Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Landing Without Reverse Thrust?  
User currently offlineLewis From Greece, joined Jul 1999, 3636 posts, RR: 5
Posted (13 years 8 months 1 week 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 5917 times:

I am not quite shure but i clearly remember that when i went to NEW YORK (JFK) in 1993 we landed without using reverse thrust. Is this really possible? It is not possible to have missed it because the 747-200s make really loud noise so it is always noticeable.

28 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineCritter_592 From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 279 posts, RR: 0
Reply 1, posted (13 years 8 months 1 week 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 5808 times:

It could be possible, JFK has one really long runway. I'm not sure if it is required in order to stop.......but I've done it in FS.

User currently offlineAirbus_a340 From Hong Kong, joined Mar 2000, 1560 posts, RR: 19
Reply 2, posted (13 years 8 months 1 week 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 5792 times:

in some airports like in Hong Kong, Chek Lap Kok, i have noticed the reverse thrust doors open, but i didnt notice if reverse thrust was activated, this is because i did not hear much of a rumble, this has occured on 3 out of 4 of the landings. I have been told that this is called "idle reverse thrust" where the doors of the reversers are just opened to stop the air flowing straight through the engine scince reverse thrust is not so effective on some aircraft.

Can someone please clarify, i was told this, i am giving you infomation from a pilot not me.

Regards
Trevor A.K.A. Airbus_A340



People. They make an airline. www.cathaypacific.com
User currently offlineNightfly From Germany, joined Nov 2000, 212 posts, RR: 0
Reply 3, posted (13 years 8 months 1 week 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 5759 times:

Landing without reverse thrusts is possible. Pilots are allowed to fly with deactivated or defect reverse thrusts because there are 2 other break systems which can stop the plane.

Because of security, this break systems are necessary.

best regards,
nightfly


User currently offlineFlashmeister From United States of America, joined Apr 2000, 2900 posts, RR: 6
Reply 4, posted (13 years 8 months 1 week 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 5747 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

I've landed at DEN a couple of times using braking only, not reverse thrust...

User currently offlineILS25R From Germany, joined Jan 2001, 28 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (13 years 8 months 1 week 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 5710 times:

Hi,
for landing, thrust reversal is not included in the performance calculation. It's used as an additional factor of safety and therefore not necessary but it reduces the braking distance about 20%.
The maximum share of thrust reverse is about 30% of the total braking effect on a dry runway.
At some airports the use of reverse thrust, except idle reverse, is not allowed, except for safety, due to noise abatement.

BRGDS
ILS


User currently offlinePrebennorholm From Denmark, joined Mar 2000, 6453 posts, RR: 54
Reply 6, posted (13 years 8 months 1 week 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 5692 times:

In Copenhagen (CPH) use of thrust reversers is banned due to noise restrictions.
Normally they open the doors and spool the engines up a little higher that idle. I guess that it is only to get a faster responce if the reversers are needed - in case of a problem with the wheel brakes.
In case of any problem they are of course allowed to do what they can do.
Best regards, Preben Norholm



Always keep your number of landings equal to your number of take-offs, Preben Norholm
User currently offlineJETPILOT From United States of America, joined May 1999, 3130 posts, RR: 29
Reply 7, posted (13 years 8 months 1 week 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 5692 times:

It has been found that aircraft using carbon brakes have much less brake wear if the wheel brakes are used exclusively to slow the plane down.

Carbon brakes wear siginificantly less when they are hot.

If carbon brakes are used like steel brakes (only below 60 kts) they spend little time in their optimal operating temperature zone and wear is increased.

The newest procedures for airplanes equiped with carbon brakes is to bring the engines into idle reverse, and use auto braking to slow the aircraft. This puts the brakes in the optimal heat zone quickly minimizing wear.

If anything other than the proposed procedures are used the modern planes will rat you out to ops for too low break temps, or using reverse above idle. This info is compiled in to a unique profile for each pilot recording his or her flying habits. Letters are sent out regarding aircraft operations outside the prescribed parameters. Big brother knows all.

JET


User currently offlineXFSUgimpLB41X From United States of America, joined Aug 2000, 4200 posts, RR: 37
Reply 8, posted (13 years 8 months 1 week 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 5636 times:

Like has been said.. landing without reverse thrusters is not necessary. They are pretty much ineffective and suck up things when the plane's speed drops under 100kts.


Chicks dig winglets.
User currently offlineDelta73Spilot From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 9, posted (13 years 8 months 1 week 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 5635 times:

On the 737, most runways we operate are well beyond what we need to stop! I always arm the reversers just to have them handy but slow the airplane down on brakes, I find that it provides a much more comfortable landing to the passengers without all this extra noise. Now if operational needs dictate the use of them then by all means they will be used!

User currently offlineYXDfan From Canada, joined Dec 2000, 193 posts, RR: 0
Reply 10, posted (13 years 8 months 1 week 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 5628 times:

Idle reverse is a pretty common practice, they did it once when I was riding in the jumpseat of an AC DC-9. There are also a few smaller jets that have no reverse thrust at all, such as the F-28 and the BAe-146. Mind you, the landing on the F-28 is about the only thing thats quiet!

User currently offlineRedngold From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 6907 posts, RR: 44
Reply 11, posted (13 years 8 months 1 week 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 5628 times:

Strangely enough, most jets landing at CLE use reverse thrust, even though we have an 8,999 ft. runway. Even the Embraer RJs regularly use their reversers.

redngold



Up, up and away!
User currently offlineShawn Patrick From United States of America, joined Jan 2000, 2608 posts, RR: 16
Reply 12, posted (13 years 8 months 1 week 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 5619 times:

If you ever fly to Denver (DEN), you'll notice that thrust reversers are usually never used.

This is because of 3 basic reasons

1.) The air at one mile high is pretty thin, so the reversers are not very effective. Just waste gas.

2.) Every runway in DEN is 12,000 ft long (with a new 16,000 footer coming soon!  !), so there is more than enough room to slow to taxi speed.

3.) The concourses are usually at the end of the runways (depending on which way you arrive, see pic), so if you stopped halfway down, you'd have to taxi for a while.



Hope this helps!

-Shawn

BTW, come to DEN! It's a great airport!
If you must connect anywhere, DEN is the place!  


User currently offlineJETPILOT From United States of America, joined May 1999, 3130 posts, RR: 29
Reply 13, posted (13 years 8 months 1 week 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 5612 times:

Reversers ineffective??? Hardly.

User currently offlineJetguy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 14, posted (13 years 8 months 1 week 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 5605 times:

Thrust reversers are NEVER necessary to make "book" stopping distances. Book distances are based upon the use of wheel brakes only. Basically, the use of T/Rs provides the crew with a cushion or extra margin. It costs money to use the brakes (brake overhauls are big $$$) and T/Rs cost more or less nothing to use so they make sense from an economic point of view. Are they mandatory - never, nice to have - yes.

User currently offlineSegmentKing From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 15, posted (13 years 8 months 1 week 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 5591 times:

Reverse thrusters somewhat ineffective?? I sure hope not... have you flown into Chicago Midway???

I'd hate to be the pilot of your 727 landing staring at all the car traffic just on the otherside of that fense.............


User currently offlineRed Panda From Hong Kong, joined Jun 2000, 1521 posts, RR: 0
Reply 16, posted (13 years 8 months 1 week 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 5581 times:

Thrust Reversers should not be ineffective by any mean. Even tho the air is thin, the engines can compress the inflow of air to 1:40 (when cruising). So I don't think thin air is a reason why thrust reversers are ineffective. The thinness of air is only a matter to propellers, but not Jet. (a/c w/ jet engines).

Regards,
R panda


User currently offlineAirbus_a340 From Hong Kong, joined Mar 2000, 1560 posts, RR: 19
Reply 17, posted (13 years 8 months 1 week 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 5557 times:

But it is a known fact only idle reverse thrust is used at some airport, if not, most.
Any pilot want to comment?
Trev



People. They make an airline. www.cathaypacific.com
User currently offlineL-188 From United States of America, joined Jul 1999, 29800 posts, RR: 58
Reply 18, posted (13 years 8 months 1 week 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 5552 times:

Jetguy is right.

The landing distances for an aircraft are determined without the use of thrust reversers.



OBAMA-WORST PRESIDENT EVER....Even SKOORB would be better.
User currently offlineFaisZ From Singapore, joined Sep 2000, 106 posts, RR: 0
Reply 19, posted (13 years 8 months 1 week 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 5554 times:

Recently i was on an SQ 744 fully packed to Tokyo - Narita. I was suprised to find that we did not need reverst thrust as we were landing in narita since the plane must have been pretty heavy!

User currently offlineCedarjet From United Kingdom, joined May 1999, 8115 posts, RR: 53
Reply 20, posted (13 years 8 months 1 week 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 5552 times:

Air-India didn't use them at JFK a few months ago in one of their 744s when I was over there in Spring. Nor did British Meditteranean in an A320 at Beirut a few years ago, which was more surprising cos the runway isn't an alternative landing site for the Space Shuttle (as the long runway at JFK is). Quite short in fact.

Whoever said reverse thrust is less costly than wheel brakes is mental - changing brake pads (not really "$$$" at all) is a fraction of the cost in significantly shortened engine life from the rigours of reverse thrust, and of course fuel used spooling up to 80%-odd power.



fly Saha Air 707s daily from Tehran's downtown Mehrabad to Mashhad, Kish Island and Ahwaz
User currently offlineAdvancedkid From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 762 posts, RR: 2
Reply 21, posted (13 years 8 months 1 week 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 5530 times:

Hi there,
A heavier plane needs more breaking power than a lighter one because of a greater inertia.
The use of reverse thrusts is mostly left to the
pilot's logical decision at any particular airport.
Several airports and or runways almost always require
the use of thrust reversers on some airplanes.
With some others it is hardly required.
I hope that helps.
Regards,
Advancedkid


User currently offlineCfalk From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 22, posted (13 years 8 months 1 week 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 5518 times:

I was told not long ago that in order to recieve civil transport certification from the FAA, the aircraft must be able to land safely using either only wheel brakes or only reverse thrust, so that if there is a problem with either system, you don't have a major problem. I suppose a "standard" runway length is specified for this, but I don't know how that is calculated. Anybody know?

Charles


User currently offlineSegmentKing From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 23, posted (13 years 8 months 1 week 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 5492 times:

I was reading an article that a friend (mgr of an Illinois airport) gave me and it stated that the new "standard" length runways are about 6,300 feet by 150 feet...

I guess 5,300 is cutting it short....

Nate


User currently offlineAA777 From United States of America, joined May 1999, 2544 posts, RR: 28
Reply 24, posted (13 years 8 months 1 week 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 5469 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

I flew into LHR once on A 747-200 IAD- LHR and it arrived at 6 in the morning, i believe the reverse thrust wasnt used b/c it was so early that day....
-AA777


25 Corey777 : If you ever fly to Denver (DEN), you'll notice that thrust reversers are usually never used. Not on turboprops, pilots like to jam on the reverse-pitc
26 B727-200 : I suppose like most things, there are a number of logical reasons for why thrust reverse would or would not be used (a number have been mentioned abo
27 Timobear : It is very possible that you landed without reverse thrust. In fact, UAL 777 pilots are trained to conserve fuel by not using reverse thrust. The 777
28 OE-LDA : I once landed on a Qantas 747-400 in FRA without reversers. Its kind of strange, but it works. OE-LDA
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Landing At Princess Juliana Without Reverse Thrust posted Sat Mar 5 2005 21:09:26 by Apollo13
Can A 777-200 Slow Down Without Reverse Thrust posted Sun Feb 17 2002 23:26:30 by Fly_emirates
Reverse Thrust Deployed Before Landing posted Sat Nov 26 2005 08:35:36 by SkyHigh777
Reverse Thrust On Landing posted Sat Oct 20 2001 08:50:19 by Artsyman
Landing 747-4 Without Rev. Thrust. posted Mon Aug 20 2001 09:52:30 by Il76
DC-8 And Reverse Thrust Use In Flight posted Mon Jul 3 2006 05:50:58 by Ttailsteve
Reverse Thrust Explained! posted Tue Dec 20 2005 19:10:44 by Deaphen
Reverse Thrust Pushback From Gate posted Thu Dec 15 2005 20:00:15 by EFCar98
Northwest Using Reverse Thrust For Pushback posted Sun Nov 27 2005 18:53:54 by DLCnxgptjax
Why Do So Many 767s Land W/o Reverse Thrust? posted Wed Nov 2 2005 22:44:18 by Ilovenz