Sponsor Message:
Aviation Technical / Operations Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Why One Thrust Reverser On This Plane  
User currently offlineBR715-A1-30 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Posted (11 years 8 months 3 weeks 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 4338 times:


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Art Brett



If you look closely at this picture, the #2 Engine Thrust Reverser is open, but the #1 T.R. is closed. Why is this?

22 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineLMP737 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 1, posted (11 years 8 months 3 weeks 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 4290 times:

It's quite possible that the aircraft was having problems with the #1 T/R and it was placarded inop. In other words it was de-activated. Commercial aircraft can have one inop reverser as long as the other one is fully functional. Airports with short runways such as SNA it is required that both are operational.

User currently offlineConcordeBoy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 2, posted (11 years 8 months 3 weeks 23 hours ago) and read 4209 times:

Dont some regional jets not utilize R/T at all..... I've heard tell that BA's ERJs dont even come equipped with T/R-capable engines. How accurate is that?

User currently offlineFDXmech From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 3251 posts, RR: 34
Reply 3, posted (11 years 8 months 3 weeks 21 hours ago) and read 4130 times:

Could be. The F28 doesn't have any.


You're only as good as your last departure.
User currently offlineJetguy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 4, posted (11 years 8 months 3 weeks 20 hours ago) and read 4099 times:

This question is for LMP737...

I was taught and am under the impression that thrust reversers were NEVER included in calculating the runway requirements for either takeoff or landing. Your comment about SNA was news to me. Can you clarify.
Jetguy


User currently offlineJwenting From Netherlands, joined Apr 2001, 10213 posts, RR: 19
Reply 5, posted (11 years 8 months 3 weeks 18 hours ago) and read 4067 times:

Another possibility is crosswind compensation.
If there's a bad crosswind, using only a single T/R would cause asymetric thrust which can help keep the aircraft on centerline.



I wish I were flying
User currently offlineT prop From United States of America, joined Apr 2001, 1029 posts, RR: 1
Reply 6, posted (11 years 8 months 3 weeks 18 hours ago) and read 4067 times:

One possible reason for this is a lightly loaded airplane can get moving pretty quick. If you don't want to be on the brakes constantly, open a reverser and let one engine push the airplane.


T prop.


User currently offlineL-188 From United States of America, joined Jul 1999, 29813 posts, RR: 58
Reply 7, posted (11 years 8 months 3 weeks 18 hours ago) and read 4062 times:

We had a metro that had to taxi in with some beta on the upwind engine due to the winds we have been suffering up here.

But I have seen some G-V's taxi out and when in the run-up area pop one reverser and then close it and then do the same to the other side.

Some sort of preflight check???

[Edited 2003-03-14 09:35:04]


OBAMA-WORST PRESIDENT EVER....Even SKOORB would be better.
User currently offlinePaulc From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2001, 1490 posts, RR: 0
Reply 8, posted (11 years 8 months 3 weeks 16 hours ago) and read 4035 times:

BA regional EMB145's do not come equipped with reversers which had lead to some problems in the wet at my local airport ie insufficient runway length to stop when wet. They often divert to Bournemouth where the runway is longer.

As for the CRJ in the photo - T.prop is probably right - you do not want taxi speeds to get to high and it saves brake/tyre wear by not having to 'ride' them.



English First, British Second, european Never!
User currently offlineJetguy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 9, posted (11 years 8 months 3 weeks 12 hours ago) and read 3985 times:

I'll buy the "taxi speed limiter" scenario. It's a quite common practice. The preflight check scenario is also a possibility, but the required checks are usually done on both engines simultaneously. However, I know of no reason why they must be done at the same time.

Thrust reversers are NEVER included in calculating the runway requirements for either takeoff or landing. Thrust reversers don't stop airplanes, brakes stop airplanes. That's the reason why they can be deactivated and the aircraft still dispatched - with no performance penalties. If I'm flying with a pilot who hasn't learned that basic lesson I won't let him touch the T/Rs at all. I've seen pilots nearly run off the runway while piddling around with the reversers. Many aircraft have minimum speeds at which the reversers can be deployed with anything more than idle reverse power. Get the airplane on the ground, get on the brakes while deploying the T/Rs. Under certain conditions, T/Rs can be very destabilizing and should not be deployed - they will only aggravate weather vaning tendencies. The braking effect of thrust reversers are never included in calculating the runway required for landing. Their effect is only used as a "pad" or "cushion".
Jetguy



User currently offlineM717 From United States of America, joined Dec 2002, 608 posts, RR: 4
Reply 10, posted (11 years 8 months 3 weeks 11 hours ago) and read 3968 times:

I will agree with the others who say that landing distances/runway required performance calculations are never predicated on the use of reverse thrust. Inoperative components that DO affect these calculations include brakes/anti-skid and spoilers. But not thrust reversers.

Also, the use of a single thrust reverser to compensate for crosswind is not a good idea or an accepted technique.


User currently offline411A From United States of America, joined Nov 2001, 1826 posts, RR: 8
Reply 11, posted (11 years 8 months 3 weeks 9 hours ago) and read 3904 times:

'Never' applies to FAA certification, however those familiar with the United Kingdom certification requirements will recognise that 'never' does not apply to some aircraft on the UK register, ie: wet runway performance. Different strokes for different folks.

User currently offlineJetguy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 12, posted (11 years 8 months 3 weeks 7 hours ago) and read 3866 times:

Oops, my bad.

There are two words that you should use very cautiously when it comes to aviation - "Always" and "Never".

Jetguy

[Edited 2003-03-14 20:07:23]

User currently offlineSllevin From United States of America, joined Jan 2002, 3376 posts, RR: 6
Reply 13, posted (11 years 8 months 3 weeks 5 hours ago) and read 3839 times:

It's pretty common for CRJ's to taxi on a single engine, because, with both engines running, you're on the brakes quite a bit. So if you were already taxiing one one engine and still got a touch fast, you'd only have one T/R deployed. It certainly appears if the aircraft in this shot is on a taxiway and not a runway.

Steve


User currently offlineAvioniker From United States of America, joined Dec 2001, 1109 posts, RR: 11
Reply 14, posted (11 years 8 months 3 weeks 5 hours ago) and read 3819 times:

Jetguy,
Don't feel too bad. Your choice of words wasn't that far off.
One more scenerio: A couple of my "buds" from Mesa told me that it has happened that maintenance has requested the engine be shut down with the T/R deployed (after landing) to prevent windmilling.
Any Mesa guys out there??



One may educate the ignorance from the unknowing but stupid is forever. Boswell; ca: 1533
User currently offlineLMP737 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 15, posted (11 years 8 months 2 weeks 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 3675 times:

Jetguy:

The MEL for the 757 as an example states that one T/R maybe inop. However it stipulates that the aircraft not be flown into an airport with a runway less than 7100ft. Since SNA's runway is 5600 one would not be able, technically, to land a 757 there.

If I were a 757 pilot flying into SNA with a plane full of passengers I would want both T/R's functional.


User currently offlineFr8tdog From United States of America, joined Feb 2000, 120 posts, RR: 0
Reply 16, posted (11 years 8 months 2 weeks 8 hours ago) and read 3442 times:

Most likely it is during taxi, that this event is occurring.
My airlines Ops specs specifically say that this is a "no-no" during normal taxiing, fearing Fod ingestion.
It also is common that a TR is MEL'd out due to a maintenance issue.

Under normal landing operations, TR reduction is started at 80kts then should be stowed at no less than 50kts, to reduce the chances of Fodding an engine.
Again this is the OPS procedures at my airline.
Fr8t.


User currently offlineJan Mogren From Sweden, joined Dec 2000, 2043 posts, RR: 50
Reply 17, posted (11 years 8 months 1 week 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 3356 times:

Most likely just Idle reverse, which I think should not be any greater risk of having FOD? You don't want any reverse so to speak, you just want the engine to stop pushing you faster.
/JM



AeroPresentation - Airline DVD's filmed in High Definition
User currently offlineNight_Flight From United States of America, joined May 1999, 156 posts, RR: 0
Reply 18, posted (11 years 8 months 1 week 5 days ago) and read 3259 times:

I flew on a CRJ-200 our of ORD last night and I the #2 engine was not started until we had taxied closer to the runway. Is this a common practice on CRJ's , DC'9s, Citations????????

-Night_Flight-



Remember when sex was safe and flying was dangerous?
User currently offlineFallingeese From Canada, joined Apr 2001, 2097 posts, RR: 17
Reply 19, posted (11 years 8 months 1 week 5 days ago) and read 3265 times:

Night_Flight - it is sometimes a common practice to save money, some carriers such as Westjet will taxi on one engine, fuel is money, and especially in these hard times, little measures save cash.


Mark McWhirter...Contrails Photography
User currently offlineBR715-A1-30 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 20, posted (11 years 8 months 1 week 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 3211 times:

Of the 12 flights with AirTran I have taken, we only taxied on one engine once. The pilot started #1, and when we got to the runway we had to hold short because of incoming traffic, and that is when the pilot took the liberty to start #2.

IIRC, Valujet used to do Single-Engine Taxis all the time.

[Edited 2003-03-24 19:08:22]

User currently offlineFr8tdog From United States of America, joined Feb 2000, 120 posts, RR: 0
Reply 21, posted (11 years 8 months 1 week 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 3189 times:

Night-flight,
Single engine taxi is dependent on several factors.
If I am faced with a long ground stop or if # 10 or 15 for departure, I may consider shutting an engine down for fuel conservation. Especially if I have a longer flight.

Weather has a huge effect on slowing departures down, some pilots may elect to shut an engine down to decrease fuel consumption, allowing them a greater chance of departing without having to refuel and start at the back of the taxi line again.


User currently offlineAvt007 From Canada, joined Jul 2000, 2132 posts, RR: 5
Reply 22, posted (11 years 8 months 1 week 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 3182 times:

A certain Dash 7 operator was reputed to taxi on 2 engines, and on one occasion, attempted to takeoff the same way. As the tale goes, SOPs were changed after that. Another good aviation tale..........

Top Of Page
Forum Index

Reply To This Topic Why One Thrust Reverser On This Plane
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...
Stuck Thrust Reverser(?) On CRJ2 posted Mon Apr 17 2006 17:42:07 by FlightShadow
Thrust Reverser On Landing (with Pic) posted Sat Jan 24 2004 23:49:54 by LHSebi
Why 100 Kts IAS On This 737 Autopilot? posted Sat Nov 30 2002 18:53:13 by Jgore
Why Only One FMC On This ERJ? posted Sat Jul 19 2003 06:47:43 by ExpressJet_ERJ
Thrust Reverser Styles On Certain Engines...why? posted Mon Dec 30 2002 23:32:52 by GotAirbus
Why The Airbus A380 Has Only Two Thrust Reverser? posted Sun Jul 2 2006 14:26:20 by 747400sp
Why 12 Exits On This 757? posted Sat Apr 22 2006 21:26:05 by YoungFlyer
Why Do Engines Rumble On Reverse Thrust? posted Fri Aug 20 2004 13:51:28 by NoelG
Thrust Reverser Controls On The A320 posted Thu Apr 4 2002 06:37:28 by TWAMD-80
Why No Retractable Gear On Aerobatics Planes? posted Thu Nov 2 2006 20:54:17 by QFA380

Sponsor Message:
Printer friendly format