C-17 Lands at Wrong Airport

[di1630]

After seeing the airport pics and sectional @ https://www.airnav.com/airport/KTPF/ I am astounded that the pilots could have made that mistake unless there were some serious extenuating circumstances. Wow

[Kilgore Trout]

After seeing the airport pics and sectional @ https://www.airnav.com/airport/KTPF/ I am astounded that the pilots could have made that mistake unless there were some serious extenuating circumstances. Wow

"Huh, that's a pretty small ramp and hangers, where do you think they keep all those -135s and G-5s?..."

I agree, I hope there were mitigating circumstances and these guys were completely in the right.

[Guest]

They got that big bastard airborne with ~1000' remaining on the runway. That is some impressive performance.

They operated full up on 70 x 4500 rwy both day and night with no rwy lights combat environment at Bagram with what appeared to be the greatest of ease (at least they made it look easy). I was forever impressed. Amazing airplane and crews.

[Ravens52]

"Mattis bet us 50 bucks that we couldn't put it down at O. Knight; we had no choice but to defend the honor of our service and our airframe." That would be my story to the grave.

Cheers!

[ThreeHoler]

won't there be some reprisal that they obviously landed WITHOUT a landing clearance for the smaller airport?

Non-towered airports don't issue landing clearances.

[FUSEPLUG]

Not to mention the embarrassment with a VIP on board, but won't there be some reprisal that they obviously landed WITHOUT a landing clearance for the smaller airport? Even if it had been an emergency landing, seems like they would have been diverted since the runway was designed for 20,000# and the C-17 was 400,000# (I'm amazed it didn't just "sink" into the runway like the incident last month). Plus, it must have been fun to offload a general and about 40+ others to a TINY airport terminal while they repositioned it for takeoff...I'm assuming they changed crews and bussed everybody over to MacDill?

Uncontrolled field, no clearance required. As for the weight bearing issue, the original post said 20K was for a single wheel figure. The C-17 falls under the TRT (Triple Tandem) category. IF O. Knight even had a pavement evaluation for a TRT configured aircraft the number would be somewhat higher, though probably nowhere near the basic empty weight of a 17.

[NKAWTG]

If you are approaching MacDill from the northeast, the first runway you see is Peter O Knight. Having flown into MacDill a handful of times, it does take a couple of seconds to process seeing the shorter runway and realize it does not match your instruments. I can understand how it happened, but it was a 100% screw up on the crew. The standard MAF operating procedure is to Q-3 the crew, the crew's spouses, kids and pets. The crew was also probably put on a bus back to Charleston, and a different crew would be sent out to recover the aircraft.

[BitteEinBit]

"Huh, that's a pretty small ramp and hangers, where do you think they keep all those -135s and G-5s?..."

Add to the tapes: "...the good new is it looks like MacDill still has their Aero Club!"

Lesson learned here, don't ever assume it CAN'T happen to you...

Im not judging these guys because they very well may have done this, but I always teach my students to brief what you expect to see when you acquire the runway...for example, approaching the field from the SW to a 10,000 ft runway with VASIs, overrun, displaced threshold, cables, etc. should at least raise some hairs on the back of your neck if you dont see what you briefed. I know it saved my ass at least twice (Chennault vs Lake Charles Regional and Easterwood College Station vs Riverside Campus Field) flying VFR..in both cases the fields are close proximity and both sets of fields look very similar to the airfield diagram. I also had it backed up with instruments and white line, but if I didn't, I could have easily bit off on the wrong runway.

VFR flying or visual approaches can be convenient, but if you have the means to back it up with instruments/GPS/white line to final, do it.

Edit: For detail

Edited July 21, 2012 by BitteEinBit

[Darth]

C-17, thankfully, has awesome performance.

[Sim]

Q-3 and send to Cannon to fly mq-1 for 3sos; Now that's punishment.

[amcflyboy]

<RANT ON>

I know I'm going to get flamed here, but whatever, I don't fucking care! Someone mentioned about "standby for an FCIF prohibiting visual approaches." IF THIS IS THE CASE, then this wouldn't surprise me one bit, and quite frankly, we would deserve it. This is a pet peeve of mine and as a Safety guy and an Airlne pilot, I've flown with too many guys in my squadron who get lazy and request visual approaches to airports they've never been to before. I see them losing their minds asking me if I have the field in sight. I tell them I do, but they don't and try to get me at last minute to request an instrument approach, all the while I have the ILS and inbound course dialed in. Instead, I take the aircraft from them, and get lined up and give the plane back to them. All this is then followed up by a snide junior high school remark just to save face. At my airline job we have SOP's that state, "All visual approaches will be backed up with an instrument approach." Sure, the C-17, C-130, etc., etc., etc., all fly tactical stuff and yadda yadda yadda, but this is NO EXCUSE to not use your instrument skills to land an f-ing aircraft.

<RANT OFF>

To piggyback on what other guys have said, hopefully there were circumstances that caused them to land at Peter O. Knight instead of MacDill.

Edited July 21, 2012 by amcflyboy

[afnav]

With so many of our aircraft having problems, this is backwards good news for the C-17.

Hell, after this, I'd believe the plane could do almost anything.

[SocialD]

<RANT ON>

I know I'm going to get flamed here, but whatever, I don't fucking care! Someone mentioned about "standby for an FCIF prohibiting visual approaches." IF THIS IS THE CASE, then this wouldn't surprise me one bit, and quite frankly, we would deserve it.

<RANT OFF>

Ya, you're right, if someone shits their pants, we should all have to wear diapers...

[Majestik Møøse]

I see them losing their minds asking me if I have the field in sight. I tell them I do, but they don't and try to get me at last minute to request an instrument approach, all the while I have the ILS and inbound course dialed in. Instead, I take the aircraft from them, and get lined up and give the plane back to them. All this is then followed up by a snide junior high school remark just to save face.

So do you talk their eyes on before or after you take the aircraft? If you're flying and the PNF sees the airfield before you do, can HE take the jet from you? How is it good CRM to play "I've got a secret" on a visual approach?

[matmacwc]

<RANT ON> I know I'm going to get flamed here, but whatever, I don't fucking care! Someone mentioned about "standby for an FCIF prohibiting visual approaches." IF THIS IS THE CASE, then this wouldn't surprise me one bit, and quite frankly, we would deserve it. This is a pet peeve of mine and as a Safety guy and an Airlne pilot, I've flown with too many guys in my squadron who get lazy and request visual approaches to airports they've never been to before. I see them losing their minds asking me if I have the field in sight. I tell them I do, but they don't and try to get me at last minute to request an instrument approach, all the while I have the ILS and inbound course dialed in. Instead, I take the aircraft from them, and get lined up and give the plane back to them. All this is then followed up by a snide junior high school remark just to save face. At my airline job we have SOP's that state, "All visual approaches will be backed up with an instrument approach." Sure, the C-17, C-130, etc., etc., etc., all fly tactical stuff and yadda yadda yadda, but this is NO EXCUSE to not use your instrument skills to land an f-ing aircraft. <RANT OFF> To piggyback on what other guys have said, hopefully there were circumstances that caused them to land at Peter O. Knight instead of MacDill.

Correct! We probably relearn this lesson yearly, I IO'd on a class A last year where it was an issue. I can tell you as a single seat guy I have the inbound course in, the INS pointing at the field and I'm trying to read what is on the water tower.

[Pancake]

So do you talk their eyes on before or after you take the aircraft? If you're flying and the PNF sees the airfield before you do, can HE take the jet from you? How is it good CRM to play "I've got a secret" on a visual approach?

It's called "learning." This same instructional technique is used at UPT. Earning your wings doesn't inaugurate you as a competent pilot-lots of learning yet to be done. Sounds like Flyboy instructs while practicing good CRM by not allowing a dangerous situation to develop. If he has the authority to take the jet, then he can do whatever he wants.

I doubt the NFP ever takes the jet from Flyboy because the NFP never has a "Where the hell are you going?!?" moment. I see it all the time here at the FTU. Some FTU students (re: rated pilots) think they're past those useful techniques (NMAILMAN, WHOLDS, backing up the Vis St-In with the ILS/TACAN, etc) taught at UPT and end up getting lost (trying to land at KTUS instead of KDMA) or nearly doing something dangerous. While I can't take the jet from the student, it is humbling/embarrassing (re: they learn) to receive basic airmanship direction while airborne. Point made.

Flailing + Learning = Airmanship.

Edited July 21, 2012 by Pancake

[HoHum]

I know I'm going to get flamed here, but whatever, I don't ######ing care! Someone mentioned about "standby for an FCIF prohibiting visual approaches." IF THIS IS THE CASE, then this wouldn't surprise me one bit, and quite frankly, we would deserve it. This is a pet peeve of mine and as a Safety guy and an Airlne pilot, I've flown with too many guys in my squadron who get lazy and request visual approaches to airports they've never been to before. I see them losing their minds asking me if I have the field in sight. I tell them I do, but they don't and try to get me at last minute to request an instrument approach, all the while I have the ILS and inbound course dialed in. Instead, I take the aircraft from them, and get lined up and give the plane back to them. All this is then followed up by a snide junior high school remark just to save face. At my airline job we have SOP's that state, "All visual approaches will be backed up with an instrument approach." Sure, the C-17, C-130, etc., etc., etc., all fly tactical stuff and yadda yadda yadda, but this is NO EXCUSE to not use your instrument skills to land an f-ing aircraft.

Quoted for Truth.

I'd be lying if I said I haven't been in this exact situation - here's the setup:

It's my no-shit first flight as AC. Alerted off of Bravo at one on a Saturday morning to help start AMC's Haiti earthquake relief. We're rounding all the people we can get to mission plan and stage at Pope - at least a third of them are drunk.

It's pretty much chaos around the sq trying to get everybody together and manifested.

Sister squadron commander found me, tapped his watch and said, "There are people watching this".

Weather is 300 and 1/2.

We get gone, drop everybody off at Pope, and eventually get our upload figured out ( 2 Humvees and pax) and push on to MacDill to RON and head for Haiti in the morning.

When we start the descent into MCF, it's right around 12 hours since alert.

I have buddy as my co-pilot who upgraded shortly after this trip - he has a significant amount of commercial time.

We get vectors to the ILS 22. Right as the (false) glideslope comes alive, we get asked if we have the field in sight. Since Knight is sitting right about at a 3 degree slope, I think that's the field and start the descent after we're cleared for the visual approach. Tower clears us to land because they see us on final.The eng calls the go-around at 500'A. We quickly re-orient and get on the real glideslope. As we're taxiing in - I get the infamous "phone number to approach" relay. Much to my relief...they asked what I was doing...I fessed up and they said "don't do it again" and that was it. I thought I was about to set the record for shortest time as AC....

Edit: we even read and briefed the note on the approach plate. At that time, it was a bit different and didn't specifically name Knight field.

Edited July 21, 2012 by The_Ginger

[amcflyboy]

So do you talk their eyes on before or after you take the aircraft? If you're flying and the PNF sees the airfield before you do, can HE take the jet from you? How is it good CRM to play "I've got a secret" on a visual approach?

To answer your question, I don't play "I've got a secret." That's what causes smoking holes in the ground. This is not the time to play stump the chump. I do direct their eyes to the field before I take control, but when you're only 3000' AGL, and trying to find the runway with a handful of aircraft, this is when I have to play A/C and intervene, and If I'm flying and he/she sees the field before me, then yes I will let him/her steer me towards it, if need be. Again this is why I back all my shit up with instrument approaches and the NAV building an LZ in the SCNS, to prevent this from happening. This is a small practice of staying ahead of the aircraft. Am I perfect? No.

Yes we play a sensitive game of CRM, and I thank the previous guys for backing me up, but we're all thick skinned (at least I think we are) and need to accept instruction from time to time and stay ahead of the aircraft. Again, I've had good copilots who've kept me honest as well, and I buy them beers and distract the fat chick for the rest of the night.

Ya, you're right, if someone shits their pants, we should all have to wear diapers...

This is not shitting one's pants. I agree there is a LOT of queep in this man's Air Force, but If doing an instrument approach into a field takes away 10 minutes from your drinking time, well then so be it. Live to fly/drink another day!

With so many of our aircraft having problems, this is backwards good news for the C-17.

Hell, after this, I'd believe the plane could do almost anything.

Agreed. That was definitely an impressive takeoff at Peter O. Knight!

Edited July 21, 2012 by amcflyboy

[RatboyUF]

They got that big bastard airborne with ~1000' remaining on the runway. That is some impressive performance.

God only knows the operating crew is going to be roasted for not doing a DRT takeoff on the way out of there, or Q-3ing the Co for only having a 6-9% charge on his iPad, excuse me EFB. I'm with FUSEPLUG on this one, waiting for the CVR tapes to be released so we can hear what was going on around the time of short final. "300 feet, hey this doesn't look like an 11,000' runway... Stable continue." As for operating off a 3,400' runway, we do it all the time at CHS, in the sim of course. Cheers to the crew for not making a bigger mistake than they did.

Edited July 21, 2012 by RatboyUF

[JeepGuyC17]

With so many of our aircraft having problems, this is backwards good news for the C-17.

Hell, after this, I'd believe the plane could do almost anything.

It's funny to watch the videos of the landing/takeoff and see how blown all these civilians' minds are that such a thing is possible. The runway at O. Knight is roughly the same dimensions of the assault strip at Altus. "How in the hell did he stop on that? There's no way they're getting that thing out of here!"

[SocialD]

It's funny to watch the videos of the landing/takeoff and see how blown all these civilians' minds are that such a thing is possible. The runway at O. Knight is roughly the same dimensions of the assault strip at Altus. "How in the hell did he stop on that? There's no way they're getting that thing out of here!"

Civilians are clueless as to what we do, day in and day out. Their reactions shouldn't really be any surprise.

[Hacker]

This is a pet peeve of mine and as a Safety guy and an Airlne pilot, I've flown with too many guys in my squadron who get lazy and request visual approaches to airports they've never been to before.

How is a visual approach "lazy", exactly? Because it requires actual airmanship and SA? With the alternative being to type it in to the FMS and let the airplane do the thinking for you?

[pcola]

How is a visual approach "lazy", exactly? Because it requires actual airmanship and SA? With the alternative being to type it in to the FMS and let the airplane do the thinking for you?

I think he's saying it's lazy because instead of briefing an instrument approach and setting the jet up for said approach, its easier to just say "visual approach to runway 22 from the left seat, full stop, any questions?" and then fly the airplane (which we heavy pilots can still do, contrary to popular belief.) I wouldn't expect you to understand this AMC nuance any more than you'd expect me to understand the difference between an xx and an xx. (you fill in the blanks, because obviously I don't know enough about your job to come up with an equitable comparison.)

[lj35driver]

The crew was also probably put on a bus back to Charleston, and a different crew would be sent out to recover the aircraft.

Is there something you know about the crew that we don't? I didn't get to see the SMS cut, but thought the crew was from the 305 AMW. I'm not saying that just because it was a McGuire tail either.

I wish I could say Chuck was exaggerating about the locals. I walked into scheduling at my sqd and saw all but one local X'ed off the board for the next two weeks. We lost most of our training "money" for the next two quarters to fund C-5M transition. Stan/Eval is all over us to get checkrides done early since the lack of locals will make it nearly impossible to get everyone done.

[Prozac]

How is a visual approach "lazy", exactly? Because it requires actual airmanship and SA? With the alternative being to type it in to the FMS and let the airplane do the thinking for you?

This.

You might be surprised at how many pilots I've flown with, who when handed the controlls and asked to "set us up for a left/right base/downwind for a visual approach to runway xx" get that deer in the headlights expression. Many are simply unable to put the jet in a good position as this is something they never practice. Of course, this does not preclude backing yourself up with the ILS for SA, but I can think of many times that a visual would be safer or make more sense than flying the approach. Example: more than once, I have had more SA on the weather than ATC. It made more sense to cancel and go visual than let myself get vectored through a thunderstorm. This is a skill set that all AMC crews need to have. Just don't be complacent about it. Treat it with the same level of preparation and vigilance that you would an instrument appproach.