USAF charter jet carrying women's b'ball team damages OK airport runway after unauthorized landing

I liked how an Air Force rep said Military aircraft are used to transport teams to "save the taxpayers money". In this case, the aircraft was a C-17.

Please discuss.
 
RyanShort1 said:
If it’s combined with a pilot proficiency flight that need to take place anyway it should be fine?
Click to expand...

You can make up a scenario to try and justify this. But unless there's evidence this was a training flight and the USAF had no higher priority cargo, then we just fall back to the stupidity of using a C-17, complete with airframe life limits, fuel burn, maintenance costs and the like, to haul 25 (?) people to a ballgame.
 
Gilbert Buettner said:
I was a C-130 pilot. In the US, we often flew trips that might look like a waste of money, but there was training going on almost all the time.
Click to expand...
Another training flight that happens a few times a week in July....Whiteman to OSH to wherever....B2 flyovers for Airventure. They gotta get training hours, may as well make it a public relations event, too.
 
kyleb said:
You can make up a scenario to try and justify this. But unless there's evidence this was a training flight and the USAF had no higher priority cargo, then we just fall back to the stupidity of using a C-17, complete with airframe life limits, fuel burn, maintenance costs and the like, to haul 25 (?) people to a ballgame.
Click to expand...
That’s not how the Air Force works. Do you think pilots just sit around the squadron waiting to be deployed in order to fly? I flew an average of probably 1-3 times per week when I was on Active Duty. The majority of that was pure training hours. We’d fly 2 hours to hook up with a receiver airplane for 40 minutes on a refueling track, give them no gas, then fly another 2 hours home and do 2 hours of pattern work.

We had a twice a year requirement to do an “overseas sortie.” If we weren’t our deployment cycle, we’d take a jet to England and back to check that off the list. Most times we’d be able to couple one side with an actual refueling, but sometimes not.

This C-17 was doing actual training, I’m sure. This would be considered “opportune airlift” where the requirement was added to an already existing training flight.
 
kayoh190 said:
Maybe those rednecks in Stillwater need to build a *real* airport, amiright @SoonerAviator ??? :p
Click to expand...
I figured maybe the C-17 was carrying sheep as a peace offering. That may qualify as sex trafficking in Stillwater though, lol.

On a side note, Stillwater actually had some light 121 ops going out there, but I don't think they were equipped for anything bigger than the usual EMB/RJ stuff.
 
Last edited:
murphey said:
Another training flight that happens a few times a week in July....Whiteman to OSH to wherever....B2 flyovers for Airventure. They gotta get training hours, may as well make it a public relations event, too.
Click to expand...
Many flights by various aircraft year round, coming in the Golden Gate and doing a couple circles around Alcatraz.
 
My first thought was "just how heavy are these players?" followed immediately by the thought that the town is looking to get a free runway repave at the expense of the USAF.

I'm probably wrong on at least one of those.

As far as cost of the C-17, I'm not military, but I figure they are going to fly those things a certain number of hours each year to keep everybody current and the systems working well. So why should anybody care if it's used for the academy, which is an actual part of the USAF? Now if it were ferrying around elected people chasing up votes or money, I'd have a different answer.
 
SoonerAviator said:
I figured maybe the C-17 was carrying sheep as a peace offering. That may qualify as sex trafficking in Stillwater though, lol.

On a side note, Stillwater actually had some light 121 ops going out there, but I don't think they were equipped for anything bigger than the usual EMB/RJ stuff.
Click to expand...

The football teams come in/out in at least 737-class aircraft.
 
Albany Tom said:
My first thought was "just how heavy are these players?" followed immediately by the thought that the town is looking to get a free runway repave at the expense of the USAF.
Click to expand...

Deja vu.

Bush’s campaign stop’s C-17 and C-32s cut 6” deep ruts down our Las Cruces runway and mucked up a number of taxiways after the airport warned them against landing and the Air Force denied that ever occurred.

Closed the runway for a couple of years during the finger pointing.


“A presidential C-32 aircraft (military version of the Boeing 757) landed at Las Cruces airport in New Mexico, even though the Bush Administration had been clearly told that none of the airport's runways could handle the weight of the aircraft.

It now appears that another aircraft in the mission may have caused more damages to the runway, and the cost of the repair has already been estimated at $2 million. The Bush reelection campaign staff, which was responsible for the travel arrangements in the first place, refuses to take responsibility for the damage because the aircraft belong the US Air Force, and the Air Force claims that the city gave them permission to land. It has yet to be established, though, why the pilots chose to land their aircraft on a runway that could not handle their weight, putting in danger the aircraft, the equipment it was carrying and the lives of the crew.

Runway 22 at Las Cruces, one of three, and the longest one, is now unusable, due to deep ruts and cuts made by the USAF aircraft, according to city facilities director Brian Denmark. The repair estimates originally came to $1 million, but estimates done by engineering firms in Albuquerque and Las Cruces exceed that by at least a factor of two.

According to Las Cruces Airport Manager Theresa Cook, the two engineering companies estimate the cost of repairing and resurfacing the runway at between $1.7 and $2.1 million.

Both the C-32 and another C-17 cargo aircraft landed at the airport. The C-32 caused the ruts on the runway, marked by skid marks that ended some 2,500 down the runway. The C-17 caused further damage when it slowly taxied backwards on a runway that not only could not handle the weight, but was also softened by the hot afternoon sun. There were in fact four aircraft that landed that way, two C-32's and two C-17's, but it is not known if the other aircraft also caused damage at the airport.

Cook told the Associated Press that her office had clearly informed the Air Force, as well as President Bush's travel team, the details of the runway and warned them that the aircraft planned to arrive were too heavy. However, the city could not prohibit the pilots of the aircraft from landing.”

http://www.aero-news.net/Subscribe.cfm?do=main.textpost&id=466fb754-0df9-4903-b1ff-48573c1218f6​
 
SoonerAviator said:
...but I don't think they were equipped for anything bigger than the usual EMB/RJ stuff.
Click to expand...

Van Johnston said:
The football teams come in/out in at least 737-class aircraft.
Click to expand...
They are. It comes down to PCN (Pavement Classification Number) and aircraft weight. The PCN (basically the heaviest an aircraft can be on the pavement there) boils down to wheel configuration.

The DoD publishes an IFR Supplement (a lot like the VFR Supplement we're all familiar with) but is geared to military IFR operations into an airport. It has every airport in the US that has a DoD approved instrument approach listed and has information on fuel types, oxygen availability, runway lighting, jet starter availability, and runway PCN codes (and a bunch of other information).

If I was planning to land at an airfield that I'd never been to, the first place I'd go was to the IFR Supp. Here's the entry for Stillwater Regional (KSWO):
59F617F5-B130-48F7-8C21-912011A06ECA.jpeg
At the top between RWY-17 and RWY-35, the codes "S100 T157 ST175 TT310" are the PCN for that runway. Me, in my KC-135, know my landing gear configuration is "Twin Tandem" (TT). So the heaviest I can operate on RWY-17/35 is at 310,000 pounds (nearly max weight). A C-17 is "Triple Wheel Tandem" (TRT), which isn't listed. SO, that would say to me that they would probably have to call the airport manager and get permission. Also, I'm not a C-17 guy, but their flight manuals may have charts that allow them to convert their ACN (Aircraft Classification Number) to something else to allow them to operate somewhere without a PCN for their gear type listed. I don't know that.

Also of note is that the PCN listed is just for the runway. The taxiways and ramp may have different classifications.
 
Like to know what type of calculations the crew used to say they were within limits. 310,000 limit for double tandem. Even though they’re triple tandem, they’d be way over 310,000 lbs there. TRT isn’t even listed. Possibly found their PCN and it showed their ACN was below it? Don’t know.

Edit: yeah what @Sluggo63 said above.
 
Velocity173 said:
Like to know what type of calculations the crew used to say they were within limits. 310,000 limit for double tandem. Even though they’re triple tandem, they’d be way over 310,000 lbs there. TRT isn’t even listed. Possibly found their PCN and it showed their ACN was below it? Don’t know.

Edit: yeah what @Sluggo63 said above.
Click to expand...
I'm not sure. I just looked and the empty weight of a C-17 is around 282,000. That's a heck of a lot heavier than I thought (just for reference, the EW of a KC-135 is around 122,000). Usually more tires is more better, so a TRT may have a higher limit than the TT 310, but, yeah... this looks like it may come down to poor planning.

I'm kind of surprised, though. As a tanker guy, we rarely went anywhere that wasn't a military base, or someplace that we've been going to a while. These C-17 guys are always landing in weird places, small airports, etc. I'd have thought that they would be all over this "can we land there" question. Maybe it's the other way, though. Since they always do this, they're less vigilant, whereas if I was going somewhere even slightly out of the norm, I went into full CYA mode and checked everything to make sure I wasn't going to be sitting at one end of a long table without a glass of water.
 
Sluggo63 said:
yeah... this looks like it may come down to poor planning.
Click to expand...

Poor planning or FU planning.

I always thought the Bush event was the latter.

Particularly with ELP class C and Biggs Army Airfield just a short hop away.
 
There's some knowledgeable discussion about this topic going on in a local FB aviation group. It appears (big surprise) that the news reporting may not be entirely accurate. There are claims that the C-17 DID have permission and everything was coordinated. Other articles like this one point this out.

https://apnews.com/article/mlb-stillwater-us-air-force-4c95c43c21bd42912542f8f71d4b763f

Also, I find it interesting that the only picture on the various news sites of the "damage" is some spalling around a taxiway light. Hard to believe that's the runway damage they're talking about. If the C-17 caused that damage, it was WAY too close to the light.

Incidentally, I was on a training flight and flew over SWO just as the C-17 was taking off. Looking down at it as it climbed out, I commented to my client "well that's strange, you don't see that every day at this airport".
 
RussR beat me it. Looks like maybe - this has never happened before - the initial news reporting was not accurate ……
 
From another forum:


  • Update* I received a response from the 911th Airlift Wing:
On Dec. 18, 2022, a C-17 Globemaster III assigned to the 911th Airlift Wing at Pittsburgh International Airport Air Reserve Station landed at Stillwater Regional Airport, Oklahoma. The airport reported damage to taxiways as a result. Reports indicate that the aircraft was within weight limits of triple tandem (3D) landing gear aircraft and that this flight was coordinated with airport officials five days prior to landing. 911th AW pilots are well trained in operating procedures for the C-17 Globemaster III, and wing leadership is coordinating with Stillwater Regional Airport officials to address any communication shortfalls and prevent similar misunderstandings in the future.​
 
One of the staples of giving an (Army) annual evaluation flight was planning a flight to an airport that had landing surfaces that could not support our gross weight and single axle aft landing gear.

After letting the poor bastard plan the flight, it was always an inevitable surprise that the flight could not be conducted at all unless the landing was planned to the sod. Yep, got that "deer in the headlights" look every time...

Know your limitations!
 
IK04 said:
One of the staples of giving an (Army) annual evaluation flight was planning a flight to an airport that had landing surfaces that could not support our gross weight and single axle aft landing gear.

After letting the poor bastard plan the flight, it was always an inevitable surprise that the flight could not be conducted at all unless the landing was planned to the sod. Yep, got that "deer in the headlights" look every time...

Know your limitations!
Click to expand...

Lol! I did the same thing at Rucker. Have the student plan a flight to some weak *** runway in Florida that’s falling apart. It would like a weight limit of S15 or something like that and tell them we’d be at 22k. Wasn't a very realistic scenario but it got their noses in the books.
 
RussR said:
There's some knowledgeable discussion about this topic going on in a local FB aviation group. It appears (big surprise) that the news reporting may not be entirely accurate. There are claims that the C-17 DID have permission and everything was coordinated. Other articles like this one point this out.

https://apnews.com/article/mlb-stillwater-us-air-force-4c95c43c21bd42912542f8f71d4b763f

Also, I find it interesting that the only picture on the various news sites of the "damage" is some spalling around a taxiway light. Hard to believe that's the runway damage they're talking about. If the C-17 caused that damage, it was WAY too close to the light.

Incidentally, I was on a training flight and flew over SWO just as the C-17 was taking off. Looking down at it as it climbed out, I commented to my client "well that's strange, you don't see that every day at this airport".
Click to expand...
The article in the first post reports that the Air Force claimed to have coordinated with airport officials. So I don't see the inaccuracy in the reporting. In fact, that seems to be pretty much the same article, just direct from AP.
 
Lindberg said:
The article in the first post reports that the Air Force claimed to have coordinated with airport officials. So I don't see the inaccuracy in the reporting. In fact, that seems to be pretty much the same article, just direct from AP.
Click to expand...

Hmmm...
City officials say all charter flights are required to receive permission prior to using the airport — but in this case, prior approval was neither requested nor granted.
Click to expand...
 
Lindberg said:
The article in the first post reports that the Air Force claimed to have coordinated with airport officials. So I don't see the inaccuracy in the reporting. In fact, that seems to be pretty much the same article, just direct from AP.
Click to expand...
Well, the article headline does say it was an “unauthorized landing”. I guess most of it isn’t actually inaccurate, since it does say that the city claimed this and that and the Air Force said otherwise.
 
Domenick said:
Hmmm...
Click to expand...
Why did you stop there?

[City officials say all charter flights are required to receive permission prior to using the airport — but in this case, prior approval was neither requested nor granted.

However, U.S. Air Force officials on Thursday disputed the city's characterization, saying the flight was coordinated with airport officials five days before the landing.]
 
Lindberg said:
Why did you stop there?

[City officials say all charter flights are required to receive permission prior to using the airport — but in this case, prior approval was neither requested nor granted.

However, U.S. Air Force officials on Thursday disputed the city's characterization, saying the flight was coordinated with airport officials five days before the landing.]
Click to expand...
I can see how this goes. First, whoever things this PPR required is something official, this is usually what happens. I know I have a flight to Stillwater in 5 days, I call the phone number listed. Someone picks up.

"Hey, this is Capt Sluggo from Podunk Air Force Base. I'd like to bring a C-17 in there on Friday to drop off the USAFA women's basketball team. Is that ok?"

"Yeah, no problem."

"Ok. Great. See you then."

That's it. No email record. No initials gotten. Nothing. We were approved... great. Let's go get lunch.

Also, this:
[City officials say all charter flights are required to receive permission prior to using the airport
Click to expand...
That's not really true, is it?

Here's what the A/FD says:
IMG_7C21D840FE88-1.jpg

So, PPR is only required for more than 9 seaters. Not "all."

But... military guys don't check that. They check the IFR Supp (like I posted above). That says:
IMG_8958.jpg
So... they only needed a PPR if they have more than 30 passengers. There seems to be a disconnect there.

(Full disclosure... this is an old IFR Supp, so maybe the new ones did indeed reduce the limit to 9. I don't know that).

Edit: I found a newer IFR Supp.

IMG_8964.jpg

Edit: It looks like the newer one I found (2018) has the same passenger restriction that's in the A/FD.

The pavement thing still might be an issue, but this also might be a case where maybe all the correct information wasn't presented to the crew in question.

Who knows...

Happy holidays to all!

Edit: This is the stuff that happens when you're an empty nester on Christmas morning.
 

Attachments

  • IMG_8958.jpg
    IMG_8958.jpg
    184 KB · Views: 34
Last edited:
Sluggo63 said:
I can see how this goes. First, whoever things this PPR required is something official, this is usually what happens. I know I have a flight to Stillwater in 5 days, I call the phone number listed. Someone picks up.

"Hey, this is Capt Sluggo from Podunk Air Force Base. I'd like to bring a C-17 in there on Friday to drop off the USAFA women's basketball team. Is that ok?"

"Yeah, no problem."

"Ok. Great. See you then."

That's it. No email record. No initials gotten. Nothing. We were approved... great. Let's go get lunch.

Also, this:

That's not really true, is it?

Here's what the A/FD says:
View attachment 113393

So, PPR is only required for more than 9 seaters. Not "all."

But... military guys don't check that. They check the IFR Supp (like I posted above). That says:
View attachment 113394
So... they only needed a PPR if they have more than 30 passengers. There seems to be a disconnect there.

(Full disclosure... this is an old IFR Supp, so maybe the new ones did indeed reduce the limit to 9. I don't know that).

The pavement thing still might be an issue, but this also might be a case where maybe all the correct information wasn't presented to the crew in question.

Who knows...

Happy holidays to all!
Click to expand...
I was wondering if you have access to FLIP documents. So that’s a pic you took of an old paper IFR Supplement? Can they be got digitally like FAA stuff?
 
luvflyin said:
I was wondering if you have access to FLIP documents. Is that a pic you took of an old paper IFR Supplement? Can they be got digitally like FAA stuff?
Click to expand...
I don't anymore. The first one I found online was from 2008. Then I found this one from 2018. I updated my above post above with new information.

They can only be gotten online (as far as I know) if you have an account along with a current CAC (military ID/Common Access Card).
 
I have a brother-in-law who is a retired Stillwater firefighter. The fire station on the field is only manned as needed. I think the PPR is primarily about scheduling the fire department to come man the fire station. There may have been “permission” to land with 25 passengers, but not necessarily permission to land that airframe. Just my speculation.
 
Here's the damage that was supposedly caused by the C-17.
cJ8dZzT.jpg
 
So it damaged the taxiway but somehow missed the light?
 
Sluggo63 said:
Here's what the A/FD says:
View attachment 113393

So, PPR is only required for more than 9 seaters. Not "all."
Click to expand...

If I get my abbreviations right, that says PPR is required for unscheduled Air Carrier operations with more than 9 seats. I don't think the AF is an "Air Carrier". So by the AFD, they don't need permission at all.

But yes, according to the IFR Supp they do.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top