PPRuNe Forums

Go Back   PPRuNe Forums > Flight Deck Forums > Tech Log
Forgotten your Username/Password?
PPRuNe Email Register FAQ Calendar Advertise Mark Forums Read

Tech Log The very best in practical technical discussion on the web


Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 24th July 2008, 07:37   #21 (permalink)
pattern_is_full
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Denver
Posts: 47
"All you had to remember was that to stop after the power back, it was forward thrust not brakes - not unless you want an embarrassing view of the sky and a "hats-on" interview with the the Chief Pilot."

I was going to say....! Note that a nose-wheel plane will be temporarily converted to a tail-dragger when going BACKWARDS under power (location of CG relative to wheels). With enough speed you could even ground-loop it, I expect, although a "tail-over" would probably occur first.

As a pax I've ridden through several power-backs over the years and thought it a neat idea - but in an era when some (Virgin?) are suggesting tractoring all the way to the RWY threshold, burning Jet-A just to go backwards a few feet seems like an idea whose time has passed.

pattern_is_full is offline  
Reply
Old 24th July 2008, 10:00   #22 (permalink)
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: Quite near 'An aerodrome somewhere in England'
Posts: 14,239
I seem to recall that, shortly after the Soviets had shot down an airliner, the ramp staff at Heathrow had some form of strike and refused to let an Aeroflot airliner have a pushback.

Whereupon the Russian announced that he'd back his Il-62 off the parking slot.

This was refused until the Terminal staff had cleared everyone from the area as they were concerned that the windows might be blown in.
BEagle is offline   Reply
Old 25th July 2008, 00:02   #23 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: USA
Posts: 262
Quote:
"At 3:23pm, Palm 90 was cleared to push from the gate. The tug tried to push the 737, but snow that had accumulated on the ground caused it's tires to spin. Wheaton then suggested that, contrary to policy, they would use the aircraft's reverse thrust to assist in the push. The reversers were engaged for about a minute and a half, but were only successful in throwing up slush and snow. Another tug was brought in with chains and the aircraft was successfully pushed back."
This was an unapproved, ill-advised, and practically useless procedure that gained nothing and, despite a lot of opinions to the contrary, did NOT contribute to the stall and crash after takeoff.
AirRabbit is offline   Reply
Old 25th July 2008, 02:05   #24 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Florida
Posts: 1,676
Quote:
This was an unapproved, ill-advised, and practically useless procedure that gained nothing and, despite a lot of opinions to the contrary, did NOT contribute to the stall and crash after takeoff.
I take it then that you do not believe the theory that the reverse at the gate contributed to the nose dome Pt (EPR) probes on the engines to beome plugged with congealed snow?
lomapaseo is offline   Reply
Old 27th July 2008, 06:55   #25 (permalink)
TWApilot
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: USA
Age: 37
Posts: 65
onthehill2,

You mentioned going from low-to-high power in short time not being good on the engines. Actually, a powerback doesn't really require a very high power setting. You just select reverse thrust, and just a small increase in power, similar to the amount needed to taxi forward, will move the airplane backwards. So you are not going to shock the engines any more than you would when pushing the power up to taxi forward.

Regarding terminal windows, this procedure is fairly common at some places, with no ill effects to the windows. It is always done with tail-mounted engines, so they are quite some distance back.

All that being said, I've never been a fan of powerbacks due to FOD concerns, even with tail-mounted engines. I think it is an unnecessary risk.

TWApilot is offline  
Reply
Old 27th July 2008, 08:54   #26 (permalink)
digiteyes
Probationary PPRuNer
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Sydney
Posts: 5
A major factor against the use of powerback is increased useage of fuel.

If it costs airlines a few extra $$... they usually prohibit the practice.

digiteyes is offline  
Reply
Reply


Thread Tools
Display Modes


Posting Rules
vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Reverse Thrust Norks Questions 12 27th December 2005 14:35
LHR + Reverse Thrust? Geoff565 Airlines, Airports & Routes 8 7th December 2004 08:05
Reverse Thrust flyandbefree Tech Log 7 31st August 2003 23:02
Reverse Out Of Gate avialuver33 Questions 25 18th April 2002 13:11
Reverse Thrust Shore Guy Tech Log 1 11th September 2000 21:31


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 00:55.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
SEO by vBSEO 3.2.0 RC7
© 1996-2008 The Professional Pilots Rumour Network

As these are anonymous forums the origins of the contributions may be opposite to what may be apparent. In fact the press may use it, or the unscrupulous, or sciolists*, to elicit certain reactions.

*"sciolist"... Noun, archaic. "a person who pretends to be knowledgeable and well informed".