aggiehawg said:

---

Seriously though, are there not any sensors on the wings that would detect something like that?

---

Two wing walkers escort the aircraft backwards for Southwest operations.

fka ftc said:

---

GAC06 said:

---

Haha wow.

I don't have to google anything to tell you the plane in the OP can't back up under its own power, and that it in fact did not.

A prohibited maneuver for an aircraft means it can't do it. The aircraft in the OP was not backing up, and virtually no airliners remain in service that are capable of backing up with reverse thrust. If you're detecting arrogance, that's likely on you. I know the subject and am speaking from experience using facts. Internet warriors are looking for loopholes and playing gotcha. Except for the former airline pilot that doesn't know what an engine stall is, he apparently has experience but I'm glad he's doing something else now.

---

Capt GAC06 would have been able to save his passengers from perishing in a fiery crash, but he was searching for the proper procedure and waiting on corporate legal to get with maintenance and then have accounting approve the expenditure to reroute due to an overflowed laboratory.

If the plane is mechanically able, then it CAN do it. Human decisioning based on written procedure does not determine what a plane's capabilities are. They determine a balance of capabilities, safe operating procedures, etc.

The only one looking for loopholes is you. Also, it was made pretty clear early on that the plane was not backing up but you had already declared planes cannot backup under their own power, no exceptions.

Quit baggin on others because you see it a bit differently (albeit a bit oddly as well).

---

Are you a pilot?

I have just realized something watching the video again.

The Boeing 737 Max is one the people are filming from and it is rolling forward. Isn't it? The A321 is parked and the 737 rolls up on it from behind.

Relevance?

Think its clear commercial airlines and some military aircraft are perfectly capable of using reverse thrust of move posterior end first under their own power.

I've been on an MD-80 that's done it, two more have chimed in, a video has been posted, and two additional posters have said they have experience with it or have witnessed, including a 737 similar to one in the OP.

All refuting a poster saying "they can't" when someone asked if commercial airliners can go in reverse without the aid of a tug.

Arrakis ecologist said:

---

I have just realized something watching the video again.

The Boeing 737 Max is one the people are filming from and it is rolling forward. Isn't it? The A321 is parked and the 737 rolls up on it from behind.

---

The Delta A320/1 in the video is stationary for whatever reason and I am going to assume he just did not pull far enough off the taxiway to allow other planes to pass. United plane with the kid filming appears to be trying to pass behind it and given his slow crawl I would further assume the Captain knew it was going to be tight and that he had the clearance. He made a bad decision.

Speaking of manuals, do United not have rules for ensuring proper clearance from other plans on taxiways? I guess is only covers authorized engine operations.

fka ftc said:

---

Relevance?

Think its clear commercial airlines and some military aircraft are perfectly capable of using reverse thrust of move posterior end first under their own power.

I've been on an MD-80 that's done it, two more have chimed in, a video has been posted, and two additional posters have said they have experience with it or have witnessed, including a 737 similar to one in the OP.

All refuting a poster saying "they can't" when someone asked if commercial airliners can go in reverse without the aid of a tug.

---

So, no? It really was a simple question.

Based on your posts, I'm going to say lawyer.

Great thread. Tons of discussion and joking about backing up based on a video where no planes are backing up. Then internet experts looking for loopholes and posting irrelevant examples to refute the basic fact that the airliners in question can't back up and will never be seen doing so in service, just like a long list of other prohibited maneuvers.

Like hitting parked planes? Get back to your button pushing!

GAC06 said:

---

Great thread. Tons of discussion and joking about backing up based on a video where no planes are backing up. Then internet experts looking for loopholes and posting irrelevant examples to refute the basic fact that the airliners in question can't back up and will never be seen doing so in service, just like a long list of other prohibited maneuvers.

---

Huh, seems like you may still be incorrect. Keep trying though, like a bird leaving the nest, one day you will learn to spread the wings of wisdom and fly fly away.

https://texags.com/forums/16/topics/3383511/replies/65071364

Quote:

---

I got to be a part of a TWA mad dog gate reverse maneuver as a px in the mid 90's. Figured it would be the last one I'd see in person, but I was at king last year and saw a max8 reverse about 1/4 mile down the taxiway under its own power. Guess the Boeing guys didn't read the manual.

---

redcrayon said:

---

fka ftc said:

---

Relevance?

Think its clear commercial airlines and some military aircraft are perfectly capable of using reverse thrust of move posterior end first under their own power.

I've been on an MD-80 that's done it, two more have chimed in, a video has been posted, and two additional posters have said they have experience with it or have witnessed, including a 737 similar to one in the OP.

All refuting a poster saying "they can't" when someone asked if commercial airliners can go in reverse without the aid of a tug.

---

So, no? It really was a simple question.

Based on your posts, I'm going to say lawyer.

---

Not a pilot, but evidently know more about planes than some.

Not a lawyer, but understand the US Constitution and legal concepts better than the average ones.

Saw that, it's irrelevant. What Boeing does doesn't change the basic fact that it's a prohibited maneuver and you won't see a 737 in service do it, or the basic fact that you know a lot less than you seem to think you do.

Thanks for teaching me about the decisioning involved in the use of reverse thrusters. It's been entertaining.

GAC06 said:

---

Great thread. Tons of discussion and joking about backing up based on a video where no planes are backing up. Then internet experts looking for loopholes and posting irrelevant examples to refute the basic fact that the airliners in question can't back up and will never be seen doing so in service, just like a long list of other prohibited maneuvers.

---

But can an airplane take off on a giant treadmill?

AgsMnn said:

---

But can an airplane take off on a giant treadmill?

---

Technically, yes it can!

JohnLA762 said:

---

AgsMnn said:

---

But can an airplane take off on a giant treadmill?

---

Technically, yes it can!

---

Nope, manual specifically forbids it.

redcrayon said:

---

fka ftc said:

---

Relevance?

Think its clear commercial airlines and some military aircraft are perfectly capable of using reverse thrust of move posterior end first under their own power.

I've been on an MD-80 that's done it, two more have chimed in, a video has been posted, and two additional posters have said they have experience with it or have witnessed, including a 737 similar to one in the OP.

All refuting a poster saying "they can't" when someone asked if commercial airliners can go in reverse without the aid of a tug.

---

So, no? It really was a simple question.

Based on your posts, I'm going to say lawyer.

---

Maybe he's the hardest working man in the lawyer business?

GAC06 said:

---

Great thread. Tons of discussion and joking about backing up based on a video where no planes are backing up. Then internet experts looking for loopholes and posting irrelevant examples to refute the basic fact that the airliners in question can't back up and will never be seen doing so in service, just like a long list of other prohibited maneuvers.

---

Technically, that 737Max can do a barrel roll.

Probably only happening before a serious accident involving augering into the ground, though.

can't != shouldn't.

HTH

GAC06 said:

---

Great thread. Tons of discussion and joking about backing up based on a video where no planes are backing up. Then internet experts looking for loopholes and posting irrelevant examples to refute the basic fact that the airliners in question can't back up and will never be seen doing so in service, just like a long list of other prohibited maneuvers.

---

I'm pretty sure the OP was suggesting that the United pilot backup after hitting the Delta plane.

Martin Q. Blank said:

---

GAC06 said:

---

Great thread. Tons of discussion and joking about backing up based on a video where no planes are backing up. Then internet experts looking for loopholes and posting irrelevant examples to refute the basic fact that the airliners in question can't back up and will never be seen doing so in service, just like a long list of other prohibited maneuvers.

---

I'm pretty sure the OP was suggesting that the United pilot backup after hitting the Delta plane.

---

And I have already apologized for that mistake, twice.

Nice video explaining what has now filled up a couple of pages with debate.

Technically possible, prohibited, can and should do not all mean the same thing and as such neither do their respective antonyms.



Note, its risky and not practical are the primary reasons for not using the reverse thrusters, with risky increasing for below wing mounted engines.

The tipping risk, particularly on the tail mounted engines aircraft is something I had not thought of, but could see that happening.

For giggles, here is a Piedmont Airlines instructional video on how to powerback using reverse thrust on a Boeing 737 (-200?)

aggiehawg said:

---

Martin Q. Blank said:

---

GAC06 said:

---

Great thread. Tons of discussion and joking about backing up based on a video where no planes are backing up. Then internet experts looking for loopholes and posting irrelevant examples to refute the basic fact that the airliners in question can't back up and will never be seen doing so in service, just like a long list of other prohibited maneuvers.

---

I'm pretty sure the OP was suggesting that the United pilot backup after hitting the Delta plane.

---

And I have already apologized for that mistake, twice.

---

Creating problems for certain folks who speak in absolutes regarding what the instruction manual of an airplane says it can and cannot do. Thanks a lot Hawg!

With regards to jet aircraft reversing under their own power. Specifically the 738 and 320.

Can it? Yes
Will it? No, not in service or under ANY normal operation
Is it prohibited by the POH? Yes
Is it prohibited by company? Yes see above.
Has it been done? Yes
Will it be done again? Probably
Has it been tested by manufacturer? Yes
Was it done in the OP video? No

Can we at least agree on the points above?

fire09 said:

---

With regards to jet aircraft reversing under their own power. Specifically the 738 and 320.

Can it? Yes
Will it? No, not in service or under ANY normal operation
Is it prohibited by the POH? Yes
Is it prohibited by company? Yes see above.
Has it been done? Yes
Will it be done again? Probably
Has it been tested by manufacturer? Yes
Was it done in the OP video? No

Can we at least agree on the points above?

---

I think the crux of the problem is that no, they can not agree on those points above

I am good with all those points.

fire09 said:

---

Can we at least agree on the points above?

---

Not until I see a manual

I am so sorry I even started this thread.

aggiehawg said:

---

I am so sorry I even started this thread.

---

I am so thankful that you started this thread!

JohnLA762 said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

I am so sorry I even started this thread.

---

I am so thankful that you started this thread!

---

God love ya Hawg, I certainly enjoyed the thread.

Its also poignant. Evidently here in America a bunch of intelligent Ags with varying areas of expertise and knowledge can fight for a couple of days over the meaning of the word "can't".

Reminder of defining what the definition of the word "is" is and the meaning of "sexual relations" with WH interns and blue dresses.

A deep breath and people can be reminded that there are things with far bigger consequences, much larger stakes, afoot in this Country that truly do matter.