I've not seen something like this done before!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lqZ83gJc7DE

Power backs out of gates used to be somewhat common at certain airports, especially with tail-mounted jets like DC-9s. I've never seen one done to help make a sharp turn like this before.

Looks like Capt was too eager to avoid the roll to the end and backtrack and messed up the 120' turn onto the taxiway.
Then risked the powerback (and it's FODdy dangers) to avoid the embarrassing wait for the tug. (Assuming they have tugs, stands are self maneuvering).
Probably a wee bit naughty but worked out well.

If I recall, I've heard that aircraft can effectively pushback with the thrust reverser without any damages to the aircraft or engines. The real issue for pushback are the airport windows, as they can break, and the crew around thus using tugs instead.

Back in 1986 I had to wait five hours at ATL waiting for a flight to New Orleans.There was so much traffic that there was no time to wait for push back vehicles.Planes had to depart say,at 17:01,17:03,17:04 in order to keep their turn for take off sequence.Power back was their only choice to achieve that and I got to see at least three Eastern airlines new Boeing 757s depart like that.Let me describe it: The spoilers were deployed,reverse thrust was applied,the plane moved 2-3 feet to the front,then immediately all the way back smoothly and effectively. It was obviously routine. Those were the days!

Procedure would have to be approved by the manufactures flight manual. Many aircraft prohibit powerback by the limitations section. Also company flight manual would have to approve the pilots would have to be trained to be legal. I know of one case where a well known asian carrier captain did the exact same thing to make a reversal on the runway. The engine manufacture voided the warranty on the engines. The captain is probably still looking for another job.

gzm wrote:

Back in 1986 I had to wait five hours at ATL waiting for a flight to New Orleans.There was so much traffic that there was no time to wait for push back vehicles.Planes had to depart say,at 17:01,17:03,17:04 in order to keep their turn for take off sequence.Power back was their only choice to achieve that and I got to see at least three Eastern airlines new Boeing 757s depart like that.Let me describe it: The spoilers were deployed,reverse thrust was applied,the plane moved 2-3 feet to the front,then immediately all the way back smoothly and effectively. It was obviously routine. Those were the days!

Some years back now, powerbacks were very common, mostly with the rear-engine aircraft, but also wing-mounted engine craft. The original Frontier did a few at SMF with the 737-200, but the airport stopped them because of the blown damage.

The roll forward, as it was explained to me, was to get off the flat spot on the tires, caused from sitting, which needed less power than starting from the flat spot in reverse.

The first time I heard of powerbacks happening was with RW when I was working in LAS in 1982; what I was told (I can't vouch for truth), was a way around a clause in the union contract that required three mechanics to be involved with a pushback. They'd grieve for all three even if there were only one or two present. I was also told that RW would just send a gate agent out, hair tied back, masked and safety goggled, to do the flagging; no mechanics to pay.

The best power-assist I ever witnessed was at DFW the morning after an ice storm. From my S80 window, I watched a DC-10 on the inside-most gate go into a powerback. It was because the tug couldn't get enough traction on the ice to push it by itself. Now that was cool to watch!

Came close to watching an American Trans-Air 707 charter at SMF needing to do one, if it could. AirCal was handling the charter, but the 707 had to do a gate engine start and the push from that was more than our AirCal 737/DC-9-80 tug could handle...the towbar kept rising up. IIRC, they had to go borrow a tug from another airline to do the job.

Notice the two strong puffs of tire smoke late in the rollout; this pilot was clearly under pressure (either self-induced or otherwise) to stop by that exit with minimal finesse.
And it almost worked.
I know Eastern used to back 757s out of gates with reverse, but I think they were the only ones, and abandoned that procedure fairly early on. The FOD risk in gate areas is quite high; on runways and taxiways, much much lower.

The use of reverse thrust is normally prohibited to back an aircraft up using the engines.

That runway has a gradient which will assist the aircraft to rollback with gravity.

zeke wrote:

The use of reverse thrust is normally prohibited to back an aircraft up using the engines.

That runway has a gradient which will assist the aircraft to rollback with gravity.

Backing the airplane with reverse thrust is prohibited in the AFM for the 747, 767, 777, and 787. It is not prohibited for the 737 or 757. (Not sure about the 737 Max.)

American tried it with their 757s at DFW and quickly determined it wasn't a good idea.

GamingPolaris wrote:

If I recall, I've heard that aircraft can effectively pushback with the thrust reverser without any damages to the aircraft or engines. The real issue for pushback are the airport windows, as they can break, and the crew around thus using tugs instead.

Years ago at RDU almost all of AA's MD-80's would use reverse thrust to back away from the jet bridge and onto the apron. Sure beat using tugs.

Here's a great video of an aircraft backing out of a bay under its own power.

https://youtu.be/zG_u_B5d7cQ

EK413

Power backs can be hard on aircraft engines as they raise the EGT or or engine temperature which can shorten their time on the wing. DC-9s did a lot of them as the engines was fuselage mounted.

There was an episode of Miami Vice that had an Eastern 727 reverse thrust out of the gate..... Memories.

I remember being aboard a Continental 727 during one of these maneuvers in the late 1980s. At that time, USAir did the same with its three-holers. The Boeing 727 has the advantage of the number 2 engine being right at the centerline. I saw an Air Force C-17 do this at an Open House; those young pilots enjoyed showing off the versatility of that cargo plane (which, I admit, is quite impressive).

Powerbacks were common on EA B757s; the fence along Sky Harbor Blvd at KPHX once had to be replaced after an EA B757 blew it down during a powerback. EA actually started the powerback as common procedure, using it to save money by not having employees whose only duties were as wing walkers instead of having rampers also work as wing walkers.

IAM chief Charlie Bryan famously stood in back of an EA B727, vowing to not let a test of the procedure take place. He was blown off his feet and barely got out of the aircraft's way when the test commenced.

fanofjets wrote:

I remember being aboard a Continental 727 during one of these maneuvers in the late 1980s. At that time, USAir did the same with its three-holers. The Boeing 727 has the advantage of the number 2 engine being right at the centerline. I saw an Air Force C-17 do this at an Open House; those young pilots enjoyed showing off the versatility of that cargo plane (which, I admit, is quite impressive).

Even better, the C17 does it in flight!

TWA772LR wrote:

fanofjets wrote:

I remember being aboard a Continental 727 during one of these maneuvers in the late 1980s. At that time, USAir did the same with its three-holers. The Boeing 727 has the advantage of the number 2 engine being right at the centerline. I saw an Air Force C-17 do this at an Open House; those young pilots enjoyed showing off the versatility of that cargo plane (which, I admit, is quite impressive).

Even better, the C17 does it in flight!

Well it doesn't reverse but it uses reverse thrust to descend rapidly for mission requirements.

For PBTH a no no, potentially incurring a financial penalty for the operator. Fortunately not one of their 787's. This aircraft is too old for PBTH or monitoring.

But congratulations to the crew. Very neat. And with the apparent gradient of the runway, would not have required much effort on the downhill engine.

With the 737 MAX10, what would be the effect on the main undercarriage of physically reversing under power, then applying the brakes. Would the plane pivot up on the undercarriage?

As already mentioned, ATL (and most U.S. airports) used power-backs for a good portion of their operations during the 70s and 80s. It was even routine on the EA L1011s! In those days, nobody thought twice about it, but all of a sudden the practice vanished.

I used to work at an airport where powerbacks were banned due to noise restrictions. They're good for saving time and resources, but the noise, exhaust, and the wear on the engines kinda killed the procedure. JT8D planes were pretty much the main ac that did them, but I've also seen 717s and a 747SP do them too.

A more appropriate title would be ''757 DOES A 3 POINT TURN MUST WATCH!!!''

TWA772LR wrote:

fanofjets wrote:

I remember being aboard a Continental 727 during one of these maneuvers in the late 1980s. At that time, USAir did the same with its three-holers. The Boeing 727 has the advantage of the number 2 engine being right at the centerline. I saw an Air Force C-17 do this at an Open House; those young pilots enjoyed showing off the versatility of that cargo plane (which, I admit, is quite impressive).

Even better, the C17 does it in flight!

And also the DC-8! As far as I know the only pax aircraft certified to use in flight reverse on the two inboard engines.

fanofjets wrote:

I remember being aboard a Continental 727 during one of these maneuvers in the late 1980s. At that time, USAir did the same with its three-holers. The Boeing 727 has the advantage of the number 2 engine being right at the centerline. I saw an Air Force C-17 do this at an Open House; those young pilots enjoyed showing off the versatility of that cargo plane (which, I admit, is quite impressive).

Nice 727 doing a pushback here.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UvUeuR6lhlQ

readytotaxi wrote:

fanofjets wrote:

I remember being aboard a Continental 727 during one of these maneuvers in the late 1980s. At that time, USAir did the same with its three-holers. The Boeing 727 has the advantage of the number 2 engine being right at the centerline. I saw an Air Force C-17 do this at an Open House; those young pilots enjoyed showing off the versatility of that cargo plane (which, I admit, is quite impressive).

Nice 727 doing a pushback here.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UvUeuR6lhlQ

Fitting, considering she's a former EA B727-225A, N817EA.

ChrisKen wrote:

........ Then risked the powerback (and it's FODdy dangers)......

No more dangerous on a properly maintained runway than applying take off thrust. Stop over dramatising it!

Anyhow: Flown in an out of that Airport. Not much room for a 757 but they manage it! The Runway isn't the longest either. Not much room for mistakes.

Where was the dramatisation? (Apart from your mind).
It's not the same as take off. FOD risk is increased when you spool up with your intakes hanging over or near the runway edge.

As I said, probably a wee bit naughty but worked out well in the end.

I don't see what the big deal is here. Unlike a lot of transport aircraft, the 757 is certified to use reverse thrust to a full stop and then further up to and including powerbacks.

As noted, a lot of airlines did powerbacks on the 757 as SOP. Yes, FOD is a consideration, as is jet blast .... both of which are not an issue when sitting on an active runway.

I read that Court Line did a "three point turn" in an L1011 once using reverse thrust. THAT is something I'd like to have seen!

BoeingGuy wrote:

Backing the airplane with reverse thrust is prohibited in the AFM for the 747, 767, 777, and 787. It is not prohibited for the 737 or 757. (Not sure about the 737 Max.)

longhauler wrote:

Unlike a lot of transport aircraft, the 757 is certified to use reverse thrust to a full stop and then further up to and including powerbacks.

Out of interest, why is it permitted on the 757 and 737? Was there a particular design consideration to enable it, a function of size and weight, or simply a case that it wasn't demonstrated on other types?

V/F

VirginFlyer wrote:

Out of interest, why is it permitted on the 757 and 737? Was there a particular design consideration to enable it, a function of size and weight, or simply a case that it wasn't demonstrated on other types?

I used to think it was en engine limitation until a read a few points on here ....

One is that both the RR and PW powered 757 are certified for powerbacks. Also that the 737 after the -200 was also certified. (I used to do powerbacks in the 737-200, and though we had -300s at the time, airline SOP dictated only the -200).

It makes me think therefore, it is an airframe certification issue and like a lot of other restrictions/limitations, it is not what the aircraft can actually do, but more what has it been tested to do. And, if that testing did not occur during certification, then it would likely remain as a restriction/limitation.

Powerbacks fell out of favour when newer airframes were being developed. Likely, manufacturers didn't see the need to test and certify something that wasn't going to be used.

cheapgreek wrote:

Years ago at RDU almost all of AA's MD-80's would use reverse thrust to back away from the jet bridge and onto the apron. Sure beat using tugs.

Yup, we used to do this at JI too with the F100s on the runway side of Terminal C. However, we never would've done it an underwing engined aircraft. It's just too dangerous. You still have to have marshallers around the aircraft, and all that thrust pointed back at the guideman (and the terminal) is asking for trouble. I was told at the time that only clam shell reversers could do power backs, but obviously that's not true. I believe we quit doing it with the F100s after the window of an RDUAA vehicle was blown out by resultant FOD.

I seem to recall years ago that some aircraft manufacturer was looking at having some sort of electric powertrain to use while taxiing. Main reason was to save fuel on the taxi, but reversing would also be a good business case.

hOMSaR wrote:

Power backs out of gates used to be somewhat common at certain airports, especially with tail-mounted jets like DC-9s. I've never seen one done to help make a sharp turn like this before.

Indeed, used to see it all the time with PSA birds at SAN, LAS.

Sir, that has been out of protocol since the 1980's.

~Zac

Curious as to how much extra fuel is burned during these maneuvers....Jet A-1 certainly isn't cheap...

longhauler wrote:

One is that both the RR and PW powered 757 are certified for powerbacks. Also that the 737 after the -200 was also certified. (I used to do powerbacks in the 737-200, and though we had -300s at the time, airline SOP dictated only the -200).

The generic Boeing 757 FCOM I have here states in the limitations, to me it is more a function of reverse design and if the reverse is part of the engine or the airframe.

"Reverse Thrust
Reverse thrust is for ground use only.
[Option – Applies to Pratt and Whitney engine thrust reversers]
Backing the airplane with use of reverse thrust is prohibited."

Seems a common practice on J41's,

At ABZ J41's power back all the time, unless there is some issues that prevents it

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Zf9-qwQ9ovk

Makes for an interesting experience.

I am waiting to find out if I will be type rating on the J41 or the ERJ145 later this year.

Thanks to all that contributed the videos!!! So awesome!!! The Jetstream 41 was way cool too. I have never seen a 757 do that before. I do know Northwest didn't like doing power backs on wing mounted engines, due to FOD. I did witness a few power backs as a kid. I saw Republic do it on a DC-9, and of course NW. It's a treat to see!!

garpd wrote:

ChrisKen wrote:

........ Then risked the powerback (and it's FODdy dangers)......

No more dangerous on a properly maintained runway than applying take off thrust. Stop over dramatising it!

Anyhow: Flown in an out of that Airport. Not much room for a 757 but they manage it! The Runway isn't the longest either. Not much room for mistakes.

You realize once he's sideways his intaking air off the dirt and grass right?

32andBelow wrote:

You realize once he's sideways his intaking air off the dirt and grass right?

Don't be smart. The engines were no close to the edge that when facing down the runway. He was at a taxiway, just didn't quite have enough angle on the nose gear to make the turn. The engines were quite far back from the runway edge.

I remember powerbacks on Republic DC-9s and NWA DC-9s and 727s back in the day at MSP. Never had one with a wing mounted engine like the 737 or 757.

ILNFlyer wrote:

Indeed, used to see it all the time with PSA birds at SAN, LAS.

Back in 2006 or so, I was aboard a NW DC-9 that did a powerback out of the gate at JFK. I remember that as we began to "push," I heard the engines spool up. The acceleration curve seemed wrong for a push, too. With a push, you accelerate very quickly, but only to a slow speed, and then continue a constant speed through the push. With a powerback, the acceleration is slower, but the speed is a little faster, and then you coast down during the roll. Then the engines spooled down, we coasted back, and then the engines spooled up again to stop us (because if you use the brakes, you're likely to sit the a/c up on its tail).

I was all: "Wait, did that just happen???"

I used to fly on AA MD-80s (Super 80s) through DFW every week for almost a decade. Powerbacks used to be almost the norm.

It has to be more economical to use a tug I would think.

Yes,but when the tug will take ten minutes to come, one could say "thanks, I can do it myself"!
Now, watch how a Lockheed Constellation could reverse and back-up upon landing. It is in the middle of the film (series "Great Planes"),between 21.25 and 22.25. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g37s7vVFy1A

I can't remember why but I know many years ago we had a BA B757 at LHR do it on a remote stand away from any buildings. The only thing that was different was marshalling had to close the road.

The reason for the three-point turn on the runway was because, Skiathos Airport's (JSI) runway is only 30 metres wide, where most runways are 45-60 metres wide. The pilot should have continued to the end of the runway where there is a turning a circle.

The 757 is definately one of the larger aircraft to use the airport, as usually 737's and A320's operate into the airport. But ironically the 757 has a better performance than any of these smaller aircraft for these short runway airports.

Planesmart wrote:

.....With the 737 MAX10, what would be the effect on the main undercarriage of physically reversing under power, then applying the brakes. Would the plane pivot up on the undercarriage?

At NWA, pilots were trained to put their feet on the floor (away from the brakes) before starting a power-back maneuver. Forward thrust only was used to stop a power-back to prevent bad things from happening. At one time, we had to do a "Z" pattern on a power-back from gate 1 to avoid other parked RON a/c. Slightly more nerve-racking than normal. (especially when the pilots forgot which way to turn the nose-wheel)

bmacleod wrote:

Curious as to how much extra fuel is burned during these maneuvers....Jet A-1 certainly isn't cheap...

I'd guess this is why they hardly do it anymore at all. There are many operational practices aimed at minimizing fuel consumption on the ground (single engine taxi for example) so it wouldn't really make sense to start the engines up even earlier than necessary.
At FRA they've even been introducing fully electric tug vehicles.

gilesdavies wrote:

The reason for the three-point turn on the runway was because, Skiathos Airport's (JSI) runway is only 30 metres wide, where most runways are 45-60 metres wide. The pilot should have continued to the end of the runway where there is a turning a circle.

The 757 is definately one of the larger aircraft to use the airport, as usually 737's and A320's operate into the airport. But ironically the 757 has a better performance than any of these smaller aircraft for these short runway airports.

Yes, Skiatos is a tiny airport. I flew in and out once in the 90's. Been to a lot of airports and this is the only one where I can say I heard a rooster crowing while I was checking in.............

Planesmart wrote:

For PBTH a no no, potentially incurring a financial penalty for the operator. Fortunately not one of their 787's. This aircraft is too old for PBTH or monitoring.

But congratulations to the crew. Very neat. And with the apparent gradient of the runway, would not have required much effort on the downhill engine.

With the 737 MAX10, what would be the effect on the main undercarriage of physically reversing under power, then applying the brakes. Would the plane pivot up on the undercarriage?

NEVER EVER EVER HIT THE BRAKES! lol
When doing a power back the airplane can tail strike if you hit the brakes. To stop you would only want to use forward thrust. I've seen this happen when a ramper hit the brakes during a brake ride moving the airplane to an overnight location. Snapped the towbar and threw out the nws actuators. Took a chunk out of the nosewheel rims... bad situation.