BR715-A1-30 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Posted (5 years 3 months 1 week 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 7505 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.
BAKJet From United States of America, joined Nov 2007, 740 posts, RR: 0 Reply 2, posted (5 years 3 months 1 week 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 7467 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.
AirTran737 From United States of America, joined Apr 2004, 3639 posts, RR: 12 Reply 3, posted (5 years 3 months 1 week 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 7457 times:
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.
Nice Trip Report!!! Great Pics, thanks for posting!!!! B747Forever
Viscount724 From Switzerland, joined Oct 2006, 21464 posts, RR: 24 Reply 4, posted (5 years 3 months 1 week 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 7444 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.
BAC111 From United States of America, joined Feb 2007, 110 posts, RR: 0 Reply 6, posted (5 years 3 months 1 week 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 7377 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?
BAKJet From United States of America, joined Nov 2007, 740 posts, RR: 0 Reply 7, posted (5 years 3 months 1 week 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 7365 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.
Tornado82 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 8, posted (5 years 3 months 1 week 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 7343 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.
MQTmxguy From United States of America, joined Nov 2007, 196 posts, RR: 0 Reply 9, posted (5 years 3 months 1 week 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 7331 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.
Well at least we can all take comfort in the fact that NW will never retire their DC-9s
Avioniker From United States of America, joined Dec 2001, 1109 posts, RR: 11 Reply 10, posted (5 years 3 months 1 week 6 days 5 hours ago) and read 7313 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.
One may educate the ignorance from the unknowing but stupid is forever. Boswell; ca: 1533
Tornado82 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 11, posted (5 years 3 months 1 week 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 7282 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.
Tornado82 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 16, posted (5 years 3 months 1 week 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 7218 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...."
Phxpilot From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 78 posts, RR: 2 Reply 17, posted (5 years 3 months 1 week 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 7214 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.
Flynavy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 18, posted (5 years 3 months 1 week 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 7167 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?
FlyASAGuy2005 From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 6512 posts, RR: 11 Reply 19, posted (5 years 3 months 1 week 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 7129 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.
CAM2:"Lightning coming out of that one." CAM1: "What?"
VC-10 From United Kingdom, joined Oct 1999, 3677 posts, RR: 37 Reply 20, posted (5 years 3 months 1 week 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 7093 times:
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.
A10WARTHOG From United States of America, joined Jul 2004, 321 posts, RR: 0 Reply 21, posted (5 years 3 months 1 week 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 7085 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.
BR715-A1-30 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 22, posted (5 years 3 months 1 week 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 7063 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
A10WARTHOG From United States of America, joined Jul 2004, 321 posts, RR: 0 Reply 23, posted (5 years 3 months 1 week 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 7035 times:
Sorry what i ment is that in the ERJ they may not even be installed.
DL767captain From United States of America, joined Mar 2007, 2539 posts, RR: 0 Reply 24, posted (5 years 3 months 1 week 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 7028 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
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.
Sponsor Message: 
From , joined Dec 1969, posts, 
From Venezuela, joined Aug 2004, 2516 posts, 
From Switzerland, joined Oct 2006, 21464 posts, 
From Australia, joined Feb 2005, 5427 posts, 
From Hong Kong, joined Feb 2004, 15870 posts, 
From United Kingdom, joined Oct 1999, 3677 posts, 
Sponsor Message: 
Printer friendly format
