Sponsor Message:
Aviation Technical / Operations Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Reversers On Taxiway  
User currently offlinejodoloy From United States of America, joined Oct 2011, 22 posts, RR: 0
Posted (1 year 9 months 1 week 4 days 12 hours ago) and read 10202 times:

The other day as I was doing my Pre-flight, I noticed an Allegiant MD-80 using its reversers to slow down on the taxiway. I have never noticed this before. Is this something unique, or does it occur everyday?

38 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlinelonghauler From Canada, joined Mar 2004, 5051 posts, RR: 43
Reply 1, posted (1 year 9 months 1 week 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 10200 times:

I used to do it on the B737-200. The idle thrust of the -17 engines was pretty high, it was an effective way to keep the brakes cool.

In fact, when the airplane was light, I used to taxi with one in idle reverse, it kept the speed slow. You have no idea how many times the airplane behind us warned us that we might not know one was in reverse.



Never gonna grow up, never gonna slow down .... Barefoot Blue Jean Night
User currently offlineGoBoeing From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 2706 posts, RR: 15
Reply 2, posted (1 year 9 months 1 week 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 10034 times:

On the ERJ-135/145 series, a technique was to not just use the reverse thrust to prevent the brakes from heating up, but to actually cool the brakes. The airflow when the buckets are deployed would conveniently blast down on the brakes and cool them off a little. Saw a captain do this once or twice following a quick turn while the brakes were still hot from the arrival as we taxiied out for departure.

User currently offlineN243NW From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 1637 posts, RR: 20
Reply 3, posted (1 year 9 months 1 week 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 10000 times:

Quoting longhauler (Reply 1):
You have no idea how many times the airplane behind us warned us that we might not know one was in reverse.

Gotta love unsolicited "advice" from other pilots. One of our MD-80s rejected takeoff at more than 100 knots the other week when a nearby pilot reported that the plane had a piece of FOD attached to the nose gear.

It was the spray deflector.  



B-52s don't take off. They scare the ground away.
User currently offlineHAWK21M From India, joined Jan 2001, 31684 posts, RR: 56
Reply 4, posted (1 year 9 months 1 week 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 9958 times:

Some Airlines have issued SOPs to their Flight crew to reduce brake usage to save on the brake overhaul frequency.
This is to use the full length of the runway post touchdown & minimum use of brakes.in such cases one might see the T/Rs being used instead.



Think of the brighter side!
User currently offlineatct From United States of America, joined Mar 2001, 2307 posts, RR: 38
Reply 5, posted (1 year 9 months 1 week 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 9946 times:

In the King Air / MU2 we would use beta frequently while taxiing as at idle she'll scoot pretty quick down the taxiway. My buddy flies Lear 60's and GV's and they frequently taxi with one bucket open at idle thrust. The other engine at idle provides the perfect amount of thrust for a nice, steady taxi.

atct



"The way to get started is to quit talking and begin doing." - Walt Disney
User currently offlineTristarsteve From Sweden, joined Nov 2005, 4022 posts, RR: 33
Reply 6, posted (1 year 9 months 1 week 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 9818 times:

Quoting HAWK21M (Reply 4):
Some Airlines have issued SOPs to their Flight crew to reduce brake usage to save on the brake overhaul frequency.
This is to use the full length of the runway post touchdown & minimum use of brakes.in such cases one might see the T/Rs being used instead.

Yes, the airframe guys get onto Flt Ops about brake usage and get the Engines used for slowing down.
A year later the engine guys notice and make a case to Flt Ops to get it reversed.
And so it goes on.
Brakes are cheaper than engines!


User currently offlinem1m2 From Canada, joined Dec 2011, 93 posts, RR: 0
Reply 7, posted (1 year 9 months 1 week 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 9755 times:

The Dash 8 also likes to taxi way too fast if the props are in flight idle. I use beta while taxiing. The CRJ 100/200 also likes to taxi rather rapidly if one thrust reverser isn't opened.

User currently offlineAA737-823 From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 5873 posts, RR: 11
Reply 8, posted (1 year 9 months 1 week 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 9641 times:

The F-100 aircraft do this frequently as well (and, I assume, F-70s). Those Tays make a good bit of push on the small airframe.
For maintenance on 737-200s, I sometimes do it during taxi, as we're taxying an empty airplane, and it'll build up speed, even on an uphill taxiway. Otherwise, you're forced to apply brakes, release them, apply them, release them, and so on, which is uncomfortable and awkward. The brakes on a -200 aren't very..... linear. They're more like ON or OFF!!!

Quoting Tristarsteve (Reply 6):
Brakes are cheaper than engines!

But at idle reverse, it's a moot point. Idle is idle.

Quoting atct (Reply 5):
My buddy flies Lear 60's and GV's and they frequently taxi with one bucket open at idle thrust.

I've noticed that quite a lot, in multiple bizjet types.


User currently offlineglen From Switzerland, joined Jun 2005, 224 posts, RR: 2
Reply 9, posted (1 year 9 months 1 week 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 9511 times:

Quoting AA737-823 (Reply 8):
But at idle reverse, it's a moot point. Idle is idle.

But reverse at low speed increases the risk of FOD.



"The horizon of many people is a circle with zero radius which they call their point of view." - Albert Einstein
User currently offlinetb727 From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 1611 posts, RR: 9
Reply 10, posted (1 year 9 months 1 week 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 9389 times:

Quoting glen (Reply 9):
But reverse at low speed increases the risk of FOD.

Which is true. In the Lear 25 we could only pop them on taxi during the first flight of the day for the TR check and we would make it quick. When you did it, even at idle, you would sometimes see dust fly up almost to the nose of the plane if you were looking outside!

The only engine we are allowed to intentionally reverse on the ground is the #2 engine on the 727 because the thrust is diverted to the sides instead of up and down like the pods. A popular thing to do after landing and cool down is to kill #2 (some guys call it OJ'ing it, twisted I know). This is my first winter taxiing the 727 so I prefer to keep #2 running in case I need to pop it if it's icy or I need to slow down so I tend to cage #3 if I am going to shut one down.

When we have a large load of horses on board to keep the cool air flowing from the packs it is also possible to push #1&3 up a little and pop #2 while taxiing on a really hot day. That way we keep the temperature in the cabin under control and we don't drag the brakes while trying not to hit SWA taxi speeds 



Too lazy to work, too scared to steal!
User currently offlineIAHFLYR From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 4790 posts, RR: 22
Reply 11, posted (1 year 9 months 1 week 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 9235 times:

Quoting N243NW (Reply 3):
It was the spray deflector.


   yep gotta love the help....glad it wasn't serious though.

Years back I heard some Gulfstream pilot tell the ground controller when they were asked about a reverser being deployed during taxi , "its deployed to keep the wind from blowing out the fire in the engine" as they motored downwind on the taxiway during the strong north wind. Not sure about that one but guess it could be...............    I'm not sure the controller is right to this day.



Any views shared are strictly my own and do not a represent those of any former employer.
User currently offlineAA737-823 From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 5873 posts, RR: 11
Reply 12, posted (1 year 9 months 1 week 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 9225 times:

Quoting glen (Reply 9):
But reverse at low speed increases the risk of FOD.

Yeah, but don't tell KLM that, as I've found a photo to back up what I said earlier about it on the Fokkers:

View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Tomas Lauer

Quoting IAHFLYR (Reply 11):
"its deployed to keep the wind from blowing out the fire in the engine" as they motored downwind on the taxiway during the strong north wind. Not sure about that one but guess it could be...............  

Some engines, believe it or not, are actually pretty sensitive to tailwinds. Even the mighty CFM56 has it's limits.


User currently offlineHAWK21M From India, joined Jan 2001, 31684 posts, RR: 56
Reply 13, posted (1 year 9 months 1 week 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 9084 times:

Quoting Tristarsteve (Reply 6):
Yes, the airframe guys get onto Flt Ops about brake usage and get the Engines used for slowing down.
A year later the engine guys notice and make a case to Flt Ops to get it reversed.
And so it goes on.
Brakes are cheaper than engines!

What transpires if one is Airframe & Engine qualified  

On a serious note.... whats the case for Engine damage if RT is used for slowing down.



Think of the brighter side!
User currently offlinem1m2 From Canada, joined Dec 2011, 93 posts, RR: 0
Reply 14, posted (1 year 9 months 1 week 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 8979 times:

Just that it's work that can be done by the brakes rather than adding extra wear to the engines and burning more fuel. I think that's what you are asking about?

Using them at slow speeds has the potential to blow debris into the air in front of the engine which can subsequently be ingested by the engine. We all know what this would do.


User currently offlinelonghauler From Canada, joined Mar 2004, 5051 posts, RR: 43
Reply 15, posted (1 year 9 months 1 week 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 8957 times:

Quoting m1m2 (Reply 14):
Just that it's work that can be done by the brakes rather than adding extra wear to the engines and burning more fuel. I think that's what you are asking about?

Normally when taxiing, nothing more than idle reverse is used. This is used less to slow down, than more to harness the excess thrust. Being at idle, no extra fuel is burned than if the engine remained in forward thrust. Also, brake temperature is often an issue when taxiing out, idle reverse can control that.

Quoting m1m2 (Reply 14):
Using them at slow speeds has the potential to blow debris into the air in front of the engine which can subsequently be ingested by the engine. We all know what this would do.

Most B737-200s, (and DC-9s) have the reverser buckets rotated out of centre line. This puts the area of thrust ground contact outside of the engine intake, instead of directly under it. While not entirely effective, this does reduce FOD ingestion.

For example:


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Andrés Contador - AirTeamImages




Never gonna grow up, never gonna slow down .... Barefoot Blue Jean Night
User currently offlinefreeze3192 From United States of America, joined Oct 2006, 164 posts, RR: 0
Reply 16, posted (1 year 9 months 1 week 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 8914 times:

Popping a reverser during taxi is (or was last time I checked) an approved procedure for the ERJ side of XJT.


"A passenger bets his life that his pilot is a worthy heir to an ancient tradition of excellence and professionalism."
User currently offlineGlobalMoose From United States of America, joined Aug 2012, 31 posts, RR: 0
Reply 17, posted (1 year 9 months 1 week 6 hours ago) and read 8795 times:

We throw out the TRs all of the time while taxiing. We generally put them out on 2 & 3 to help balance the forward thrust from 1 & 4 when we are at lighter weights. It gets really annoying to have to either ride the brakes (not recommended) or constantly speeding up and slowing down...

Other times, when we are really heavy, I'll use all four in reverse idle to help slow down as required (at 20 kts or so and taxiing along a downslope). A large part of our TOLD is based upon brake temps (two speeds are given on takeoff and landing - one where if we get on the brakes above a given speed, the fuse plugs melt and another, higher speed that is the maximum energy absorption capability of the brakes).

I'll try and keep the brakes under 50 C - it is amazing how much the temps can rise when you are taxing a 500,000 lb aircraft around a large airport!



When it absolutely positively has to be there ... at some point.
User currently offlineAA737-823 From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 5873 posts, RR: 11
Reply 18, posted (1 year 9 months 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 8660 times:

Quoting GlobalMoose (Reply 17):
We

Who?

Quoting GlobalMoose (Reply 17):
throw out the TRs all of the time while taxiing.

While taxying what? I gather a four-engined aircraft... more specifically?
You say 500k.... I've certainly never seen a 747 taxi around with #2 and #3 in reverse, and given the translating cowl-style reverser, those engines are particularly prone to FOD damage while in reverse, so I'm having a hard time with that policy at your company!

Quoting longhauler (Reply 15):
Being at idle, no extra fuel is burned than if the engine remained in forward thrust.

Just to pick at nits (and to provide bemusing anecdotal information), a JT8-D is prone to stall if left at idle in reverse; consequently, when you enter Detent 1 on the reverser handle, the FCU spools the engine up JUST a hair, to provide a little more motivation to get the exhaust out of the tailpipe!
Engines that reverse only the bypass flow are obviously not prone to this issue, as the core can still breathe just fine in reverse.


User currently offlinelonghauler From Canada, joined Mar 2004, 5051 posts, RR: 43
Reply 19, posted (1 year 9 months 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 8656 times:

Quoting AA737-823 (Reply 18):
Just to pick at nits (and to provide bemusing anecdotal information), a JT8-D is prone to stall if left at idle in reverse; consequently, when you enter Detent 1 on the reverser handle, the FCU spools the engine up JUST a hair, to provide a little more motivation to get the exhaust out of the tailpipe!

I never noticed that! And ... I have over 5000 hours on the B737-200. (as I always say, its a bad day you don't learn something!) Is that all of them? As I noticed that the idle is quite a bit higher on the -15, or -17, over the -9s. So I never taxied with the -9s in reverse, just the -17s.

Quoting AA737-823 (Reply 18):
Engines that reverse only the bypass flow are obviously not prone to this issue, as the core can still breathe just fine in reverse.

Yes, but usually those engines have a minimum recommended airspeed for reverse. The airplane I fly now, recommends 70 knots minimum for max reverse, and 50 knots for idle reverse. That being said though, an F/O recently asked why my hand was on the reverse levers as we entered the gate area, "you just never know" I replied, "you never know"!



Never gonna grow up, never gonna slow down .... Barefoot Blue Jean Night
User currently offlineGlobalMoose From United States of America, joined Aug 2012, 31 posts, RR: 0
Reply 20, posted (1 year 9 months 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 8594 times:

Quoting AA737-823 (Reply 18):

C-17A.



When it absolutely positively has to be there ... at some point.
User currently offlineYikes! From Canada, joined Oct 2001, 284 posts, RR: 1
Reply 21, posted (1 year 9 months 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 8350 times:

I have been away from this forum for a number of years.

I used idle reverse on the 763 while taxiing in after landing many, many times but never while taxiing out for takeoff. It was a very effective and safe method to control taxi speeds on an aircraft that was typically light weight at destination.


User currently offlineAA737-823 From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 5873 posts, RR: 11
Reply 22, posted (1 year 9 months 22 hours ago) and read 8216 times:

Quoting longhauler (Reply 19):
I never noticed that! And ... I have over 5000 hours on the B737-200. (as I always say, its a bad day you don't learn something!) Is that all of them? As I noticed that the idle is quite a bit higher on the -15, or -17, over the -9s. So I never taxied with the -9s in reverse, just the -17s.

It's very subtle; we mechs have to be watching the EPR and N2 gages closely; my ear is pretty good, but the increase in fan noise is drowned out by the scream of the diverted airflow!
As to whether it's all of them, I can only testify to the -17A.

Quoting longhauler (Reply 19):
That being said though, an F/O recently asked why my hand was on the reverse levers as we entered the gate area, "you just never know" I replied, "you never know"!

Indeed; here in slick, slick, slick Anchorage, I've watched pilots taxi into position (and also at the hangar) using differential reverse thrust to steer the airplane. You'll see the nosewheel turn a bit, then a bit more, then FULL deflection with no effect on aircraft heading... that's when you put your hood up over your head, because you know that the inboard engine is about to go into reverse!

Quoting GlobalMoose (Reply 20):
C-17A.

Aah, a truly unique airframe indeed! And, with high-mount engines, you have a LOT of freedoms that FOD suckers don't enjoy.


User currently offlinewoodreau From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 1049 posts, RR: 7
Reply 23, posted (1 year 9 months 18 hours ago) and read 8203 times:

Quoting freeze3192 (Reply 16):
Popping a reverser during taxi is (or was last time I checked) an approved procedure for the ERJ side of XJT.

At least someone is sane. Thrust reverser use at another American major ERJ-145 operator is prohibited when landing on dry runways, for taxi, and a whole lot of other reasons - basically you're not allowed to use them at all - all to save on maintenance costs related to maintaining thrust reversers. The only time the thrust reversers are allowed to be used is to prevent a runway excursion, as a last ditch method to keep from going past the end of the runway- which doesn't make a whole lot of sense as you know reversers work better at high speeds, brakes better at low speeds.



Bonus animus sit, ab experientia. Quod salvatum fuerit de malis usu venit judicium.
User currently offlineHAWK21M From India, joined Jan 2001, 31684 posts, RR: 56
Reply 24, posted (1 year 8 months 4 weeks 1 hour ago) and read 8018 times:

Quoting woodreau (Reply 23):

Wouldn't a circular be accompanied by the reasoning too.



Think of the brighter side!
User currently offlinejetstar From United States of America, joined May 2003, 1650 posts, RR: 10
Reply 25, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 8072 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

On the Lockheed JetStar, for the first flight of the day we would deploy and test the reversers during taxi, it was part of our taxi checklist. If we did a battery start we would normally start the 2 inboard engines #2 and 3 and taxi out on them because these engines had the hydraulic pumps.

If we used a ground power cart, usually at our home base then we would start all 4 engines if we knew we would not have a long ground delay, if so then we would just start 2 engines. On 2 engines we had to use some power to start from a dead stop but the residual thrust at idle was not enough to get us moving too fast requiring brakes to control our speed. Taxing with 4 engines we would need to use a little braking to keep our taxi speeds down, but not enough to get the brakes to hot.

Quoting N243NW (Reply 3):
Gotta love unsolicited "advice" from other pilots. One of our MD-80s rejected takeoff at more than 100 knots the other week when a nearby pilot reported that the plane had a piece of FOD attached to the nose gear.

It was the spray deflector.

Same here

On the JetStar, the APU exhaust door was above the #3 engine near the top of the fuselage. Since the P&W engines on the JetStar did not generate enough bleed air at idle to adequately cool the cabin on a hot day taxing on 2 engines we would leave the APU running until we stated the remaining 2 engines to help cool the cabin and also help recharge the batteries for starting the other 2 engines. One we got the remaining engines running we would shut off the bleed air and turn off the generator but let the APU run for another minute or so to cool down before we shut it down, and then we would leave the door open to help cool the exhaust pipe for another minute or so before we would turn off the APU master switch which automatically closed the door.

The APU door opened outward and it was quite visible, so sometimes the tower or another airplane would let us know while taxing that they see a door open so we would tell them what it was and we will be shutting it

If the pilots forgot to shut down the APU or turn off the master switch to close the door, the circuit ran through the nose gear squat switch so upon rotation the APU would shut down and the door would automatically close, but the airflow over the door at that speed would warp the door slightly requiring replacing the APU exhaust door. I always kept a spare door in stock because at least one a year I would have to change one because some of our pilots, usually the Chief Pilot when he would swap seats with our other Captain which they did every leg forgot to close the door. It was whoever was in the co-pilots seat to manage the APU because the APU controls were on the far right side of the overhead panel slightly behind their head, there was no warning light on our master control warning system, you had to look up at the APU control panel to see if the red power light was out confirming the APU door was closed.

JetStar


User currently offlineDashTrash From United States of America, joined Aug 2006, 1536 posts, RR: 2
Reply 26, posted (1 year 5 months 4 weeks 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 6880 times:

I used to do it in the Citation X. We weren't allowed to single engine taxi and both motors going is just too much push even at idle when the airplane is light. I can't remember which engine it was, but one of the deflected the exhaust right into the cabin intakes. If you popped that one it wouldn't take long before you're sniffing kerosene fumes.

The X also has a high idle switch used for touch and goes. At lights weights I'd select high idle to get the airplane moving, then back to normal to keep it going. Taxi never using the thrust levers (throttles in a Cessna).


User currently offlineKaiarahi From Canada, joined Jul 2009, 3033 posts, RR: 28
Reply 27, posted (1 year 5 months 4 weeks 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 6961 times:

Quoting woodreau (Reply 23):
Thrust reverser use at another American major ERJ-145 operator is prohibited when landing on dry runways, for taxi, and a whole lot of other reasons

Would that be the operator that's twice overrun 07 at YOW?



Empty vessels make the most noise.
User currently offlineRoseflyer From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 9666 posts, RR: 52
Reply 28, posted (1 year 5 months 4 weeks 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 6948 times:

On airplanes with carbon fiber brakes (MD80 isn’t one of them), braking at taxi speed actually causes more wear to the brakes than landing. The reason is because the brake is designed to work in a high temperature environment with continuous applicable. Frequent applications at low temperature cause increased brake wear.

Here’s a great article on brake wear.

http://www.boeing.com/commercial/aer...ticles/qtr_03_09/article_05_1.html
Because the wear mechanisms are different between carbon and steel brakes, different taxi braking techniques are recommended for carbon brakes in order to maximize brake life.

Steel brake wear is directly proportional to the kinetic energy absorbed by the brakes. Maximum steel brake life can be achieved during taxi by using a large number of small, light brake applications, allowing some time for brake cooling between applications. High airplane gross weights and high brake application speeds tend to reduce steel brake life because they require the brakes to absorb a large amount of kinetic energy.

Carbon brake wear is primarily dependent on the total number of brake applications — one firm brake application causes less wear than several light applications. Maximum carbon brake life can be achieved during taxi by using a small number of long, moderately firm brake applications instead of numerous light brake applications. This can be achieved by allowing taxi speed to increase from below target speed to above target speed, then using a single firm brake application to reduce speed below the target and repeating if required, rather than maintaining a constant taxi speed using numerous brake applications. Carbon brake wear is much less sensitive to airplane weight and speed than steel brake wear.



If you have never designed an airplane part before, let the real designers do the work!
User currently offlineN353SK From United States of America, joined Jun 2006, 825 posts, RR: 0
Reply 29, posted (1 year 5 months 4 weeks 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 6600 times:

Quoting Kaiarahi (Reply 27):
Would that be the operator that's twice overrun 07 at YOW?

No ... the airline you're thinking of is so cheap that some of their ERJs aren't even equipped with thrust reversers.


User currently offlineairportugal310 From Tokelau, joined Apr 2004, 3657 posts, RR: 2
Reply 30, posted (1 year 5 months 4 weeks 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 6554 times:

Quoting N353SK (Reply 29):

UAX right?



I sell airplanes and airplane accessories
User currently offlineN353SK From United States of America, joined Jun 2006, 825 posts, RR: 0
Reply 31, posted (1 year 5 months 4 weeks 11 hours ago) and read 6379 times:

Quoting airportugal310 (Reply 30):
UAX right?

Yes.. Trans States


User currently offlineFlyboyOz From Australia, joined Nov 2000, 1987 posts, RR: 25
Reply 32, posted (1 year 5 months 3 weeks 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 6034 times:

Didn't a 737-200 use reversers all the time after touching down on the runway?


The Spirit of AustraliAN - Longreach
User currently offlineHAWK21M From India, joined Jan 2001, 31684 posts, RR: 56
Reply 33, posted (1 year 5 months 3 weeks 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 5843 times:

Quoting FlyboyOz (Reply 32):
Didn't a 737-200 use reversers all the time after touching down on the runway?

Unless you have one INOP & Deffered under MEL.
Also depends on the Runway length.



Think of the brighter side!
User currently offlineslimshady From United States of America, joined Dec 2007, 199 posts, RR: 0
Reply 34, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 4626 times:

Quoting GlobalMoose (Reply 20):
C-17A.

C-17 is different than airliners with regard to thrust reverse..

Clamshell reversers on planes like the MD-80 deflect ALL thrust.

Translating sleeves like on the 737-NG & Classics, 757, 747, 767, 777, 787 deflect fan bypass air only. The thrust from the hot section is not reversed. All airbus are the same except the CFM56-5 uses blocker doors as opposed to a translating sleeve, but it still does not block the hot section exhaust.

C-17 is different as it uses both Fan Reversers and Thrust Reversers, deflecing both hot and cold air. Its the only aircraft I can think of being manufactured today in this configuration but I could be wrong. I think some early 747 variants made use of both thrust and fan reversers..

Sorry if I went off on a tangent.

BTW, the flight department I worked at, it was in our SOP to pop #1TR during taxi on our Citation X's


User currently offlineAcey559 From United States of America, joined Jan 2007, 1536 posts, RR: 2
Reply 35, posted (1 year 4 months 2 weeks 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 3977 times:

Quoting freeze3192 (Reply 16):

We can't do it at Eagle, our limitations prohibit reverser use during taxi except for emergencies.


User currently offlineHAWK21M From India, joined Jan 2001, 31684 posts, RR: 56
Reply 36, posted (1 year 4 months 1 week 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 3429 times:

Quoting Acey559 (Reply 35):

We can't do it at Eagle, our limitations prohibit reverser use during taxi except for emergencies.

Why is it not decibal restricted rather than non use of TRs, some Aircraft would be less noisy than others.



Think of the brighter side!
User currently offlineevil8er2006 From United States of America, joined Sep 2010, 13 posts, RR: 0
Reply 37, posted (1 year 4 months 1 week 2 days ago) and read 3286 times:

Quoting GlobalMoose (Reply 17):
We throw out the TRs all of the time while taxiing. We generally put them out on 2 & 3 to help balance the forward thrust from 1 & 4 when we are at lighter weights. It gets really annoying to have to either ride the brakes (not recommended) or constantly speeding up and slowing down...

When I flew C-17s, I rarely taxied with 2 & 3 in Idle Rev and I rarely flew with folks who did. Yes, I used the brakes a little more, but I felt it didn't make a huge difference brake temp-wise to tap them every now and then. Sure, it may have slowed the cooling process if you were doing a four stop in the box, but most times, I didn't think it was a huge issue. Also, it looks silly to be taxiing along with 2 & 3 in reverse and your spoilers deployed (if the Spoiler switch is Armed). Sure, it's a great way to demonstrate to new copilots how the rejected takeoff logic works for the spoiler system, but other than that, I saw no need to test it day in and day out. Technique only...


User currently offlinemhkansan From United States of America, joined Jan 2010, 702 posts, RR: 1
Reply 38, posted (1 year 4 months 6 days 5 hours ago) and read 2992 times:

Quoting Acey559 (Reply 35):
We can't do it at Eagle, our limitations prohibit reverser use during taxi except for emergencies.

Some of the ex-ATR pilots at Eagle do it all the time. Some guys use the TR to corner better, some don't touch it and burn up the whole runway on landing.


Top Of Page
Forum Index

Reply To This Topic Reversers On Taxiway
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...
Types Of Thrust Reversers On Engines posted Fri Oct 14 2005 02:56:31 by CcrlR
Holding On Taxiway - Angled posted Fri Jul 2 2004 08:04:39 by KDALAggie
Thrust Reversers On The Fokker 70? posted Thu Feb 19 2004 00:39:04 by Mr Spaceman
Parked With Thrust Reversers On? posted Sun Aug 3 2003 03:55:36 by BigPhilNYC
Different Reversers On RR Trents posted Fri Jun 20 2003 15:54:31 by Kaitak
Thrust Reversers On Concorde. posted Thu Apr 24 2003 13:52:50 by Mirrodie
Thrust Reversers On MD11,L-1011,and 727s posted Mon May 27 2002 15:09:28 by Ts-ior
CI A340 Takeoff On Taxiway posted Tue Feb 12 2002 07:26:59 by Mhsieh
ERJ: Burning Fuel On The Taxiway? posted Sun Aug 22 2010 22:21:23 by speedracer1407
Taxing On The Left Lane On A Two Way Taxiway posted Mon Apr 27 2009 03:25:01 by AA757MIA

Sponsor Message:
Printer friendly format