3 point turn in a 757

[Rocade]

So what do you do if you missed your exit? Looks like this one just missed the turn and instead of calling for a tug, just a little bit of reverse and problem solved :ok:

I know powerbacks were common back in the 70's and 80's but were abandoned for a number of reasons. Looks like the crew was under pressure to make the turn (notice the tire smoke just before the turn).

https://youtu.be/lqZ83gJc7DE

[RetiredBA/BY]

Pretty silly thing to do due risk of damage to engine due ingestion of hot gas, FOD. On the 757 reverse was cancelled at 80 knots so as to be at no more than reverse idle by taxi speed.(IIRC, it's been 20 years!)

[RAT 5]

Not been there in a while, but surely there is a turning circle at both ends? And, they started to make a 180 from the centreline and not from the edge of the runway. It seems a 45m runway, so manoeuvring to the edge and then turning should be no problem. It used to be the case that on these type of runways in hot climates, it was mandatory to use the end turning circles.
The runway is short enough; I can't imagine making the 2nd turnoff was critically necessary otherwise the estimated stopping distance becomes crazy short.

As for 'backing up'; it is possible. Nearly had to do it once in Africa, B757, but fortunately we managed to negotiate another solution. Not recommended if you haven't been trained and with a wing walker.

[Piltdown Man]

Pragmatism at its finest!

[Rocade]

Pretty silly thing to do due risk of damage to engine due ingestion of hot gas, FOD. On the 757 reverse was cancelled at 80 knots so as to be at no more than reverse idle by taxi speed.(IIRC, it's been 20 years!)

My SOP calls for idle by 80 and closed by 60. I know that Eastern did powerbacks back in the early days of 757's but stopped, in part due to risk of FOD damaged

[Skyjob]

Think this should be shown to the operator in question, if only for some debrief of the event at the very least.

Multiple people saw and know about the event, the registration is just about visible on the footage, definitely the 737 lining up is, G-TAWD has not been to JSI in last 7 days, so establishing when footage was taken will identify crew by airline.

[macdo]

LOL, I feel tea, without any biccies, in the office for someone.

[Hotel Tango]

It was probably the Chief Pilot. So he will have tea AND biccies with himself!

[cessnapete]

The manœuvre practised at Prestwick on my B747 Conversion. No problems only low power needed, we had crew member with head out of the cockpit roof hatch if directions needed. Only for use in extremis!

[DaveReidUK]

Multiple people saw and know about the event, the registration is just about visible on the footage, definitely the 737 lining up is, G-TAWD has not been to JSI in last 7 days, so establishing when footage was taken will identify crew by airline.

A quick look at FR24 would indicate that, unless the video is more than 6 months ago, it was filmed on 16th June, that being the only occasion this year where the 737 in question departed JSI immediately after a TOM 757 (BY7534 from BHX, in this instance) had landed.

[Emma Royds]

I don't think he missed the exit but perhaps he tried to make the most northern taxyway (which incidentally gives a landing roll of around 800m) but this involves a turn of around 140 degrees to the left and that coupled with the narrower runway at 30m, obviously gave less pavement to turn on.

As there is no nose in parking at JSI, perhaps there is no tug and 757 towbar available anyway?

[southern duel]

sure is one way to lessen the life of an engine !! This action also increases the risk of FOD ingestion. Why do you think they have tugs for pushbacks ? I remember a DHL 727 at Heathrow doing it off stand years ago and as it was so dangerous it was stopped. They did it as they couldnt be bothered to get a towbar from another part of the airfield. The only aircraft that regularly do it are hercs as they dont tend to carry towbars

[KelvinD]

DaveReid: I would agree with that date. The video seems to show G-OOBN on the fuselage of the arriving B757 and that was indeed the aircraft flying BY7534 that day (arriving around 10:20 ish). Regardless of all the shock horror stuff, the pilot didn't reverse down the runway; he backed the aircraft up across the width of the runway, just to get the extra 10 or 20 metres needed to make that taxiway turn. Exactly as the thread title suggests; a 3 point turn.

[LeadSled]

Folks,
Experience over the years tell me that it is OK if you are very careful.

I have been part of the crew several times, as somebody said, pragmatism.

It can have interesting consequences, old BOAC mate of mine did it at EGLL during an industrial dispute with tug drivers, a B707, ----- aircraft was blacked for quite a while.

We did it one night on the cargo ramp at (now) KJFK, again B707-320C. As S/O/SSCCSA (Secretary to the Steering Committee and Captain's Sexual Advisor), I was the one hanging out the back doors calling the directions, we were empty, fortunately.

We backed up a B747SP one night at YBBN, again an industrial dispute and the tug drivers refused to push, the aeroplane was blacked, didn't come back into Australia for something like a month.

Be extra careful if you are going to do it with a JT9 of any kind.

All good stuff, as long as you get it right.

[Hotel Tango]

I experienced it several times in the USA, albeit in B727s whose engines are higher mounted of course.

[Blackfriar]

It was very common in the US many years ago and I remember regularly helping the Air Ecosse Bandeirante to reverse off stand at BFS on the BFS/PIK/ABZ schedule. It sometimes needed a helping hand on the nose to help break the inertia, if it was heavily laden.

[Herod]

Risky stuff. If anything goes wrong, you are in deep doo-doo.

[max alt]

Chief pilot flying into cat c airfield!!,now that made me laugh.
I have seen a 757 power back many times in Orlando but we were not allowed to do it under normal circumstances.I would suggest that as Skiathos is such a well photographed airfield ,nothing gets missed.Go to the end and use the turning circle,the clue is in the name.

[oceancrosser]

My SOP calls for idle by 80 and closed by 60.

Why? Did someone not understand the use of Thrust Reversers as laid out in the FCOM?

[Bergerie1]

Done rather neatly, I thought!!

[Rocade]

Why? Did someone not understand the use of Thrust Reversers as laid out in the FCOM?

My bad, it says now to start reducing approaching 60 and idle by taxi speed, I don't know where I found that 80kts limit (perhaps a trainer talked about it way back) but I guess a should start reading the SOP revisions....:}

Regarding the video, I noticed how quickly after becoming stationary the reversers open, quick thinking to save a possible embarrasing situation. Luckily for them it turned out ok (but might warrant a quick visit down to the office) I don't find anything in the 757 AFM that prohibs using reverse thrust for this purpose but I understand that at least the 777/787 forbid it??

[RAT 5]

To me the questions still arise:

Why not use the turning circle at the end? Why cook the brakes to make a short turn off unnecessarily; unless it was closed?
Why not initiate the turn off from the far edge of the runway to give maximum space if you've missed that turn off?

The latest chart I can find (stand to be corrected) shows a 30m wide movement area on the short runway and turning circles at both ends. The 2nd turn off must surely have given some brake cooling issues as well as a crowded cockpit. It's only got 4 seats not 204. :ooh:

The problem with untrained backing up is if you get it moving too fast and panic and hit the brakes..............it's a risky 'try it & see for the first time' manoeuvre.

[Hotel Tango]

Lots of why this and why that. That's one of the main problems with these videos. We have no idea of the circumstances at the time, only lots of maybe this or maybe that. Here's another maybe: the company 737 had a slot to meet and ATC asked the 757 to expedite vacating the runway after landing. Note that I don't mean ATC specified he try for that taxiway. That part would have been at the Captain's own initiative.

[RAT 5]

A burst tyre would have been an embarrassing reason for B757 to miss its own slot: perhaps.

[peekay4]

Here's another maybe: the company 737 had a slot to meet and ATC asked the 757 to expedite vacating the runway after landing.

ATC: "xxxxx expedite"
757 PIC: "Unable"

[Hotel Tango]

No, peekay4, not like that at all. The fact that the aircraft would normally go to the end to turn around and then backtrack to that taxiway, the ATC instruction to expedite would have been in that context. Having said that, ATC would normally make that request after landing. But without an ATC transcript or indeed a CVR transcript, we can speculate until the cows come home.

[JammedStab]

Cathay did it last year in Hong Kong on a 777. Captain was fired, not sure where he was from.

[Skyjob]

The fact that the aircraft would normally go to the end to turn around and then backtrack to that taxiway, the ATC instruction to expedite would have been in that context. Having said that, ATC would normally make that request after landing. But without an ATC transcript or indeed a CVR transcript, we can speculate until the cows come home.

Just simply using the full width of a runway will prevent this from happening. Many captains in my life have done a 180 ON the runway, initiating by going towards the runway edge before making a swing through the centreline. Never starting from its centreline!

[DaveReidUK]

A B752 is capable of performing a 180 on a 150' wide runway like that at Skiathos, but there isn't a huge margin for error.

[Skyjob]

Thanks for info, I was aware of this (the minimum width of pavement turns 120'), what I refer to is doing a 180 by first moving away from the CL to give some more space as we are not all test pilots.

[Alsacienne]

Maybe that's a Boeing characteristic ... Ryanair 738s used to make 180° turns at FKB on a regular basis ... with great aplomb!

[Loose rivets]

Just happened I wrote this on Quora recently.


In 40 years I only reversed twice, and that was with turbo-prop aircraft rather then turbo-jet.

As mentioned the danger to the engine is very significant as a cloud of bits is usually thrown to the front of the engines which gulp in a LOT of air. In my case, there was no option as the tug had gone TU. (don’t ask what that means)

We were able to alter the prop blades so they gave us reverse, but now the real dangers start. We were taking responsibility for the safety of the aircraft and ground personnel, where normally we’d hand over to the tug crew. The other big issue is, one must NOT touch the brakes. An aircraft sitting on its tail is usually a career-changing issue. So, a very careful change from reverse to forward thrust is needed before you even put your feet over the pedals.

A long time ago, my pal’s Britannia was parked in Mogadishu, I think it was. The terminal was then just a huge wooden structure. He was ordered to reverse.

“But . . . But . . .”

The order came again, very clear and very loud. The Whispering Giant collapsed the building.

[4468]

Very simple

If this company, (it's obvious from the video who it is!) allows B757 to reverse using TLs, then the crew are in the clear.

If not, then the crew (captain?) is a cowboy/cowgirl!

As I said. Very simple.

[galaxy flyer]

I was a F/E on the B727 at KBOS. Due a mixup, by ATC, IIRC, we wound up face to face with a L1011 outbound, we were inbound and both of us on the Inner or the Outer. Captain asked the FO and me what we thought. Well, a tow us gonna be wait, if it's clear to the rear, go for it. We went about 100 yards back to a transition to the Inner or the Outer. We were doing powerbacks normally then.

[Yaw String]

Lands,..makes a possible error of judgement in the turnoff..at this point,it matters not that there may or not be a turning circle at the end.
Now,committed to the manoeuvre,the pilot carefully executes a non approved/recommended procedure...and finishes the job.
Oversimplified response helps no one!...except those who think they are immune from error...

I am beginning to suspect that any challenging conditions,bought on by themselves,or by nature, should be cause for flying bans,for some airlines!

As an ex hatter,I doff mine.

[172_driver]

Very simple

If this company, (it's obvious from the video who it is!) allows B757 to reverse using TLs, then the crew are in the clear.

If not, then the crew (captain?) is a cowboy/cowgirl!

As I said. Very simple.


What if no book of authority mentions it?

Two distinctly different attitudes to aviation are,

- Everything is allowed, unless specifically prohibited

and,

- Nothing is allowed, unless specifically approved

[SFCC]

A B752 is capable of performing a 180 on a 150' wide runway like that at Skiathos, but there isn't a huge margin for error.

Have you ever been to JSI, or even looked at the runway plate??

[DaveReidUK]

And your point is ... ?

[SFCC]

It's 30 metres wide

[DaveReidUK]

It's 30 metres wide

OK, then I stand corrected - I was using Google Earth, but I have the plate in front of me now.

The pavement width is 150', but the declared runway width is indeed 30m.

[oliver2002]

Have you ever been to JSI, or even looked at the runway plate??

http://fly.rocketroute.com/plates/adminview/LGSK_AERODROME_CHART_-_ICAO.pdf?cmd=pdf&docid=400000000139610&icao=LGSK&_ga=2.249321543.1710393906.1498551701-1304233446.1498551701

[Christopher Robin]

A stunning amount of B-757 200 Cat C JSI experts who have never made the slightest error in their life I am humbled to be in such company.

[slack]

plate says rwy 30 and strip 150. no indication of units of measure. :confused:

[wiedehopf]

@slack

so do you think the runway is 1628 feet or 1628 meters long?

btw there is a scale at the bottom in case you are looking at the same pdf linked above.

but yeah units are always nices :)

[bloom]

Eyeballing from the video it looks like he turned 70 degrees off center line and stopped, then backed up unnecessarily.

Had he turned 45 degrees off center line towards the right runway edge, he could easily made a 180 turn, safely.

But for you naysayers, and techies:

http://www.boeing.com/assets/pdf/commercial/airports/acaps/757_23.pdf

Section 4.3, page 73. 757-200, R3 (nose gear).

I may be reading it wrong (forgive me) but it looks like the 757 needs 71 feet or 21.6 meters to do a 180.

[DaveReidUK]

I may be reading it wrong (forgive me) but it looks like the 757 needs 71 feet or 21.6 meters to do a 180.

No, you don't want R3, you want the dimension labelled A (helpfully titled "Minimum width of pavement for 180° turn").

That's 120 feet or 36.4 meters for the 757-200 - though it would be a bold pilot who starts and ends a turn with the mains right on the edge of the runway. :O

[rottenray]

A case of misjudging the radius of turn needed to exit. Started the turn then realised he's screwed up and now risks getting the main wheels on to grass.

Just simply using the full width of a runway will prevent this from happening. Many captains in my life have done a 180 ON the runway, initiating by going towards the runway edge before making a swing through the centreline. Never starting from its centreline!

Not an expert, but it looked like the 73 came from the same taxi the 75 was planning to use.

Somebody mentioned FOD and hot gas... With cowl reversers only redirecting the FAN output, how much hot gas could there be. More a thing of clamshells maybe?

Bad judgement, maybe. Maybe under advisement to vacate runway ASAP.

Done rather neatly, I thought!!


In any case, as a "speck tater," certainly cool to watch on video. Prolly wouldn't want to be in the tube, though.

[Hotel Tango]

Not an expert, but it looked like the 73 came from the same taxi the 75 was planning to use.

Not at all. It's entering the runway using the taxiway prior to the one the 757 was going for. Check out the link to the plate above.

[Capn Bloggs]

though it would be a bold pilot who starts and ends a turn with the mains right on the edge of the runway.
Mains won't end anywhere near the edge.

[Early Right]

18 years and 9000 hrs on this bird. My fellow in the pointy bit had the right stuff. Did the appropriate thing. Got him self out of an tight spot. Got every one to the beach... and the fuzz is?
Remember, rolling up the OM (A) or (B) or what ever they call them these days, and sticking it up your a**e will never substitute experience.
The gent or missus in the LHS knew exactly what he or she was doing....

[Christopher Robin]

Thank god some real pilots have arrived on PPRune ! (I think it was set up for pilots Danny said a long time ago !)

[DaveReidUK]

Mains won't end anywhere near the edge.

If the mains don't need to start and end at the edge of the runway then, by definition, you're on a runway that's wider than the theoretical minimum required for a 180, which is what we're discussing here. :ugh:

Let me (or rather, Boeing) draw you a picture:

http://www.avgen.com/B752%20180.jpg

Nobody is suggesting that you would actually DO this in practice. :O

[Capn Bloggs]

Do what, exactly? Use the whole runway width to do your 180°?? I do it all the time... You'd be a mug to turn tighter than you need to for a 180 on a runway. In any case, in the 180 in the diagram, it is obvious that after the turn, the main wheels are nowhere near the edge. As I said. The limiting issue is the NW track.

[DaveReidUK]

The limiting issue is the NW track.

Good point. Appointment with optician made. :O

[RAT 5]

The gent or missus in the LHS knew exactly what he or she was doing....

Surely someone who knew exactly what they were doing would have used the turning circle at the end, not risked a burst tyre shortening the landing roll out, not risked going over the hard pan edge, not embarked on a risky manoeuvre that could have blocked the runway for a long time, not induced brake calling issues.

The ATC "expedite' issue is a red herring. B757 rolls out, goes to turning circle, makes 180, back tracks rwy and vacates. B737 enters rwy, back tracks, goes to turning circle, makes 180 and holds. Difference in time? Nano seconds.

I wonder what the conversation was like in the cockpit afterwards. I suspect the F/O was asking some questions.

I suspect there will be many on here who will have to agree to disagree. IMHO this was a risky attempt to make a turn off, unnecessarily. There was doubt, and when there's doubt there is no doubt.

[Vzlet]

Why does the chart give the runway length in meters and the width in feet?

[Joe_K]

It doesn't.

[beamer]

Not long retired from the Company in question - Cat C qualified LHS for Skiathos. I make no observations other than: a. that I always went to the end and did a very careful 180 using the turning circle and b. This is the first time I have heard of anyone in my former Company making such a manouvre though of course it is a feasible option in extremis.

nb Due to parking restrictions ( even with new ramp ) it is not unusual for crews to be asked to expedite the runway.

[Vzlet]

Whoops. I'll see if I can get in after Dave R's appointment!

[darkbarly]

Anti skid work below 30/40 on a boeing?

Personally always release the anchors for this reason if making the exit is iffy, particularly at a base with no eng cover to change the flat spotted black circles.

Like the pragmatism thereafter though...

[spleener]

Cathay did it last year in Hong Kong on a 777. Captain was fired, not sure where he was from.

Not HKG: Toronto. Canada. No slur intended to the other great guys based there!

[Trossie]

I think that someone has posted this somewhere on PPRuNe in the past (similar topic, although a lot more 'dramatic'!!):
https://aviation-safety.net/database/record.php?id=20110110-1

'Power Backs' should always be guided by a marshaller. (Although maybe ATC gave the required guidance?)

[rottenray]

Not at all. It's entering the runway using the taxiway prior to the one the 757 was going for. Check out the link to the plate above.

Thanks for that, I appreciate it. Here to learn.

[RAT 5]

IMHO the debate is not focused correctly. It is concentrating on the merits of if and how to back up a B757. Perhaps we should be discussing why it was ever contemplated in the first case when there was a perfectly simpler & safer solution: use the turning circle. There is only one person who can tell us why not.

I've reviewed the video and it is touch & go whether full right hand down could have turned the nose wheel enough to avoid the edge markers and return to the C/L and continue to the turning circle. Those markers under the nose would have been hidden from view. Regarding the point about starting this manoeuvre from off the C/L: it would seem that the a/c reached a stop position slightly beyond the turnoff, therefore turning to the right to give more room would have made the matter worse and taken the a/c well beyond the exit. I was surprised how quickly, after stopping and turning then stopping again, the back up manoeuvre was commenced. That would suggest very little cockpit discussion about "Oops, what shall we do now?" and also suggest the captain had done this before, perhaps on other types. It seemed like an instant decision. I've been placed in this predicament in Africa, where it seemed it was the only solution: not to exit the runway, but to back up on a taxiway to enter runway. There was lots of 'what & how shall we do this' discussion; 'is it a good idea'; what other options are there (no tugs); etc. etc. In the end the apparently blocked (non-notam'd) taxiway was cleared and we could continue straight ahead.
The speed of executing this solution is startling.

[PJD1]

IMHO the debate is not focused correctly. It is concentrating on the merits of if and how to back up a B757. Perhaps we should be discussing why it was ever contemplated in the first case when there was a perfectly simpler & safer solution: use the turning circle. There is only one person who can tell us why not.



I am not an airline pilot (just an interested ppl holder) but from what I have seen and read it looks to me as though the pilot started to turn into the taxiway and only then realised that due to the angle of the taxiway they were not going to make it. At that point the option of using the turning circle was not available, the only options would be to reverse or shut down and call for a tug.

[sf25]

from what I have seen and read it looks to me as though the pilot started to turn into the taxiway and only then realised that due to the angle of the taxiway they were not going to make it. At that point the option of using the turning circle was not available, the only options would be to reverse or shut down and call for a tug.

exactly! and that´s why all the discussions on turning circles and why-not-using-the-whole-runway-length etc. are a little absurd.
... another ppl-holder

[DIBO]

... Perhaps we should be discussing why it was ever contemplated in the first case when there was a perfectly simpler & safer solution: use the turning circle.Me thinks, case of tunnel-vision, getting there(=on the exit)-itis, a state of mind set, well before touchdown, on performing a carrier-style landing...
Impossible to measure, especially with the rather wide angle of view of the approach, but with reference to a 3° approach I very well know, I would be inclined to qualify this as a rather shallowish approach path, followed by a nice touchdown just in front of the aiming point, lots of perfectly normal (but probably sportive) braking and reversing, however finishing the last meters of the 900-ish meter ground roll with some kicking the brakes, making the tires smoke-puff more than needed and keeping the reversers on till the last meter (they are still closing whilst 45° in the left turn), with still ample, albeit rather boring, 600m of concrete ahead (and 600m back)...

I feel rather sorry for this guy/girl, one second less float before touchdown would have made their day; on the other hand maybe it's a lesson learned now, and once speed is under control, future roll-outs will hopefully be handled more docile when applicable. And let's hope their CP hasn't heard of Utube yet...
Regrettably as it may be, one has to keep in mind that many airports nowadays are red-carpets, full of paparazzi lenses, ready to capture and show the world every fart escaping your control...

[baselb]

If the mains don't need to start and end at the edge of the runway then, by definition, you're on a runway that's wider than the theoretical minimum required for a 180, which is what we're discussing here. :ugh:

Let me (or rather, Boeing) draw you a picture:From your picture, it looks like the mains would end up somewhere near the word "engines". The nose gear would go near the edge about half-way round, but the main would make a smaller circle. But now I'm being pedantic ;)

[JumpJumpJump]

IMHO the debate is not focused correctly. It is concentrating on the merits of if and how to back up a B757. Perhaps we should be discussing why it was ever contemplated in the first case when there was a perfectly simpler & safer solution: use the turning circle. There is only one person who can tell us why not.

I've reviewed the video and it is touch & go whether full right hand down could have turned the nose wheel enough to avoid the edge markers and return to the C/L and continue to the turning circle. Those markers under the nose would have been hidden from view. Regarding the point about starting this manoeuvre from off the C/L: it would seem that the a/c reached a stop position slightly beyond the turnoff, therefore turning to the right to give more room would have made the matter worse and taken the a/c well beyond the exit. I was surprised how quickly, after stopping and turning then stopping again, the back up manoeuvre was commenced. That would suggest very little cockpit discussion about "Oops, what shall we do now?" and also suggest the captain had done this before, perhaps on other types. It seemed like an instant decision. I've been placed in this predicament in Africa, where it seemed it was the only solution: not to exit the runway, but to back up on a taxiway to enter runway. There was lots of 'what & how shall we do this' discussion; 'is it a good idea'; what other options are there (no tugs); etc. etc. In the end the apparently blocked (non-notam'd) taxiway was cleared and we could continue straight ahead.
The speed of executing this solution is startling.

I said this yesterday, then my post disappeared. A consideration would have been how long to organise the tug, given that the tug would have had to have started on the grass, maybe there is a lip there, maybe there would have been a long delay with passengers disembarking on the runway whilst they were discussion whether or not the push would have been succesful from the grass. I feel this was a snap decision to keep operations flowing. Looks like a decent and pragmatic outcome was reached with a minimum of disruption. If the airfield was closed for 90 minutes, I am sure that many here would have suggeted a tickle of reverse.... or just using gravity on the sloped runway. Obviously, if they damaged an engine, or put it on its tail (especially with a cc member injured while walking down the aisle, we would also be having a different discussion.

[MATELO]

Have we ruled out a problem with the nose wheel? Could it be turned enough to do a 180 or turn at the end of the runway?

[It's only Me]

Evening

Watched this with interest having been there many times.

Always went to the (rather squashed and much smaller) turning circle up at the top of the cliff and never tried to come off early.

However, once started, there was only one solution..... Getting a tug whether it be on or off the grass is rather problematic as the nearest one would be in Thessaloniki and the boat would probably have to go via Athens!

[atakacs]

Do you imply there is no tug there?

[It's only Me]

I don't imply; there isn't one. There is parking for 3 aircraft. In one end, out the other.

[JumpJumpJump]

Can we assume that this has ended in a meeting with management, an explaination given, and back on the line immediately with a little note in the permanent record and an on the record slap on the wrists and an off the record smile, nod and a wink?

[atakacs]

I don't imply; there isn't one. There is parking for 3 aircraft. In one end, out the other.

Well it is certainly a relevant piece of the "puzzle". Thanks.

FWIW it seems to be a fairly busy airport for such limited real estate...

[Mike6567]

As several have said before we practiced it on the B707 (feet off brakes etc).
However in the early 90s on the B757 I seem to remember it was not approved.

[RAT 5]

Having considered this scenario further I think we'd all fall into this category:

Oops. I've just dug a very big hole and jumped into it. We are where we are and now we have to get out of it. Options? Only 3. Deplane the pax, hope there is the local rugby team, local sumo wrestling team, local fire brigade and a few lumberjacks on board. Maybe take an hour. Those guys can push us back on the gear. (kid you not; heard about it being done B767). Failing that, get the local fire trucks and some rope on the gear and pull us back Maybe take an hour. Or (as JJJ suggested) a tickle of reverse might do the trick.

I suppose we always teach that digging a hole and jumping in is human nature; it's what you do afterwards that counts: keep digging or get out. It seems, they got out, so all's well that ends well. The message taken away is, "oops, I won't do that again in hurry."

I still would have liked to have been a fly on the wall in the flight deck.

[condor17]

Guys , 737s and ATPs reversing around the a/d approved , only proviso feet under the rudder pedals / brakes . Stop using forward thrust . Off a pier /stand with marshaller , around the a/d not necessary . 75's I honestly cannot remember any prohibitations . Reversed ATPs down runways to avoid ground manoeuvring tailwind limits .
3rd world ..E.Med , Africa , India have used rev. to get out of trouble on a Tristar.
In Amsterdam down some of the bridges in Icy conditions , even a Trident can be steered and braked with reverse ; when the brakes [ inc. Maxaret anti-skid ] and steering were useless .
Have used rev. on 744 on one side to tighten a turn on limiting width rwys . Cannot remember limitations 'tho ; well retired .

[Hotel Tango]

Having considered this scenario further I think we'd all fall into this category: etc.

The obvious conclusion which should have been reached by post 2 on page 1.

Can we put this to bed now?

[icemanalgeria]

Having considered this scenario further I think we'd all fall into this category:

Oops. I've just dug a very big hole and jumped into it. We are where we are and now we have to get out of it. Options? Only 3. Deplane the pax, hope there is the local rugby team, local sumo wrestling team, local fire brigade and a few lumberjacks on board. Maybe take an hour. Those guys can push us back on the gear. (kid you not; heard about it being done B767). Failing that, get the local fire trucks and some rope on the gear and pull us back Maybe take an hour. Or (as JJJ suggested) a tickle of reverse might do the trick.

I suppose we always teach that digging a hole and jumping in is human nature; it's what you do afterwards that counts: keep digging or get out. It seems, they got out, so all's well that ends well. The message taken away is, "oops, I won't do that again in hurry."

I still would have liked to have been a fly on the wall in the flight deck.

You are correct Rat . The 767 did it in Rome when the ground handling went on strike :)

[fast cruiser]

What an absolute load of nonsense on this thread...

What does it say in the FCOM limitations?
Is the B757 certified for backing up using reverse thrust or not?

YES or NO

If yes, then fine, no probs..

If no, continue to the end, use the approved turning dumbell..

Getting into the who, what, why, when, how is irrelevant..

Just operate the jet in the approved way..

End of story

[KelvinD]

I think it wouldn't be so straightforward in this case. The driver had started the left turn toward the taxiway then seems to have realised he wasn't going to make it. So, the choice now was reverse a short way and complete the turn to the left or reverse a short way to make the turn to his right in order top get to the runway end. Once the pilot had realised the turn into the taxiway was not going to happen, it was going to be a reverse whichever choice he made.

[ACMS]

Fast cruiser is 100% correct.

If you are going to go against the AFM then you'd better have a damn good reason.

If the approved AFM says:- "the intentional use of reverse thrust to back up the Aircraft is not permitted....." then you are a very brave Captain to attempt it nowadays especially. ( every landing can be filmed and on Facebook before you've done the parking checklist!! )

All Boeing and Airbus Jets I've flown have that statement, I haven't flown the 757.

So, is that statement in that Airlines AFM?

[DaveReidUK]

Fast cruiser is 100% correct.

Doubtlass yes, but about a different scenario from the one that occurred.

If no, continue to the end, use the approved turning dumbell..As pointed out above, by the time the decision to use reverse was being made, continuing to the end was not an option. That's the reality that was faced by the crew.

[ACMS]

Once the crew "stuffed up" making the exit and stopped, did they intentionally use reverse thrust to back their Aircraft, yes or no?
The answer appears to be:-- yes they did as evidenced in the Video.

If their AFM says "not approved" then they shouldn't have attempted it and can probably expect Tea and Bikkies with their Chief Pilot, especially since it's on YouTube for the whole World to see.

In any case maybe they should plan their exit strategy a little better at this Airfield! :confused:

[fast cruiser]

If you are going to go against the AFM then you'd better have a damn good reason.

If the approved AFM says:- "the intentional use of reverse thrust to back up the Aircraft is not permitted....." then you are a very brave Captain to attempt it nowadays especially. ( every landing can be filmed and on Facebook before you've done the parking checklist!! )

All Boeing and Airbus Jets I've flown have that statement, I haven't flown the 757.

So, is that statement in that Airlines AFM?

Once the crew "stuffed up" making the exit and stopped, did they intentionally use reverse thrust to back their Aircraft, yes or no?
The answer appears to be:-- yes they did as evidenced in the Video.

If their AFM says "not approved" then they shouldn't have attempted it and can probably expect Tea and Bikkies with their Chief Pilot, especially since it's on YouTube for the whole World to see.

In any case maybe they should plan their exit strategy a little better at this Airfield! :confused:

Exactly ACMS, very well put:D

[OldLurker]

Quite so. But there they are. They've "stuffed up" (which none of us here ever, ever do, of course) and people here suggest that having done so, they're unable to proceed up the runway and turn sensibly. Now, since you rule out using reverse thrust to get out of the situation, what do you say the crew should have done to get their aircraft off the runway, bearing in mind the credible statement up-thread that there's no tug at that airfield? Would blocking the runway for hours or days result in a longer or shorter session of Tea and Bikkies than a brief unauthorized use of reverse thrust?

[macdo]

There is a big difference between common sense and a (un)permitted procedure in the minds eye of airline management.
The safe (career) option is to shut down, await a pushback team to manoeuvre the a/c off the runway. Yes you blocked the rwy and caused half a dozen diversions and delays. But you are legally safe. Will no doubt get a call from someone to discuss the incident, but you followed the letter of the AFM. Do not go to jail.
The common sense option is what the crew did, well it was common sense if they did it without damage to anything/anyone, unfortunately what would have once been an interesting anecdote down the pub is now all over YTube and your ass is in a sling with the airline management.
I know what they did and I know what I'd do and the only thing that would change my course of action is if some other a/c needed to do a priority landing.

[JW411]

macdo:

"await a push back team".

You obviously haven't bothered to read the thread. As someone has already pointed out, their is no tug at Skiathos so waiting for a push back team would probably take several days (or weeks).

I can well remember being posted on to the Short Belfast, which was the first aircraft I had flown which was capable of reversing. One of the first exercises that we did was to fly over to Fairford and spend some time doing three point turns into and out of the many ex-SAC dispersals on the south side of the airfield.

This usually consisted of dropping the tail gate, positioning the loadmaster at the back to give us a clue as to where we were going. The other alternative was to put him out through the crew door with a long lead and a talking hat.

So let us assume that the 757 captain had also come from such a reversing background. He knew that there were no obstacles behind for he had just landed on the runway.

Perhaps he is training a new Captain or F/O. They miss the turn off by a few feet and since the "real" runway is only 30 metres wide and he well knows that there is no tug at Skiathos, he ensures that all feet are off the brakes, selects idle reverse and does a three point turn.

What is so miraculous about that?

This is yet another example of every unpromising hysteric on pprune whose only experience of reversing an aeroplane consists of pushing a PA-28 back into a hangar leaping into action when they have no idea about what they are talking about.

Please God, can we please get pprune back for us professional pilots?

[Airbus38]

Don't know about the 757 AFM or the operator's own Ops Manual rules (willing to hazard a guess reversing is non-SOP though). However, aside from whether the manoeuvre in itself was or wasn't a good idea, quick thinking, safe/dangerous etc. etc. etc. my immediate reaction is more to do with how bad the CRM must evidently have been there. I mean, look at the time between stopping and when the reversers unlock - there is no way this could have been a two-crew discussion. In my opinion, CRM should have moved on from the days where one guy takes an immediate decision to do something out of the ordinary where safety is clearly not on the line.

[Bergerie1]

JW411,

During VC10 and 707 base training we used to teach reversing.

Check behind, feet under rudder pedals, select reverse idle and perhaps a smidgin of thrust, stop the rearwards motion by selecting forward thrust, but NEVER ever use the brakes.

But I have no idea what the SOPs are for a 757.

[KyleRB]

I'm assuming the PIC briefed to exit the runway after landing at that point or at least raised it as an option. I have never been to JSI but the holes in the Swiss cheese started there. The poor decision making process will no doubt be examined and the potential lack of good CRM.

[tdracer]

Roughly 30 years ago, I was on a lot of certification and engineering flight testing on a 767/CF6-80C2.
After one of the flight tests, we went to a remote corner of the airport and used the reversers to back the aircraft. When I asked why we were doing the test I was told it was to make sure it would work - so if an operator came in and wanted to use the T/Rs to back the aircraft we could give them a "No Technical Objection" (NTO). It was intended to cover the exact sort of circumstances as this thread - urgent need to back up and no tug available...

[Rwy in Sight]

Maybe it is due time to apply the Break to Vacate function...

[172_driver]

What an absolute load of nonsense on this thread...

What does it say in the FCOM limitations?
Is the B757 certified for backing up using reverse thrust or not?

YES or NO

Again.. (I wrote the same thing earlier in this thread)

Our FCOM/OM-A/OM-B (or any other manual I am aware of) does not mention any limitation regarding the use of reverse. What do you make of that?

tdracer hints that Boeing, at least on one type/engine, takes no definite stance on the subject either.

[macdo]

macdo:

"await a push back team".

You obviously haven't bothered to read the thread. As someone has already pointed out, their is no tug at Skiathos so waiting for a push back team would probably take several days (or weeks).

I can well remember being posted on to the Short Belfast, which was the first aircraft I had flown which was capable of reversing. One of the first exercises that we did was to fly over to Fairford and spend some time doing three point turns into and out of the many ex-SAC dispersals on the south side of the airfield.

This usually consisted of dropping the tail gate, positioning the loadmaster at the back to give us a clue as to where we were going. The other alternative was to put him out through the crew door with a long lead and a talking hat.

So let us assume that the 757 captain had also come from such a reversing background. He knew that there were no obstacles behind for he had just landed on the runway.

Perhaps he is training a new Captain or F/O. They miss the turn off by a few feet and since the "real" runway is only 30 metres wide and he well knows that there is no tug at Skiathos, he ensures that all feet are off the brakes, selects idle reverse and does a three point turn.

What is so miraculous about that?

This is yet another example of every unpromising hysteric on pprune whose only experience of reversing an aeroplane consists of pushing a PA-28 back into a hangar leaping into action when they have no idea about what they are talking about.

Please God, can we please get pprune back for us professional pilots?

Fair play, I only read most of the thread and missed the fact that no tug exists at JSI. Also I have not done the narrow runway training, so have not been there. Hands are up. But the rest of the post does reflect modern life in an airline, not, with respect what we used to do in the 1970's on a Belfast, 707, Bac1-11, VC-10 or whatever. The commercial environment is different to then. I would also say that it was an extremely observant skipper sitting in the left seat that could guarantee that here were no obstructions on the opposite side of the runway that he was reversing into!
If you don't have an immaculate reason for doing something that is not in the FCOM/AFM etc. you are asking for trouble. I have seen it in practice where people have gone outside of the bible for good reasons and get hung out to dry. There is a term called Just Culture, the ability to admit a muck up without the fear of punitive measures, which aviation took a lead in some time ago but it has largely been lost.

[ACMS]

Could I reverse my A330 in that situation? Yes no doubt, we've all played around in the Sim and done it before along with landing on an Aircraft Carrier, but it's not allowed and we are not trained for it.

But the point here is that unless we have a very good reason we follow the AFM.

If he made a mistake trying to be smart and make the exit quickly he'll have to suck up the consequences.......lesser of two evils.

1/ block the runway, delay flights and cop a bollocking from the boss but following the AFM.
2/ ignore the AFM, reverse the Jet like a C17 and not only cop a bollocking but quite possibly get the sack.

It's called ERROR recovery, we all make mistakes, it's how we recover legally and safely that matters.

If their company allow reversing then this thread is all a waste of bandwidth.

[oleary]

Please God, can we please get pprune back for us professional pilots?

What JW411 said. :ok:

[ACMS]

O'Leary:-- Retired, congrats on a long career.:ok:

However he is correct in this modern World. Ever heard of FDAP? Not to mention You Tube....:eek:
Big brother is watching everything we do and loves to penalize us for the slightest transgression. We have to be sure we operate inside their defined FCOM AFM procedures and only deviate outside for very good reasons.

It's not hard to understand.


In my company backing the Aircraft is strictly not approved and one commander has already been let go.

Enjoy the long overdue retirement.:)

[Capt Ecureuil]

macdo:
Please God, can we please get pprune back for us professional pilots?

26K hours on 737, 747 100/200/400, 757, 767, 777.

No way in the world would I attempt that and if I did consider it I'm sure P2 would object so wouldn't.

Guess that makes me totally unprofessional..... ahh well, at least I keep my job.

I'm sure the airport has a plan for extracting a jet that puts its nose in the grass even if it amounts to borrowing the local farmers tractors and a length of rope.


Anyone remember a certain ex-CP accidentally selecting reverse with the nose wheel nearly in the grass in a -400? ;)

[wiggy]

Anyone remember a certain ex-CP accidentally selecting reverse with the nose wheel nearly in the grass in a -400?

I think I do but I need to Marshall :oh:;) my thoughts...If it's the event I'm thinking off the version I heard was the nose wheel was actually on the grass....

[smith]

Common procedure at Skiathos. Remember one guy putting the main wheels on the grass.

[DaveReidUK]

"No runway edge lights were harmed during the making of this manoeuvre". :O

[charlies angel]

DaveReiduk.
So far on this thread you have pompously asserted various "expert opinions" on what this crew should have done. You have failed to be aware that the runway is 30 meters wide, have failed to be aware that there are no tugs at JSI, have incorrectly interpreted the B757 turning circle chart and have failed to be aware that until recently JSI is a day only airport for Charter Jet aircraft so there has not been any runway edge lights!
Is there anything else you would like to add to this thread so we can all have a good laugh?

[DaveReidUK]

and have failed to be aware that until recently JSI is a day only airport for Charter Jet aircraft so there has not been any runway edge lights!

Best to get one's facts right before priming the blunderbuss :ugh:

http://www.avgen.com/LGSK%20AIP.jpg

http://www.avgen.com/LGSK%20runway%20edge%20lights.jpg

Oh, and I don't recall making any reference whatsoever to the presence/absence of tugs at JSI, but if you can find one, please feel free to quote it.

[charlies angel]

Any idea what "until recently" means?:E

[DaveReidUK]

"Until recently" = until some time before the incident we're discussing = irrelevant.

I'd stop digging, if I were you. :O

[charlies angel]

Your flippant comment about edge lights, re someone putting his nose wheel on the grass,was inapproriate as the poster was referring to a long ago incident. Hence my "until recently" comment about edge lights..Do try to read comments in context,it'll help with your understanding of difficult to grasp concepts.

[DaveReidUK]

The OP made no reference whatsoever to when the gear on the grass event happened.

So, unless you were the pilot involved, any "context" is purely of your own invention.