A aviation & planes forum. AviationBanter

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.

Go Back   Home » AviationBanter forum » rec.aviation newsgroups » Piloting
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Unusual Procedure at DFW



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old December 16th 03, 08:42 PM
Toks Desalu
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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  
Old December 16th 03, 09:04 PM
Bill
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"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  
Old December 16th 03, 10:37 PM
Peter Duniho
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"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  
Old December 16th 03, 11:42 PM
PS2727
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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  
Old December 17th 03, 01:21 AM
James Robinson
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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  
Old December 17th 03, 05:25 AM
Steven P. McNicoll
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"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  
Old December 17th 03, 11:49 AM
Frederick Wilson
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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  
Old December 17th 03, 01:51 PM
nooneimportant
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"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  
Old December 17th 03, 03:11 PM
Robert Moore
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"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  
Old December 17th 03, 06:27 PM
G.R. Patterson III
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default



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

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

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 19th 04 12:42 AM
Unusual Homebuilts Added Tim Home Built 0 December 5th 03 10:23 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


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:02 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.