capable of short-field takeoffs.


CAP since 1984: Lt Col; former C/Lt Col; MO, MRO, MS, IO; former sq CC/CD/PA; group, wing, region PA, natl cmte mbr, nat'l staff member.
REAL LIFE: Working journalist in SPG, DTW (News), SRQ, PIT (Trib), 2D1, WVI, W22; editor, desk chief, designer, photog, columnist, reporter, graphics guy, visual editor, but not all at once. Now a communications manager for an international multisport venue.

SarDragon

QuoteThe C-17 is designed to operate from runways as short as 3,500 ft (1,064 m) and as narrow as 90 ft (27 m). In addition, the C-17 can operate from unpaved, unimproved runways (although with greater chance of damage to the aircraft).

Quote4/22    3,405 ft    1,038 m    Asphalt

Yes, a cause for concern.
Dave Bowles
Maj, CAP
AT1, USN Retired
50 Year Member
Mitchell Award (unnumbered)
C/WO, CAP, Ret

PHall

Quote from: SarDragon on July 23, 2012, 01:22:48 AM
QuoteThe C-17 is designed to operate from runways as short as 3,500 ft (1,064 m) and as narrow as 90 ft (27 m). In addition, the C-17 can operate from unpaved, unimproved runways (although with greater chance of damage to the aircraft).

Quote4/22    3,405 ft    1,038 m    Asphalt

Yes, a cause for concern.

A cause for concern alright, but not for the runway length. The weight bearing capacity of the runway would be my concern.
Runways like that are usually limited to 12,500 pounds max.

Mavvrikk

That is so ironic, I'm in Tampa right now.

BuckeyeDEJ

Welcome to the Tampa Bay area. It doesn't usually rain like this. I'm in St. Petersburg right now.


CAP since 1984: Lt Col; former C/Lt Col; MO, MRO, MS, IO; former sq CC/CD/PA; group, wing, region PA, natl cmte mbr, nat'l staff member.
REAL LIFE: Working journalist in SPG, DTW (News), SRQ, PIT (Trib), 2D1, WVI, W22; editor, desk chief, designer, photog, columnist, reporter, graphics guy, visual editor, but not all at once. Now a communications manager for an international multisport venue.

Garibaldi

Quote from: BuckeyeDEJ on July 23, 2012, 02:11:05 AM
Welcome to the Tampa Bay area. It doesn't usually rain like this. I'm in St. Petersburg right now.

spent a couple spring breaks in high school in St. Pete.
Still a major after all these years.
ES dude, leadership ossifer, publik affaires
Opinionated and wrong 99% of the time about all things

HGjunkie

I flew in earlier coming back from HGA and it started pouring torrential rain at TPA about 15 minutes after I landed. Good to be home  ::)
••• retired
2d Lt USAF

BillB

During World War II, Peter O Knight was used as an auxiliary field for MacDill Field and Drew Field (both Tampa) for B-26 and B-17 aircraft. So chances are the runmway could support a C-17.
Gil Robb Wilson # 19
Gil Robb Wilson # 104

Mavvrikk

Quote from: Garibaldi on July 23, 2012, 02:12:19 AM
Quote from: BuckeyeDEJ on July 23, 2012, 02:11:05 AM
Welcome to the Tampa Bay area. It doesn't usually rain like this. I'm in St. Petersburg right now.

Thanks! And yeah, I looked up the weather and noticed the next few days would be rain, we're at St. Pete beach :(

Garibaldi

Quote from: BillB on July 23, 2012, 11:53:45 AM
During World War II, Peter O Knight was used as an auxiliary field for MacDill Field and Drew Field (both Tampa) for B-26 and B-17 aircraft. So chances are the runmway could support a C-17.

I dunno...a C-17 probably weighs as much as a B-17 and B-29 put together...
Still a major after all these years.
ES dude, leadership ossifer, publik affaires
Opinionated and wrong 99% of the time about all things

AngelWings

The C-17 could do it from 3,000 feet pretty easily from what I've seen before at airshows and AFB visits. They're so agile that I'm surprised (not really) that they don't throw missiles on the wings and bombs in the belly and make it the worlds largest fighter bomber. They're a beauty to watch fly. Now if it was a C-5M, that'd be a different story  >:D

SarDragon

Quote from: Garibaldi on July 23, 2012, 01:57:35 PM
Quote from: BillB on July 23, 2012, 11:53:45 AM
During World War II, Peter O Knight was used as an auxiliary field for MacDill Field and Drew Field (both Tampa) for B-26 and B-17 aircraft. So chances are the runmway could support a C-17.

I dunno...a C-17 probably weighs as much as a B-17 and B-29 put together...

One c-17 equals two B-29s plus three B-17s plus a little bit extra.

As for runway loading, the C-17 spreads its weight out over 14 wheels, instead of the 3 on the bombers.
Dave Bowles
Maj, CAP
AT1, USN Retired
50 Year Member
Mitchell Award (unnumbered)
C/WO, CAP, Ret

PHall

Quote from: SarDragon on July 23, 2012, 07:18:45 PM
Quote from: Garibaldi on July 23, 2012, 01:57:35 PM
Quote from: BillB on July 23, 2012, 11:53:45 AM
During World War II, Peter O Knight was used as an auxiliary field for MacDill Field and Drew Field (both Tampa) for B-26 and B-17 aircraft. So chances are the runmway could support a C-17.

I dunno...a C-17 probably weighs as much as a B-17 and B-29 put together...

One c-17 equals two B-29s plus three B-17s plus a little bit extra.

As for runway loading, the C-17 spreads its weight out over 14 wheels, instead of the 3 on the bombers.

Yeah, 14 HIGH PRESSURE tires vs 3 LOW PRESSURE balloon tires. The concentrated weight on the C-17 is the problem.