Basil- How do you or did anyone else know it was three mm of frozen mud when the alleged taxi request was made ?

Clearly I do not but it certainly wasn't permafrost!

No, the point is that your original assertion

is nonsense.

If you peer out any of the flight deck windows on that particular pushback and find that you're looking along the taxiway centreline, it means you've been pushed onto the grass.

If you're still having trouble visualising that, think of it the other way round - for your mainwheels to be (just) on the edge of the concrete, you need to have about three and a half metres of your nose still on the right (terminal) side of the yellow painted line.

Would a picture help?

Pic from the cabin:
https://twitter.com/sophiethirlwell/...rc=twsrc%5Etfw

If I were the aerodrome operator, I would be taking a good look at CAP 168, Chapter 3. Para 10 onwards is a good start.

Am I looking in the right place?

"3.10 It may be necessary to provide extra width at the end of a runway or starter extension to enable aeroplanes to turn around".

CAP 168: Licensing of Aerodromes

No.

In this respect, the grass would count as an 'obstruction' as you clearly can't go there.

OK, thanks.

For anyone reading the current (10th) edition of CAP 168 (July 2014), it's paras 3.142 and 3.143 on Page 110, URL as above.

I suspect that technically the apron does conform to those criteria, as there doesn't seem to be any physical reason why aircraft couldn't be turned through 90° on pushback so that they are already aligned with the taxiway before the tug disconnects. There's more clearance (about 50 m) between the stand and the taxiway than there is on many of the T5 stands at LHR.

Does anyone who is familiar with Gatwick know why straight pushbacks from that stand appear to be SOP ?

Took a wrong turn,last night,at DXB,missed the turnon to my stand.There was absolutely know way that ATC could allow me to make a sensible 180 turn,from J2 to J1, even though it would have been following dozens of lead-in lines,to adjacent stands,albeight,in an opposing direction.
If it isn't written down as an approved procedure,no one in this day and age is going to allow it..Just a sign of the times,and I understood the ATC point of view.
So, 10 mins later,we had orbited C block,and returned to park.
Just,important to remember,....if it saves lives,....do it,...regardless of the general rule!

The box is not titanium!...unlike our two battery boxes

Grass is not an obstruction as you can't hit it with your wingtip!

We asked ATC many moons ago. We laughed as they went quiet to find out why. An SOP with no reason we thought.:ugh: Anyway they came back with this:
It is so we can push multiple A/C together, also you may turn either way to taxi, left via R or right via Q. Sounds plausible? Will there now be a review? Personally, I think the risks are minimal. But at LGW a knee-jerk reaction seems to be the norm.

Seeing abject congestion & protracted delays at some other EU airports when 2 A/C ask for push simultaneously this sort of thinking is a breath of fresh air.

Pushing back to face north/south on taxiway centreline is incredibly congesting to all the other stands along that pier :confused: and only going to get worse when easyJet move their whole operation to North at the end of the month :cool:

That is exactly why. All pushbacks seem to be facing north or south now.

Might seem a knee-jerk reaction, however think a review was needed anyway as there is also a ditch the entire length of the taxiway just behind the grass where the aircraft got 'stuck'. The consequences of the pushback pushing the a/c further into the grass could have resulted in the aircraft falling into the ditch!

If the tow truck was unsuccessful I doubt he could have powered out. Powering out runs the risk of damaging the landing gear structure which would not be visible to the naked eye and what could happen next is anyones guess on the next taxi, t/o or landing!!!

Would have thought it simple. If the tug can not pull it back off the grass then the ground is not hard enough for it to be "powered" out, without damagaing something.

I found it in my company's OM-A as "Occurrence Reporting List". The official reference is: EU 2003/42/EC, ANNEX I - List of aircraft operations, maintenance, repair, and manufacture-related occurrences to be reported
EUR-Lex - 32003L0042 - EN
and it says:
(r) Aircraft unintentionally departing from a paved surface.

IMHO it does not exclude an excursion during push-back

Now superseded by...reg 376/2014.

Note that accidents and serious incidents are covered by different legislation - I forget the reference right now - but the things in 376 and the other reg are not mutually exclusive, so you might hove to comply with both regulations for the same event.

Just for the record, according to CAA web site, since July 2015 Gatwick is a EASA
Certificated aerodrome and not UK Licensed so EASA regulations apply therefore CAP168 is
no longer the regulatory document although presumably it can be used for reference or
guidance.

Please explain any feasible way of damaging the landing gear by powering out.

I cannot think how this could possibly happen...

Well if it's a steep/sharp drop off your tyres might be damaged for a start.

A tow bar has shear pins to prevent too much force being applied on the gear during a tow. Is a tow crew (by regulation) allowed to pull aircraft off grass or are they not even allowed to try? If allowed to try, what stopped the aircraft moving? Shear pins breaking or tug wheel traction?

I'm sure tyres can survive a small drop off a ledge if they can withstand landing forces. The main concern would be fore-aft strains on nose gear (strut assemblies, etc) if being towed or fore-aft strains on the main gear if being powered out.