Sponsor Message:
Aviation Technical / Operations Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Reverse Thrust Usage  
User currently offlineMon330 From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2000, 80 posts, RR: 0
Posted (12 years 3 months 2 weeks 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 3330 times:

I was wondering if it is commonplace for a pilot to not use reverse thrust on landing if the runway is long enough. On a recent 737 flight I was on into MAN, there was no reverse thrust on landing, though the pilot did let the plane roll quite far down the runway.

My questions - is this quite common? If so, why?

Thanks.
Mark.

26 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineLBA From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2000, 494 posts, RR: 0
Reply 1, posted (12 years 3 months 2 weeks 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 3307 times:

This has happened to me on flights to Dublin and Stansted. Reverse thrust involves bringing up the engine to high thrust levels to slow down the a/c, by not using reverse thrust engine wear is reduced.

User currently offlineAAR90 From United States of America, joined Jan 2000, 3494 posts, RR: 46
Reply 2, posted (12 years 3 months 2 weeks 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 3280 times:

Common? Yes. "Normal procedure?" No. Most airlines prefer use of reverse thrust at higher speeds and then transitioning to wheel brakes at slower speeds. This is usually an economic decision leaving the crew to decide what's best for any given situation --runway available, environmental conditions, aircraft condition, etc.

My preference is to use minimum reverse thrust (idle only if I can afford to) consistant with a safe, smooth and economical operation. The trade-off is reduced passenger noise and heat stress on the engines vs. increased heat stress and wear on the wheel brakes. Rolling out as long as possible helps to reduce the strain on the brakes.



*NO CARRIER* -- A Naval Aviator's worst nightmare!
User currently offlineJetguy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 3, posted (12 years 3 months 2 weeks 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 3265 times:

Just to add a bit to AAR90's comments. Thrust reversers are not required for dispatch and can be "MEL'd" out. I would guess that, on your particular flight, they were out of service and the flight dispatched without them - no big deal. For most, it not all transport category equipment, the effect of thrust reversers isn't included in the landing and takeoff performance calculations. Those numbers are based soley upon the use of aircraft brakes. Simply put, the effect that thrust reversers have on aircraft performance is basically a safety cushion or "gravy".
Jetguy


User currently onlineMr AirNZ From New Zealand, joined Feb 2002, 878 posts, RR: 1
Reply 4, posted (12 years 3 months 2 weeks 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 3155 times:

Im sure I remember reading somewhere that charter airlines like to use reverse thrust (and more of it) to increase the life of the brakes.

User currently offlineEjazz From United Arab Emirates, joined May 2002, 724 posts, RR: 34
Reply 5, posted (12 years 3 months 2 weeks 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 3123 times:

Autobrakes on Airliners provide a particular deceleration rate, dependant upon the setting used. This deceleration rate remains the same whether reversers are used or not, the brakes will activate as necessary to maintain the rate selected.

One condition where full reverse is desirable is when landing on a wet runway. The autobrakes may have problems maintaining a constant deceleration rate because the autoskid system will be releasing brakes as necessary to prevent a skid. The use of reversers will therefore aid the brakes.

On the majority of landings I'll use idle thrust as required in my Ops Manual, to reduce engine wear and noise. Obviously, the Airline I'm with considers brakes more expendable than an engine.




Etihad Girl, You're a great way to fly.
User currently offlineL-188 From United States of America, joined Jul 1999, 29832 posts, RR: 58
Reply 6, posted (12 years 3 months 2 weeks 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 3108 times:

Actually the answer for why some landings don't use reverse thrust is pretty simple.

It is that scourge of free aviation everywhere.....NIMBY'S

Using the reverse thrust makes a great racket and that constantly tends to send them up and angrily buzzing around like a flock of hornets.



OBAMA-WORST PRESIDENT EVER....Even SKOORB would be better.
User currently offlineRick767 From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2000, 2662 posts, RR: 51
Reply 7, posted (12 years 3 months 2 weeks 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 3102 times:

"Im sure I remember reading somewhere that charter airlines like to use reverse thrust (and more of it) to increase the life of the brakes."

Correct. Our airline promotes the use of full reverse whenever possible, to reduce brake wear. An automated cabin announcement is even made before landing warning the passengers to expect an increase in engine noise after touchdown!



I used to love the smell of Jet-A in the morning...
User currently offlineEjazz From United Arab Emirates, joined May 2002, 724 posts, RR: 34
Reply 8, posted (12 years 3 months 2 weeks 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 3102 times:

Iinteresting Rick, our policies differ again. Another major Airline that always uses full reverse thrust is Qantas.


Etihad Girl, You're a great way to fly.
User currently offlineRick767 From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2000, 2662 posts, RR: 51
Reply 9, posted (12 years 3 months 2 weeks 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 3091 times:

Always interesting how the world's airlines each have a slightly different way of doing things!

We are not forced to use maximum reverse, and indeed on some long runways we will simply engage reverse idle.

Manchester 06R is an example, we vacate the runway up towards the terminal complex right at the end and it is 10,000ft long, so we really don't need to use full reverse especially at night when the airport authority advise you to "avoid" it's use anyway.

But generally speaking we will use full reverse, and select the autobrake level which corresponds correctly to the runway length and surface condition.



I used to love the smell of Jet-A in the morning...
User currently offlineFDXmech From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 3251 posts, RR: 34
Reply 10, posted (12 years 3 months 2 weeks 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 3044 times:

Ejazz: Iinteresting Rick, our policies differ again. Another major Airline that always uses full reverse thrust is Qantas.

Is that a recent revision in their operation since the Thailand overshoot?





You're only as good as your last departure.
User currently offlineEjazz From United Arab Emirates, joined May 2002, 724 posts, RR: 34
Reply 11, posted (12 years 3 months 2 weeks 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 3027 times:

FDX

I can't say for sure that the Bangkok incident is the reason behind their use of reverse thrust, it may have been procedure all along or introduced after Bangkok.

They are one of the few Airlines I see and hear using full reverse on every landing, most others select idle reverse.

Hopefully someone here is from Qantas.



Etihad Girl, You're a great way to fly.
User currently offlineJA54123 From United States of America, joined Aug 2001, 137 posts, RR: 3
Reply 12, posted (12 years 3 months 2 weeks 3 days ago) and read 3006 times:

Reverse thrust is not used when it is not needed. My home airport has a runway that doesn't require reverse thrust; it is over 13,000 feet long! Some airlines (WN for instance) likes to use reverse thrust so that they can stop about 1/2 of the way down the runway and turn directly to the terminal, thus reducing the taxiing and getting to the terminal faster.


You wouldn't understand, it's a Texas Thang!
User currently offlineEjazz From United Arab Emirates, joined May 2002, 724 posts, RR: 34
Reply 13, posted (12 years 3 months 2 weeks 3 days ago) and read 3004 times:

I think the point is missed regarding most modern Airliners with autobrakes fitted.

Assuming a dry runway and you have autobrakes 2 and idle reverse thrust selected your stopping distance in theory will be no different than autobrakes 2 and full reverse thrust selected. The computer will simply attempt to maintain a deceleration rate applicable to the autobrakes setting. More reverse thrust then less braking and vice versa.

In the Qantas incident I know the Captain initially attempted to go-around. If the aircraft had become airbourne the autobrakes would have disconnected from their setting to the off position. When he then decided to stop valuable time may have been lost until he became aware that the autobrakes were off and began to brake manually. If the procedure was also to apply only idle reverse thrust this would have compounded the lack of stopping ability and might just be why they use full reverse now if they hadn't been previously.

It might be worth adding that reverse thrust is most effective at high speeds.



Etihad Girl, You're a great way to fly.
User currently offlineCx flyboy From Hong Kong, joined Dec 1999, 6639 posts, RR: 55
Reply 14, posted (12 years 3 months 2 weeks 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 2929 times:

We are another airline that uses idle reverse only. Carbon brakes work better at higher temperatures, so using them more is not a major problem. Also, apparently it costs much less to service or replace the brakes rather than the reverse thrust compoments for the actual usefullness of the thing. Remember that reverse thrust on it's own is not that useful and only equal to something like Autobrake 1, when used on it's own.

Rick767, Interesting that our policies differ. Seems SQ and CX have very similar policies though.


User currently offlineAmmunition From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2002, 1065 posts, RR: 4
Reply 15, posted (12 years 3 months 2 weeks 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 2925 times:

I landed at BHX a month or so ago on a 767-300ER and no reverse thrust was used. I was quite surprised- but it made for a quiet and smooth run down the runway.


Saint Augustine- 'The world is a book and those who do not travel, read only 1 page'
User currently offlineRick767 From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2000, 2662 posts, RR: 51
Reply 16, posted (12 years 3 months 2 weeks 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 2915 times:

Cx_flyboy,

Our SOPs are "loosely" based on those of British Airways, but use of reverse thrust is one area we also differ to them. Their policy is reverse idle, full reverse at Captain's discretion and only really encouraged in wet conditions.

Ammunition,

Out of interest, was that with Air 2000, MyTravel or Britannia?

Rick.



I used to love the smell of Jet-A in the morning...
User currently offlineAmmunition From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2002, 1065 posts, RR: 4
Reply 17, posted (12 years 3 months 2 weeks 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 2862 times:

It was Uzbekistan Airways, fab airline!!!


Saint Augustine- 'The world is a book and those who do not travel, read only 1 page'
User currently offline9V-SVA From Singapore, joined Aug 2001, 1860 posts, RR: 8
Reply 18, posted (12 years 3 months 2 weeks 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 2854 times:

SIA uses idle reverse thrust. While spotting along Changi Village Road, the only airlines that used full reverse thrust was QF and BA. Nothing could be heard from the SIA 777s and 747s landing.

9V-SVA



9V-SVA | B772ER
User currently offlineXXXX10 From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2000, 777 posts, RR: 0
Reply 19, posted (12 years 3 months 2 weeks 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 2833 times:

Is reverse thrust (above idle) banned at certain times at certain airports?

Also for a/c having a short turnaround could their brakes be too hot for departure if they don't use full reverse?


User currently offlineRick767 From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2000, 2662 posts, RR: 51
Reply 20, posted (12 years 3 months 2 weeks 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 2837 times:

XXXX10,

"Is reverse thrust (above idle) banned at certain times at certain airports?"

No, that would never be allowed. It's use is discouraged at night at several airports in the UK, but not prohibited. The official line is that reverse thrust should not be used at night "commensurate with safety and standard operating procedures". In our airline, that means we still use it.

"Also for a/c having a short turnaround could their brakes be too hot for departure if they don't use full reverse?"

Yes, the A321 springs to mind as an aircraft which sometimes has a problem with this. Airtours pulled their A321 out of Leeds Bradford (short runway) for this reason, the requirement to have the brakes at 200 degrees C or less for takeoff meant that one hour turnarounds could often not be achieved.

In case you were unaware, the A321 lands at higher speeds than the A320 since it has a greater weight but the same wing. The problem with the A321 at Leeds was that even with full reverse, the brakes did not cool down in time.



I used to love the smell of Jet-A in the morning...
User currently offlineMr.BA From Singapore, joined Sep 2000, 3423 posts, RR: 22
Reply 21, posted (12 years 3 months 2 weeks 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 2834 times:

I just flew twice on Qantas earlier this year on VH-OJG. We were landing at Melbourne in wet and windy conditions. It wasn't raining but the runway was pretty wet and the winds were strong so I guessed a storm just swept across Malbourne. We landed and used autobrake 4 (could any B744 pilots confirm that setting 4 is best for wet conditions?) and idle reverse. The wind was a strong cross of 21 knot when we touched down crabbed. V land was 144.

May I raise some questions? Does the system on the B744/B767 prevent skids? I have read somewhere before that the B744/B767 brake system will release brake like Ejazz has stated to prevent skidding but the Qantas incident in BKK proved that the plane could aquaplane? Is reverse thrust usage limited in crosswind conditions due to the fact that the plane would start to weathervane into the wind and reverse side force component adds to the crosswind component and drifts the airplane to the downwind side of the runway? Is there a very noticable directional control if one of the reverse fails to work espcially on twins?

Are there any charts giving figures of the deceleration rate when using full reverse thrust alone in standard day, sea level conditions?

Thanks for any imputs!

alvin



Boeing747 万岁!
User currently offlineXXXX10 From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2000, 777 posts, RR: 0
Reply 22, posted (12 years 3 months 2 weeks 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 2826 times:

I thought I had read that somewhere about LBA

With the night ban I thought SYD only allowed reverse idle at certain times, but as you say not if it compromises safety


User currently offlineAAR90 From United States of America, joined Jan 2000, 3494 posts, RR: 46
Reply 23, posted (12 years 3 months 2 weeks 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 2819 times:

>Does the system on the B744/B767 prevent skids?

No system "prevents" skids. Virtually all airliners have an anti-skid system which _attempts_ to prevent skids. Usually works quite well.  Wink/being sarcastic

>...but the Qantas incident in BKK proved that the plane could aquaplane?

See comment above.

>Is reverse thrust usage limited in crosswind conditions due to the fact that
>the plane would start to weathervane into the wind and reverse side force
>component adds to the crosswind component and drifts the airplane to the
>downwind side of the runway?

Some aircraft have limitations on the use of reverse thrust. Usually found on tail-mounted engine models. AA limits MD80 reverse thrust to (I think) 1.3 EPR, but F100 had no limit (reverser doors are blocked to provide limited amount of forward thrust at all times). B737/757/767 all are permitted unlimited reverse thrust use.

>Is there a very noticable directional control if one of the reverse fails to work espcially on twins?

Yes! Especially if failure occurs after deployment at high reverse thrust setting. Gets a bit exciting for a couple of seconds.  Sad



*NO CARRIER* -- A Naval Aviator's worst nightmare!
User currently offlineL-188 From United States of America, joined Jul 1999, 29832 posts, RR: 58
Reply 24, posted (12 years 3 months 2 weeks 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 2808 times:

It's use is discouraged at night at several airports in the UK, but not prohibited. The official line is that reverse thrust should not be used at night "commensurate with safety and standard operating procedures"

In real talk what it means is that unless you are about ready to go barrelling off the end of the runway, you or your chief pilot are going to get a visit from the Airport Noise Authorities and probably a pretty terse letter too.


But we won't tell you not to use it because if we did and you did overrun and not use reverse thrust, well, we just couldn't handle all of those passengers lawyers.



OBAMA-WORST PRESIDENT EVER....Even SKOORB would be better.
25 Post contains images Rick767 : L-188, Landing on 26L @ Gatwick at night we always use full reverse (with the exception of a few Captains who go reverse idle). Landing on 08R is a di
26 FDXmech : Cx flyboy: Carbon brakes work better at higher temperatures, so using them more is not a major problem. Also, apparently it costs much less to service
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...
Slat Retraction During Reverse Thrust? 747-400 posted Sun Nov 5 2006 00:29:24 by Ajaaron
Calculation And Application Of Reverse Thrust posted Wed Oct 25 2006 03:05:10 by HighFlyer9790
Reverse Thrust On Props posted Wed Sep 27 2006 06:40:29 by AirWillie6475
Question On Turboprop Reverse Thrust posted Wed Aug 2 2006 21:43:00 by Bio15
Reverse Thrust In-Flight On Dash 8 posted Wed Aug 2 2006 00:17:32 by Dogfighter2111
How Fast Can An Aircraft Go With Reverse Thrust? posted Tue Jul 11 2006 20:30:34 by Legoguy
Reverse Thrust, 737-100,200? posted Wed Apr 12 2006 20:59:51 by Magoonis
Reverse Thrust: How Often? posted Fri Mar 31 2006 18:50:22 by HighFlyer9790
Reverse Thrust Mechanism posted Sun Dec 18 2005 13:57:36 by LeDragon
Can An Airliner Stop By Only Using Reverse Thrust? posted Thu Dec 15 2005 18:13:39 by Tarantine

Sponsor Message:
Printer friendly format