Can a civilian aircraft in distress land at a military airport?

[Just a civilian pilot]

Joint base Charleston (Air Force and Navy) share two runways with the civilian Charleston Airport.

I do not know the rules, but our military is controlled by elected civilian leadership. If someone landed a plane in distress on a military runway and then complied with all commands while it was determined they were not a threat, I would have a giant issue as a citizen if any harm came to them while in Military control. In fact as a taxpayer, I would expect the military to render all needed aid, because that is what decent people do. "We the people" are in charge here. Its what differentiates us from our enemies.

Very well said.

 

[Astro14]

@Astro14, what would happen if you crashed and destroyed your disabled military jet rather than land at a highly restricted base? (Assuming you ejected and survived.) Would landing and saving a $100 million dollar jet cut any slack? Of course you could crash it on the base attempting a landing. Off original subject but you brought up how serious security is at some bases. Thanks

Would you crash your airliner in the desert rather than land at Area 51?

Not being silly, this is something civilians have no knowledge of at all..

Life, and aviation, are never that simple. They aren’t binary.

“Land at Area 51 or crash in desert” isn’t a real choice, and it isn’t a realistic scenario.

You would not being flying a commercial airliner through the MOA that surrounds Area 51 because that is both illegal and dangerous in the first place.

So you would not be in a position to make that choice, unless you had already made several mistakes, and already hazarded the airplane.

Security is very serious at some places, that is an important point in answering the OP question, but this question that you pose is just unrealistic.

 

[Astro14]

Joint base Charleston (Air Force and Navy) share two runways with the civilian Charleston Airport.

I do not know the rules, but our military is controlled by elected civilian leadership. If someone landed a plane in distress on a military runway and then complied with all commands while it was determined they were not a threat, I would have a giant issue as a citizen if any harm came to them while in Military control. In fact as a taxpayer, I would expect the military to render all needed aid, because that is what decent people do. "We the people" are in charge here. Its what differentiates us from our enemies.

That’s not how it works and that is not what I said.

I mentioned Colorado Springs - joint use. No problem bringing your emergency airplane in there. No problem with Charleston, either.

It’s not high security.

They would render all needed aid.

 

[Astro14]

The pilots noticed smoke in the cockpit 2 minutes after noticing an unusual smell and waited two additional minutes before diverting to Halifax. There were 66 track miles from Halifax when they first saw smoke visible. They decided to put their oxygen mask on.

Rather than land ASAP realizing this, they started dumping fuel and lost the auto pilot ( they had to know it was related to the smell/smoke previously noticed ) and asked to fly a block altitude. 1 minute later, they finally declared a Mayday. That was 10 minutes after they first saw brief smoke in the cockpit.

From there he time they lost the autopilot and eventually declared the Mayday, they flew further , not closer, to the airport.

Sources who have heard the CVR said there was disagreement between the FO and CA about following procedures ( fuel dump, air conditioning smoke ) and the FO wanted to land ASAP.

Even back when this accident happened, regardless what he checklist said , it’s always the Captains prerogative to land ASAP.

Sorry, they should have diverted as soon as they saw smoke and landed overweight.

The weather was good, they didn’t even need the approach charts for the LOC BC as ATC could have cleared them down to the MSA and follow the PAPI once on final.

They saw smoke 66 miles out, not just when dumping fuel.

They decided to declare the mayday when fire started in the cockpit and they started losing systems but it was too late by then.

https://www.tampabay.com/archive/1999/01/22/before-crash-swissair-pilots-disagreed-over-what-to-do/

https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Flight-path-of-Swissair-Flight-111-Taken-from-13_fig1_224087464

https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Swissair-111-trajectory-reconstruction_fig5_280853422

View attachment 278817

They waited 2 minutes, and then 2 minutes again.

I’ve watched real crews under stress, I am actually a check airman, and evaluator, and 2 minutes is a very short time.

I read this accident report when it came out, decades ago.

It is as much a story of kapton wiring, putting an entertainment system on the essential bus where it couldn’t be shut off, using circuit breakers as switches and changing their trip characteristics, and cutting holes in bulkheads meant to stop fire, as it is a story of crew decisions.

All of those other factors led to an uncontrollable fire.

This crew reacted as quickly as most would.

Monday morning quarterbacks like to think that they would do better, but from first smell to impact was not very long, and taking a couple minutes to sort out what was wrong is not the “mistake” that everyone likes to think it is. That was a reasonable reaction to the problem presented.

An airplane that is certified to cross an ocean, by any reasonable standard, should not crash 20 minutes after a short. Most of this flight would have been a couple of HOURS from an airport.

So, while everyone criticizes (unfairly) the decisions of the crew, had they been on the NAT tracks, where they were filed to fly, they would not have made it to any airport no matter how quickly they reacted, because that airplane was doomed by the modifications and operating practices (bad wiring, circuit breakers, hole in the firewall, unable to remove power from the fire).

 

[Astro14]

Well aware of that.

But if I am flying and some extreme emergency requires an immediate landing, and the closest airport is a military airport, I am going to land.

I am o.k going to jail or having guns pointed at me and will deal with the consequences later.

Swiss air 111 thought they were doing the right thing delaying the landing and we know how that turned out. They are all dead.

I am talking about an extreme, life or death emergency.

If I was a check pilot and doing an upgrade evaluation on a pilot upgrading to CA and they decided they didn't want to get in trouble and overflew a military installation , I would fail them.

A country should be protecting people, not punishing them for trying to save lives.

But you’re not a check pilot.

A real check pilot wouldn’t set up such a specious and simple strawman scenario and threaten a crew with failure. That isn’t how real checking, training, or type rating is done. That scenario is one-dimensional and unrealistic. You talk about “a military” installation, and I never said you could not land at “a military” installation, I simply said that some were different. Not all. Just a few.

So, sure, land at a military installation, if you need to. If they have an ILS you can fly (most Navy/USMC bases won’t).

You don’t have charts for some of the places I am talking about - so you wouldn’t be ABLE to choose them at night, or in IMC. If you don’t know the places I am talking about, then you couldn’t know how to get there and they are not an option for you.

So spare us the bravado about how you would “face guns” because that isn’t going to happen to you in commercial flying - you aren’t going to blunder into a high security area because you would never have been flight planned near it in the first place - but it is important context in answering the original post because that mistake has been made by pilots and the original post was broad.

IF you landed at a USAF or USN base, likely, all you will face is a bill for the fuel. They will want to get paid for the JP they pumped into your airplane. They also probably won’t have passenger terminal, amenities, or even a jet bridge. Not a big deal, but a consideration.

Setting up a silly one dimensional choice - “land at this restricted place or fail” isn’t how the world works and isn’t how aviation and checking work.

Complex choices - three different airports, with three runway lengths, different runway conditions, different approaches, and different weather and you have a dual hydraulic failure - is a much better assessment of how a crew makes decisions. That is realism. That is checking. That is evaluation of pilot performance.

Options like yours in the post above - “Fly over the P56/White House or crash” “Go through that thunderstorm to get to the nearest airport or I will fail you” are internet-stupid option sets, bullying, even, not a realistic assessment of crew performance.

Life isn’t that simple and neither is aviation.

I’ll leave the political swipe at the end unanswered because it doesn’t deserve an answer.

 

[Just a civilian pilot]

They waited 2 minutes, and then 2 minutes again.

I’ve watched real crews under stress, I am actually a check airman, and evaluator, and 2 minutes is a very short time.

I read this accident report when it came out, decades ago.

It is as much a story of kapton wiring, putting an entertainment system on the essential bus where it couldn’t be shut off, using circuit breakers as switches and changing their trip characteristics, and cutting holes in bulkheads meant to stop fire, as it is a story of crew decisions.

All of those other factors led to an uncontrollable fire.

This crew reacted as quickly as most would.

Monday morning quarterbacks like to think that they would do better, but from first smell to impact was not very long, and taking a couple minutes to sort out what was wrong is not the “mistake” that everyone likes to think it is. That was a reasonable reaction to the problem presented.

An airplane that is certified to cross an ocean, by any reasonable standard, should not crash 20 minutes after a short. Most of this flight would have been a couple of HOURS from an airport.

So, while everyone criticizes (unfairly) the decisions of the crew, had they been on the NAT tracks, where they were filed to fly, they would not have made it to any airport no matter how quickly they reacted, because that airplane was doomed by the modifications and operating practices (bad wiring, circuit breakers, hole in the firewall, unable to remove power from the fire).

I have been flying a long time, I also see pilots under stress ( I used to train ) and some have failed upgrades taking too long to return when dealing with time critical emergencies ( like smoke in the plane ).

I do not agree it was a reasonable response given they saw smoke. Just an odour, back then ( todays checklist say to LAND ASAP even if just a strange odour if you don’t know where it’s coming from ).

2 minutes is a lot of time when dealing with smoke in the cockpit. That’s 15 miles flying distance and when your only 66 miles from an airport, it makes a difference.

They weren’t a couple of hours out over the ocean, they were 66 miles from an airport.

The FO ( part of the crew ) wanted to land ASAP but the Captain wanted to take more time.

It’s not Monday morning quarterbacking, it’s learning from accidents.

Another mistake would be flying past airports, today, because pilots are worried about getting into trouble.

Land.

While it might not be realistic to land in Area 51, it was an example to prove a point.

There have been a few unrealistic landings like landing in the Hudson, on a drag strip in Winnipeg ( former small airport ….no charts ) or gliding to an island in the Azores.

Let the airline, pilot union, politicians deal with it after if it’s an unauthorized place.

FAA says a fire may become uncontrollable within 10 minutes and to never ignore an odour. Crews may have less than 15-20 minutes to land.

https://www.tampabay.com/archive/1999/01/22/before-crash-swissair-pilots-disagreed-over-what-to-do/

 

[SC Maintenance]

That’s not how it works and that is not what I said.

I mentioned Colorado Springs - joint use. No problem bringing your emergency airplane in there. No problem with Charleston, either.

It’s not high security.

They would render all needed aid.

I didn't say you did, and I did not reply to you. My comment was a generic response to this thread.

If a airplane in stress cannot make an emergency landing on a military airstrip, on US soil, - secure or not, then the system is broken. Glad to hear from a non-civilian this is in fact the case.

 

[Expendable]

You live in a country without special weapons and/or highly classified operations.

There are places where that emergency declaration will not grant you immunity from the consequences of landing at that base though the heads up will mitigate some of the negative consequences.

I’m quite serious.

You do what you think you need to do, but there will be consequences at those few installations.

Placed under arrest, detained and debriefed.

An F-14 crew had a hydraulic failure and landed at one of those places. I’m omitting dates and location out of concern for OPSEC. They had been briefed not to land there but their flight manual said “land as soon as possible”.

They were detained at gunpoint.

When they were released, days later, they deeply regretted playing the “emergency declaration” card. It did not go well for them, and they had security clearance.

It took two weeks for the installation to be sufficiently sanitized to allow maintenance crews access to fix the airplane and fly it out. They, too, were carefully watched and debriefed.

This place won’t have charts that you could use anyway, so it’s unlikely you would ever have the opportunity to make that mistake.

But landing there would be a mistake, and you would most certainly experience “a problem”.

I worked at a facility in the Nevada desert similar to this in the late 80's early 90's, an Air Force F-16 performed an emergency landing, the pilot was met by security a black hood placed over his head while he was escorted to somewhere secure.

So yes it does happen but I will say some of the security police go a little too far, I've seen numerous Airmen thrown to the ground and an M16 to the head just for crossing onto the flight line in the wrong location, Air Force security police live for just such an occasion.

 

[Just a civilian pilot]

But you’re not a check pilot.

A real check pilot wouldn’t set up such a specious and simple strawman scenario and threaten a crew with failure. That isn’t how real checking, training, or type rating is done. That scenario is one-dimensional and unrealistic. You talk about “a military” installation, and I never said you could not land at “a military” installation, I simply said that some were different. Not all. Just a few.

So, sure, land at a military installation, if you need to. If they have an ILS you can fly (most Navy/USMC bases won’t).

You don’t have charts for some of the places I am talking about - so you wouldn’t be ABLE to choose them at night, or in IMC. If you don’t know the places I am talking about, then you couldn’t know how to get there and they are not an option for you.

So spare us the bravado about how you would “face guns” because that isn’t going to happen to you in commercial flying - you aren’t going to blunder into a high security area because you would never have been flight planned near it in the first place - but it is important context in answering the original post because that mistake has been made by pilots and the original post was broad.

IF you landed at a USAF or USN base, likely, all you will face is a bill for the fuel. They will want to get paid for the JP they pumped into your airplane. They also probably won’t have passenger terminal, amenities, or even a jet bridge. Not a big deal, but a consideration.

Setting up a silly one dimensional choice - “land at this restricted place or fail” isn’t how the world works and isn’t how aviation and checking work.

Complex choices - three different airports, with three runway lengths, different runway conditions, different approaches, and different weather and you have a dual hydraulic failure - is a much better assessment of how a crew makes decisions. That is realism. That is checking. That is evaluation of pilot performance.

Options like yours in the post above - “Fly over the P56/White House or crash” “Go through that thunderstorm to get to the nearest airport or I will fail you” are internet-stupid option sets, bullying, even, not a realistic assessment of crew performance.

Life isn’t that simple and neither is aviation.

I’ll leave the political swipe at the end unanswered because it doesn’t deserve an answer.

Astro,

Being a check pilot doesn’t mean they have better Judgement than any experienced line pilot.

Airlines come up with very creative, highly unusual, “ what if “ scenarios to test a prospective new Captains judgement, I hear the crazy, unrealistic scenarios a lot.

Don’t lecture me about unrealistic scenarios given what I hear and how some check pilots fail people when they don’t handle them well.

The ones who fail aren’t being bullied. They proved they don’t have the required judgement.

 

[Albin]

As part of the Boeing Aerospace Company's liaison with the Kent WA K-12 program, I went on a tour of the Bangor Submarine Base at Bangor WA during the late 80's. We were driven around the base by some Navy PR guy who told us stories about the base.

One of them being an older couple who accidentally landed on the base during a foggy night. They thought they were landing at the nearby Bremerton airport, which is about 15 miles to the SSW. Instead, they landed on Bangor's Nuclear Weapons storage site - where according to GE's Community Notes:

"The ballistic missile submarine base at Bangor, Washington, contains nearly 24 percent of the entire stockpile, or some 2,364 [nuclear] warheads, the largest contingent."

According to the PR guy, the airplane was surrounded by about 30 US Marines before it ever came to a stop. Not long after, two F-15s (or F-16's) from McCord AFB flew screaming on afterburners over the site. The USAF probably had to pay for some broken windows near Tacoma after that.

I would imagine that was a very exciting few minutes before things settled down.

 

[Just a civilian pilot]

I didn't say you did, and I did not reply to you. My comment was a generic response to this thread.

If an airplane in stress cannot make an emergency landing on a military airstrip, on US soil, - secure or not, then the system is broken. Glad to hear from a non-civilian this is in fact the case.

It’s not the only thing broken.

 

[Pew]

Joint base Charleston (Air Force and Navy) share two runways with the civilian Charleston Airport.

I do not know the rules, but our military is controlled by elected civilian leadership. If someone landed a plane in distress on a military runway and then complied with all commands while it was determined they were not a threat, I would have a giant issue as a citizen if any harm came to them while in Military control. In fact as a taxpayer, I would expect the military to render all needed aid, because that is what decent people do. "We the people" are in charge here. Its what differentiates us from our enemies.

TBF, the MPs will pull you over if you're doing 3mph over the limit at 4am with nobody else around.

 

[E365]

Related: I fly to Anchorage occasionally at my airline and we sometimes have Elmendorf Air Force base as a listed alternate airport. Must be some sort of agreement with the airlines when the weather is bad at normal alternates, like Fairbanks or Kenai.

 

[y_p_w]

Exactly, they are ruled by civilian elected politicians who won’t put up with airline pilots being locked up or guns pointed at them , and passengers, for simply using their brains and doing what’s required to keep citizens safe who happen to be on that flight.

If Air Force One can land anywhere in an emergency, so too can hundreds of patriotic citizens in a civilian passenger plane when dealing with an extreme emergency.

Choose wisely before thinking about pointing guns or locking the Captain up.

Now if in China, good luck.

If that’s Groom Lake Airport, good luck.

 

[y_p_w]

TBF, the MPs will pull you over if you're doing 3mph over the limit at 4am with nobody else around.

Depends. This guy was chased by a California Highway Patrol helicopter and nobody stopped him. They tried calling base security but only had outdated phone numbers. They managed to fly over, land, and survey the scene. I think they got better contact info later. But the infrared video is really good.



The passenger’s death was rather gruesome. It apparently damaged the horizontal stabilizer of a Super Hornet, which sliced through the Jeep. The video also shows a landing while this is all going on.

https://abc30.com/fatal-crash-lemoore-nas-naval-air-station/1270233/

 

[SC Maintenance]

TBF, the MPs will pull you over if you're doing 3mph over the limit at 4am with nobody else around.

So I have been told.

Since this thread is sort of bizarro to begin with - a question. Assuming you did land emergency land where they did not want you to - with what would they charge you? UCMJ does not apply to civilians. At best they can detain you and turn you over to civilian authorities at the earliest convenience. Trespass? Do you really think any prosecutor would file that one, or any judge would find probable cause?

 

[y_p_w]

So I have been told.

Since this thread is sort of bizarro to begin with - a question. Assuming you did land emergency land where they did not want you to - with what would they charge you? UCMJ does not apply to civilians. At best they can detain you and turn you over to civilian authorities at the earliest convenience. Trespass? Do you really think any prosecutor would file that one, or any judge would find probable cause?

There are laws on civilians trespassing on federal government property where they have no authorization. Also for military installations, although there might be more severe laws relating to more sensitive areas.

https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg.../USCODE-2011-title18-partI-chap67-sec1382.htm​

§1382. Entering military, naval, or Coast Guard property​

Whoever, within the jurisdiction of the United States, goes upon any military, naval, or Coast Guard reservation, post, fort, arsenal, yard, station, or installation, for any purpose prohibited by law or lawful regulation; or​

​

Whoever reenters or is found within any such reservation, post, fort, arsenal, yard, station, or installation, after having been removed therefrom or ordered not to reenter by any officer or person in command or charge thereof—​

​

Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than six months, or both.​

 

[SC Maintenance]

Whoever reenters or is found within any such reservation, post, fort, arsenal, yard, station, or installation, after having been removed therefrom or ordered not to reenter

Good find!!

Yes its a form of trespass. Its also specific that you have to "re-enter" after being told to leave, so a singular emergency landing wouldn't even count. Its also a civilian law so requires a civilian prosecutor to file and someone needs to hand out an indictment (judge or grand jury) before you can even be tried.

I think if you crash landed your saucer in Area 51 there isn't much they could do other than expedite you off the property and tell you not to come back?

 

[y_p_w]

Good find!!

Yes its a form of trespass. Its also specific that you have to "re-enter" after being told to leave, so a singular emergency landing wouldn't even count. Its also a civilian law so requires a civilian prosecutor to file and someone needs to hand out an indictment (judge or grand jury) before you can even be tried.

I think if you crash landed in Area 51 there isn't much they could do other than expedite you off the property and tell you not to come back?

It's "goes upon" or "reenter". So I suppose there doesn't need to be a second time.

I know when I was at an public airshow on a military base where jets were cordoned off along with armed guards, getting past the rope would probably meet the "goes upon" definition. ACtually I would think they would have shot me if I had tried running towards the B-2 on display.

I would think there are probably a lot more laws. This was just the first one that I could find.

 

[SC Maintenance]

It's "goes upon" or "reenter". So I suppose there doesn't need to be a second time.

I know when I was at an public airshow on a military base where jets were cordoned off along with armed guards, getting past the rope would probably meet the "goes upon" definition. ACtually I would think they would have shot me if I had tried running towards the B-2 on display.

I would think there are probably a lot more laws. This was just the first one that I could find.

Yes, trespass law is pretty well defined.

If you walk past a "no trespassing" sign, or cross a fence clearly designed to keep people out, then you have "been warned" already. There doesn't need to be a re-enter.

The question is - if you came from the air, in an emergency, there is no sign or fence in the sky? What would the judge infer? I think they would let it slide. Maybe I am wrong?