Ever seen a DC9 reverse out of a gate using reverse thrust

The Captain and the First Officer both neglected to switch on the anti-icing mechanism which ultimately led to erroneous reading on the engine instruments causing them to retard the throttles

Close, they thought they had the right setting while the engines were producing much less power. No power reduction was made. The NTSB report states that if they had used max thrust and lowered the nose (as they had) the aircraft could have climbed out.

Air Florida did it too on there 737-200’s

Unfortunatly, the day they decided to do it, the 737 ended up in the Potomac river in Washington DC.

Along with various other factors, The Tug couldnt get suffiecient grip to push back, so the captain opened up the reverse thrust to help out, blowing snow and slush on the wings that had been de-iced, but not in line with the regulations.. The snow and ice refroze onto the wings. The plane took off, adopted a tail heavy attitude, causing it to stall, the 737 hit the potomac bridge killing several people in cars befor going into the river! out of the 100 or so passengers and crew aboard, only 4/5 survived.

Not quite. From the NTSB report:

Witnesses estimated that both engines were operated in reverse thrust for a period of 30 to 90 seconds. During this time, several Air Florida and American Airlines personnel observed snow and/or slush being blown toward the front of the aircraft. One witness stated that he saw water swirling at the base of the left (No. 1) engine inlet.

Several Air Florida personnel stated that they saw an area of snow on the ground melted around the left engine for a radius ranging,from 6 to 15 feet. No one observed a similar melted area under the right (No. 2) engine.
When the use of reverse thrust proved unsuccessful in moving the aircraft back, the engines were shut down with the reversers deployed. The same American Airlines mechanic that had inspected both engine intakes upon completion of the deicing/anti-icing operation performed another general examination of both engines. He stated that he saw no ice or snow at that time. Air Florida and American Airlines Personnel standing near the aircraft after the aircraft’s engines were shut down stated that they did not see any water, slush, snow, or ice on the wings.

The official findings state that using reverse for backing up wasn’t authorized and that blowing snow may have adhered to the aircraft (even though none was observed). The biggest factor that aircraft lead to the accident was the blockage of the engine inlet pressure probe which lead to each engine producing nearly 4,000 lbs of thrust less than expected. The crew had not selected the anti-ice heat, which included heating of the engine inlet pressure probe, in heavy snow.

Air Florida did it too on there 737-200’s

Unfortunatly, the day they decided to do it, the 737 ended up in the Potomac river in Washington DC.

Along with various other factors, The Tug couldnt get suffiecient grip to push back, so the captain opened up the reverse thrust to help out, blowing snow and slush on the wings that had been de-iced, but not in line with the regulations.. The snow and ice refroze onto the wings. The plane took off, adopted a tail heavy attitude, causing it to stall, the 737 hit the potomac bridge killing several people in cars befor going into the river! out of the 100 or so passengers and crew aboard, only 4/5 survived.

The Captain and the First Officer both neglected to switch on the anti-icing mechanism which ultimately led to erroneous reading on the engine instruments causing them to retard the throttles

Air Florida did it too on there 737-200’s

Unfortunatly, the day they decided to do it, the 737 ended up in the Potomac river in Washington DC.

Along with various other factors, The Tug couldnt get suffiecient grip to push back, so the captain opened up the reverse thrust to help out, blowing snow and slush on the wings that had been de-iced, but not in line with the regulations.. The snow and ice refroze onto the wings. The plane took off, adopted a tail heavy attitude, causing it to stall, the 737 hit the potomac bridge killing several people in cars befor going into the river! out of the 100 or so passengers and crew aboard, only 4/5 survived.

Back in ’95 I did a season with a charter outfit on 737 – 200. I recall on one trip we did this to get out of somewhere so we didn’t end up out of hours as there were delays getting a tug. Don’t ask me where it was ’cause I ain’t got a clue! Also don’t know if the crew were authorised to do it either, we were just grateful to get away and so didn’t ask. Was probably one of those 12 hour rostered days that turned in to whatever with discretion.
In my four years on ATR’s elsewhere we never did it once. Benefit of an ATR is you can turn around on stand as you pull on so you move off in the right direction to start with!

Manx/BRAL used to do it at MAN with thier Jetstreams for a while.
I wouldn’t want to do it with a jet with under wing engines because of the rubbish lying around on and around the stand. I won’t let any aircraft I headset out start untill they are well into the “fair way” because of it. I don’t mind them sucking it up on the way in as I should be able to see the damage during my walkround:rolleyes:
During reverse operation the EGT will rise,not only due to the increase in thrust but due to ingestion of the hot exhaust gasses. The engine will cope with it but you would need to monitor it. You wouldn’t be doing it for too long anyway.
Rgds Cking

Pretty much all planes can do it, they just don’t because it wears the engines down. Binter ATRs do it alot aswell, quite common so it seems.

I thought this was bad for the engines. I thought the reversers should be closed at about 40 knots forward speed. I thought it could cause flameouts or and overheating.

Possibly your concerns are more related to high bypass under-wing engines with “cold” thrust reversers, which make ~100% of all current Airbus and Boeing aircraft. The DC-9 significantly differs from an average B737 in:
– having relatively high,
– empanage mounted,
– low bypass engines with
– full thrust reverse (not just cold airflow)

American Airlines do it at DFW with MD80’s and used to do it with 727’s (have been on both whilst doing so) The only thing to watch for is no applying the brakes too quick or you may end up on the tail.

J41’s do it at SOU most of the time.

Saw a shambolic outfit called ‘UK Jet’ do it at EMA with MD-83 SX-BSW, what a shower they were!

-Dazza

Would it not blow FOD into the airport terminal building?

I thought this was a mild example of what can happen if you use the reversers at low airspeed.

Seen a Continenal DC-9-32 at Fort Lauderdale do it in 1988.:)

The LET 410’s from Manx do it all the time at Belfast International Airport. I would not be surprised in 10 years if all aircraft had some form of electronic system to allow them to reverse back to save on cost and the environment. Coupled with CCTV it could be quite safe.

Of more concern is the ingestion of the engines of F.O.D. .

I thought this was bad for the engines. I thought the reversers should be closed at about 40 knots forward speed. I thought it could cause flameouts or and overheating.

I saw it in Midway last month, a DFW bound DC9 shook the pier as it pulled its self back, whilst i’ve also encountered it, on a MD80 from Orlando bound for O’Hare back in 1997 😀

I don’t think it’s actually a problem when there is enough space around the aircraft and behind it for no ‘accidents’ to occur, you can see the large gap between where the aircraft are parked and the taxiway.

As Jason said though I think this only occurs in the US now? it pushed back alot faster than a tug would too! :diablo:.

im sure i read somewhere that in some us airports its common practice!!!

looks funny though 🙂

jason