Thread: For the C-17 guys/gals
View Single Post
Old 04-03-2013 | 06:05 AM
  #24  
Fred
New Hire
 
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
Default
Originally Posted by KC10 FATboy
What was the cause of this accident? That runway looks very long and the C-17 has excellent stopping capability.


The C17 was a few pounds short of MTOW trying to land on a 6800'x90' concrete runway that had a NOTAM x'ing out the first 1500'. The airfield has just experienced a moderate winter storm event and the breaking action on the runway was only 'fair'. The CP entered the wrong value into the landing computer - for good conditions. When they entered the proper value for 'fair' into the computer in the after incident simulation it displayed a '---' value for no go.

It would have been a tight squeeze in optimal conditions.

Didn't help that the US Army was airfield management, a rotary unit from GA with no apparent winter airfield experience. From reading the AIB, apparently they didn't even bother to check out airfield conditions to see what kind of job Snow and Ice Control had done from the time the winter storm ended to the C17 landed. One small prop STOL landed/took off about an hour before the C17 showed how good a C17's off roading ability is and how amazing durable a C17 truly is.

This was pretty much FUBAR from start to end, starting with the Ops guys in Kuwait. Most of the procedural and operational safeguards that try to mitigate the pilot error in this situation either weren't there or just blown off.

Gotta love contingency ops and different branches of the military trying to interface. I believe the Army ATC tower traffic when the C17 queried about airfield conditions was basically, 'do a fly by and if you think it's OK, land.'

This stuff isn't classified or FOUO, you can find the AIB summary online in a few clicks. Finding the full AIB with witness statements is a lot harder but that isn't classified or FOUO either.
Reply
0