Authorities at a regional airport in Oklahoma say an Air Force C-17 that dropped in unannounced last weekend may have caused serious damage to its runway. Stillwater Regional Airport issued a statement saying the C-17, which was dropping off a women’s college basketball team for a game at nearby Oklahoma State University, was heavier than its runway can handle and that the Air Force ignored its prior permission requirements for charters. “In this case, this prior approval was neither requested nor granted by airport administration,” a claim the Air Force disputes.
“Internal Air Force reports indicate that the aircraft was within weight limits of triple-tandem landing gear and that the flight was coordinated with airport officials prior to landing,” Marjorie Schurr, chief of public affairs for the Air Force’s 911th Airlift Wing wrote to The Associated Press. The runway’s published weight limit for “dual tandem landing gear” is 310,000 pounds and the C-17 would likely have been heavier than that (C-17 empty weight is 285,000 pounds) when it touched down and allegedly busted some concrete.
The surface has been fixed, but the airport is worried that the damage “can be feet beneath the surface and not be evident at the surface for years. To assess that potential, tools like ground-penetrating radar may need to be deployed to gain a better understanding of what lies beneath the surface.” The airport authority said that last fall it denied a request by the Air Force to bring its men’s baseball team to the area. The airport remains open.
The Air Force spokesperson said they did indeed get approval for this arrival, and it was based on the number of wheels that distribute the load on the C17. Who knows.
Yeah, unlikely they didn’t clear it ahead of time, since the crew would want to ensure the field could support the aircraft. Plus, tower wouldn’t have cleared the aircraft to land, likely, without prior clearance.
It is my experience that towers at civilian airports are not the airport’s administrative police. Unless ATC flow or those type procedures are in effect, if you want to take off or land below minimums, or are too heavy for the runway, or need a PPR for admin or airport operational reasons, it is the pilot’s responsibility to comply, not the tower’s function to enforce those rules. In this case a PPR notam for aircraft with a wingspan of more than 75ft was not the tower’s concern.
My question is, why is the Air Force flying college basketball teams around in a C-17? Surely, they could find something a little less fuel guzzling. I doubt that the team was bringing their Abrams tank along with them. Our tax dollars in action!
Damn good question.
In fairness, training is training, whether there’s a legitimate task associated with it or not. Aircrews need hours/code currency, so they fly around, practice landings, takeoffs, touch-and-gos, loading/unloading cargo/passengers, aerial refueling, air drops, whatever…. The same taxpayer dollars are used whether ferrying a basketball team around or flying nothing around.
Aircrew needs raining, basketball team needs transport.
Seems like a win for the tax payer. If the basketball team was from a state sponsored school, then it’s a win-win for the tax payer.
It was the Air Force Academy basketball team. So let’s work this out here:
C-17 crew is going to fly for currency on x day.
Basketball team needs transportation on the same day.
Why not use the C-17 that is flying for currency/training already?
This saves the Air Force from having to charter another flight just for the basketball team. Turns out, this actually saves money. Novel idea!
As mentioned, military planes and crews are going to fly a certain number of hours a month/year for proficiency whether passengers are on board or not. I assume when the bells ring and sirens blow you do want your military folks to be capable at 100% if possible. Have to train to do be there.
Landing at a general aviation airport is training? The past couple of years C17s and it’s crew have flown thousands of real missions all around the world. I don’t believe any of its flight crews are having trouble staying current.
There’s this thing called: new pilots. C-17s have them.
Do you really think the AirForce conducts initial training with passengers on board? Do you think they use general aviation airports, that don’t want them there and don’t have the ARFF equipment for that category of aircraft, to conduct training flights, with or without passengers? There’s this thing called: common sense, heard of it?
“The airport authority said that last fall it denied a request by the Air Force to BRING ITS MEN’S BASEBALL TEAM (emphasis mine) to the area.” Sounds like this was an internal team to the Air Force. Perhaps the Air Force Academy cadets get rides on AF hardware. Also sounds like there is some history there, and may a bit of bad blood.
Yes, it was the Air Force women’s team. They played OSU on Dec. 20. https://okstate.com/sports/womens-basketball/schedule/2022-23
I wonder if the airfield didn’t used to be a military base. I suspect it was built mostly with federal money 50 years ago and the old concrete is crumbling from age and the city can’t afford to replace it. I suspect that a C-17 with enough wheels to land on a dirt road, and with a handful of people as cargo did not cause that damage, which looks like old spalling in the concrete hidden by some sealing coat that did not adhere properly. Just my guess an old airfield manager.
“airport authorities” Hmm? an unnamed public official who wishes to duck accountability for public assertions? Fishing for unspent covid relief funds to fix an aging infrastructure?
I have a hard time accepting C-17s just “drop in” unannounced. I can’t imagine any Air Force pilot simply ignoring proper landing authorization particularly given the logistics required for such a visit.
Where do I apply to get my son’s youth group a ride on a C-17 for “training”? As a patriotic citizen I would like to do more than just pay my taxes to ensure that our armed forces are kept honed to a razor’s edge…
The C-17 has 2T (two triple wheels in tandem) landing gear, not 2D (two dual wheels in tandem). Since KSWO doesn’t have 2T weight bearing capacity numbers published, the max weight for a C-17 to operate at Stillwater is unknown.
The Giant Report shows that there is a TRT (2T) weight limit of 509,000 pounds.
Its maximum takeoff weight is 585,000 lbs. With no cargo and having burned fuel, I would assume it was under that.
Its maximum takeoff weight is 585,000 lbs. With no cargo and having burned fuel, I would assume it was under that.
If the pilots or their OPS would have taken a quick look at the runway information for this airport, they would have clearly found that DDT (Dual Double Tandem) Landing Gear is N/A for this airport.
There is no need for permission or guessing at the aircraft weight, etc, etc. It was N/A for landing at this airport.
So I’m missing something. Did they land on the taxiway? Or just taxi so as to damage the concrete on the taxiway edge yet miss the light? (The paint and yellow light tells me it is a taxiway) I’d say they passed training for being so precise.