Our plane is just too BIG. We're going back to ORD

[mWilson0000]

(search Google news for "Plane too big" for link to USA Today story)

United flight operated by SkyWest.
A text message with details on the new flight offered more insight into the reason for the u-turn: "We're sorry for returning to Chicago. The airport in Chattanooga is unable to assist with ground operational requirements for your current aircraft type. We assigned your flight a new plane."

SkyWest spokeswoman Marissa Snow did not provide any other details, saying only that the 76-seat Embraer aircraft used on the first flight to Chattanooga was "just a different aircraft than typical for ground personnel there.'' She would not elaborate on why the airline used the plane on the route in the first place or didn't check with the airport to see about necessary ground crews.

Passengers were put on a 50-seat Bombardier CRJ 200, which United typically uses on the flight. Passengers finally arrived at the gate in Chattanooga just before 8:30 p.m. local time, more than three hours late.

[hunbet]

United didn't have a towbar for that type of A/C so they wouldn't have been able to push it back from the gate.

[Longtimer]

United didn't have a towbar for that type of A/C so they wouldn't have been able to push it back from the gate.

so why not an apron parking which would not require any push back?

[A Squared]

so why not an apron parking which would not require any push back?

Well, if Sky West at Chattanooga normally boards it's flights via a jetway, then it's very likely that they don't have equipment, procedures and staff in place to disembark passengers across the ramp. That's not the sort of thing that it's wise to improvise at the last minute.

[.Scott]

So they couldn't have simply retracted the jet way to allow the plane to continue through after offloading?
https://cimg1.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/1070x724/034495_chattanooga_airport_t1070_h5bf1df18756b5a480631c79f4a 79085e4c06b9c5_4ee70c0afb8a5e0b7145d50592e79d8cc8cb2e19.jpg

[DaveReidUK]

So they couldn't have simply retracted the jet way to allow the plane to continue through after offloading?

See previous post, which would be equally applicable to non-standard ground manoeuvering:

That's not the sort of thing that it's wise to improvise at the last minute.

[harrryw]

How long to organise the loan of a towbar from a nearby field and truck it over, surely cheaper and less disruptive.

[Less Hair]

You can park in a fashion that you don't blast innocent people and still don't need a towbar. And you can move an airplane by manually pushing it with some strong men. No need for towbars at all.

[A Squared]

So they couldn't have simply retracted the jet way to allow the plane to continue through after offloading?


Well, in that particular picture, it looks like it might be possible with that particular airplane parked at that particular gate in that position. It's worth noting that the presence of an airplane in Northwest livery indicates the photo is at least 8 years old. If you look at Chattanooga on Google earth, the more recent satellite imagery shows that the current gate orientations are more or less straight into the terminal and wouldn't be possible to taxi out of. So, we'd be talking about marshaling an aircraft into a position not in compliance with the current gate markings, GSE equipment positioning marking, and estimating ad-hoc by eyeball the parking orientation that would allow; A.) the Jetway to connect to the airplane, and B.) the airplane to taxi out without a push ... none of which the current ground crew has ever done before or even been trained for, nor are there pavement markings to go by. Additionally, if all the parking stands are all now oriented nose-in to the terminal building, there's a pretty good chance that parking obliquely across one would encroach on an adjacent gate. I think that the chances they'd do that are vanishingly small.

[A Squared]

And you can move an airplane by manually pushing it with some strong men. No need for towbars at all.

Jeeezus, the suggestions just keep getting dumber and dumber. So you're going to push a 60,000-70,000 lb jet beck from the gate by hand? Seriously?

[A Squared]

How long to organise the loan of a towbar from a nearby field and truck it over, surely cheaper and less disruptive.


The closest airport with airline service is Knoxville, which is 2 hours driving distance. Chicago-Chattanooga flight time is 1:45 minutes So even if you had gone through all the necessary phone calls to locate the specific towbar required, arranged it's loan, arranged a truck and driver to transport it, had it loaded on the truck, and the truck started driving at the same time the airplane took off, it still wouldn't make it in time.

[.Scott]

Could they have loaded a tow bar onto the plane itself? Of course, assuming a spare was available.

[A Squared]

Could they have loaded a tow bar onto the plane itself? Of course, assuming a spare was available.

Given that the airplane had already taken off from Chicago when the lack of a towbar was noted, that would have been difficult. Not impossible, I suppose, but very, very difficult.

[Less Hair]

So you're going to push a 60,000-70,000 lb jet beck from the gate by hand? Seriously?

Before you have to turn around some commercial flight why not? If you just shut down at the right spot you can roll out without help.

[A Squared]

Before you have to turn around some commercial flight why not?

OK, I'll play along here. How many persons do you estimate that it would take to push a 65,000 pound airplane? In case you're confused by the units, that's 30,000 kg, in round numbers. Assume average size and strength men. Where on the airplane would you have them push?



Plane too big If you just shut down at the right spot you can roll out without help.

Already addressed. See earlier post

[Mad (Flt) Scientist]

People have pushed aircraft before ...

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/pictures-amp-video-yantai-airport-workers-push-shandong-airlines-bombardier-crj-200-away-from-216074/

(It's an old story, maybe the photos won't show up, but the text does at least)

[A Squared]

People have pushed aircraft before ...

Yes, of course they have. Pictures don't show up but on JetPhotos someone described it being around 20 people. The CRJ is substantially smaller than the ERJ-175. Are you seriously trying to insist that gathering 30 or more workers (from where?) and having them push back a jet by hand is a reasonable solution?

[Deep and fast]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/blogs-news-from-elsewhere-30208605
Not that I'd recommend it, but having been there I'd not recommend staying either....

[Mad (Flt) Scientist]

Are you seriously trying to insist that gathering 30 or more workers (from where?) and having them push back a jet by hand is a reasonable solution?

I'm not insisting anything. I'm merely pointing out that when all other ideas have failed, it's an option. Possibly an easier option to organize in China than the US (I'm guessing rounding up 20-30 employees in the US might not be too hard, persuading the same 20-30 mostly unionized employees to get on the ramp and start pushing aeroplanes around is maybe a trickier idea than in the "workers' paradise" :)

[Less Hair]

I have pulled a 747 out of a hangar myself with a small group of people (like 15 to 20 maybe). It's not brute force needed. The main problem is to control some super soft force application at the right spots (senior engineer advice needed) and to have wingwalkers plus somebody in the cockpit listening and ready to brake and stear as things can get very expensive in a second. Plus some aircraft wheel chocks and somebody ready to position them. Once it gets moving it is hard to stop. For an Embraer it should work a little easier.

[4eyed anorak]

It happened at Edinburgh not that long back when Etihad sent a A340-600 instead of the usual A330. They even sent a A340 towbar however it was for the A340-500 and didn't fit the -600. Looooong delay!

Regards 4ea

[Less Hair]

I wonder what towbar Stratolaunch's "Roc" needs. I have seen some An-225 twin-towbar and that's already huge.

[jmelson]

Jeeezus, the suggestions just keep getting dumber and dumber. So you're going to push a 60,000-70,000 lb jet beck from the gate by hand? Seriously?

Yes, I've helped move an Aero Commander 500C, and it was VERY hard to get it started. A CRJ? Wow, I'd sure love to see the Youtube video! There is a (Russian, I think) video of some guys basically doing a tug-of-war pull on something in this size range, they had quite a bunch of people on the rope.

Jon

[alby2000]

Yes, I've helped move an Aero Commander 500C, and it was VERY hard to get it started. A CRJ? Wow, I'd sure love to see the Youtube video! There is a (Russian, I think) video of some guys basically doing a tug-of-war pull on something in this size range, they had quite a bunch of people on the rope.

Jon

I am not sure about the circumstances, but I found this video on youtube. Not saying that it was the right thing to do nor I have an idea whether it was an approved procedure, but it just shows it can be done....

Here it is:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=XTN4FhlvwX8

Alby

[pants on fire...]

I'm not sure what kind of "Men" they have in Chatanooga, but there are multiple ways of moving large Aircraft. For instance for a 747;
Master Bird Pullers - https://www.news24.com/xArchive/Archive/Taiwanese-men-to-pull-plane-with-their-penises-20010108 Taiwanese men to pull plane with their penises2001-01-08 11:58 Taipei - Twenty Taiwan men will fly to the United States in March to set a world record for pulling a Boeing B747 passenger jet with their penises, the organiser of the planned event said on Monday.

"We have received invitation from the Guinness Book of World Records museum in the US to perform in Los Angeles," said Tu Chin-sheng, who teaches "penis-hanging art", a Chinese martial arts style. "We will send about 20 men, their age ranging from 25 to 77, to pull the 400-seat B747. We hope to set a world record," he said. Last October 29, three of Tu's students pulled a truck loaded with 100 men for three metres in a central Taipei square.

Tu, 46, has been teaching Chiu Chiu Shen Gong (Nine Nine Magic Art) in Taipei for 20 years. He claims that hanging iron blocks weighing up to 300 kilograms to one's penis or testicles can enhance one's virility and general health.

Some doctors call the training dangerous, saying that hanging weights to the penis or testicles and swaying the weights can break the penis. - Sapa-DPA


Or, if you only have one Man available, then that's easy too.

Heaviest aircraft pulled (male) | Guinness World Records (http://www.guinnessworldrecords.com/world-records/heaviest-aircraft-pulled-by-a-man)

[Eutychus]

How long to organise the loan of a towbar from a nearby field and truck it over, surely cheaper and less disruptive.

One of my rare bad SLF experiences of Ryanair was quite a few years ago now, when they swapped the planned 737-200 for a 737-400 (?) just before boarding at STN, boarded us SLF, and then discovered that the destination airport at that time had only one fire truck and thus apparently could not legally accommodate the newer aircraft. LONG delay while they scouted around trying to borrow another fire truck from somewhere, before giving up and eventually squeezing us all into a BAC 1-11 from some other carrier (AirUK?). By that time the weather had worsened, so that was my first experience of a missed approach/TOGA too. After the pilot had told us they thought they had reached the end of their working day prior to our flight leaving.

[RAC/OPS]

Or they could get a KLM 747 under tow to nudge it back off the gate.

[er340790]

Nice clip, Alby. :ok: That made my day!

Just rope in 8 x burly baggage handlers and the job's a good 'un! ;)

[Ascend Charlie]

Do what Delta used to do in Dallas with their DC-9s, use reverse thrust to back out.

[tdracer]

Do what Delta used to do in Dallas with their DC-9s, use reverse thrust to back out.

Given the Embraer has underwing engines, that's a good way to cause a surge and end up AOG with a massive engine repair bill.
I can't think of any commercial aircraft with underwing engines that backing with the reversers is an approved procedure.

The more I read all the 'alternatives' being posted, the more I think they made the right decision to turn back :ugh:

[A Squared]

I can't think of any commercial aircraft with underwing engines that backing with the reversers is an approved procedure.


Well, the engines on the L-382 are below the chordline of the wing and the turbine section is "under" the wing in all senses of the word. I've reverse taxied on a number of occasions. ;)

Seriously though, even if you disregarded legality and engine health, would it be possible to reverse taxi on an E-175? I would assume that reversers, if even installed would be cascade reverses, and I have heard it said that they wouldn't generate enough actual reverse thrust to move the airplane backward.

[dtaylor1984]

Well, if Sky West at Chattanooga normally boards it's flights via a jetway, then it's very likely that they don't have equipment, procedures and staff in place to disembark passengers across the ramp. That's not the sort of thing that it's wise to improvise at the last minute.

Wouldn't there need to be procedures to disembark passengers in the event of, say, a mechanical failure away from the gate?

[FlightlessParrot]

I'm not sure what kind of "Men" they have in Chatanooga, but there are multiple ways of moving large Aircraft. For instance for a 747;
Master Bird Pullers - https://www.news24.com/xArchive/Archive/Taiwanese-men-to-pull-plane-with-their-penises-20010108

Or, if you only have one Man available, then that's easy too.

Heaviest aircraft pulled (male) Guinness World Records (http://www.guinnessworldrecords.com/world-records/heaviest-aircraft-pulled-by-a-man)

A good example of what used to be called muscular Christianity.

[A Squared]

Wouldn't there need to be procedures to disembark passengers in the event of, say, a mechanical failure away from the gate?

Sure, but what you might do when you find yourself with a broken airplane away from the ramp is one thing, what you choose to do operationally, when you still have other options, is another. I don't fly passengers (thankfully), but I would expect that if the airplane is capable of being towed, that it would be towed into the gate. Certainly there could be failures which prevent the plane from moving at all, but a broken airplane on a taxiway, while not exactly an emergency, is certainly an abnormal situation beyond the airline's control. I don't know, but I would suspect that such an event would involve the passengers sitting on the airplane for a long time before a plan was made and put into action for disembarking them. On the other hand, if you just discovered that there's no towbar at the destination, the choice at that point to press on and then use whatever disembarking method you'd use if the wheels fell off the plane would be second best next to simply returning and putting the passengers on a plane that the station is equipped to handle normally. I'm not sure I'm explaining this thought well, but the FAA would be a lot more inclined to view benevolently an airline's use of a non-standard, non-approved method of disembarking passengers when there was no other choice due to circumstances beyond their control, than they would view the *choice* to use that same method, when there were other options, the situation was entirely due to the airline's error (forgetting to check the the station had the correct towbar) and the choice was made purely on economic grounds.

[A Squared]

SLF here, so please hold your fire.

What about 2 degrees down slope to keep fuel leaks away from terminal. Does it not help?

Yes, if that is the case, it would help. But again, the problem was discovered when there were options:

Option 1: Press on, and assume that we can push the plane back by hand, even though, we have never done this before, we don't have procedures in place for doing it, we don't know how many people it would take, we don't know if we will be able to muster enough people and we're not 100 percent sure that we will be able to do it at all.

Option 2: Turn around, put the passengers on a different airplane which we *know* can be disembarked, boarded and pushed back at the destination, safely and certainly, using the standard procedures and equipment we use every day on a normal basis.


Option 1 has a lot of question marks. Option 2 does not. I'm not sure that it would be all that smart to choose option 1 over option 2 purely for economic reasons.

[CargoMatatu]

Jeeezus, the suggestions just keep getting dumber and dumber. So you're going to push a 60,000-70,000 lb jet beck from the gate by hand? Seriously?
I was on board an Indian Airlines A320 when they did exactly that in BOM due to a Ground Engineers' strike.

[ethicalconundrum]

Would I be out of line speculating that the decision on whether to proceed or return was NOT made by the guy/gal sitting in the left front seat of the flight? I doubt he/she(PIC) would even know that the needed equip at destination was avail before loading the meatsacks. Be interesting to sort out who knew what when(so to speak).

[SeenItAll]

Wouldn't there need to be procedures to disembark passengers in the event of, say, a mechanical failure away from the gate?

If no suitable air stairs available, that is what the slides are for.

[A Squared]

Would I be out of line speculating that the decision on whether to proceed or return was NOT made by the guy/gal sitting in the left front seat of the flight? I doubt he/she(PIC) would even know that the needed equip at destination was avail before loading the meatsacks. Be interesting to sort out who knew what when(so to speak).

I don't think you'd be out of line at all. Obviously, the pilot isn't in a position to know that what towbars are available at an outstation. I would expect that the realization was made by whomever on the ground, brought to the attention of their operations folks and the decision to return to Chicago was already made when it was communicated to the flight crew.

[A Squared]

If no suitable air stairs available, that is what the slides are for.

Unless there was something else going on which made the immediate evacuation of the airplane necessary for safety reasons, no, they would not use the slides to disembark the passengers. Injuries and broken bones are pretty common in slide evacuations. They are intended to be used when you have to get people off the plane *now* or else it is probable that there will be more serious injuries than the injuries which will likely be sustained in a slide evacuation. If the passengers can remain on the airplane without being harmed, that's exactly what will happen until some sort of suitable stair stand is arranged.

[172_driver]

I can't think of any commercial aircraft with underwing engines that backing with the reversers is an approved procedure.



https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=lqZ83gJc7DE&t=14s

Boeing, apparently :\

For entertainment only. Not operational use.

[A Squared]

Boeing, apparently :\

For entertainment only. Not operational use.

I guess that answers my earlier question of whether cascade reversers generate enough thrust to move a plane backward.

[A Squared]

delay the outbound flight till the toe bar arrives from Ord. Its just a delayed flight.

It would take 10 hours to truck a tow bar from Chicago to Chatanooga. So now the Aircraft and the Gate is unusable for 10 hours (United has other flights into Chatanooga. ) Best case, *maybe* United has a flyaway E-175 tow-bar that can be put in the baggage hold of United's ORD-CHA flight. Unlikely that would work, but even if the planets did align that would still be 5 hours that the 175 was blocking the gate and not generating revenue.

[RevMan2]

Brewery. P1ssup. Organise. Rearrange as appropriate. United/SkyWest don’t perform a pre-operational due diligence? Bloody hell....

[tdracer]

Boeing, apparently :\

For entertainment only. Not operational use.
I can say with some authority that isn't a Boeing approved procedure - more likely a spur of the moment recovery from an 'Oh $#it . (at best, if you ask, Boeing might give you a "No Technical Objection" (NTO) but not a formal OK).
A Squared - it makes a lot of difference how long the aircraft has been sitting. I was on a 767 that we did a T/R backup test long ago just to see if it was possible (CF6-80C2 engines) - but it was similar to the video, we were only stopped for maybe a minute before backing up (and it still took a lot of reverse N1 to get it moving). But once you've been sitting for a while and the tires cooled and took a set, the force required to get moving easily doubles (it also matters the type of tires - radials start rolling much easier than bias ply - although they used to be common I don't know if anyone still uses bias ply for big commercial jets). When I was on an MD-80 that backed with the reversers, they actually went forward slightly to get off the flat spot of the tire before engaging the reversers.

[SeenItAll]

Unless there was something else going on which made the immediate evacuation of the airplane necessary for safety reasons, no, they would not use the slides to disembark the passengers. Injuries and broken bones are pretty common in slide evacuations. They are intended to be used when you have to get people off the plane *now* or else it is probable that there will be more serious injuries than the injuries which will likely be sustained in a slide evacuation. If the passengers can remain on the airplane without being harmed, that's exactly what will happen until some sort of suitable stair stand is arranged.

I was being tongue-in-cheek. But also note that after delays waiting to deplane, pax (or even a FA or two) have been known to blow the door slides and take off. Of course, alcohol sometimes helps.

[DaveReidUK]

What about 2 degrees down slope to keep fuel leaks away from terminal.

I'd be interested to know what airports you are referring to.

[er340790]

I can't think of any commercial aircraft with underwing engines that backing with the reversers is an approved procedure.

Hmmmm... it didn't stop the former NWA doing just that on a 753 I was on dep MSP. :eek:

[Airbubba]

Hmmmm... it didn't stop the former NWA doing just that on a 753 I was on dep MSP. :eek:


The limitations section of the 757 ops manual explicitly states: 'Backing of the airplane with the use of reverse thrust is prohibited'. However, some of them green book folks at Northwest didn't cotton too much to that book learning from what I saw.

Looks like Air Berlin used to powerback the 737:

https://youtu.be/naEmgN7lh-U

I can remember using reverse thrust to back the 727 off the gate to save labor costs.It was risky, you could shoot a piece of FOD into the marshaller's eye and you had to keep your feet off the brakes going backward or you would set the plane on its tail.

A management pilot named Lou got impatient waiting on a pushback crew at MCO and initiated his own powerback with the power cart still plugged in. It ripped a strip of aluminum off the side of the plane that looked an opened sardine can. Lou was Juan Trippe's personal pilot at one time and landed a Falcon 20 gear up. Years later he was giving a captain's check at Tegel in Berlin and they managed to do the infamous gear up touch and go in a 737 with the FAA onboard. My career has been dull in comparison. ;)

[tdracer]

Hmmmm... it didn't stop the former NWA doing just that on a 753 I was on dep MSP. :eek:

I'm rather surprised to hear that it was a 757-300 - that means it happened in the last ~15 years or so. And not just the specific prohibition in the AFM - it really is hard on the engines and the PW2000 is not known for it's resistance to abuse...
Back in the mid to late 1980s, power backing was very much in vogue for tail mounted engines. It saved on labor costs - not just the tug driver, but since the aircraft was under the control of the pilot - only one person was required to guide the aircraft as it was backing (i.e. no wing walkers required).
But then the airlines noticed that the time between overhaul for the engines was dropping like a rock. The bean counters quickly figured out that the increases in engine maintenance were more than cancelling out the labor savings and power backing rather quickly all but disappeared.
I suspect that the few operators that still use power backing don't directly pay for the engine maintenance - they have 'power by the hour' or similar engine lease arrangements.

[A Squared]

I was being tongue-in-cheek. But also note that after delays waiting to deplane, pax (or even a FA or two) have been known to blow the door slides and take off. Of course, alcohol sometimes helps.


Ahh, OK, Sorry I missed that. But in my defense, there's been a flurry of suggestions equally off the wall which haven't been in jest. ;)

[Eutychus]

Looks like Air Berlin used to powerback the 737:

https://youtu.be/naEmgN7lh-U


Excuse my SLF ignorance but is there actually reverse thrust being used there, or is it just forward thrust from the LH engine with the nosewheel turned hard right?

[harrryw]

Sure, but what you might do when you find yourself with a broken airplane away from the ramp is one thing, what you choose to do operationally, when you still have other options, is another. I don't fly passengers (thankfully), but I would expect that if the airplane is capable of being towed, that it would be towed into the gate. Certainly there could be failures which prevent the plane from moving at all, but a broken airplane on a taxiway, while not exactly an emergency, is certainly an abnormal situation beyond the airline's control. I don't know, but I would suspect that such an event would involve the passengers sitting on the airplane for a long time before a plan was made and put into action for disembarking them. On the other hand, if you just discovered that there's no towbar at the destination, the choice at that point to press on and then use whatever disembarking method you'd use if the wheels fell off the plane would be second best next to simply returning and putting the passengers on a plane that the station is equipped to handle normally. I'm not sure I'm explaining this thought well, but the FAA would be a lot more inclined to view benevolently an airline's use of a non-standard, non-approved method of disembarking passengers when there was no other choice due to circumstances beyond their control, than they would view the *choice* to use that same method, when there were other options, the situation was entirely due to the airline's error (forgetting to check the the station had the correct towbar) and the choice was made purely on economic grounds.
Well the were given cash and a free new ticket for a futer flight as compensation for the 3 hrs delayso that costs. A new crew for the replacement plane and the cost of wages for the pilots diverting back (It was over a third of the way there) and the other costs. Cost to continue about 40 minutes. Cost for new plane.
If it takes an hour to get a towbar that would mean holding people on the plane for less than 30 minute. Cost of borrowing towbar and truck for 1 hour.
Economic best choice....not really.

[Gove N.T.]

Hmmmm... it didn't stop the former NWA doing just that on a 753 I was on dep MSP. :eek:
if I recall, thrust reversers used at push back was a contributory factor in the Air Florida 90 crash in Washington in 1982

[DaveReidUK]

If I recall, thrust reversers used at push back was a contributory factor in the Air Florida 90 crash in Washington in 1982

That wasn't conclusively identified by the NTSB as a factor, only as a possibility:

"Contrary to flight manual guidance, the flightcrew used reverse thrust in an attempt to move the aircraft from the ramp. This resulted in blowing snow which might have adhered to the aircraft."

Air Florida, Inc., Boeing 737-222, N62AF, Collision with 14th Street Bridge (https://www.ntsb.gov/investigations/AccidentReports/Reports/AAR8208.pdf)

[A Squared]

If it takes an hour to get a towbar that would mean holding people on the plane for less than 30 minute. Cost of borrowing towbar and truck for 1 hour.


If.... Who says that a towbar is an hour away? You just pulled that out of thin air, an that's not even realistic. Like I said earlier, there nearest airport with airline service is a 2 hour drive from Chattanooga, and there's no guarantee that there was an E-175 towbar available there. That's just the nearest place that there is even the possibility that one might exist. Remember, the lack of a towbar was discovered *after* the airplane was airborne. You might have time to contact the other 2 airlines at Chatanooga to see if they have a E-175 towbar lying around, but that's about all the makes sense.

[A Squared]

Excuse my SLF ignorance but is there actually reverse thrust being used there, or is it just forward thrust from the LH engine with the nosewheel turned hard right?

Looks like just a hard right turn with forward thrust to me too.

[Sailvi767]

Unless there was something else going on which made the immediate evacuation of the airplane necessary for safety reasons, no, they would not use the slides to disembark the passengers. Injuries and broken bones are pretty common in slide evacuations. They are intended to be used when you have to get people off the plane *now* or else it is probable that there will be more serious injuries than the injuries which will likely be sustained in a slide evacuation. If the passengers can remain on the airplane without being harmed, that's exactly what will happen until some sort of suitable stair stand is arranged.

probably not a issue on a E175. Larger aircraft yes.

[RVF750]

It happened at Edinburgh not that long back when Etihad sent a A340-600 instead of the usual A330. They even sent a A340 towbar however it was for the A340-500 and didn't fit the -600. Looooong delay!

Regards 4ea
Now that really doesn't make much sense. A330/340 are more or less the same aircraft, and if Airbus designed a different towbar attachment point on them I'd be very surprised...

[A Squared]

probably not a issue on a E175. Larger aircraft yes.

Well, no doubt injuries from a slide evacuation are less likely on an E-175 than say, the top deck of a A380, but the probability is non-zero. I was just reading about an MD-80 evacuation with injuries requiring hospitalization. At least one broken bone, IIRC. I don't think the height of an MD-80's deck above the ground is substantially higher than an E-175's.

[A Squared]

In relation to the Embraer , why not park it on a remote stand ( no air bridge needed) and bus the pax to and from it ? The air bridge equipment must have a fire exit/steps that could be used in an emergency anyway to relocate passengers/staff onto the apron.

Well, any time I have been a passenger boarding or disembarking an airline flight without a jetway, there have been a fair number of employees around to keep passengers moving in the right direction, and not wandering off, and frequently there's those temporary standards holding up tape as sort of a fence/guide. There are necessarily more people involved than boarding/disembarking with a jetway, when passengers really can't go anywhere but into the terminal or into the plane. An outstation which normally boards flights via a jetway, may simply not have enough employees on hand to get the passengers off and on the plane in accordance with whatever guidelines apply to that procedure. Also, if the outstation normally uses a jetway, theres' a good probability they do not have a passenger bus.

[DaveReidUK]

Now that really doesn't make much sense. A330/340 are more or less the same aircraft, and if Airbus designed a different towbar attachment point on them I'd be very surprised...

On the contrary, it makes perfect sense.

A towbar incorporates a shear pin designed to ensure that should anything go wrong it will, at worst, be the towbar that gets damaged and not the aircraft's landing gear.

Different variants of the same aircraft type may well require towbars with the same dimensions and physical characteristics, but differently rated shear pins to take account of different TOW ranges.

[A Squared]

On the contrary, it makes perfect sense.

A towbar incorporates a shear pin designed to ensure that should anything go wrong it will, at worst, be the towbar that gets damaged and not the aircraft's landing gear.

Different variants of the same aircraft type may well require towbars with the same dimensions and physical characteristics, but differently rated shear pins to take account of different TOW ranges.

To be candid, I also was scratching my head about how a A340-500 towbar woudn't work on an A340-600. What you say makes sense.

[Airbubba]

A towbar incorporates a shear pin designed to ensure that should anything go wrong it will, at worst, be the towbar that gets damaged and not the aircraft's landing gear.

And if the towbar pin doesn't shear, there is something in the nosegear that will, at least I've had it happen on a Boeing that was forced past the nosewheel steering limit. Not sure what maintenance has to do to fix it but for us it was an aircraft swap on an outbound pushback.

If the towbar comes off the plane you need to get back on the brakes lest you roll into the tug or something else. We had the towbar come loose in Cairo on a slope, by the time we realized what had happened and put on the binders we were inches from a piece of ground equipment. Many planes now have cameras to see the nosewheel area during pushback but on the legacy aircraft you need to really be careful when coordinating the brakes and taxi during the pushback procedure. I've found some of my ground colleagues in the U.S. to be very casual about standard voice calls over the interphone during the push and disconnect. Gotta sound cool I guess...

For the non-towbar aircraft positioning discussion, does anybody know where this widely published Caravelle picture was taken? India or Thailand perhaps?

https://cimg6.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/600x378/elephant_9cace5d416d67d25a3bf48e3cd1c915856abef88.png

[SeenItAll]

Well, no doubt injuries from a slide evacuation are less likely on an E-175 than say, the top deck of a A380, but the probability is non-zero. I was just reading about an MD-80 evacuation with injuries requiring hospitalization. At least one broken bone, IIRC. I don't think the height of an MD-80's deck above the ground is substantially higher than an E-175's.

Actually, the E175's door sill is slightly higher than that of a MD-80. And as A^2 properly notes, slides always seem to be hazardous -- especially given the collection of geezers and their shoes that pax on the typical flight.
See: http://www.zodiac-equipment.cz/web/admin/fckeditor/userfiles/image/jm/STAIRS-DOOR-SILL-HEIGHTS.pdf (http://www.zodiac-equipment.cz/web/admin/fckeditor/userfiles/image/jm/STAIRS-DOOR-SILL-HEIGHTS.pdf)

[Joe_K]

To be candid, I also was scratching my head about how a A340-500 towbar woudn't work on an A340-600. What you say makes sense.

Isn't it the same towbar for A340-500/600 but different towbar for A340-200/300 ?

[harrryw]

And if the towbar pin doesn't shear, there is something in the nosegear that will, at least I've had it happen on a Boeing that was forced past the nosewheel steering limit. Not sure what maintenance has to do to fix it but for us it was an aircraft swap on an outbound pushback.

If the towbar comes off the plane you need to get back on the brakes lest you roll into the tug or something else. We had the towbar come loose in Cairo on a slope, by the time we realized what had happened and put on the binders we were inches from a piece of ground equipment. Many planes now have cameras to see the nosewheel area during pushback but on the legacy aircraft you need to really be careful when coordinating the brakes and taxi during the pushback procedure. I've found some of my ground colleagues in the U.S. to be very casual about standard voice calls over the interphone during the push and disconnect. Gotta sound cool I guess...

For the non-towbar aircraft positioning discussion, does anybody know where this widely published Caravelle picture was taken? India or Thailand perhaps?

https://cimg6.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/600x378/elephant_9cace5d416d67d25a3bf48e3cd1c915856abef88.png
It is the first Thai Airways Caravel in a publicity photo so Thailand would be the answer.

[Dan Winterland]

Perhaps they should have taken the train. The Chattanooga choo choo?






I'll get my coat.

[Chris2303]

Perhaps they should have taken the train. The Chattanooga choo choo?


"Pardon me boy?"

[Admiral346]

Looks like just a hard right turn with forward thrust to me too.

It is. I park at that airport regularily, and the stand is about 45 deg towards the terminal, and then you leave in a tight 180 to the right. No reverse necessary.

[BARKINGMAD]

"The main problem is to control some super soft force application at the right spots (senior engineer advice needed) and to have wingwalkers plus somebody in the cockpit listening and ready to brake and stear as things can get very expensive in a second. Plus some aircraft wheel chocks and somebody ready to position them. Once it gets moving it is hard to stop."

Howzabout using the appliance of science and avoiding the use of sensitive body parts? Try getting the group of strong men to push the tops of the tyres thereby getting the maximum mechanical advantage and avoiding the need to consult engineers regarding delicate bits of 'frame which should not be pushed?

The tyres have to cope with far worse than a few hoary hands pushing the top surface and it is surprisingly easy to get the beast rolling.

For the unbelievers, try pushing your car by the bodywork only, on a piece of level ground, preferably handbrake off and out of gear and note effort versus progress. Then repeat using the top of any tyre and compare.

Obviously before you try this with your car, you must perform a full risk assessment and check ElfinSafety requirements and post lookouts etc, but the principle works just as well with any wheeled vehicle.

For those of us who have worked for small charter outfits with minimal engineering & ground handling support it was frequently necessary to improvise, safely, to get the crew, the craft and the passengers to destination. Note the priorities in the listing!!

Of course now with regulations and regulators who've never sniffed Avgas nor kerosene one has to be VERY careful in getting the task safely accomplished in the absence of a piece of paper/laptop which says you may or may not exercise initiative and common sense.

Aaaah, common sense and airmanship!! Don't hear much about them these days? And don't get me started on RAW flying....................

[SeenItAll]

"The main problem is to control some super soft force application at the right spots (senior engineer advice needed) and to have wingwalkers plus somebody in the cockpit listening and ready to brake and stear as things can get very expensive in a second. Plus some aircraft wheel chocks and somebody ready to position them. Once it gets moving it is hard to stop."

Howzabout using the appliance of science and avoiding the use of sensitive body parts? Try getting the group of strong men to push the tops of the tyres thereby getting the maximum mechanical advantage and avoiding the need to consult engineers regarding delicate bits of 'frame which should not be pushed?

The tyres have to cope with far worse than a few hoary hands pushing the top surface and it is surprisingly easy to get the beast rolling.

For the unbelievers, try pushing your car by the bodywork only, on a piece of level ground, preferably handbrake off and out of gear and note effort versus progress. Then repeat using the top of any tyre and compare.

Obviously before you try this with your car, you must perform a full risk assessment and check ElfinSafety requirements and post lookouts etc, but the principle works just as well with any wheeled vehicle.

For those of us who have worked for small charter outfits with minimal engineering & ground handling support it was frequently necessary to improvise, safely, to get the crew, the craft and the passengers to destination. Note the priorities in the listing!!

Of course now with regulations and regulators who've never sniffed Avgas nor kerosene one has to be VERY careful in getting the task safely accomplished in the absence of a piece of paper/laptop which says you may or may not exercise initiative and common sense.

Aaaah, common sense and airmanship!! Don't hear much about them these days? And don't get me started on RAW flying....................

While I don't doubt that the mechanical advantage may be better from pushing the tires, do do so with your hands requires your feet to be very close to the tire. And sometimes a pushed vehicle reverses its roll due to wind or built-up torsion in the axles, etc. I'll keep my body well away from the underside of a tire thank you.

[Vessbot]

If figured that by now we'd all agree that what-about-this or what-about-that ad hoc solution that opens up more non-immedely-apparent problems that are worse than the original one to be solved, are not the way to go. I was wrong.

[A Squared]

If figured that by now we'd all agree that what-about-this or what-about-that ad hoc solution that opens up more non-immedely-apparent problems that are worse than the original one to be solved, are not the way to go. I was wrong.

You probably should have seen that coming from a long way off. No offense intended, of course.

[Brian W May]

Oh dear, further proof (if needed) that common sense, airmanship and ingenuity are not as common as they used to be.

[evansb]

Common sense, airmanship and ingenuity (resourcefulness) is trumped by the ominous threat of litigation. Every time.

By the way, "common sense" (intuition) is over-rated, as all too often an intuitive response proves to be wrong. i.e. In a skid on an icy roundabout? Hit the brakes! Or perhaps you are in an aerodynamic stall-spin? Pull up! Common sense, right? Not right.

[DaveReidUK]

Common sense, airmanship and ingenuity (resourcefulness) is trumped by the ominous threat of litigation. Every time.

Or by the good old Law of Unintended Consequences.

[KenV]

Seriously though, even if you disregarded legality and engine health, would it be possible to reverse taxi on an E-175? I would assume that reversers, if even installed would be cascade reverses, and I have heard it said that they wouldn't generate enough actual reverse thrust to move the airplane backward.For the record, the C-17 has cascade reversers. It can self back up a 2% slope at MTOGW into a 20 knot tail wind. DC-10 and MD-11 have cascade reversers on the wing engines. Both can self-reverse at high weight, but it is not a recommended procedure. Exhaust re-ingestion is possible which can cause severe engine surging and FOD ingestion is also a significant concern. The C-17 cascades are specifically designed to prevent re-ingestion and FOD ingestion so it is not only authorized, but a routine procedure for C-17.

[KenV]

Probably not a issue on a E175. Larger aircraft yes.Besides the almost certainty of injuries using the slides to disembark, there are the following issues:
1. Carry-on luggage which cannot go down the slides. How many passengers would be willing to leave their carry-ons behind in a non emergency?
2. The aircraft is grounded until they obtain and install new slides. If they don't have a towbar for this aircraft at this location, the chances that they'd have spare slides for this aircraft are essentially nil.

[Vilters]

Modern times for you. And it is getting worse by the minute.
Pilots unable to fly without autopilot.
Planes impossible to move without towbar.

What ever happened to knowing your job?
Ever heard of pulley's?
Give me one ( yes as in 1) brick, some pulleys and rope, and I"ll move whatever you want me to move.

[Vessbot]

What ever happened to knowing your job?
Ever heard of pulley's?
Give me one ( yes as in 1) brick, some pulleys and rope, and I"ll move whatever you want me to move.

A ramper's job is, emphatically, not to improvise ways of moving an airplane after a cascade of bad decisions has brought it to an airport without the required ground servicing infrastructure. Their job is to act within their trained procedures.

The decision, after realizing the mistake, to bail out and go back to square 1, was the correct one. Doubling down and assuming someone down the line will have a solution, forcing them to improvise on the spot with unforeseen consequences, is how accidents happen.

[DaveReidUK]

The decision, after realizing the mistake, to bail out and go back to square 1, was the correct one. Doubling down and assuming someone down the line will have a solution, forcing them to improvise on the spot with unforeseen consequences, is how accidents happen.

Sadly, the sane voices seem to be a minority in this thread ...

[tdracer]

Sadly, the sane voices seem to be a minority in this thread ...

The irony is that those who are loudly spouting all their 'improvised solutions' (backing with reversers, get the passengers to push it back, etc. ) would also be the first ones on here proclaiming what idiots they have in Chattanooga for trying some improvised solution after the aircraft end up broken and/or someone gets hurt (or worse). The Boeing flightline has a nearly endless list of processes and procedures to keep workers and aircraft safe, yet accidents still happen, aircraft still get damaged, and workers still get hurt - sometimes badly.
Commercial aviation today is incredibly safe, due to hundreds of lessons learned over the last century. We dismiss or ignore those lessons at our peril.

[evansb]

Indeed. Commercial aviation is safer than it was a decade ago. A quantum leap safer than the 1950's. I hope this thread ends here.