I've never heard of Boeing (or any other manufacturer, for that matter) offering to delete reverse from an aircraft, and am astounded to think an airline would want to buy and operate an airliner that way. The photo does indeed seem to show a lack of reverser doors on the cowling, and I'm not questioning the photographer's opinion on this, but does Airbus actually offer to build aircraft without reverse capability? It's just so hard to believe.....
Fine: Tax for doing wrong. Tax: Fine for doing well.
LeanOfPeak From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 509 posts, RR: 1
Reply 3, posted (10 years 10 months 1 week 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 1888 times:
The BAe-146 does not have thrust reversers, and it's a STOL jet. I would imagine that the brakes are built and maintained to a higher standard of reliability on an aircraft not so equipped.
Certainly, the lack of reverse thrust availability could lead you to cancel a flight or divert if runway conditions at the destination were not suitable for an arrival. However, thrust reversers are heavy, complex, and expensive to maintain, and it is possible a business case might be made for an aircraft that generally operates out of long runways that are not usually slippery to not have to deal with the added weight and maintenance.
Lnglive1011yyz From Canada, joined Oct 2003, 1627 posts, RR: 13
Reply 4, posted (10 years 10 months 1 week 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 1889 times:
MAN you guys beat me to it. HAHAHA.
I've flown on this particular aircraft when it was being flown under Skyservice (5G) here in Canada.
This particular plane (C-GTDK) has LOTS of little quirks. #1, the emergency exit doors over the wings leak. Profusely. I sat in the Windows seat, right side of the plane, and both doors leaked profusely over me and the guy in front. We were landing in Cancun, and condensation outside the plane made it's way through.
The power in the cabin likes to shut off just by itself. It was quite fun having the Purser talk to us thru a megaphone HAHA
Mandala499 From Indonesia, joined Aug 2001, 7445 posts, RR: 77
Reply 7, posted (10 years 10 months 1 week 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 1814 times:
Reversers are not calculated into the FAR landing requirement figures...
You can get away with no reversers even on large gets, however, you definitely need a working lift-dumper/spoilers/speedbrakes... Otherwise your wheel brakes won't do their jobs properly!
Big crosswind on a narrow runway, forget the reversers, just touchdown firm, check speedbrakes deployed, and brake (auto, or manual)... Better than getting distracted with the fiddling of the reversers coz the wind is slewing you places!
But a friend of mine aquaplaned his F28 on a tailwind and a very slippery runway (WAAA 13/31, which we affectionately call the "Skating Rink") and used about 2200m to stop! Would having reversers help? Think yourself
Back to the picture... So, is the plane not using reversers or not having reversers? I wonder...T/R INOP is not a crisis, not using it is not a big deal, but having it not fitted? This is new for the 320 for me
Correct me if I'm wrong but that white part of the nacelle is the reverser doors right?
When losing situational awareness, pray Cumulus Granitus isn't nearby !
U.S. big 3 airline jets, 1966--1998. All with thrust reverse and strict limits on partial lack thereof.
Quoting CaptOveur (Reply 9): I have heard (on this board) of airlines bolting the reversers shut. I have no idea how credible the source was though.
When reversers are deferred per the MEL they are normally bolted shut.
Quoting Lowrider (Reply 10): The reversers may be deferred. Some airports have a curfew on reverser use as well. Finally, sometimes we choose not to use reverse under certain circumstances. Its not a big deal.
You don't necessarily need reverse on every landing, but my original question was, are transport aircraft manufactured without reversers? Yes, the Bac 146 had no reversers, but I think that's a rare exception and wasn't very well received by the pilots who flew it, but I didn't. A lot of spotters read these boards--how often do you see airline aircraft not using reverse? I'd bet, not very much. Oh, most KC-135s don't have reversers either, now that I think of it, but they generally operate from military fields with nice long runways.
Again, I just wondered if modern airliners are manufactured without reversers, or not. Pilot technique is a different question. Thanks for an interesting discussion.
Fine: Tax for doing wrong. Tax: Fine for doing well.
Pilotpip From United States of America, joined Sep 2003, 3164 posts, RR: 10
Reply 12, posted (10 years 10 months 1 week 22 hours ago) and read 1766 times:
TSA aquired some ERJs from Crossair that didn't have TRs, as EMBQA stated. They were happy with them and have opted to get new ones from the factory this way. Saves 700lbs per aircraft. Lowers MX costs, and with carbon brakes and modern antiskid systems you really don't need them. It's getting rare to really hear somebody pour on the power with the reversers deployed.
Ryanair737 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 13, posted (10 years 10 months 1 week 9 hours ago) and read 1644 times:
Clearly the photographer has got confused in this case. Because of the white engine cowling and the lack of reverse thrust used on the landing rollout, he has obviously has just come to this conclusion without any actual evidence to back this up.
This aircraft actually was positioning in empty from Canada, coming back to Manchester after a winter lease with Skyservice. The lack of passengers on-board also is a reason why they wouldn't have used reverse thrust. Braking only would have been sufficient on such a long runway that MAN has.
Troubleshooter From Germany, joined Feb 2005, 423 posts, RR: 4
Reply 16, posted (10 years 10 months 1 week 5 hours ago) and read 1567 times:
On the ERJ thrust reverser are only installed on customer option. All Swiss (ex Crossair) EMB145 are without T/R. I came across some EMB145 operated by British Airways Citi Express. They were without T/R, too.
Quoting C133 (Reply 11): Yes, the Bac 146 had no reversers, but I think that's a rare exception and wasn't very well received by the pilots who flew it, but I didn't.
I don´t think the BAe146 needs thrust reverser. They can land this ship on very short runways without problems. No BAe146 pilot, I´ve ever talked to, told me that he is not happy about having no T/R installed.
HAWK21M From India, joined Jan 2001, 31851 posts, RR: 54
Reply 17, posted (10 years 10 months 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 1505 times:
Quoting Ryanair737 (Reply 13): Clearly the photographer has got confused in this case. Because of the white engine cowling and the lack of reverse thrust used on the landing rollout, he has obviously has just come to this conclusion without any actual evidence to back this up.
Ryanair737.....I think your Answer says it all.I was surprised initially regarding a T/R not Installed rather than not used.
FDXMECH From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 3251 posts, RR: 30
Reply 18, posted (10 years 10 months 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 1414 times:
>>>Reversers are not calculated into the FAR landing requirement figures...<<<
Don't let this fact translate into thinking T/R's are not important or contributory.
This is just to make take-off/landing stopping distance calculations with a very conservative bent. Not using T/R's into this calculation means the optimal optimistic stopping distance is not being taken into account. That only the basic stopping equipment is being figured in.
Also, though not accounted for in stopping dx, all reversrers cannot be deferred. Though I remember our P/W A310's having both reversers deactivated due to safety concerns.
WestWing From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 2146 posts, RR: 7
Reply 19, posted (10 years 10 months 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 1394 times:
I was told by a B-777 Captain for a major US airline that the airline advised (but did not require) that crew not use thrust reversers ... only brakes. The airline's rationale had to do with longevity of the engines -- brakes are cheaper. This was seven years back, SOPs may have changed since then.
The best time to plant a tree is 40 years ago. The second best time is today.