View Full Version : C-17 Lands at Wrong Airport



Just the facts
07-25-2012, 09:53 PM
I came across this story yesterday and thought others might find this interesting. A C-17 landed at the 'wrong' airport in Tampa. The runway it landed on is only 3500' long. For the conspiracy theorist out there checkout the 2:20 mark on the news link.

http://www.wtsp.com/video/default.aspx?bctid=1746068423001

nkuqsd_tRHw

So let me ask the obvious question - how hard is to land at the 'wrong' airport? Clearly the pilot could tell that he was not landing at air force base as Pete O'Knight airport is on an island and is very very small.

MikeOKC
07-25-2012, 10:41 PM
http://desmond.imageshack.us/Himg208/scaled.php?server=208&filename=dogiq.jpg&res=landing

Snowman
07-26-2012, 01:32 AM
Good thing it was a C-17 instead of a C-5

BoulderSooner
07-26-2012, 06:24 AM
c-17's can take off and land on very very short runways

Roadhawg
07-26-2012, 06:51 AM
So much for the pilots career

Just the facts
07-26-2012, 06:54 AM
c-17's can take off and land on very very short runways

Apparently, because they just did it on a 3500 foot runway, which makes me wonder if this was an accident at all. Did the military just happen to have a 'high security convoy' in the area for just such a scenario? Is there anyway the pilots could have landed here by accident?

Jersey Boss
07-26-2012, 06:54 AM
Pilot related to Inhofe?

Just the facts
07-26-2012, 06:58 AM
Pilot related to Inhofe?

Pretty funny, which makes me wonder who was on board that got in the high security convoy.

RadicalModerate
07-26-2012, 07:45 AM
General Menino, at MacDill AFB, refused to allow the plane to land because it was transporting Dan Cathey of Chick-fil-A fame.

Snowman
07-26-2012, 07:58 AM
Did the military just happen to have a 'high security convoy' in the area for just such a scenario?

Since the air force base it was likely in route to was less than five miles away it would not be hard to get some security vehicles over quickly if there was a high value asset on board. A military base is a lot more secure area than a random general aviation airport, especially one they came less than ten feet from going off the end of the runway.


Is there anyway the pilots could have landed here by accident?

The runways are at the same angle almost inline with each other five miles apart. It apparently happened before in the 80's, though with a different plane that had to be disassembled to remove it.

Just the facts
07-26-2012, 08:05 AM
Since the air force base it was likely in route to was less than five miles away it would not be hard to get some security vehicles over quickly if there was a high value asset on board



The runways are at the same angle almost inline with each other five miles apart. It apparently happened before, though with a different plane that had to be disassembled to remove it.

That is 5 miles across the water. It is a much longer drive than that. There is no one, I repeat, no one that would mistake a 3500' runway at a small airport with an 11,500' runway at a major military base. McDill AFB is huge and Peter O. Knight is so small I'll bet it is impossible to see at the point the C17 had to line up with the runway. This would really be like landing at the old downtown airpark instead of Tinker AFB.

BBatesokc
07-26-2012, 08:06 AM
Apparently, because they just did it on a 3500 foot runway, which makes me wonder if this was an accident at all. Did the military just happen to have a 'high security convoy' in the area for just such a scenario? Is there anyway the pilots could have landed here by accident?

I really didn't see anything that points to anything other than really bad pilot error.

Sure they are highly trained, but we don't' know this pilot or what was going on in the cockpit or in his head or even his exact approach. But, as pointed out, the two airports are really close, using the same number (22) and runways pointing the same direction.

Off course, when you check them out via Google Maps, one is vastly larger than the other - but if you remove scale they are almost identical in shape and geographic position.

The bigger question would be, what would be the point other than an accident - lives were risked and the military base was only 4 miles away (by air). That also easily accounts for why a convoy was available - they only had to drive (10 miles by road - 22 minutes) to get there.

Looks like a pilot is going to be in hot water and getting lots of probably deserved ribbing.

Just the facts
07-26-2012, 08:07 AM
General Menino, at MacDill AFB, refused to allow the plane to land because it was transporting Dan Cathey of Chick-fil-A fame.

This is Tampa - he would have been welcomed with open arms.

Just the facts
07-26-2012, 08:10 AM
I really didn't see anything that points to anything other than really bad pilot error.

Maybe so, an American Airlines jet landed at West Pam Beach on time that was supposed to be going to Ft Lauderdale and a Northwest flight a few years ago flew an hour past its destination.

Roadhawg
07-26-2012, 08:16 AM
This is Tampa - he would have been welcomed with open arms.

I thought you lived in Jax?

BBatesokc
07-26-2012, 08:19 AM
Airport in the middle of no where - maybe conspiracy. Tiny airport that seemed prepared for the landing (fuel trucks and other planes far removed from the runway) - maybe conspiracy. Mysterious unmarked vehicles taking items from plane and driving away trying to go unnoticed - maybe a conspiracy.

This set of circumstances - the only conspiracy is the lack of training of this pilot.

Of course, they were coming from U.S. Central Command operations in southwest Asia, so I have no idea if the pilot had lots of experience with the airport he was supposed to land at or how long this pilot had been in the air and/or how rested he was.

Just the facts
07-26-2012, 08:19 AM
I thought you lived in Jax?

I do, the incident happened in Tampa.

Just the facts
07-26-2012, 08:21 AM
Of course, they were coming from U.S. Central Command operations in southwest Asia, so I have no idea if the pilot had lots of experience with the airport he was supposed to land at or how long this pilot had been in the air and/or how rested he was.

McDill his home to US Central Command, You think the pilot would have been there before, but maybe not. Anyhow, I thought the video was pretty neat. The guy doing the filming probably needed to change his pants afterwords.

BBatesokc
07-26-2012, 08:25 AM
Does that airport have a manned tower? If so, I can only imagine the panic that set in. Or, imagine being a tiny plane taxing onto the runway to prepare to take off and you see that thing coming down!

OKCTalker
07-26-2012, 08:42 AM
This happens more than you think, even with professional flight crews using everything from VFR sectional charts to GPS to ILS and RNAV. Immediately ESE of Tulsa International is a drag strip that runs east-west, the same general direction of RWY 08-26 which is 7,376 feet long. The VFR sectional chart clearly identifies the drag strip by the words "DRAG STRIP" but airplanes line up to land on it all the time.

That this happened at the wrong airport? Not a surprise.

jmpokc1957
07-26-2012, 10:56 AM
I can only guess, but I think pilot fatigue is the probable cause. It's a subject that's getting a lot more attention these days. In my opinion it was a case where the pilot was given the visual approach and, being fatigued and unfamiliar with the area, fixated on the wrong airport. It would be more difficult to explain if he was given the ILS. A better question is why the copilot didn't catch it and what was the monitor controller doing.

I once flew a C-172 from Portland, Oregon, down to the LA area in the summertime. It was a long, hot eight hour flight and I was more fatigued that I realized. I was fixated on a large military field in the area and entered the left downwind instead of the right. Fortunately the controller questioned me and I caught my mistake and landed at the right airport. No problem, but just like that column in Flying magazine, "I learned about flying from that!"

Sunny and 85 in Portland.

Mike

Just the facts
07-26-2012, 11:36 AM
While doing some checking about planes landing at the wrong airport I came across a Delta flight that landed on the taxiway at ATL instead of the runway. Doh!

venture
07-26-2012, 12:15 PM
Does that airport have a manned tower? If so, I can only imagine the panic that set in. Or, imagine being a tiny plane taxing onto the runway to prepare to take off and you see that thing coming down!

No it does not. It is an uncontrolled airfield.

Roadhawg
07-26-2012, 12:57 PM
I do, the incident happened in Tampa.

Oh OK... The way you said "This is Tampa - he would have been welcomed with open arms." I got the impression you lived there.

MikeOKC
07-26-2012, 03:19 PM
Yes, pilots can make mistakes, but can a military pilot of a C-17 possibly not know the difference between a tiny strip airport on an island and a huge Air Force base? That's hardly the same as a driver passing the wrong exit ramp due to fatigue. No analogy there whatsoever.

I certainly don't know what happened, but it's a mystery. Mistaking not apples & oranges, but bananas with spinach is just.....bizarre.

OKCisOK4me
07-26-2012, 04:58 PM
General Menino, at MacDill AFB, refused to allow the plane to land because it was transporting Dan Cathey of Chick-fil-A fame.

Sally Kern was in there too.

Prunepicker
07-29-2012, 10:10 PM
So let me ask the obvious question - how hard is to land at the
'wrong' airport? Clearly the pilot could tell that he was not landing
at air force base as Pete O'Knight airport is on an island and is
very very small.
It's not the matter of whether or not he's landing on an AFB,
many Air National Guard bases share property with public
airports as OKANG does with Will Rogers. The problem is not
knowing the difference between a mainland and an island. With
a minimum of three experienced pilots in the cockpit one has
to wonder if they were having a party.

Prunepicker
07-29-2012, 10:12 PM
c-17's can take off and land on very very short runways
That's correct. I've flown in C-17's, KC 135's and Hercs.

BoulderSooner
07-30-2012, 06:13 AM
That's correct. I've flown in C-17's, KC 135's and Hercs.

as have I

bombermwc
07-30-2012, 06:55 AM
If you've never flown to a particular base before, you can't know what to expect. And what about the rest of the flight crew? Shouldn't they have said something as well. Or how about any of the flight controllers from any other station in the area. Shouldn't they have noted that he was descending in the wrong area? It's easy to point a finger at the pilot, but the pilots get direction from many places.

RadicalModerate
07-30-2012, 10:22 AM
Talk about "bizarre" "conspiracies" . . .

If you do a regular Google Maps zoom-in on the Northeastern end of the shorter runway (where the plane landed), you will see the number 22 (just as the newsguy said was the same as the number at the end of the longer runway) . . .
HOWEVER(!!!!) when the view switches from overhead to sort of at an angle it is clearly a 21(!!!!!!) that is painted on the surface.

If only we could connect the dots a pattern might begin to emerge . . .
[insert Theremin arpeggio] (cut to commercial)

Just the facts
07-30-2012, 10:58 AM
If you've never flown to a particular base before, you can't know what to expect. And what about the rest of the flight crew? Shouldn't they have said something as well. Or how about any of the flight controllers from any other station in the area. Shouldn't they have noted that he was descending in the wrong area? It's easy to point a finger at the pilot, but the pilots get direction from many places.

This is exactly what I was wondering. The pilot got clearance to land but didn't the controler know the plane was landing somewhere else? That is a rhetroical question because the answer is - obviously not.

OKCTalker
07-30-2012, 11:46 AM
Talk about "bizarre" "conspiracies" . . .

If you do a regular Google Maps zoom-in on the Northeastern end of the shorter runway (where the plane landed), you will see the number 22 (just as the newsguy said was the same as the number at the end of the longer runway) . . .
HOWEVER(!!!!) when the view switches from overhead to sort of at an angle it is clearly a 21(!!!!!!) that is painted on the surface.

If only we could connect the dots a pattern might begin to emerge . . .
[insert Theremin arpeggio] (cut to commercial)

RM - I'm not sure where you're going with this but runways are "numbered" based upon their magnetic heading, rounded to the nearest 10 degrees, and then divided by 10. A runway with an approximate heading of 220 degrees magnetic would be designated RWY 22, and going the other direction would be RWY 04 (the reciprocal). If there are two parallel runways, then they are identified as left or right. Will Rogers has four runways with eight designations, depending upon the direction: 17L, 17R, 35L, 35R, 13, 31, 18 and 36.

If Google Maps portrays different numbers, I have a hunch why, but that's a rabbit hole that won't shed light on this discussion.

Prune - I've been a pilot for 30 years and have flown GA my whole life, and I've neither witnessed or heard of a "party" in the cockpit during this critical phase of flight.

JTF - I recall that this was an uncontrolled airport, meaning no control tower. No biggie - most airports in the US are uncontrolled. These guys were almost certainly on an instrument flight plan, so their last controller would have been either approach control or center, and would have had the crew verbally acknowledge that they had the field in sight. Having received that acknowledgement from the crew, the controller would release the aircraft (but not clear them to land - he doesn't have that authority), and their last instruction from the controller would have been something like this: "Wombat One Two, airport 12 o' clock and 10 miles. No traffic observed between you and Peter O. Knight. Change to advisory frequency. Good day." The controller then shifts his focus to other aircraft under his control while the aircraft begins making calls on the advisory frequency.

Just the facts
07-30-2012, 12:27 PM
A couple of things OKCTalker

1) The numbers don't match between the two photos for the same runway because the airports in Tampa recently had their headings updated based on magnetic shifts so it is just a timing issue with the two different photos.

2) They got clearance to land at McDill (which has a control tower) but they landed at an airport with no control tower (Peter O. Knight). Does the controller just take the pilots word for it that he sees the airport? I am sure that the FAA and military are just like everything else in government - they don't deserve the confidence people have in them :).

OKCTalker
07-30-2012, 01:41 PM
JTF - The magnetic shift was the rabbit hole I didn't want to go down, and it was built on the supposition that the Google images differed for that reason. That was the most logical explanation to me.

You're right about McDill AFB being towered and Knight being uncontrolled. The approach or center controller would have instructed them to contact McDill Tower. IN THAT CASE they almost certainly would have established two-way radio communications and received permission to land from McDill (both would be required in order to land), and then landed. (I can just picture the guys in the tower cab looking at an empty runway, and then at each other, and then calling on the radio - I'll be that A LOT of people are getting yelled at over this one.)

Yes, when a pilot indicates that he has the airport in sight (or "runway environment" in instrument conditions), the controller accepts that as fact, and there is no way for a controller to independently verify. There was a G-III crash at Aspen in March 2001 which killed all 18 aboard. According to the CVR and tower recording, the first officer told the captain, "see highway" indicating that he could see the highway immediately east of the approach path. Three seconds later the tower controller asked if they had the runway in sight, to which the first officer replied, "Affirmative," and the captain, "Yes, now, yeah we do." They apparently didn't, and the aircraft crashed one minute, seven seconds later, 2,400 feet short of the runway threshold and 300 feet right of centerline. There were a lot of elements that contributed to that crash, most significantly a charter client who was exerting pressure on the flight crew to land, despite the fact that the aircraft attempting to land at Aspen right before them were all missing and diverting to their alternate airports.

Snowman
07-30-2012, 07:22 PM
Talk about "bizarre" "conspiracies" . . .

If you do a regular Google Maps zoom-in on the Northeastern end of the shorter runway (where the plane landed), you will see the number 22 (just as the newsguy said was the same as the number at the end of the longer runway) . . .
HOWEVER(!!!!) when the view switches from overhead to sort of at an angle it is clearly a 21(!!!!!!) that is painted on the surface.

If only we could connect the dots a pattern might begin to emerge . . .
[insert Theremin arpeggio] (cut to commercial)

There was also videos showing both were numbered 22, though for those believing conspiracies that is not hard to explain away.

bluedogok
07-30-2012, 08:30 PM
JTF - The magnetic shift was the rabbit hole I didn't want to go down, and it was built on the supposition that the Google images differed for that reason. That was the most logical explanation to me.

You're right about McDill AFB being towered and Knight being uncontrolled. The approach or center controller would have instructed them to contact McDill Tower. IN THAT CASE they almost certainly would have established two-way radio communications and received permission to land from McDill (both would be required in order to land), and then landed. (I can just picture the guys in the tower cab looking at an empty runway, and then at each other, and then calling on the radio - I'll be that A LOT of people are getting yelled at over this one.)

Yes, when a pilot indicates that he has the airport in sight (or "runway environment" in instrument conditions), the controller accepts that as fact, and there is no way for a controller to independently verify. There was a G-III crash at Aspen in March 2001 which killed all 18 aboard. According to the CVR and tower recording, the first officer told the captain, "see highway" indicating that he could see the highway immediately east of the approach path. Three seconds later the tower controller asked if they had the runway in sight, to which the first officer replied, "Affirmative," and the captain, "Yes, now, yeah we do." They apparently didn't, and the aircraft crashed one minute, seven seconds later, 2,400 feet short of the runway threshold and 300 feet right of centerline. There were a lot of elements that contributed to that crash, most significantly a charter client who was exerting pressure on the flight crew to land, despite the fact that the aircraft attempting to land at Aspen right before them were all missing and diverting to their alternate airports.
Many of the mountain airports make for difficult landings as well. I know on this side of Denver we have quite a few airports and an AFB that are fairly close to each other in DIA, Front Range Airport, Buckley AFB and Centennial Airport. It surprised me how close to each other they are. I know that the old Stapleton Airport and Lowry AFB were a few miles apart and pretty much aligned N/S with each other...of course they are both redeveloped areas now since both have been closed.

Just the facts
07-30-2012, 08:47 PM
You're right about McDill AFB being towered and Knight being uncontrolled. The approach or center controller would have instructed them to contact McDill Tower. IN THAT CASE they almost certainly would have established two-way radio communications and received permission to land from McDill (both would be required in order to land), and then landed. (I can just picture the guys in the tower cab looking at an empty runway, and then at each other, and then calling on the radio - I'll be that A LOT of people are getting yelled at over this one.)

I picture one controller turning to the other and saying, "Didn't we just clear a plane to land a minute ago, or did I just dream that?"

RadicalModerate
07-31-2012, 07:14 AM
(i was joking about the "conspiracy" . . . but thanks for the info about what the numbers at the ends of runways mean.)

I once went to a motorcycle rally/races at a dirt track near the Aspen airport. It was amazing to me that any pilot would try to land there the way the mountains are situated when approaching from the direction the planes that were landing came from.

OKCTalker
07-31-2012, 08:02 AM
There's a reference to "Runway 44" in "Catch Me If You Can." Pilots just roll their eyes.

Aspen is a one-way airport due to terrain, meaning that all aircraft land on RWY 15 and depart from RWY 33. You can't do it any other way.

Prunepicker
07-31-2012, 07:50 PM
... Shouldn't they have said something as well. Or how about any of
the flight controllers from any other station in the area. Shouldn't they
have noted that he was descending in the wrong area?
Yes, the crew should have said something. But let's remember
something that isn't supposed to be mentioned. Many times, too
many in fact, there's a lot of drinking going on in the cockpit if a
military aircraft.

I can't tell you how many times I've heard someone say, "they
fly best when they're drunk".

Just the facts
08-01-2012, 12:39 PM
Yes, the crew should have said something. But let's remember
something that isn't supposed to be mentioned. Many times, too
many in fact, there's a lot of drinking going on in the cockpit if a
military aircraft.

I can't tell you how many times I've heard someone say, "they
fly best when they're drunk".

Maybe so but a drunk pilot didn't land on that short runway.

Dubya61
08-01-2012, 03:05 PM
Yes, the crew should have said something. But let's remember
something that isn't supposed to be mentioned. Many times, too
many in fact, there's a lot of drinking going on in the cockpit if a
military aircraft.

I can't tell you how many times I've heard someone say, "they
fly best when they're drunk".

I trust you're joking. Most of today's military professionals know better than to attempt to pilot an aircraft when under the influence. If you believe that military aircraft are just a flying bar, you've been listening to and believing the wrong people.

Teeg
08-01-2012, 07:24 PM
I can't wrap my mind around this being even remotely possible....

Of Sound Mind
08-02-2012, 06:09 AM
...you've been listening to and believing the wrong people.
That has been quite apparent simply by reading most of his posts.

Tom
08-03-2012, 05:24 AM
The pilot had a "Short Field Landing" requirement due so this airport was used to get that done.

Just the facts
08-03-2012, 07:53 AM
The pilot had a "Short Field Landing" requirement due so this airport was used to get that done.

That would make total sense then.