"All you had to remember was that to stop after the power back, it was forward thrust not brakes - not unless you want an embarrassing view of the sky and a "hats-on" interview with the the Chief Pilot."

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

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

I seem to recall that, shortly after the Soviets had shot down an airliner, the ramp staff at Heathrow had some form of strike and refused to let an Aeroflot airliner have a pushback.

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

This was refused until the Terminal staff had cleared everyone from the area as they were concerned that the windows might be blown in.

This was an unapproved, ill-advised, and practically useless procedure that gained nothing and, despite a lot of opinions to the contrary, did NOT contribute to the stall and crash after takeoff.

I take it then that you do not believe the theory that the reverse at the gate contributed to the nose dome Pt (EPR) probes on the engines to beome plugged with congealed snow?

onthehill2,

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

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

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

A major factor against the use of powerback is increased useage of fuel.

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