RAF C17 daring landing at Juba, South Sudan
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2001
Posts: 285
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RAF C17 daring landing at Juba, South Sudan
At Juba Airport, South Sudan, on last Thurday a Nova Airlines B737 had a nose gear collapse after landing. The aircraft came to a halt at about 2/3 of the length of the runway.
Very bad timing for a crash as lots of foreigners were scheduled to be evacuated out of Juba because of the recent violence.
This story below suggests a RAF C17 landed at the runway while the Nova Air B737 was still on the runway.
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/r...om-south-sudan
In another article it was said that the Nova Air aircraft was removed at the last minute from the runway but was still dangerously close to it.
RAF plane drama in South Sudan evacuation - ITV News
Very bad timing for a crash as lots of foreigners were scheduled to be evacuated out of Juba because of the recent violence.
This story below suggests a RAF C17 landed at the runway while the Nova Air B737 was still on the runway.
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/r...om-south-sudan
In another article it was said that the Nova Air aircraft was removed at the last minute from the runway but was still dangerously close to it.
RAF plane drama in South Sudan evacuation - ITV News
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Between a rock and a hard place
Posts: 51
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Who would you believe - the Sqn boss who spoke to the crew directly, or an uninformed civilian with journalistic bents speaking in absolutes...?
The truth is out there.
The truth is out there.
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Alaska, PNG, etc.
Age: 60
Posts: 1,550
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I don't know what actually happened, but throwing some numbers out there:
the runway at 7874 ft long. If the 737 stopped 2/3 of the way down, that would be 5250 ft of runway.
According to this webpage the C-17 can land in 3000 ft with 160,000 lb of cargo aboard. That would be 57% of the available runway. US part 121 only requires that an airliner is able to land in 60 percent of the available runway (70% at a filed alternate). My current airline (and my previous airline) has an exemption for 80%, which we use frequently.
Add to that the fact that they almost certainly were not carrying 160,000 lb (72,500 kg for those of you still clinging that obsolete fashioned metric system) of cargo. Fuel load is anyone's guess, but it's worth noting that they went form there to Entebbee which is about 550 km away, so didn't necessarily have a lot of fuel on board.
FOr further consideration is the fact that about a year and a half ago a C-17 landed on a 3400 ft runway at Peter O knight airport in Tampa, Florida, thinking it was MacDill AFB
Soooo, it would certainly be *possible* to land a C-17 on the runway at Juba with a disabled 737 2/3 of the way down, and you'd still have a considerable safety margin.
the runway at 7874 ft long. If the 737 stopped 2/3 of the way down, that would be 5250 ft of runway.
According to this webpage the C-17 can land in 3000 ft with 160,000 lb of cargo aboard. That would be 57% of the available runway. US part 121 only requires that an airliner is able to land in 60 percent of the available runway (70% at a filed alternate). My current airline (and my previous airline) has an exemption for 80%, which we use frequently.
Add to that the fact that they almost certainly were not carrying 160,000 lb (72,500 kg for those of you still clinging that obsolete fashioned metric system) of cargo. Fuel load is anyone's guess, but it's worth noting that they went form there to Entebbee which is about 550 km away, so didn't necessarily have a lot of fuel on board.
FOr further consideration is the fact that about a year and a half ago a C-17 landed on a 3400 ft runway at Peter O knight airport in Tampa, Florida, thinking it was MacDill AFB
Soooo, it would certainly be *possible* to land a C-17 on the runway at Juba with a disabled 737 2/3 of the way down, and you'd still have a considerable safety margin.
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: yes
Posts: 62
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not so daring really.
B707's were landed there at MLW ++ and I have seen them stop well within the distance speculated. Get it down on the numbers, full reverse and keep the nose high and "fly the nose wheel on" at the last moment. You would be amazed what can be can be achieved.
So it shouldn't be too big a problem with a lightly loaded "STOL" military transport.
B707's were landed there at MLW ++ and I have seen them stop well within the distance speculated. Get it down on the numbers, full reverse and keep the nose high and "fly the nose wheel on" at the last moment. You would be amazed what can be can be achieved.
So it shouldn't be too big a problem with a lightly loaded "STOL" military transport.
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 2,584
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jesus, what a thread! Aren't "daring" - ie "tactical"or "operational" landings what the RAF are there for?
They aren't some
stealth'n pastry pansy civvy outfit you know!
Bejasus! Enough to make you weep.
Bravo Zulu, Crabs!!! And I mean that.
They aren't some
stealth'n pastry pansy civvy outfit you know!Bejasus! Enough to make you weep.
Bravo Zulu, Crabs!!! And I mean that.
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Seattle
Posts: 22
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not even challenging for a C-17. 5 degree glide path, assault procedures (500ft landing zone) 2500 ft rollout, usually much less. Immediate GOAT if needed (go around after touchdown, nose never touches)
