FOB Shank C-17 Accident Investigation Board complete

News > FOB Shank C-17 Accident Investigation Board complete

FOB Shank C-17 Accident Investigation Board complete

Posted 6/11/2012 Updated 6/11/2012

Email story Print story

Air Mobility Command Public Affairs

6/11/2012 - SCOTT AIR FORCE BASE, Ill. -- Air Mobility Command released the results of its investigation into the Jan. 23, 2012, mishap involving a C-17A Globemaster III that landed at Forward Operating Base Shank, Afghanistan.

The Accident Investigation Board, convened by AMC, found that the cause of the mishap was the pilot and co-pilot failed to identify that the landing distance required to safely stop the aircraft exceeded the runway length. Additionally, the AIB president found that the failure to assess runway conditions for fixed wing operations at FOB Shank substantially contributed to the mishap.

The aircraft landed on a runway at FOB Shank, where the C-17A was unable to stop, departed the prepared runway surface, struck an embankment, and came to rest approximately 700 feet from the end of the runway. The aircraft sustained damage to the landing gear, cargo floor, undercarriage, antennas, and main structural components. There were no passengers, fatalities, significant injuries, or damage to civilian or other military property. The estimated cost to repair the C-17A is $69.4 million.

The mishap occurred as the C-17A was landing at FOB Shank during a combat airlift mission in support of Operation Enduring Freedom.

(Courtesy Air Mobility Command Public Affairs)

Comments

7/18/2012 10:26:17 AM ET
I was there and yes there was a couple feet of snow and ice took over most of the runway. I helped recover the C-17. It took us 3 months to build all of the accomodations just to get it turned around so that we could pull it with a couple A4 Wreckers and a 916 and trailer. It was one of the coolest things I have ever done, but I see no problems with C-17s landing at Shank

Steve, Shank

7/16/2012 2:05:18 PM ET
The runway was icy. It also has a slight negative grade. The runway worked just fine for similar aircraft when it wasn't icy. That plane came real close to a T-wall... maybe another 50' and it would have been much worse.

Jesse, FOB Shank

6/29/2012 9:38:52 AM ET
Should've had an FE in the cockpit hmmm 70M in repairs....just another C-141B FE.

George, AZ

6/25/2012 2:38:04 PM ET
C-17 guy, you can blame whoever you want to, but it is still the two guys looking out the window that make the go no-go decisions. This is a one mistake Air Force and they made a great one.

MO MSgt, MO

6/19/2012 11:44:34 AM ET
Obviously these comments show that most of you have not read the full report. Not saying the crew didn't mess some things up but there were several other issues as well. C-17s still go here and the TOLD is no problem as long as you account for the proper runway condition. It's not as simple as reading a chart- there were several errors at several levels that lead to this...

c17 guy, deployed

6/12/2012 3:06:23 PM ET
The runway is normally long enough, it was that it was not long enough for the conditions in which they tried to land. C-17's have landed there in the past and are landing there still. The new C-212's and C-130's are better at that FOB in my personal opinion.

Wolf, NC

6/12/2012 2:29:44 PM ET
It appears that C-17s landed here on a regular basis even though it is not cleared for this mission. You cannot put the blame on the mission planners or up the chain. They have too much rank. As usual you put the blame on the lowest ranking individual in the chain who should have known better. What would have happened to the pilot had he said, "Sorry, Sir, I cannot fly this mission because the location I am scheduled to fly into won't support this type of aircraft." Also how may C-17s have landed at this location since the accident? If there is even 1 then the Theater Air Commander should be fired on the spot.

Stan, USA

6/12/2012 8:40:34 AM ET
I was there it doesn't mention the 4 feet of snow we had so the runway was icy.

nick, home

6/12/2012 8:38:49 AM ET
OOOPS. I have seen a plane go off the end of a runway before. It wasn't the pilot's fault then because the pilot was a one star and generals don't make mistakes.

Jerry, Oklahoma

6/12/2012 7:58:43 AM ET
I was assigned at FOB Shank. First of all it is not designated a runway it is a concrete landing strip. Second, C-17's land their all the time with no problem. There are mountains to the south that they have to fly over then drop down for a landing. My guess is that they touched down too late.

Stew, mo

6/12/2012 1:38:31 AM ET
..... but you should have seen how WIDE it was! 0Seriously it is all about Landing Distance Available. Always taken for granted when there is plenty of it on route ops but a classic 'gotcha' when switching to tactical mode. Some big lessons to learned here not just for crew but for planners and commanders too.

Tony, New Zealand

6/11/2012 1:33:33 PM ET
A C-17 doing a Herc's job....that is all I have to say. C-17 fellas should just concentrate on the strat airlift mission.

BM, USA

6/11/2012 1:22:50 PM ET
Stuart, no it isn't their fault the runway is too short, it is their fault they can't read an aeronautical chart that list the runway length. That is right up there with making sure the wheels are sticking out of the bottom of the plane on important things to check when landing. I blame the runway for being too short.

M MSGT, MO

6/11/2012 1:13:10 PM ET
So is there a Flying Crew Chief on board? I'm sure if there was a Flight Engineer on the acft this might not have happened. Is the Crew Chief another set of eyes in the cockpit I'm sure the Load was in his crew station downstairssounds like a few more eyes needed in the cockpit. I guess the numerous computer systems failed to inform the AC minimum landing distance. Just an old retired 141 guy saying......

Bob Humphress, ILLINOIS

6/11/2012 1:13:01 PM ET
No read it again. The runway was too short for them, they didn't identify that and should not have attempted to land there in the first place. It also mentions that fixed wing operations for FOB Shank weren't accessed properly as well. Sounds like to me they never should have been sent there at all.

Shaun, EAFB SD

6/11/2012 12:53:48 PM ET
Part of flight planning is to know your destination airport. Load calculations, fuel amount, aircraft weight. I think the FAR still says the runway should be about 67 percent longer than demonstrated stopping distance. Although not always available during military operations, the flight crew should have been up to speed on the destination airport.

Retired, Ohio

6/11/2012 11:29:13 AM ET
So the cause of the mishap was the pilot and co-pilot failed to identify that the landing distance required to safely stop the aircraft exceeded the runway length? It was their fault the runway was too short... wow.

Stuart, Planet Earth

Add a comment

Inside AF.mil

GeneralImagesVideo

View All RSS

Subscribe AF.MIL

More Headlines

Air Force officials outline cyber capabilities in today's fight

AF is transforming how it provides services

Secretary of Defense visits Yokota

Air Force recognizes 2012 Outstanding Airmen of the Year  |  VIDEO

CSAF talks Air Force innovation, evolution at AFA Conference  2  |  VIDEO

AF Reserve commander praises total force

AFLINK mobile app keeps people connected to everything Air Force  1

First week of RARO 12 wraps up

Air Force athletes discuss world class program during roundtable

Multinational communication exercise evolves through years  1

Welsh: 'The only way to move forward is together'  1

ISR chief stresses importance of turning data into information

New DOD Safe Helpline Mobile App now available

Annual space, missile pioneers inducted

Commentary

Sept. 17: A day for Constitutional conversation 1

Losing Your Future to Sexual Assault 24