This is more of a general question but thought I'd put it here since this is tubeliner central.

 

Instead of having to use a pushback tractor all the time, why don't tubeliners simply back up with their reverse thruster feature?

Just a guess but...

 

1. Fuel

2. Noise

3. No rear view mirror

You have no idea what's behind you, and ramps are not calm places. There's always something going on around you (note the tug in the vehicle lane):

 

By the way:

As the flight crew, you're responsible for the safe operation of the aircraft. Hit something while reversing out, and it's on you (though it used to be a semi-common procedure with the aid of a marshaller).

 

The other consideration is debris ingestion.

FOD is also a major concern, in the past only T-tailed aircraft such as the DC-9 and Super 80's did powerbacks.

why don't tubeliners simply back up with their reverse thruster feature?

 

"Thrust reverser".

 

You can't do that on aircraft with the engines on the wing.

 

The MD-80 and DC-9 had a procedure that, when cleared, the captain would increase forward thrust just enough to start moving forward. He would then bring the engines into reverse to a max of 1.3 EPR and steer with the tiller. The powerback has fallen to the wayside in part of the unnecessary noise it creates.

 

Low engine aircraft such as the 737 prohibit powerback maneuvers because of the possibility that you can cause damage to the engine if you suck something into it (rocks, dirt, garbage).

You will also find that turbojet aircraft produce little reverse thrust at low airspeeds. The mechanism for "reverse" thrust is to simply stop bypass air from going out the back, by deflecting it to the sides (only a small component is deflected forwards). It works by having a mass of air hit a wall and pushing that wall in the opposite direction to the aircraft's movement.

 

To get enough thrust, you will have to run the engine at high power settings, which is not fuel efficient or safe...

FOD is also a major concern, in the past only T-tailed aircraft such as the DC-9 and Super 80's did powerbacks.

 

FOD?

FOD?

 

Flying Object Damage/Debris - damage caused by objects that are not part of an airplane.

I hate the term 'Backing Up' - maybe it's because I'm a Brit..

Considering the reasons listed, guess they should refrain from using them thrust backing up'ers.

You have no idea what's behind you, and ramps are not calm places. There's always something going on around you (note the tug in the vehicle lane):

 

That is right on the money, there was one event where I had to stop a pushback because a tug ignored my wing walker's signal to stop and went around the aircraft. Fortunately I had a clear view and saw him coming from a distance.

Yeah, powerbacks are exceedingly rare... usually only done at small airports when the lone pushback tug breaks down or something like that. It differs by airline, but there's a whole other set of procedures for it too where you need a ground crew verifying that nothing's within the engines' danger zones for sucking in/blowing around debris and all of that.

Flying Object Damage/Debris - damage caused by objects that are not part of an airplane.

FOD is actually Foreign Object Debris.

Further, a plane actually crashed due to ice and a powerback, nasty situation.

Flying Object Damage

 

Not trying to be smart or anything, but the correct term is Foreign Object Damage.

 

Edit: I see mijitman just beat me to it

Yeah, powerbacks are exceedingly rare... usually only done at small airports when the lone pushback tug breaks down or something like that. It differs by airline, but there's a whole other set of procedures for it too where you need a ground crew verifying that nothing's within the engines' danger zones for sucking in/blowing around debris and all of that.

 

Yep,

 

Foreign objects and unnecessary wear and tear on the engines