Sponsor Message:
Aviation Technical / Operations Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Why No Reverse Thrust On Landing In ATL?  
User currently offlineBR715-A1-30 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Posted (6 years 6 months 2 weeks 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 8891 times:

Yesterday, I flew on DL4285 from EVV to ATL, and upon landing in ATL, we didn't use reverse thrust. Was there a reason for this?

Only reason I can think of is that we had enough runway, and the weather was good, so the pilot opted for brakes only, either that, or one may have been malfunctioning. Also, while I'm talking about it, watch the video.. The landing gear was EXTREMELY noisy (more-so than normal) on this aircraft... You can hear how it sounds like we're on loose gravel.



53 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineLuisde8cd From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 1, posted (6 years 6 months 2 weeks 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 8866 times:

I fail to notice anything irregular in your landing. It was flawless in my opinion.

Saludos desde Caracas,
Luis


User currently offlineBAKJet From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 2, posted (6 years 6 months 2 weeks 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 8853 times:

What type of plane were you on( I assume a CRJ)? The landing gear didn't sound noisier than usual to me. The only reason besides yours that I can think of is that you came in under 60 knots (doesn't it damage the engine or something like that if you use r/t under 60 knots?). I'm pretty sure on most of the ERJ flights I've been on have use R/T in the air, not on the ground, maybe it is an RJ thing not to use r/t on the ground. Any ERJ/ CRJ( or any)pilots here that can shed some light on this.

[Edited 2008-02-08 17:26:21]

[Edited 2008-02-08 17:26:54]

User currently offlineAirTran737 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 3, posted (6 years 6 months 2 weeks 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 8844 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!



Quoting BR715-A1-30 (Thread starter):
and upon landing in ATL, we didn't use reverse thrust. Was there a reason for this?

It's very common now. If the runway is long enough, and weather conditions are ideal many regionals are now landing without using the TR's. It saves wear and tear on the engine.


User currently offlineViscount724 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 4, posted (6 years 6 months 2 weeks 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 8831 times:



Quoting BR715-A1-30 (Thread starter):
Yesterday, I flew on DL4285 from EVV to ATL, and upon landing in ATL, we didn't use reverse thrust. Was there a reason for this?

That is very common all over the world. Airlines avoid using reverse thrust when the runway is long enough and it's not wet or snow-covered. Saves a lot of wear and tear on the engines and reduces maintenance expenses. They often put the engines in idle-reverse but that isn't noticeable by passengers. The only recent landings I can recall where significant reverse thrust was used involved slippery or short runways, or occasionally when they don't want to miss a runway exit to reduce otherwise long taxi times.


User currently offlineBR715-A1-30 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 5, posted (6 years 6 months 2 weeks 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 8805 times:

As for the noisy landing gear, it honestly sounded like we had burst a tyre on landing...

If that happens, can the pilot still taxi to the gate?


User currently offlineBAC111 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 6, posted (6 years 6 months 2 weeks 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 8763 times:



Quoting BAKJet (Reply 2):
I'm pretty sure on most of the ERJ flights I've been on have use R/T in the air, not on the ground, maybe it is an RJ thing not to use r/t on the ground.

Reverse thrust while in the air?? News to me, RJ or mainline jet. Why would RJs use it and not mainline?


User currently offlineBAKJet From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 7, posted (6 years 6 months 2 weeks 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 8751 times:



Quoting BAC111 (Reply 6):
Reverse thrust while in the air?? News to me, RJ or mainline jet. Why would RJs use it and not mainline?

I don't know why they do it,I thought it was dangerous to use r/t in the air, but I'm pretty sure that is what I heard.


User currently offlineTornado82 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 8, posted (6 years 6 months 2 weeks 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 8729 times:



Quoting BAKJet (Reply 2):
The only reason besides yours that I can think of is that you came in under 60 knots (doesn't it damage the engine or something like that if you use r/t under 60 knots?). I'm pretty sure on most of the ERJ flights I've been on have use R/T in the air, not on the ground, maybe it is an RJ thing not to use r/t on the ground. Any ERJ/ CRJ( or any)pilots here that can shed some light on this.

First off there's no way a CRJ landed at a speed below 60 kts. More than double that actually.

Secondly, nothing regularly used as a commercial passenger airliner currently is able to use R/T in the air, at all.


User currently offlineMQTmxguy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 9, posted (6 years 6 months 2 weeks 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 8717 times:



Quoting BAKJet (Reply 2):
What type of plane were you on( I assume a CRJ)? The landing gear didn't sound noisier than usual to me. The only reason besides yours that I can think of is that you came in under 60 knots (doesn't it damage the engine or something like that if you use r/t under 60 knots?). I'm pretty sure on most of the ERJ flights I've been on have use R/T in the air, not on the ground, maybe it is an RJ thing not to use r/t on the ground. Any ERJ/ CRJ( or any)pilots here that can shed some light on this.

ERJ outboard spoiler and T/R logic is routed though the nose gear weight on wheels sensors. In english, that means the T/Rs cannot deploy if the the nose gear is not down and locked and on the ground.


User currently offlineAvioniker From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 10, posted (6 years 6 months 2 weeks 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 8699 times:



Quoting Tornado82 (Reply 8):
Secondly, nothing regularly used as a commercial passenger airliner currently is able to use R/T in the air, at all.

Nothing is a very strong word. There's still a number of DC-8's in passenger service; not a lot but they're there.

 Smile


User currently offlineTornado82 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 11, posted (6 years 6 months 2 weeks 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 8668 times:



Quoting Avioniker (Reply 10):

Nothing is a very strong word. There's still a number of DC-8's in passenger service; not a lot but they're there.

That's why I said regularly used... they're not over here. Unless you're a box riding on UPS/DHL... which I always thought would be a more convenient way to travel anyways, haha.


User currently offlineStealthZ From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 12, posted (6 years 6 months 2 weeks 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 8642 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!



Quoting Tornado82 (Reply 8):
Secondly, nothing regularly used as a commercial passenger airliner currently is able to use R/T in the air, at all.

Maybe not over "there" but the world extends beyond California & New Hampshire.

The TU-154....

View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Thierry Deutsch
View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Markus Schuster



User currently offlineStarlionblue From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 13, posted (6 years 6 months 2 weeks 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 8624 times:



Quoting BAKJet (Reply 7):
I don't know why they do it,I thought it was dangerous to use r/t in the air, but I'm pretty sure that is what I heard.



Quoting Tornado82 (Reply 8):
Secondly, nothing regularly used as a commercial passenger airliner currently is able to use R/T in the air, at all.

Il-62 and Tu-154 regularly do it. It was also done on the DC-8 for air braking.


User currently offlineTornado82 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 14, posted (6 years 6 months 2 weeks 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 8613 times:



Quoting Starlionblue (Reply 13):

Il-62 and Tu-154 regularly do it. It was also done on the DC-8 for air braking.

But none of those are flying EVV-ATL.  Cool


User currently offlineStealthZ From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 15, posted (6 years 6 months 2 weeks 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 8609 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!



Quoting Tornado82 (Reply 14):
But none of those are flying EVV-ATL

An entirely valid point which I accept but in your original post...

Quoting Tornado82 (Reply 8):
Secondly, nothing regularly used as a commercial passenger airliner currently is able to use R/T in the air, at all.

You made a fairly absolute statement with no conditions as to location or route.

Cheers


User currently offlineTornado82 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 16, posted (6 years 6 months 2 weeks 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 8604 times:



Quoting StealthZ (Reply 15):

You made a fairly absolute statement with no conditions as to location or route.

Yeah, I saw that after I posted and was glancing back at this thread but the edit window had passed by. I meant to say "regularly used *here* as a...."


User currently offlinePhxpilot From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 17, posted (6 years 6 months 2 weeks 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 8600 times:

One of the things that drives me crazy are the people that post regarding T/R being used or not used. This is especially true in the trip report section. Unless you have a clear view of the T/R you really have no idea if they are used or not.

Often they will be used, but at idle reverse. This is done if the runway is long enough. The buckets/cascades (depending on engine and airframe types will deploy, but the engine is not commanded to spool up. This negates most of the residual forward thrust produced at idle while eliminating most of the stress of full reverse.

The original poster was on a CRJ, of which I am a qualified Captain. On the -200, the T/R are pneumatically actuated. This results in a relatively lengthy deployment time. As a result, by the time they are deployed and the engines spool up you are already almost slowed to 60 knots. You get almost the same deceleration result using idle reverse as full reverse. On the -700 and -900, the T/R are hydraulically actuated. They deploy and stow very rapidly. Also, the FADEC keeps the engines spooled up slightly to enable rapid application of full reverse thrust. Thus in these models you can take advantage of full reverse for a longer and more effective period of time. In any event, on these aircraft it is impossible to see the actual reverser from the cabin. Therefore, unless the engines spool up above idle reverse, the passenger will have no way of knowing whether the T/R were used.  Yeah sure


User currently offlineFlynavy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 18, posted (6 years 6 months 2 weeks 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 8553 times:



Quoting BR715-A1-30 (Reply 5):
As for the noisy landing gear, it honestly sounded like we had burst a tyre on landing...

If that happens, can the pilot still taxi to the gate?

Considering that I watched your flight from EVV land in person yesterday, I can tell you that no, you didn't burst a tire. And how would you know what a tire bursting sounded like anyway?


User currently offlineFlyASAGuy2005 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 19, posted (6 years 6 months 2 weeks 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 8515 times:



Quoting BAKJet (Reply 2):
The only reason besides yours that I can think of is that you came in under 60 knots (doesn't it damage the engine or something like that if you use r/t under 60 knots?).

Came in under 60 kts? Not likely...

Quoting BAKJet (Reply 2):
I'm pretty sure on most of the ERJ flights I've been on have use R/T in the air, not on the ground, maybe it is an RJ thing not to use r/t on the ground. Any ERJ/ CRJ( or any)pilots here that can shed some light on this.

Ok. And I can tell you that you have never been on an ERJ that has deployed their reversers in-flight. Are you confusing the engine reverse with spoilers maybe? you seem very convinced of the first.


User currently offlineVC-10 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 20, posted (6 years 6 months 2 weeks 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 8479 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Not using T.Rev on modern a/c, as well reducing wear & tear on the engine/T.rev structure, also allows the carbon brakes to warm up their working temperature more quickly. At this temp brake wear is reduced.

User currently offlineA10WARTHOG From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 21, posted (6 years 6 months 2 weeks 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 8471 times:



Quoting BR715-A1-30 (Thread starter):
Yesterday, I flew on DL4285 from EVV to ATL, and upon landing in ATL, we didn't use reverse thrust. Was there a reason for this?

Could be on MEL also.

Quoting FlyASAGuy2005 (Reply 19):
Ok. And I can tell you that you have never been on an ERJ that has deployed their reversers in-flight. Are you confusing the engine reverse with spoilers maybe? you seem very convinced of the first.

They should not, if the FADEC gets a signal that the T/R are delpoyed it automaticly takes the engine to idle.

Also some ERJ do not have T/R it is a option.


User currently offlineBR715-A1-30 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 22, posted (6 years 6 months 2 weeks 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 8449 times:



Quoting A10WARTHOG (Reply 21):
Also some ERJ do not have T/R it is a option.

Actually, to be honest, T/R is an option on ALL aircraft.. Any airplane must successfully prove it can land in any weather without the use of T/R before it is certified, so technically, you can fly a 747 w/o T/R, but not using T/R is obviously pilot discretion


User currently offlineA10WARTHOG From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 23, posted (6 years 6 months 2 weeks 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 8421 times:

Sorry what i ment is that in the ERJ they may not even be installed.

User currently offlineDL767captain From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 24, posted (6 years 6 months 2 weeks 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 8414 times:



Quoting Phxpilot (Reply 17):
One of the things that drives me crazy are the people that post regarding T/R being used or not used. This is especially true in the trip report section. Unless you have a clear view of the T/R you really have no idea if they are used or not.

I can definitely tell, it gets very loud when the thrust reversers come on at full power even in the front of the cabin where you can't even see the engines.


25 EMBQA : If that had actually happed you'd be dead now.........
26 Vikkyvik : He didn't say at full power though....Idle reverse probably sounds about the same as idle forward thrust.
27 KcrwFlyer : They could have used the reverse thrust at idle. And the reason for not using it is usually because the pilot decided not to. Its not even remotely p
28 N231YE : Come to think of it, I remember flying into ATL on a DL 73S (back when they had them), and was disappointed when the classic Clam Shell deployed but t
29 TwinCommander : not exactly. its determined by the main gear WOW switchs and N2 rotation detection. you cant deploy T/Rs if the N2 detection is 0, gear are up or off
30 MQTmxguy : I was 99% sure I was right to begin with, but I looked it up at work today just to be sure As per EMB145 AMM part 1 78-30-00 the following conditions
31 IAHFLYR : Some airlines (CO comes to mind) are requesting/training their pilot groups to use the brakes and idle reverse in order to save gas. As was mentioned
32 Tdscanuck : Mainline can use it, there's just relatively few aircraft that can and even fewer that need to. It depends on the aircraft. For lowbypass jets with b
33 Pope : There are many reasons why not to use reverse on landing. I'll add another one. The tower may have given them a turnoff that was quite a ways down the
34 ThrottleHold : I'll add another..... Some airports, especially in noise sensitive areas, request no reverse thrust be used on landing between specified times unless
35 Pope : Interesting fact. Can any pilot tell us why this would be done? Thanks, Mike
36 Tdscanuck : In order to have reliable T/R actuation, you want two independent air/ground inputs. On larger aircraft you get that from the weight-on-wheels sensor
37 Pope : I appreciate the explanation. Learned something new today. Mike
38 MQTmxguy : Any idea why they didn't just use prox switches?
39 QFA380 : I have a question in regards to this. I was flying around ATL in flight simulator the other day and lots of planes were waiting to cross one of the i
40 KcrwFlyer : They do it plane by plane. They say "(callsign) continue taxi".
41 Pope : They'll read off each of the calls signs rapid fire. The pilots know what to expect so it's not like they're taken by surprise.
42 Tdscanuck : They do use a prox switch for the weight on wheels sensor (it looks for oleo compression). You could go with dual prox switches, I supposed, but then
43 Ajd1992 : My PA-38 Traumahawk lands faster than that, i seriously doubt a CRJ can even fly that slow. Hell, it takes off doing more than 60!
44 DocLightning : I'm going to resurrect this thread. Today I flew on an IB A321 MAD-LHR and we landed with no T/R. OK, it saves wear on the engines, sure. But why does
45 Starlionblue : The brakes hardly notice it. They're being used anyway. The T/Rs get wear and tear plus there is the risk of damage plus they don't add that much com
46 Bartonsayswhat : as my grandpa says for the car, "its alot easier to change brakes than clutch" same goes for the jet, its alot easier to change brakes than an engine.
47 Smcmac32msn : What the??? Tell passengers and Crew on Lauda Air 004 (Boeing 767 - May 26, 1991) that its safe to use R/T in the air on most new aircraft. 20 minute
48 Vikkyvik : While most aircraft are not designed for in-flight use of T/R's, there are always exceptions: Not to mention, newer carbon brakes are more efficient
49 Starlionblue : As mentioned, some aircraft can and do use T/R in flight.
50 Tdscanuck : Engine wear is cumulative. You have to accept the wear from takeoff and flight because there's no way to do the mission without it. But you don't nee
51 Smcmac32msn : Ever see a 767 check-list?
52 Tdscanuck : Yep. I was talking about design, not crew procedure. 767 had the same deceleration logic as previous engines, but they didn't take into account the g
53 Smcmac32msn : Alright you had me baffeled in your original post, but I understand now. Thanks for explaining better.
Top Of Page
Forum Index

Reply To This Topic Why No Reverse Thrust On Landing In ATL?
Username:
No username? Sign up now!
Password: 


Forgot Password? Be reminded.
Remember me on this computer (uses cookies)
  • Tech/Ops related posts only!
  • Not Tech/Ops related? Use the other forums
  • No adverts of any kind. This includes web pages.
  • No hostile language or criticizing of others.
  • Do not post copyright protected material.
  • Use relevant and describing topics.
  • Check if your post already been discussed.
  • Check your spelling!
  • DETAILED RULES
Add Images Add SmiliesPosting Help

Please check your spelling (press "Check Spelling" above)


Similar topics:More similar topics...
Why No Reverse On Piston Planes posted Wed Nov 27 2002 13:30:53 by Salim
Why No Beriev-style Jet Amphibs In The West? posted Wed Jan 9 2008 13:59:35 by Happy-flier
Why No Wing Fences On Tailplanes? posted Thu Jan 3 2008 10:13:57 by Faro
Inflight Reverse Thrust On DC 8 posted Tue Dec 4 2007 11:58:02 by 6YJCX
Reverse Thrust Before Landing:dangerous? posted Sat Feb 3 2007 11:21:21 by RootsAir
Why No Retractable Gear On Aerobatics Planes? posted Thu Nov 2 2006 20:54:17 by QFA380
Reverse Thrust On Props posted Wed Sep 27 2006 06:40:29 by AirWillie6475
What's This Noise On Landing In A 777 posted Mon Aug 7 2006 03:59:39 by UAL747
Fuel Selectors: Why No Both Position On Low Wings? posted Sat Nov 19 2005 22:35:45 by FLY2HMO
Why Not Accelerate Wheels On Landing? posted Mon Sep 12 2005 15:35:41 by TaromA380
Why No Pitot Covers On Airliners? posted Fri Jul 22 2011 10:12:49 by notaxonrotax
Why No Psgr. Bay On Aircraft Like Space Shuttle? posted Mon Jul 5 2010 18:04:54 by rightrudder
Why No Nose-door On A Converted 747? posted Tue Jun 10 2008 01:25:00 by TommyBP251b
Why No Beriev-style Jet Amphibs In The West? posted Wed Jan 9 2008 13:59:35 by Happy-flier
Why No Wing Fences On Tailplanes? posted Thu Jan 3 2008 10:13:57 by Faro
Inflight Reverse Thrust On DC 8 posted Tue Dec 4 2007 11:58:02 by 6YJCX
Reverse Thrust Before Landing:dangerous? posted Sat Feb 3 2007 11:21:21 by RootsAir

Sponsor Message:
Printer friendly format