If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Unusual Procedure at DFW
Over recent Thanksgiving weekend, I went to San Jose with one stopover,
Dallas. I noticed and unusual procedure at Dallas. After boarding the American S-80 (MD-80), the plane was ready for a push-back. All of sudden, I heard engines roared loud as the plane push-back at higher than normal speed. I was confused at first, but became clear when I spotted a S-80, that parked next to us, used the same procedure. They do not use the tug to aid the push-back. They rely on engines to push the plane back. Same thing occurred on returning trip. This must be a common practice at Dallas. Anybody know why they use this procedure. I thought this procedure is banned due to ground deaths. This information is based on early jet age period. Toks Desalu |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
"Toks Desalu" wrote in message news:YeJDb.407758$275.1280770@attbi_s53... Over recent Thanksgiving weekend, I went to San Jose with one stopover, Dallas. I noticed and unusual procedure at Dallas. After boarding the American S-80 (MD-80), the plane was ready for a push-back. All of sudden, I heard engines roared loud as the plane push-back at higher than normal speed. I was confused at first, but became clear when I spotted a S-80, that parked next to us, used the same procedure. They do not use the tug to aid the push-back. They rely on engines to push the plane back. Same thing occurred on returning trip. This must be a common practice at Dallas. Anybody know why they use this procedure. I thought this procedure is banned due to ground deaths. This information is based on early jet age period. Toks Desalu Not unusual, happens all the time in MD-80s at DFW. I fly out of there once a week and it happens about 1 in 4 times when I'm aboard. Maybe the engine placement on the DC-9/MD-80 aircraft makes it ok. I've never experienced it in any aircraft with wing mounted engines. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
"Toks Desalu" wrote in message
news:YeJDb.407758$275.1280770@attbi_s53... [...] Anybody know why they use this procedure. I thought this procedure is banned due to ground deaths. I haven't heard anything about "ground deaths". The main disadvantages of a reverse-thrust pushback include wear and tear on the terminal building, and the risk of foreign object damage as debris on the ramp is blown around and forward of the engine intakes. Pete |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
It's known as a powerback and it's been in widespread use for many years. The
reason for it is to save on equipment (no tugs needed) and personnel, and you're ready for taxi immediately. As far as I know the only problem has been rolling too far backward and leaving the paved surface! |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Toks Desalu wrote:
Anybody know why they use this procedure. I thought this procedure is banned due to ground deaths. This is a common practice at a number of airports. It is called a powerback. It is only performed on aircraft with fuselage-mounted engines, since wing-mounted engines kick up too much junk from the ground, and are susceptible to FOD. The normal procedure is to power forward slightly to release the brakes, then use the thrust reversers to power back. There is a limit to the amount of reverse thrust they can use to avoid tipping the aircraft around the main gear. The advantage of powerbacks is economic: they reduce the need for tugs, and ground crew. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
"Toks Desalu" wrote in message news:YeJDb.407758$275.1280770@attbi_s53... Over recent Thanksgiving weekend, I went to San Jose with one stopover, Dallas. I noticed and unusual procedure at Dallas. After boarding the American S-80 (MD-80), the plane was ready for a push-back. All of sudden, I heard engines roared loud as the plane push-back at higher than normal speed. I was confused at first, but became clear when I spotted a S-80, that parked next to us, used the same procedure. They do not use the tug to aid the push-back. They rely on engines to push the plane back. Same thing occurred on returning trip. This must be a common practice at Dallas. Anybody know why they use this procedure. I thought this procedure is banned due to ground deaths. This information is based on early jet age period. It's called a powerback. Not all that unusual. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
You should see C-130s do it. They drive right up to a build to be load
backward. Freakiest thing I ever saw when I was in jump school. Fred "Toks Desalu" wrote in message news:YeJDb.407758$275.1280770@attbi_s53... Over recent Thanksgiving weekend, I went to San Jose with one stopover, Dallas. I noticed and unusual procedure at Dallas. After boarding the American S-80 (MD-80), the plane was ready for a push-back. All of sudden, I heard engines roared loud as the plane push-back at higher than normal speed. I was confused at first, but became clear when I spotted a S-80, that parked next to us, used the same procedure. They do not use the tug to aid the push-back. They rely on engines to push the plane back. Same thing occurred on returning trip. This must be a common practice at Dallas. Anybody know why they use this procedure. I thought this procedure is banned due to ground deaths. This information is based on early jet age period. Toks Desalu |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
"Toks Desalu" wrote in message
news:YeJDb.407758$275.1280770@attbi_s53... Over recent Thanksgiving weekend, I went to San Jose with one stopover, Dallas. I noticed and unusual procedure at Dallas. After boarding the American S-80 (MD-80), the plane was ready for a push-back. All of sudden, I heard engines roared loud as the plane push-back at higher than normal speed. I was confused at first, but became clear when I spotted a S-80, that parked next to us, used the same procedure. They do not use the tug to aid the push-back. They rely on engines to push the plane back. Same thing occurred on returning trip. This must be a common practice at Dallas. Anybody know why they use this procedure. I thought this procedure is banned due to ground deaths. This information is based on early jet age period. Toks Desalu Ive never been pushbacked... EVER in my experience as a PAX.. course i've never been in a wing engined aircraft either. (MD-80, 727, 717, possibly a very upgraded DC9 at some point are my trusty steeds. Airports are DFW, CMH, CINCINATTI, ATL, SAT) From what i understand the greatest threat of damage from reverse thrusting is to the engines themselves, they stir up a lot of debris that can be sucked back in really easilly. Wing engines being closer to the grond are at much higher risk for injesting said depris, while fuselage engines are generally above the debris. At the airports ive been to ive routinely seen it done. Only aircraft i've ever seen get a pushback have been wing engined. Guess its a matter of convinience to reverse out of parking, but i can see the tug push would be a lot cheaper if you had the time to wait for it (how much does it cost to run the engines up for 30 seconds versus a diesle or electric truck pushing back for same period of time?) |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
"nooneimportant" wrote
i can see the tug push would be a lot cheaper Not really if you consider the number of tugs required at the major hubs where perhaps 10 or more flights are pushing at the same time and the fact that each tug requires a trained and qualified tug operator whose union contract does not permit him to perform any other function. If a particular flight is delayed for a couple of minutes waiting for a last minute passenger, the tug and operator are still tied-up where a lone signal man (who is still required even with a tug) can easily move about the departing a/c and provide power-back signals to the next one ready to go. Each flightcrew must receive power-back training and it is only FAA approved at specific gates at specific airports. The power-back is terminated only by the use of forward thrust, the use of brakes tends to set the aircraft on its tail. Bob Moore ATP B-727 (lots of power-backs) PanAm (retired) |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Frederick Wilson wrote: You should see C-130s do it. They drive right up to a build to be load backward. Freakiest thing I ever saw when I was in jump school. I read once about a procedure for backing up a B-17. Lock the right brake and run the right outer engine up to full power while idling the other three. That will pull the right wingtip forward, which has the effect of pushing the left wing backwards. Then idle the right outer, lock the left brake, relax the right brake and run the left outer up to full power. Repeat as necessary. Since it's pretty rough on the engines, this was usually only used when a plane missed the last turnoff and had to vacate the runway as soon as possible. George Patterson Great discoveries are not announced with "Eureka!". What's usually said is "Hummmmm... That's interesting...." |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Procedure Turn | Bravo8500 | Instrument Flight Rules | 65 | April 22nd 04 03:27 AM |
Interesting Departure Procedu MRB Trixy Two | Richard Kaplan | Instrument Flight Rules | 26 | February 18th 04 11:42 PM |
Unusual Homebuilts Added | Tim | Home Built | 0 | December 5th 03 09:23 AM |
OAK arrival procedure | ROBIN FLY | Instrument Flight Rules | 5 | October 1st 03 03:05 AM |
Instrument Approaches and procedure turns.... | Cecil E. Chapman | Instrument Flight Rules | 58 | September 18th 03 10:40 PM |