Sponsor Message:
Aviation Technical / Operations Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Reverse Thrust Usage  
User currently offlinemadog From Australia, joined Nov 2000, 91 posts, RR: 0
Posted (2 years 5 months 1 week 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 5251 times:

Perhaps pilots and airline operation employees can help answer my question.

On some airlines I travelled in the previous few years, such as Singapore, Cathay, EVA Air, upon touchdown, I noticed that judging by the lack of reverse thrust spooling noise, that minimum reverse thrust (idle perhaps?) are used. On the other hand, other airlines such as QANTAS, and airlines in China (Air CHina, China Eastern, CHina Southern, Hianan to name a few) use evidently (again judging by the noise) reverse thrust to slow the aircraft down on roll out.

I'm guessing that, if the use of minimum reverse thrust is to minimise engine wear and it's an operational thing depending on the airline?

13 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlinetdscanuck From Canada, joined Jan 2006, 12709 posts, RR: 80
Reply 1, posted (2 years 5 months 1 week 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 5176 times:

Quoting madog (Thread starter):
I'm guessing that, if the use of minimum reverse thrust is to minimise engine wear and it's an operational thing depending on the airline?

It's an operational thing to balance noise, engine wear, thrust reverser wear, and brake wear. Policies vary wildly.

Tom.


User currently offlineLarshjort From Niue, joined Dec 2007, 1526 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (2 years 5 months 1 week 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 5103 times:

I believe it is not legal to use T/Rs above idle in CPH unless in an emergency because of noise issues.

/Lars



139, 306, 319, 320, 321, 332, 34A, AN2, AT4, AT5, AT7, 733, 735, 73G, 738, 739, 146, AR1, BH2, CN1, CR2, DH1, DH3, DH4,
User currently offlineMir From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 21875 posts, RR: 55
Reply 3, posted (2 years 5 months 1 week 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 5050 times:

Quoting Larshjort (Reply 2):
I believe it is not legal to use T/Rs above idle in CPH unless in an emergency because of noise issues.

I don't know about illegal, but many airports in Europe publish notices to pilots that reverse thrust should not be used above idle due to noise, unless operationally required.

-Mir



7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
User currently offlinezeke From Hong Kong, joined Dec 2006, 9238 posts, RR: 76
Reply 4, posted (2 years 5 months 1 week 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 5024 times:

Quoting madog (Thread starter):

Couple of considerations.

Reverse thrust typically does not reduce the stopping distance these days, on an aircraft like an A330 they decelerate at the rate the pilots select auto brake. All reverse thrust does is changes the amount of brake pressure being applied, the deceleration rate is still the same with auto brake idle reverse or full reverse.

Carbon brakes as found on airliners these days wear mainly in proportion to the number of brake applications, a nice long single application by the auto brakes is the preferred way to treat them. They also work best when warmer.

We will use reverse if the runway is contaminated, wet, or with a tailwind. At CX full reverse thust is the normal procedure, idle reverse is a normal consideration if operationally feasible, our landing distance calculations are based up no reverse.



We are addicted to our thoughts. We cannot change anything if we cannot change our thinking – Santosh Kalwar
User currently offlineThai744 From Australia, joined Jun 2004, 303 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (2 years 5 months 1 week 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 4916 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Silly questions and slightly off topic, however just in relation to zeke's post above... how much tailwind can an aircraft actually land with? What's the maximum amount of wind permissible and does it vary between aircraft types?

User currently offlinezeke From Hong Kong, joined Dec 2006, 9238 posts, RR: 76
Reply 6, posted (2 years 5 months 1 week 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 4889 times:

Quoting Thai744 (Reply 5):
how much tailwind can an aircraft actually land with? What's the maximum amount of wind permissible and does it vary between aircraft types?

The maximum will be an aircraft limit, and does vary with type. On the A330 for example it is 15 kts.



We are addicted to our thoughts. We cannot change anything if we cannot change our thinking – Santosh Kalwar
User currently offlinefaro From Egypt, joined Aug 2007, 1630 posts, RR: 0
Reply 7, posted (2 years 5 months 1 week 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 4866 times:

Quoting zeke (Reply 6):
Quoting Thai744 (Reply 5):
how much tailwind can an aircraft actually land with? What's the maximum amount of wind permissible and does it vary between aircraft types?

The maximum will be an aircraft limit, and does vary with type. On the A330 for example it is 15 kts.

What is this figure based on? Given an infinite runway, would there still be a limiting tailwind component?


Faro



The chalice not my son
User currently offlinetdscanuck From Canada, joined Jan 2006, 12709 posts, RR: 80
Reply 8, posted (2 years 5 months 1 week 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 4850 times:

Quoting faro (Reply 7):
What is this figure based on? Given an infinite runway, would there still be a limiting tailwind component?

At some point you'll hit the limit of what the tires (tire speed) and brakes (kinetic energy) can handle. The performance of both relates directly to groundspeed at touchdown, so if you get enough tailwind you'll run into one of those limits. Most likely tire speed first, because the limiting condition for brakes is usually rejected takeoff at MTOW, but high tail winds are going to drive you towards hot brakes.

Tom.


User currently offlinezeke From Hong Kong, joined Dec 2006, 9238 posts, RR: 76
Reply 9, posted (2 years 5 months 1 week 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 4842 times:

Quoting faro (Reply 7):

What is this figure based on? Given an infinite runway, would there still be a limiting tailwind component?

I think all FAR/JAR 25 aircraft automatically get 10 kt, anything above that needs to be flight tested to 150% greater than the limit, so to get 15 kt, they have to test to 22.5 kt. They need to have landing data for the tailwind.

The highest tailwind component I am aware of for a FAR/JAR 25 aircraft would be something like a DHC-7 that would be 20 kts, ATR-42, Airbus A319/20/21/A330/A340, Boeing 737/747/757/767/777, BAe 146/RJ family are all capable of 15 kts.

Practically the limit would be rate of descent, airlines do not like to see descent rates in excess of 1000 fpm on final, and that is what you may need to do with a high ground speed to maintain the glideslope.



We are addicted to our thoughts. We cannot change anything if we cannot change our thinking – Santosh Kalwar
User currently offlinebond007 From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 5455 posts, RR: 8
Reply 10, posted (2 years 5 months 1 week 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 4633 times:

Quoting zeke (Reply 4):
Reverse thrust typically does not reduce the stopping distance these days, on an aircraft like an A330 they decelerate at the rate the pilots select auto brake. All reverse thrust does is changes the amount of brake pressure being applied, the deceleration rate is still the same with auto brake idle reverse or full reverse.

I know you did mention it later, but to be clear to other folks, that is only correct for dry runways ... where it provides little to no difference. On a contaminated runway, especially slush, it will reduce the stopping distance of course.


Jimbo



I'd rather be on the ground wishing I was in the air, than in the air wishing I was on the ground!
User currently offlinetdscanuck From Canada, joined Jan 2006, 12709 posts, RR: 80
Reply 11, posted (2 years 5 months 1 week 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 4623 times:

Quoting bond007 (Reply 10):
I know you did mention it later, but to be clear to other folks, that is only correct for dry runways ... where it provides little to no difference. On a contaminated runway, especially slush, it will reduce the stopping distance of course.

That's only true if the autobrakes hit their braking decelleration limit (i.e. they have to let off to prevent the wheels from locking up). As long as the wheels aren't skidding, the airplane will apply as much brake as it needs to to reach the autobrake decelleration threshold and no more. Since it's a deceleration, the landing distance won't change unless the thrust reveser + brake combination can't actually reach the requested decelleration.

Tom.


User currently offlinebond007 From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 5455 posts, RR: 8
Reply 12, posted (2 years 5 months 1 week 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 4616 times:

Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 11):
As long as the wheels aren't skidding

Right, which is why I mentioned slush. The QRH will show reduced landing distance in most cases on slush, compacted snow, and ice with T/Rs as opposed to brakes alone.


Jimbo



I'd rather be on the ground wishing I was in the air, than in the air wishing I was on the ground!
User currently offlinebond007 From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 5455 posts, RR: 8
Reply 13, posted (2 years 5 months 1 week 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 4581 times:

Quoting madog (Thread starter):
I'm guessing that, if the use of minimum reverse thrust is to minimise engine wear and it's an operational thing depending on the airline?

Also, this is a common topic. Most things posted in this thread have probably already been covered in the 'similar topics' list at the bottom of the page  

Jimbo



I'd rather be on the ground wishing I was in the air, than in the air wishing I was on the ground!
Top Of Page
Forum Index

Reply To This Topic Reverse Thrust Usage
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...
Reverse Thrust Q posted Wed Aug 3 2011 18:19:52 by airplaneguy
A380 2 Engine Reverse Thrust posted Sat May 21 2011 21:13:32 by ColAvionLover
C-17 Parked In Reverse Thrust Config? posted Fri Apr 22 2011 07:48:32 by AviatorG
A380 Reverse Thrust posted Mon Aug 23 2010 16:39:09 by tarzanboy
Reverse Thrust posted Wed Feb 10 2010 21:38:25 by j0rdan
Engine Flames When Reverse Thrust Activated posted Sun Jan 17 2010 07:15:30 by Btblue
Reverse-Thrust Force Compared To Brakes posted Wed Feb 18 2009 12:50:21 by Dakota123
Reverse Thrust And Law posted Mon Apr 7 2008 07:44:09 by AlexEU
Boeing 747-400 Reverse Thrust? posted Thu Mar 20 2008 14:50:49 by Kimberlyrj
Reverse Thrust For Pushback? posted Mon Feb 11 2008 16:49:26 by Fantikerz

Sponsor Message:
Printer friendly format