C-17 Lands at Wrong Airport

[OKCisOK4me]

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]

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]

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]

That's correct. I've flown in C-17's, KC 135's and Hercs.

as have I

[bombermwc]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

(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]

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]

... 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]

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]

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]

I can't wrap my mind around this being even remotely possible....

[Of Sound Mind]

...you've been listening to and believing the wrong people.

That has been quite apparent simply by reading most of his posts.

[Tom]

The pilot had a "Short Field Landing" requirement due so this airport was used to get that done.

[Just the facts]

The pilot had a "Short Field Landing" requirement due so this airport was used to get that done.

That would make total sense then.