Is that it?

Crickey a lot of willy waving in here and that's all it was.

( not that I'm suggesting to just taxi off.......)

The second photo, showing a pair of tugs, would suggest the A320 was about to be towed off the grass by cables attached to each of the main gears, exactly as prescribed in the Aircraft Recovery Manual.

7 pages of nonsense! Of course you should try to 'power it out'! This guy tried:
http://cdn.aviation-safety.net/photo...0110-1-C-1.jpg
(Note the vegetation stripped away behind both engines, that could not have been idle power!)

[Tongue very, very firmly in cheek for this post! ;)]

If you are going to go 'off piste' having ten main gear wheels in two pairs is probably a good idea -along with no health and safety issues for risking the ground crew being sucked into engines or run over.

For those who thought it's fine to get pulled out or taxi out ... think again .. The Tug broke 3 sheer pins The stress on the nose gear £1.2 million repair cost ....

Strange that the aircraft in question has been flying more or less continuously since the day after the incident.

yes Dave, you're quite correct!

If I had also posted the third photo in the series, we could have all moved on -- thread and aircraft alike -- but where's the fun in that ?

:hmm:

Don't think there's anything 'strange' in that. The engineers seem to have done what the ground maintenance manual told them to do. Followed by full inspection.

No story!

Had the flight crew done what they're not trained to do. With customers on board. Then gone flying after the aircraft had departed the paved surface. With no inspection....

Then that's a story!

This aviation business really ain't that tricky if you break it down into bite sized pieces, eh?!

I was referring to the OP's assertion that they pulled the aircraft out by the nose gear, which they supposedly wrecked in the process but still had it flying again by the next day ...

Pull the other one, as they say ... :O