Sponsor Message:
Aviation Technical / Operations Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
DL And CO Policies.  
User currently offlineVh320 From Venezuela, joined May 2000, 81 posts, RR: 0
Posted (10 years 10 months 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 1416 times:

On the last two weeks, I flew in DL 757 once and DL767 three times. Last month I flew in a CO 767. None of pilots applied thrust reverse on landing. I believe they used autobrakes and idle reverse. Why are they doing that? Saving engine life?. Don't need reverse at all? Noise issues?. (I love the noise on those engines when reverse is applied and I was quite dissapointed on my last flights because everything was so quiet.) Does anyone has an explanation??

9 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineB747skipper From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 1, posted (10 years 10 months 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 1400 times:

There are airports where idle reverse is requested (noise) unless required to be used for the braking of the aircraft... I often land on airports (MAD) where we have to exit the runway at the end of a long runway... we just deploy the reversers (to cancel residual trust) - not even using the wheel brakes until slowed to 80 knots or so... would be ridicululous to stop the airplane in 6,000 feet, then add power to expedite or reach the exit at the end...
xxx
I am sorry, Vh320, if this does not please you... "me" is pilot, "you" is passenger...
End of my comments...
xxx
Happy contrails  Smile
(s) Skipper


User currently offlineVh320 From Venezuela, joined May 2000, 81 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (10 years 10 months 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 1328 times:

Thank you for your explanation skipper. About my comment regarding dissapointment because I did not listen the engines common sound when reverse is applied was, that is just an "aviation fan" comment. That "me" is pilot, "you" is passenger sound like an agressive answer. No more comments...

User currently offlineB747skipper From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 3, posted (10 years 10 months 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 1330 times:

Dear Vh320 -
xxx
My apologies to you... I did not meant to be like that...
Just that here in Tech.Ops. we are accustomed to "just technical" comments...
The "airline with sexiest F/As" and equivalents, normally go in "Civ.Av."...
xxx
I guess I must have blown my fuse yesterday...
Wife had a severe case of PMS...
Welcome by the way, I see you are new with us...
xxx
Happy contrails  Smile
(s) Skipper


User currently offlineProudtoflyaa From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 4, posted (10 years 10 months 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 1227 times:

I know that it is the policy at American Eagle (at least on the Embraers) to not use reverse thrust on runways 7000 feet or greater in length. It is fuel conservation issue as the aircraft has a great carbon brake system that can take a lot of heat easily.

User currently offlineCdfmxtech From United States of America, joined Jul 2000, 1341 posts, RR: 27
Reply 5, posted (10 years 10 months 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 1196 times:

I don't know what kind of Delta B767 you were flying, but Continental's 767s (both -200/400) use carbon brakes. Older 767s do not use carbon brakes. I would assume that Delta's 767-400s use them.
Procedures are for idle reverse only (conditions permitted obviously) because of the differences between carbon and steel brakes. Steel brakes wear more with high temps. Carbon brakes are much more effective when at high temps. They wear less with a constant smooth application. Steel brakes are the opposite. So on the Co 767s, idle reverse thrust will be used. It is actually a much smoother landing especially with autobrakes used.

That is why higher reverse thrust settings are used on aircraft with steel brakes.

Here is further reading:

Operational usage and life testing of carbon brakes
has revealed that carbon brakes wear out at different
rates than steel brakes. A Re-jected
Take Off (RTO), as described at the open-ing
of this document, dumps massive heat en-ergy
into the brake, and would be expected to
be the “worst case” for brake wear. Carbon
surprisingly shows much less wear than
steel under these con-ditions. But during
normal taxi operations, carbon wore at much
higher rate-more com-parable to steel.
In research and testing to study this differ-ence,
it was found that with a steel brake, the
amount of wear on the brake generally corre-lated
to how much en-ergy was absorbed by the brake.
Carbon friction materials exhibited
wear as a function of the number of applica-tions,
not just the total energy. In other words,
it is better to apply brakes continuously and
smoothly than to apply and release, apply and
release, etc. There is also data showing that
carbon wears less at high temperatures.



User currently offlineVh320 From Venezuela, joined May 2000, 81 posts, RR: 0
Reply 6, posted (10 years 10 months 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 1168 times:

Thank you guys for the answers. When I flew CO, it was a -400, DL were 300s. Skipper, apologies accepted, not big deal. I wish you the best.

User currently offlineBrons2 From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 3010 posts, RR: 4
Reply 7, posted (10 years 10 months 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 1151 times:

No difference with automobiles really in regards to carbon brakes from what you have posted above, that is, they don't work well unless they are hot. I had them on an BMW I used to autocross and they were terrible until I warmed em up real good.


Firings, if well done, are good for employee morale.
User currently offlineB747skipper From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 8, posted (10 years 10 months 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 1163 times:

Dear Vh320 -
xxx
I compare "passengers telling me how to handle the plane" similtar to, or equal to your mother-in-law telling you how to handle your car in traffic...
Pilots do strange things, in the opinion of the travelling public, when they operate aircraft. It is dictated by procedures and many restrictions imposed upon them. When I fly my plane, whether a 747 (which does not belong to me), and my little toy plane (L-21) which belongs to me... thinking of (1) safety (2) wear and tear of that airplane (3) economy (4) passenger confort and convenience...
Besides, I hate my mother-in-law. My next car will be a Miata...
xxx
Happy contrails  Smile
(s) Skipper


User currently offlineQb001 From Canada, joined Apr 2000, 2053 posts, RR: 4
Reply 9, posted (10 years 10 months 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 1134 times:

I read an article "recently" (18 months ago) about break technology, that has evolved tremendously in the last years.

So much so that, according to that article, Airbus' first offer of the A380 did not include thrust reversers, in order to save some weight, relying only on the brakes to slow down the giant plane. It's only under clients pressure that Airbus has decided to offer thrust reversers, only on 2 engines though.



Never let the facts get in the way of a good theory.
Top Of Page
Forum Index

Reply To This Topic DL And CO Policies.
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...
CO And COex At MDW, ORF, STL posted Wed Feb 8 2006 00:16:56 by Highliner2
Housing On Underside Of CO 738's And 739's posted Mon Jan 10 2005 23:55:38 by Flyabunch
UA, Pan Am, TWA, And DL 727s In Europe posted Wed Sep 22 2004 03:27:13 by Thrust
Pilot Or Co-Pilot. Who's Right And Who's Wrong? posted Sat May 19 2001 13:41:27 by Jet-A gasguy
Electric Brakes And Deadstick Landings posted Fri Dec 8 2006 06:47:44 by WingedMigrator
VC-10 Hydraulic's And Control-Surfaces posted Fri Dec 8 2006 00:47:55 by Blackbird
Cooper-Harper And Flight Test posted Thu Dec 7 2006 03:21:50 by 787atPAE
Airbus And Boeing Throttle Controls posted Tue Dec 5 2006 15:30:41 by Treeny
Airport Depature And Approach Patterns posted Mon Dec 4 2006 00:51:20 by ANITIX87
A332 / Trent 772B SFC And Cruise Settings posted Tue Nov 28 2006 22:19:55 by ImperialAero

Sponsor Message:
Printer friendly format