Last week a US Air Force C-17 transport plane (tail #96-0002) made a dazzling nighttime “wheels up” belly landing at Bagram Air Base in Aghanistan sending sparks and flames higher than the tailplane (which on the C-17 is five stories high). The crash led to a three-day closure of the airfield for fixed-wing operations, as the plane came to a rest right in the middle of the airfield’s only runway, until the fully-loaded behemoth could finally be moved off the runway. A UH-60M pilot stationed at Bagram has a far more interesting account of the crash, and there is mounting opinion on a number of discussion forums that C-17 pilots are playing “cowboy” and executing hard and fast wartime landings at Bagram, which makes for dramatic flying but can lead to safety issues. As you can see from the photograph, damage to this aircraft is pretty extensive.
Crashed C-17: that'll buff right out, sir!
This isn’t the first time this kind of incident has happened at Bagram. In October a P-3 Orion crashed after overshooting the runway, and the Navy quickly relieved the Commander (who was piloting the plane) of his post. Only a week or so before this latest incident, the overshoot of a C-17 at Bagram resulted in minor damage and caused only limited disruption — but in 2005, another C-17 (tail #01-0196) was very nearly written-off after overshooting the runway, causing extensive damage (see below).
C-17 at Bagram in 2005: another fixer-upper
The 2005 crash resulted in a fairly remarkable recovery and restoration. The plane was very nearly considered for a writeoff, however it was made (barely) airworthy by Boeing technicians on the airfield and then hopscotched back to Long Beach for an extensive reconditioning. It has been flying again since the summer of 2006.
Bagram, an ex-soviet base built during that country’s (understatement) expedition in Afghanistan, is a forward operating airfield run by the US Army in a rather hotly-contested area of the country. This means that it primarily supports A-10 attack aicraft as well as the Army’s usual complement of AH-64, UH-60, and CH-47 helicopters. In 2007 an ambitious suicide bombing attack against the Bagram airfield claimed 23 dead and might have killed Dick Cheney while he was on a special morale-depleting visit. That said, a town has now built up around the airfield and the base itself is considered relatively secure.
A number of other pilots have criticized aircrews of the C-17 and other non-attack aircraft of “flying hard” and using “combat zone” landing techniques when coming into Bagram. This means landing hard, low, and fast and would certainly explain many of the overshoots. Whatever the cause, in order to mitigate the overshoots and to make the field more usable by larger aircraft, the runway was extended in 2006 after the 2005 C-17 overshoot (C-17s can land in as little as 3,500 feet, and after the 2006 lengthening Bagram’s main (and only usable) runway is 11,000 feet long). However, the overshoots have persisted.
The cautionary note on Bagram’s pilot’s briefing is pretty benign (for a combat airfield):
Ctl explosions and de-mining ops in vcnty of arpt, ATC will advise. Acft opr blw FL210 may experience a loss of rdo and/or radar ctc with Bagram ATC at dist greater than 30 NM. MPN-25 (ASR/PAR) PMI Mon-Fri 1930-2130Z. Hi potential for hydroplanning when rwy sfc is wet. Rwy in advanced state of decay, increased possibility of FOD. Avoid ovft 1/2 mile NE dep end Rwy 03, burn pit will cause inadvertent flare dispersal. tkof obstacle rwy 03 4900′ MSL ant , 599′ fr DER, 510′ leftof cntrln. Lit twr, 120′ AGL, Rwy 03 apch end 1,250 ft E of cntrln. Lit twr, 120′ AGL, 1,250 ‘ E of cntrln midfield Rwy 03/21. Poss 1/2 rwy width clsd for const, ctc App for status. Twy H btn twys B and E is 44 ft wide. Acft use inboard eng only to reduce FOD.
It goes on to warn that if the airfield is under attack, you should stay above 25,000 feet; and avoid flying below 1000 feet West of the airfield or you could get shot down by US air defenses. :)  That said, though, for a C-17 to come in to Bagram these days doesn’t seem to be particularly challenging, unless you fly over the burn pit and your anti-SAM flares go off from the heat. Baghdad’s briefing is a little more frightening.
Concerningly, the peanut gallery seems to think that this particular air crew failed to follow their checklist in the heat of .. erm .. battle and essentially forgot to deploy the landing gear. It will take some time in order to figure that out of course, but C-17s are outfitted with cockpit voice recorders and if the pilots have anything to hide, news will come out soon enough. Others have pointed out that hot-dogging it into Bagram is becoming a bit too commonplace.
The briefing above does contain a bit of a nugget, though: “use inboard eng only to reduce FOD”. In other words, pilots are instructed to run outboard engines at idle in order to prevent them from sucking in debris from the outer edges of the runway and adjacent desert (thought this might apply only to taxiing). As Global Security points out, the thrust reversers are an integral part of the C-17’s ability to land in short distances –and if pilots are coming in hot but only using inboard thrust reversers to slow down upon landing, they’ve got 50% less thrust to use in braking. That’s a problem. Maybe our most recent celebrity C-17 crew just figured the easiest way to slow down in a short distance was to retract the landing gear.
In the meantime, Canada now has 4 C-17s, designated the CC-177. If one of ours were to crash at Kandahar while the pilots were playing “Top Gun” the consequences would be disastrous to the Canadian military’s mobility, and to its budget. Both of the badly damaged C-17s hail from Charleston, South Carolina. Let’s hope that if the “hot-dogging” allegations have any merit, that our guys are a little more Formula One, and a little less NASCAR.
UPDATE: Welcome trolls from Charleston! Your comments will be approved (see below)…
UPDATE 2/22: New photos popped up last week from the night of the crash… some interesting details were revealed.
I was at Bagram in 2005 when the C-17 went off the runway. I saw the event and all of the recovery. Our squadron was even asked to aid Boeing in the “restoration.” Everyday walking the flight line to work, we would see the mammoth sitting there sadly. The runway was barely big enough for the C-130’s, and I was shocked every time I saw a C-17 take off and land. It was a simple mistake of over correction on the pilots part. One of his wheels from the landing gear slipped of the runway and he over corrected. It’s like driving a car. Your tire goes off the hard concrete and hits loose gravel. If you don’t handle the situation properly then you can loose control of the vehicle. He and his crew did every thing that they could to make the out come better. The damage could have been a hell of alot worse and lives could have been lost. I think that they deserve some credit for that, instead of the berating that the original author has given them. I have ALOT of respect for the guys who fly those planes, especially when the runway was in the bad condition that it was then. And lets add the fact that they are almost doing the impossible, in a WARZONE!
Having an FE is no guarantee one will be saved from a silly mistake. Remember the C-5 that crashed at Dover after they pulled back the thust on a good engine after shutting another one down? They had three good engines available but were only producing thrust on two. There were 2 experienced FEs on that ship and neither they nor the pilots caught what happened.
I am cruising the internet and reading up on Bagram and found this article. My husband is stationed there and is one of the pilots of a small aircraft. Is taking off and landing really that dangerous? He told me that there are no threats at all to him or the plane. Is he lying to try and make me feel better. Grrrrr, maybe I will hurt him instead when he gets home.
I was the flying crew chief on the first incident and I assure you there was no “cowboy-hotdog” stuff going on there. Like every other incident it was a matter of a culmination of events that led to the one big mishap. Number one being poor runway conditions. There were two other incidents involving a C-130 and another with a A-10 the same week we crashed due to runway conditions. As for this incident I believe perhaps the GPWS cicuit breaker was pulled and the crew did not get any warning of the impending mistake. My prayers go out to the crew because I remember not being able to sleep for months after my incident.
As a heavy airlift maintainer and avid watcher of all things aviation-crash related, I would lay 90% odds that the crew pulled the circuit breaker that “squawks” at them that the landing gear is down with throttles retarded. The airplane tells you it is in a bad configuration for landing by doing this and while annoying it is there for a reason. I do not work on the C-17 but I do work on the C-5, and I know of at least 4 or 5 other crashes of other airframes that were caused by this exact same mistake. The sad part is that the crew will likely get off with a slap on the wrist or maybe “allowed” to retire. I have seen instances in the past where enlisted maintainers were charged with negligent homicide for the maintenance equivalent, I have personally been to Bagram, and I have been aboard when aircrews push airplanes to the limit unnecessarily. I was in the intel briefs and knew the dangers by the way.
Let me tell you, If you haven’t been shot at, if you havn’t been to Bagram, or in fact havn’t been in the warzaone save it. the most vulnerable time for the aircract is during approaches and takeoffs!!! I stand with my brethren and saying you sound like an moron. There was no overshoot, everyone survived. The your friendly neighborhood CE troop!!!
1. I know nothing of this last accident at Bagram AB, but the 196 mishap had many extenuating findings and causes, including ATC communications, airfield lighting, airfield NOTAMS, and previous ambiguous and conflicting information.
2. I also have over 3,500 hours in C-141’s w/ FEs and although I love, respect, and revere them greatly, aircraft with FE’s have had mishaps too. The C-17 has an absolutely stealer Safety Record/Mishap Rate!
The hotdogging comment came from the article and refers to others as speculating about pilot actions. Being in the Aviation business for 33 years it’s always interesting how on blogs those that pretend to be pilots are always denigrating others who only try to raise issues. Who cares that someone thinks C17 pilots are hotdogging going into Bagram? Let them discuss it…..it deserves mentioning, even in a hostile zone. If I remember right, wasn’t there a B52 pilot that cared little for his crew by flicking into the infield? Those that are quick to show displeasure have no idea what CRM is really for. It’s to open your mind.
@Hap Arnold
I’ve flown the C-130J into Bagram since 2005. We’ve done AEF deployments to Bagram as well. We fly with two pilots and two loadmasters. Both MWS are designed and certified to operate with that crew manning. Crew’s are well trained for those missions too.
The fact that you called our approaches into a DESIGNATED combat zone “hotdogging” set the tone for rest of the junk that I read. We are trained and instructed to come in”that way”. There are people out there that do want to hurt us. The base gets attacked fairly frequently. As other ACTUAL AIRLIFT AVIATORS in here have said, YOU DO NOT KNOW WTF YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT!
JD: I think this article makes it pretty clear that 96-0002 landed gear-up and didn’t overshoot. Read the article (and follow a few of the links) before you roll up call me and others idiots.
As a Herk driver I have to take up for my C-17 brethren here. While forgetting to lower the gear is “unforgivable”, obviously the person writing this article has no clue about anyhting related to flying in combat. Before you classify something as “hotdogging” try to understand what it actually means to land an aircraft safely at a base where people routinely shoot at you, i.e. experience it for yourself. By the way, the airplane involved didn’t overshoot the runway, it landed gear up. Get your facts straight before you accurately portray yourself as an idiot.
P-96 was flown by doo dahs out of chs,not res. please read the report before transmit your opinion.LM
@C-17 LM
196 wasnt a chs reserve. It was active duty. read the report.
@Hap Arnold
Yeah, they have a 3rd pilot instead. Plenty of eyes, ears and expertise up front on these missions. The rest of the comments are spot on. If you haven’t flown a C-17, haven’t been to Bagram, or haven’t been privy to the Threat scenario, it would be appreciated if you leave the accident investigation to the experts. Reading what another wannabe writes in an online forum is worthless, unless you are another wannabe.
Great move by the AF not having a Flight Engineer in the cockpit. Clearly the 2 man cockpit crew is task-saturated in a “combat” environment.
P.S. The crew all survived – a point that might be missed between your sarcasm and unfounded accusations. Thank you for your in-depth analysis and expertise on an aircrew, airframe, and airfield you clearly have no personal knowledge about. Please keep in mind that the people you are mocking are doing an incredibly difficult job under incredibly difficult circumstances. They have friends and family back home who will take offense to your words. Believe me that many C-17 crew members and their families will read this article as it is now circulating through our community. Please consider retracting some of your comments.
I heard there were pictures on the internet of the latest C-17 crash so I googled C17 crash bagram and this article came up. In reading this I could tell that this article was written by someone who knows nothing about the C-17 or what landing in a combat zone is all about.
1. Bagram AB is located in a combat zone, “Complacency Kills”, we must be alert even though things may seem quite.
2. “Hot Dogging” C-17 pilots….are you kidding me? What may seem like “Hot Dogging” is how the aircraft is designed to land….go fly an actual tactical landing before calling these guys hot dogs
3. Bagram actually has 2 runways, the runway which is currently used is the new runway which opened in 2005. They never extended the old runway, it is now used primarily as a taxiway.
4. As for the number of accidents which have occurred at Bagram, one must understand there is a anomaly on approach into Bagram which has the warning “terrain”, “terrain”, “terrain”, squaking at the pilots on descent into Bagram….Don’t judge these pilot’s until you know the whole story
5. This is my last thing, C-17 01-0196’s crash in Bagram was not operated by a McChord crew, it was a reserve Charleston crew, cannot remember which squadron, who had taken off from Manas AB early in the day.
There are probablly more errors, but I am too tired to nit pick. I just am tired of people posting things which they have no idea about, especially when it concerns people who do a thankless task day in and day out.
1. Inboards only does not apply to landing, it applies to taxiing only.
2. Thrust reversers are nice for landing but not required. Bagram has plenty of runway and the C-17 has awesome brakes.
3. 196 was not an overshoot.
4. 196 was a Charleston jet but it was flown by a McChord aircrew.
5. Dick Cheney was nowhere near the suicide attack that occured while he was visiting.
6. Flying to Bagram may be commonplace but that doesn’t make it safe. The terrain and threats (chief among them midair collisions) don’t give crews much free time to cowboy around.
7. Canadian C-17 crews use fly the jet exactly the way American crews do. Don’t confuse amazing capability with playing “Top Gun”.