C17 lands at wrong airstrip

[leon]

Hi Guys just check out this c17 landing at the wrong air strip.:scared::scared:

Leon :thumbsup:

http://news.ninemsn.com.au/world/8503211/pilot-lands-huge-plane-on-tiny-runway

[DavidU]

OMG he had to pull it to a stop fast !:eyepop:

[matthewota]

If anything, this landing demonstrated the C17's ability to preform STOL capably. STOL is Air Force-ese for Short Take Off and Landing.

[leon]

Well that is true Matthew,

Leon

[pgc hunter]

The C-17s are designed for STOL operations and can fly in and out of dirt airstrips.

The article states that the airport it landed on was Peter O Knight Airport, which has two runways, 3580ft and 2687ft long according to this site: http://www.airnav.com/airport/KTPF/

It doesn't state which runway it landed on, but if it's the shorter one, then that is quite an impressive feat!

[Blue Skies]

And how is it going to take off again, if it doesn't have a long enough runway...?

[hotspur]

Whoa~!,that's really something-some real impact video there:eyepop::scared:

That's quite a feat for such a large plane.I know they are made for STOL,but that seems rather a short runway.Is it going to be able to take off from there Leon? Like to hear what happens next.

[pmrid]

I'll bet they had to get professional cleaners in to do the cockpit after that one. The next test of course is the takeoff. Could be interesting.
Peter

[Omaroo]

According to Wiki, the C17 is designed to operate from runways "as short as 3,500 ft". I imagine that'd be laden - i.e. in full operation. Even if they had to empty it to get out of there, no biggie I'd guess. Did anyone say big brakes? LOL

[koputai]

Under the video it says it flew out again later that day.

Cheers,
Jason.

[Gem]

Nah - doubt that is laden. The amount of fuel makes a huge difference... trust me, I have been on way too many flights that couldn't land on the same strip without dumping several tons of fuel over the sea... and flown on way too many flights where we couldn't fill up more than half since the strip was too short. :)
C17s have an amazing thrust to weight ratio. The main stopping force is the engines in reverse not the brakes...

[DavidTrap]

Wonder why he didn't do a touch and go?

DT

[GrahamL]

being so close to a military base you'd think that airspace would be controlled?

[mental4astro]

If you look closely enough you see the pilot jump out and push back on the landing gears too!

That is seriously wicked! I had at first confused the plane with the Hercules. Man, makes it even more impressive.

You can imagine what was said at the briefing:

Air Marshall: 'Boy, what the hell did you think you were doing?'

Pilot: 'Sorry Sir, was txting my missus I'd be home soon'

Air Marshal: 'S..t boy! At a civilian airfield too! Now, tell me, how good were the skid marks you left?'...

[Omaroo]

Teaches me to be flippant in my posts. LOL

Take off and landing distances are also affected be a plethora of other factors - including air temp and pressure/density and approach speeds. According to the book, the C17 can take off from airstrips as short as 3,000 ft with 75,000lb of cargo on board (gross 395,000lb) in addition to enough fuel to fly 500 nautical miles.

[Exfso]

This one has been around for a while, shows a Russian heavy taking off from Canberra mid summer, the ATC's deadset nearly push the crash alarm. Talk about using up all the runway.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UZGXwbPfwQs

[leon]

Gee,s that didn't leave much room for error.

Leon

[Gem]

Sorry - nothing intended! Spent nine years working on aircraft engines! :lol:

[DavidTrap]

Love the final quotes from ATC!

DT

[pgc hunter]

The vodka burner is rolling..... we have SMIRNOFF!

LOL :rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl: