I did flight test on the C-17 out of Kelly AFB years ago, which included multiple touch and goes as well as a tactical decent. That was not a tactical decent, their is no mistaking when they deploy the thrust reverses in flight! The C-17 has huge flaps, that slow it right down, while providing plenty of lift. They simply had flaps deployed and made a series of turns to bleed off altitude sufficient enough to land. Being a high wing aircraft the C-17 doesn't get the same kind of ground effect cushioning during landing like a typical low wing commercial aircraft gets. On top of that the main landing gear are a completely different design intended for very heavy loads. Very nice approach and landing!
Guys.....that 's insane. How did u manage to lose so much altitude in such a short time.........without using reversers in the air????????????????? I flew the B747, and there were no way we could even think to land , looking at how close was the threshold , not withstanding the high altitude. UNBELIEVABLE .....................What a great platform Cheers from France.👍
Assault landings like this target a 360 fpm descent rate at touchdown. Touching down harder eats up a lot of your excess energy in strut compression, etc which reduces your landing distance (the goal of assault landings).
Tactical/assault landings for the c-17 are about a 5 degree glideslope. with 120-130 knot approach speeds at full flaps that gives us about a 1000 fpm descent rate on glide path. Full flaps puts the C-17 into the backside power regime, so at 50-100 feet (depending on weight) the pilots will flare with a power push, looking for about a 360 fpm touchdown.
Alexander Nelson Thanks Alexander........... Very impressive stuff. Was used to flying a 747-8 freighter, and the max glide angle allowed was 3,5°........ and that 747 was REALLY hard to slow down. Cheers from France and god bless u .
Carl Alexander one of our instructors today said the 17 needs some additional boldface. Got to practice the ole APU fire scenario and we did it just like boldface, and when we checked the checklist, it was just those two steps anyways, so it might as well be boldface?
@@TheMarioMen1 I appreciate your addressing me for this, but please route your flight and/or maintenance manual improvement suggestions through the appropriate AF Form 847 and AFTO Form 22 channels. The suggestions will get better visibility and vetting in the C-17 ops/mx/engineering community than CZcams suggestions. More users will get the benefits of your experience and wisdom. Thanks and keep the Moose flying!
Reading the comments, for you guys , it's just business as usual.for sissy airline pilots , the angle of bank ( for us ...more than 25 °...triggers a SESMA, then u have tea and biscuits with the chief pilot in ur hotel room at night) looks just mad......but really cool. You lucky guys!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! God bless u
Certainly NOT a "tactical" landing, a "look-see" and then a very easy banking turn into final, from what looked like a rather tyro pilot! If you wish to get technical, everything the military does is "tactical" but this was a simple practice landing.
Pilots are always clicking a hundred different buttons...can't they just make a "smart" cockpit that only has a yoke and thrust control? Just eliminate all that noise "click" "click" "click" "tappity tap" "click" "tap" "tap" "click" "tap" "clickity click" "tap" "tap" "click" "tap tap tap" "click" "tappity tap" "click"
BTheShaman by switches do you mean the pilot pressing the switches or? If so, that's not entirely true, the only problem computers have compared to humans is their lack of thought process and danger/panic, and it doesn't make what are called human decisions g
I did flight test on the C-17 out of Kelly AFB years ago, which included multiple touch and goes as well as a tactical decent. That was not a tactical decent, their is no mistaking when they deploy the thrust reverses in flight! The C-17 has huge flaps, that slow it right down, while providing plenty of lift. They simply had flaps deployed and made a series of turns to bleed off altitude sufficient enough to land. Being a high wing aircraft the C-17 doesn't get the same kind of ground effect cushioning during landing like a typical low wing commercial aircraft gets. On top of that the main landing gear are a completely different design intended for very heavy loads. Very nice approach and landing!
NGL, the first half of this looks like me trying to find a parking spot during the Christmas shopping season.
Those C-17s make some hard ass banks
There are flying into KRAL appears to be on a Friday Afternoon practicing for the Riverside Airshow.
They must have been wearing their tactical turtle necks (tactle necks).
Guys.....that 's insane.
How did u manage to lose so much altitude in such a short time.........without using reversers in the air?????????????????
I flew the B747, and there were no way we could even think to land , looking at how close was the threshold , not withstanding the high altitude.
UNBELIEVABLE .....................What a great platform
Cheers from France.👍
Hit The Deck Hard. Any landing is a good landing.
Assault landings like this target a 360 fpm descent rate at touchdown. Touching down harder eats up a lot of your excess energy in strut compression, etc which reduces your landing distance (the goal of assault landings).
Seemed like it took a little longer than a normal tactical landing.
Got carried away....
You did a left hand circuit............☺️
Still cool.great reliable Boeing.
Pretty smooth by military standard.
Awesome!!
Tic-tacal landing... Mmmm... minty.
Never mind practise landings. practise focusing the camera.
Ahh tactical landing...thats what Ryanairs do..now i know
is my sound bad or is this a glider?
Thats a C130 with advanced pusher props.
What is the cameraman really showing??
What was your ROD ????????????????????????
Tactical/assault landings for the c-17 are about a 5 degree glideslope. with 120-130 knot approach speeds at full flaps that gives us about a 1000 fpm descent rate on glide path. Full flaps puts the C-17 into the backside power regime, so at 50-100 feet (depending on weight) the pilots will flare with a power push, looking for about a 360 fpm touchdown.
Alexander Nelson
Thanks Alexander...........
Very impressive stuff.
Was used to flying a 747-8 freighter, and the max glide angle allowed was 3,5°........ and that 747 was REALLY hard to slow down.
Cheers from France and god bless u .
@@ltcworf16 Great answer. You remember your training well!
From your friendly neighborhood C-17 Flight Manual writer.
Carl Alexander one of our instructors today said the 17 needs some additional boldface. Got to practice the ole APU fire scenario and we did it just like boldface, and when we checked the checklist, it was just those two steps anyways, so it might as well be boldface?
@@TheMarioMen1 I appreciate your addressing me for this, but please route your flight and/or maintenance manual improvement suggestions through the appropriate AF Form 847 and AFTO Form 22 channels. The suggestions will get better visibility and vetting in the C-17 ops/mx/engineering community than CZcams suggestions. More users will get the benefits of your experience and wisdom. Thanks and keep the Moose flying!
Man those c17 are noisy
For a c 17 it is a tactical landing.
If it was that bumpy landing on a paved runway, I'd hate to see what a unpaved runway is like!
Reading the comments, for you guys , it's just business as usual.for sissy airline pilots , the angle of bank ( for us ...more than 25 °...triggers a SESMA, then u have tea and biscuits with the chief pilot in ur hotel room at night) looks just mad......but really cool.
You lucky guys!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
God bless u
badass
Would have been a perfect landing...if there was a carrier and an arrestor cable involved.
Not a tac landing!
I've seen them fly over the threshold then circle to land.
Certainly NOT a "tactical" landing, a "look-see" and then a very easy banking turn into final, from what looked like a rather tyro pilot! If you wish to get technical, everything the military does is "tactical" but this was a simple practice landing.
Pilots are always clicking a hundred different buttons...can't they just make a "smart" cockpit that only has a yoke and thrust control? Just eliminate all that noise "click" "click" "click" "tappity tap" "click" "tap" "tap" "click" "tap" "clickity click" "tap" "tap" "click" "tap tap tap" "click" "tappity tap" "click"
Peter Griffin agreed, it is nice to have human control, computers can't make decisions that humans can in a life or death situation
They do!!! Its called a j-3 cub
Peter Griffin switches are more reliable than computers. He'll always be switches in cockpits
BTheShaman by switches do you mean the pilot pressing the switches or? If so, that's not entirely true, the only problem computers have compared to humans is their lack of thought process and danger/panic, and it doesn't make what are called human decisions g
Definitely NOT a tactical landing
Yes it was. You don’t know a thing about the aircraft.
Nice landing, but not an assault / tactical. No assault zone marked...
i dont think its tactical...very ordinary landing tho
there a bunch of fools
Far from a tactical landing.