ANC25LA020

Shortly after becoming airborne after a touch-and-go landing, the airplane encountered wake turbulence from a Boeing C-17 Globemaster airplane that had recently departed from a parallel runway. The flight instructor, who was the pilot flying and seated in the right seat, lost airplane control, and the airplane subsequently impacted terrain, which resulted in substantial damage to the firewall, fuselage, and right wing. The flight instructor and student pilot reported that there were no pre-accident mechanical failures or malfunctions with the airplane that would have precluded normal operation. According to FAA guidance, because the location of wake turbulence is difficult to determine, the controller was not responsible for anticipating its existence or effect. The controller issued a cautionary wake turbulence advisory in accordance with FAA policy, and the flight instructor reported the C-17 in sight. The controller was not required to provide specific wake turbulence spacing. The location of the threshold of Runway 4L relative to Runway 4R would have made it difficult for the accident airplane to adhere to the wake turbulence avoidance procedures contained in the Aeronautical Information Manual (AIM), which recommend landing well before the larger airplane's rotation point and remaining above its climb path during departure.

On February 20, 2025, about 1109 Hawaii-Aleutian standard time, a Cessna 172M airplane, N19867, was substantially damaged when it was involved in an accident near Kapolei, Hawaii. The flight instructor and student pilot sustained minor injuries. The airplane was operated as a Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations Part 91 instructional flight. According to the flight instructor, after the student pilot completed six touch-and-go landings on Runway 4L at the Kalaeloa Airport (JRF), Kapolei, Hawaii, the flight instructor took control of the airplane while on downwind to demonstrate a power-off, 180° landing on Runway 4L and requested a short approach from the tower controller. As the instructor maneuvered the airplane from downwind, to base leg, and then to final approach, he said he heard the tower controller clear a Boeing C-17 Globemaster airplane for takeoff on Runway 4R. The flight instructor reported that after touchdown on Runway 4L, he retracted the flaps and began another takeoff. As the airplane passed through about 100 ft above ground level (agl), the airplane rolled abruptly to the left and the nose of the airplane pitched down sharply. The flight instructor said he was able to level the wings and partially arrest the rapid descent just before the main landing gear wheels struck the surface of an adjacent taxiway, after which the airplane bounced back into the air. During the impact, the airplane’s windshield shattered, which in turn removed the flight instructor’s headset. As the airplane became airborne again, and to avoid a collision with a building and a stand of trees, the flight instructor chose to go around. During the go-around, the flight instructor told the student pilot to declare an emergency and prepare for an emergency landing. The flight instructor subsequently landed the airplane on Runway 22R. Postaccident examination of the airplane revealed substantial damage to the right wing and fuselage. JRF parallel runways 4L and 4R have a centerline spacing of about 625 ft, and the Runway 4L threshold is offset about 3,500 ft northeast of the Runway 4R threshold (see figure). Figure. Excerpt from JRF airport diagram showing runway configuration (Source: FAA). FAA order JO 7110.65BB (Air Traffic Control), section 3-9-7 (Wake Turbulence Separation for Intersection Departures), subparagraph (a) 4, instructed controllers to “separate aircraft departing from…parallel runways separated by less than 2,500 feet with the runway thresholds offset by 500 feet or more, by ensuring that the aircraft does not start take-off roll until the following intervals exist after the preceding aircraft has taken off…(b) heavy, large, or small behind heavy – 3 minutes.” For the purposes of this order, the Boeing C-17 was categorized as a heavy aircraft, and the Cessna 172 was categorized as a small aircraft. The order notes that “aircraft conducting touch-and-go and stop-and-go operations are considered to be departing from an intersection.” FAA order JO7110.65BB clarifies that the time interval between successive departures is not required when “successive touch-and-go or stop-and-go operations are conducted with any aircraft following an aircraft in the pattern that requires wake turbulence separation, or an aircraft departing the same runway that requires wake turbulence separation in accordance with subparagraphs (a) 1, (a) 2, (a) 3, or (a) 4 (except super aircraft), provided the pilot is maintaining visual separation/spacing behind the preceding aircraft.” In these situations, controllers are to “issue a wake turbulence cautionary advisory and the position of the larger aircraft.” FAA order JO 7110.126B (Consolidated Wake Turbulence) notes that “because the location of wake turbulence is difficult to determine, the controller is not responsible for anticipating its existence or effect.” According to the flight instructor and air traffic control communications records, after the flight instructor requested a short approach, the tower controller advised the flight crew of the Cessna 172 about a heavy C-17 departing the parallel runway and to report the traffic in sight. The controller then approved the short approach, issued a wake turbulence advisory for the C-17 departing runway 4R, issued the current wind, and cleared the Cessna 172 for a touch-and-go on runway 4L. The flight instructor acknowledged the touch-and-go clearance and reported the C-17 in sight.