From the "Ryanair- stranger than fiction" file...

[MOR]

Well, there I was, walking into work at EDI. I was walking past stand 1B, which as any EDI regular will know is at the end of the cul-de-sac and the stand that Ryanair generally park on- must be the cheapest.

As I walked by, I spied a Ryanair 737 entering the cul-de-sac. It was travelling pretty quickly- as usual- and making a hell of a lot of noise. This was probably because it had its reversers deployed and was using a fair amount of power to get some retardation. I was really starting to wonder if it had lost all wheel braking and was just about to impale itself on the blast fence... but no, it turned left smartly and once again deployed its reverser buckets to slow its arrival onto its stand.

Maybe it is a new Ryanair ploy to save money on brake packs.

Whatever the reason, being a 200 it was making a s*itload of noise using reverse, never mind the blast effect from the reversers, which was picking up loose stuff on the stand and hurling it at the ground crew.

And there I was, thinking reversers are supposed to be used to slow you down on the [B]runway[\B]...

Anyone from Ryanair care to comment on this new procedure?

[MD11FAN]

Never seen this in 31 years of visiting UK airports; a unique Ryanair s.o.p. ?

[My names Turkish]

BOOOOOORRRRRIIIIIIIIIINNNNNNNNNGGGGGGGGG!!!!!!!!!!!!

This has been done to death before, use the search function:

http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=83770&highlight=ryanair+why+so+fast

http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=43977&highlight=ryanair+why+so+fast

http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=95281&highlight=ryanair+taxi+why+so+fast

All different threads, wonder why links look the same?

Bored to death with all the heffing moaning about Ryanair, let it go!

NEXT!

[airbourne]

Ah now, hang on. It may not be boring, as we havnt had a Ryanair bashing thread in ............ almost 2 hours now!! :ok:

[Jet A1]

Well......When flying into DUB last week on a rusting (possibly a few scratches too) 732 it was nice to be shown a flap 15 glide approach and landing ! :sad:

Greased it on though ! :ok:

:ouch:

[MOR]

He he he, spot all the over-sensitive Ryanair pilots/supporters/hangers-on... ;)

The more intelligent amongst you would have noticed that it wasn't so much Ryanair bashing (an airline for which I actually have a lot of respect- the only really successful euro low-cost operator), but more an exploration of whether or not using thrust reversers in the ramp area is a)SOP, b)dangerous and c)downright stupid.

So, those of you with sufficent intellect to see the point, feel free to answer...

[WHBM]

It's a standard procedure at some smaller US airports for jets to reverse-thrust, or Powerback, when moving back from the terminal, avoiding the use of a tractor to push out. But it certainly makes a lot of noise and several airports seem to specifically ban it in their rules.

I've never seen it done in Britain.

[jettesen]

Lets face it, ryanair are only successfull because airports pay to have them operate from there. Every other lo co does not need to be paid to fly to an airport. If ryanair airports were all to succum to the fines which recently were imposed to strasbourg, then it would most definately be bye bye Ryanair, or they would have to increase prices.

[Final 3 Greens]

jettesen

Some may say that getting your destination airports to subsidise your services is clever business.

[Raw Data]

WHBM

Standard procedure for jets to power back? Turboprops, yes, sure... but jets...?

[Golf Charlie Charlie]

Standard procedure may be stretching it a bit, but I have certainly seen powerbacks done at a number of US airports by a number of US airlines, notably AirTran and American. Think it's done mainly if not entirely with rear-engined airliners, eg. 717, MD-80. I think the issue is that, while it may not be dangerous inherently, there may be more stress and wear on engine components, plus there could be higher FOD risk, to people as well as the engines themselves. It also wastes a lot of fuel. I don't think there's much justification for it at busy hubs (despite AirTran doing it at Atlanta), but there may be a need for it at remote locations and/or at small fields. Some carriers, I do know, do not allow it at all under their SOPs.

I have never seen powerbacks done anywhere outside the US.

Of course, all this has nothing to do with Ryanair or anyone else using reverse thrust on taxi or to slow down on the ramp, both of which I have seen sometimes from Ryanair (eg. at STN). I don't know whether this is good or bad practice. On this forum, you pay your money and take your choice - views are, to put it mildly, somewhat polarised.

[jettesen]

I've seen american airlines super 80's powerback lots at dallas fort worth. seems to be pretty normal in the states. It does happen on jets

[excrab]

RD,

It's true. I even heard your esteemed leader suggest that a CRJ crew should have done it rather than incur a delay waiting for a tow bar. Certainly on jet aircraft I have flown with tail mounted engines it was allowed. Not sure about a/c with under wing engines as I would have thought there was more of a risk of FOD ingestion. Any 737 / Airbus pilots out there who can comment...

[JW411]

Raw Data:

Indeed it is (or was) quite common for aircraft such as the DC-9/MD-80 to power backwards off the stand on at least a lot of American airfields. I particularly remember watching this going on while I was refuelling (I think it was at Raleigh/Durham).

On modern airfields the ramp should always have an up-slope as you approach the gate (have you ever noticed how you might have to put a bit of extra power on at the last minute)?

This makes it easy for the tug to push you back even if you are very heavy. Therefore it is easy to get an aeroplane to move backwards if you should decide to dispense with the expense and inconvenience of using a tug and your aeroplane has a suitable power/weight ratio.

Having done a lot of reversing when I had propellers, I have to tell you that the secret is in knowing when and how much brake to use in order to stop rearward movement. If you get it wrong the aircraft will sit on its arse and you will suffer huge personal embarrassment.

If you are not as skilled in this manoeuvre as those who do it every day, please don't try it!

[AJ]

MOR, it may have been more tactful to have left the name of the 'violator' out of the discussion. This avoids accusations of 'bashing' Ryanair, or any other company.

As another poster above implied, some people are biased, no matter what.

[MOR]

Ahhh yes, all very well but if I hadn't mentioned the name, it would be difficult to establish if this is an SOP, n'est pas?

The lack of a simple "yes" or "no" leads me to believe that it is probably a no-no.

[ATC Watcher]

Pushing back was standard procedure in USA / Canada on the 727s when operating on remote fields. Never seen done on the 73s.
I guess the habbit will stop when one ground staff will be injured by a flying object blasted forward:sad:

[Man Flex]

Have to agree completely with JW411. Trying to be a smart arse some years back (and a little under pressure) I attempted to reverse a turbo-prop from a stationary position only to discover that the nosewheel was of the castoring variety and when I tried to move forward again it all got very embarassing!

[JW411]

So now that the originator of this thread has discovered that reversing (from a standing start) off stand is a common practice in that part of the world which has more aeroplanes than the rest of us put together would, perhaps, like to have a rethink?

I appreciate that you might not see very much excitement at your home base but it is not at all unusual to exercise the reversers a couple of times to get rid of a transient fault before bursting into print.

It has already been said a hundred times before but trying to stop a fast moving aircraft in a confined space using thrust reversers simply will not work. The brakes are always many, many times more effective.

[chiglet]

jw11,
I have no probs with a/c "powering back". Indeed I have seen a DC8 do it..albeit on a disused runway.
The thread was using "Reverse Thrust" to stop, or at least [slow down] on the Apron ,
" So now that the originator of this thread has discovered that reversing (from a standing start) off stand is a common practice in that part of the world which has more aeroplanes than the rest of us put together would, perhaps, like to have a rethink"
No mention of pushback....rather a Taxi/Stop question
we aim to please, it keeps the cleaners happy

[MOR]

JW411

Notwithstanding the arrogance of your reply, you miss the point. No doubt powerbacks of jets do occur in some places. No doubt this is an approved procedure for the airlines and airports concerned. However, we are not talking about powerbacks, we are talking about using reversers to slow down on the ramp, rather than using that the boring old standby, the wheel brake.

Maybe using reverse for this purpose is also approved in some places and for some airlines (although I doubt it). However, it certainly isn't at EDI and I doubt it is at Ryanair either... which is the point of question...

[JW411]

Putting it quite simply, I don't believe that the reversers were being used to slow down the aircraft. That just does not work.

I also refuse to believe that the crew had any intention of causing injury to anyone or anything. What could be the possible motive for that plan of action?

Let me ask you three questions:

1. How many people were injured in the subject uncident?

2. Was damage caused to any ground equipment etc in the immediate area?

3. How many complaints were received by the airport authority?

[MOR]

JW411

Again, you comprehensively miss the point. If the intention was not to slow the aircraft, why were the reversers deployed, obviously deliberately, twice? For show? To dislodge a stubborn wren that was trying to nest in the engine?

I'm sure the crew had no intention of causing injury or damage either- however there are dozens of things you can do with an aircraft that will cause inadvertent damage or injury.

The whole point of an effective safety culture is not "was anybody hurt", but "was there the remotest possibility of anyone being hurt". That is why we wear flouro tabards and such like...

And then there is the original question... which will now probably never be answered...

[JW411]

I rather think it is you that is comprehensively missing the point. I have already said:

"It is not unusual to exercise the reversers a couple of times to get rid of a transient fault before bursting into print (ie: writing in the tech log)".

I have little knowledge of 732s but I have certainly seen the buckets being exercised several times on the ground whilst taxying in on occasions when I have been sat down the back. I have always assumed that this was the reason.

Certainly it was not totally unusual on the DC-10 to have to make a few reselections in order to get a reverser to stow properly.

In any event, I am sure that the ramps at EDI are swept frequently and kept scrupulously clean so that there should be no loose objects or debris to be thrown around in the first place.

It should also be noted that nobody should even consider approaching an aircraft while the anti-collision beacon is still flashing. I presume that it still was?

[chiglet]

Looking at the original post, I would say that he did have his anti-cols on.....cos he was taxying:mad: :mad:
we aim to please, it keeps the cleaners happy

[Say Mach Number]

The one that everyone has missed and have had a few times on both the 200 and 800 is the situation where normally one reverser will fail to stow properly.

The tried and tested method is to recycle them. This can take several attempts and if it can be resolved while still moving all the better. Because once on stand without guidance and help of engineering its too dangerous to keep trying them.
Can be awkward at outstations with limited engineering perhaps why it was going on so close to stand.

Its a possibilty.

Apologies missed JW411 comments about recycling reversers was getting ready for work skim read a few posts.

Will try harder next time!

[PAXboy]

GCC "I have never seen powerbacks done anywhere outside the US."

I have seen this with Turbo props in South Africa as commonplace. With regards to the machine sitting on it's @rse, I gather the point to watch for is to let her slow without brakes. Make sure there is enough space behind for her to just drift to a stop or with g-e-n-t-l-e brake. Once stationary, apply brake, change pitch and race off into the sunset.

I have not seen jets powerback in South Africa. On remote stations, upon arrival, they usually just turn to face departure before shutting down. There is enough room for others to get by and that saves having a tug. They leave the APU running and just start and go.

[JW411]

You are quite right. You arrest the rearward movement by using forward thrust and leave the brakes alone until the aircraft is at the halt or moving forward again.

[MOR]

There is a big difference between cycling the reversers, and deploying them for several seconds at a time whilst applying lots of power- so, no, I don't buy the transient fault idea.

Whether the ramp is clean or not is irrelevant- the pilot has no clear idea of what FOD might have been left in even the last few minutes.

The point is, is using the reversers to slow the aircraft, using a lot of power to do so, a smart idea on a crowded ramp, or approaching a stand? I rather think not. No matter how you dress it up, it isn't a good idea. We have wheel brakes for that purpose- despite the cost of routine brake pack replacements, that what they should be used for.

Now, if I had to guess, this particular pilot was probably attempting to display his prowess/company mindedness or whatever. You think that is OK, I think it is unwise. Fine. It is a bit like an unstabilised approach- 99% of the time you will get away with it- but that doesn't make it a good idea (as any TRI/TRE will tell you).

BTW I spent a few years doing powerbacks in turboprops. Nothing much to it, just remember to never touch the brakes when in reverse (use forward thrust), and be careful how much nosewheel steering you use as it is easy to get the nosewheel cocked at an unrecoverable angle on some types. It is also important that the ground crew know how to do them, and what to expect (ie a lot of wind!)

[Say Mach Number]

As far as Im aware you cant apply thrust when the reversers are deployed!
Sorry dont buy that idea either!!

[chiglet]

SMN
Revese idle only, then? :confused:
AFAIK, one of the reasons for the Qantas B747 accident at Bangkok was "not more than reverse idle was selected"
we aim to please, it keeps the cleaners happy

[Civil Servant]

I have come late to this subject and I know I'm really gonna annoy JW411 as he will think I'm FR bashing.

Re the cycling reverse to clear transient faults, FR must have an awful lot of transient thrust reverser faults on the 732 'cos they've done it at every airport I've seen them at, several times a day in some places and on different aircraft.

Maybe this is the REAL reason they're getting rid of them sooner than anticipated!!!

[JW411]

Thank you for your concern but I am not in the least annoyed. You are simply confirming what I have observed myself. As I have said before, the only reason I could come up with for this practice was to get a reverser to stow properly.

[dicksynormous]

1. Boeing fctm says non to reversers for moving backwards.

2 levers left in the interlock for more than 15ish seconds will result in an auto stow circiut opening and a reverser unlocked light .
only two ways to sort it, go in e/e bay and press reset button(i think it is fourth down on the right (but any button will do:O )
or force the levers back up to a percentage setting with the engines running and it will clear.ie cycle them

a general description of both as i cant be arsed looing it up

hope this helps.

Anyway there will be an influx of excel crews and aircraft workin for ryan air this winter so standards should improve on the 200 routes, as they've all got proper licences and not validations:} written on the back of a vodka label with a free guiness pen:8

[Say Mach Number]

The Excel crew comments about licences etc wether tongue in cheek I know not.
Before I start I flew with many Excel guys last year and enjoyed flying with everyone of them.

BUT some of the guys I flew with thought they had seen a fair bit, Greek islands flights etc, but if you ask most of them I think they would admit they initially found it tough going 25 min turnarounds, some really crappy wx a lot of CAT3 stuff and very importantly a lack of winter ops experience. Not exactly your average Palma!

By the way this is not having a go at anyone because I will repeat they were a super bunch of guys but I think they would admit having learnt a hell of alot having done the Ryanair thing.

Admittedly they may not be back for another dose but 'dicks..' comments are slightly wide of the mark.