Thread: Heathrow CC
View Single Post
  #29   Report Post  
Old September 24th 19, 07:57 AM posted to uk.transport.london
Recliner[_4_] Recliner[_4_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity at LondonBanter: Jul 2019
Posts: 895
Default pushback to avoid paying the Heathrow CC

Someone Somewhere wrote:
On 24/09/2019 03:39, John Levine wrote:
In article , wrote:
At some airports - don't know about heathrow - some aircraft push back using
reverse thrusters.


The last plane I saw push back with a thrust reverser was an MD-80
quite a long time ago. I believe that nobody does that any more both
because it burns a lot of fuel, and the risk of junk getting into the
engine or the exhaust hurting someone on the tarmac near the plane.

It's actually the fact that most airport terminals are now vast walls of
glass and the consequential risk of damage (obviously not every time,
but even with a 0.1% chance then that's one broken pane a day at e.g. LHR)


Yes, reverse thrust pushbacks are banned at most terminals because of the
significant risk of damage to the building, ramp workers, vehicles and
ground equipment, as well as FOD to the aircraft engines (the debris blown
forward would be sucked into the engines). If no pushback tugs are
available for an extended period for some reason (eg, a strike), an airline
may request a reverse thrust departure (if their aircraft is capable of it
— not all are) but the request would normally be rejected. It would
certainly need to be approved at a high level, and I wonder whose insurance
would cover the likely damage?