Horus
Topic Author
Posts: 5131
Joined: Sun Feb 22, 2004 1:04 am

Airports That 'Ban' Thrust Reversers

Sun Jun 06, 2004 10:25 am

I was reading in an aviation magazine this week that Nice Airport in France ban the use of thrust reversers for aircraft landing there, unless exceptional circumstances arise. Apparently this is to reduce noise pollution to the surrounding areas.

Are there any other airports that have a similar ban (not including night-time bans)?
EGYPT: A 7,000 Year Old Civilisation
 
PHLapproach
Posts: 1056
Joined: Tue Mar 23, 2004 6:37 am

RE: Airports That 'Ban' Thrust Reversers

Sun Jun 06, 2004 10:43 am

LHR does from, what is it like 11:00pm to 6:00am, I can't remember. But they have a reverser's ban. For the minimal traffic that comes into LHR during that time that is.

[Edited 2004-06-06 03:43:56]
 
FlySSC
Posts: 5184
Joined: Tue Aug 12, 2003 1:38 am

RE: Airports That 'Ban' Thrust Reversers

Sun Jun 06, 2004 5:57 pm

Thrust Reverser are banned at Paris-ORLY after 10:30PM.
 
Sammyhostie
Posts: 467
Joined: Sun Feb 22, 2004 4:53 am

RE: Airports That 'Ban' Thrust Reversers

Sun Jun 06, 2004 6:22 pm

"Are there any other airports that have a similar ban (not including night-time bans)?"

Didnt you read the last bit you two?!

"LHR does from, what is it like 11:00pm to 6:00am" - PHL approach

"Thrust Reverser are banned at Paris-ORLY after 10:30PM." - FLYSCC


 
Horus
Topic Author
Posts: 5131
Joined: Sun Feb 22, 2004 1:04 am

RE: Airports That 'Ban' Thrust Reversers

Sun Jun 06, 2004 8:40 pm

Thanks Sammiehostie  Big thumbs up
EGYPT: A 7,000 Year Old Civilisation
 
BMAbound
Posts: 654
Joined: Fri Nov 14, 2003 5:59 am

Thrust Reversers

Sun Jun 06, 2004 11:59 pm

BMA STRONGLY recommends aircraft not to use TR (which practically means one shouldn't). A note from the authorities also says that minimum flap setting should be used and a common procedure for GA planes is to remain above the glidepath.

Everything to reduce noise...

johan
Altitude is Insurance - Get Insured
 
Mir
Posts: 19107
Joined: Mon Jan 05, 2004 3:55 am

RE: Airports That 'Ban' Thrust Reversers

Mon Jun 07, 2004 12:18 am

MUC also has a ban on them, I believe.
7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
 
mhodgson
Posts: 4673
Joined: Mon Dec 30, 2002 8:47 pm

RE: Airports That 'Ban' Thrust Reversers

Mon Jun 07, 2004 12:29 am

LCY  Big grin

Not that most of the aircraft that use it are capable of reverse thrust
No trees were harmed by this message. However, several million electrons were terribly inconvenienced
 
OmShanti
Posts: 65
Joined: Wed Jan 28, 2004 2:27 am

RE: Airports That 'Ban' Thrust Reversers

Mon Jun 07, 2004 12:31 am

*****MINIMUM FLAP SETTINGS???****** Is that sensible...I don't quite understand. Does not a regulation as such endanger the safety of the aircraft? Is that at all Logical?

Thanks

Omshanti
 
CPH-R
Posts: 6059
Joined: Thu May 03, 2001 5:19 pm

RE: Airports That 'Ban' Thrust Reversers

Mon Jun 07, 2004 1:06 am

Not at all - it's usually airline specific whether pilots uses full flaps or not. On the Airbus series, you typically have a choice of either 3 or Full. And the 767, you have the choice between either 25 or 30/full degrees of flaps.
 
vxg
Posts: 94
Joined: Sun May 02, 2004 12:31 pm

RE: Airports That 'Ban' Thrust Reversers

Mon Jun 07, 2004 1:10 am

However you'd think that if you were required to not use thrust reversers on the ground, you'd want to approach at the slowest possible approach speed for your aircraft. Doesn't this normally require full flaps? And how exactly does the flap setting reduce noise?
 
frugalqxnwa
Posts: 550
Joined: Sun Apr 25, 2004 3:18 am

RE: Airports That 'Ban' Thrust Reversers

Mon Jun 07, 2004 1:52 am

The minimum flap setting is probably meant as the minimum safe flap setting. They are probably trying to have planes coming in at higher speeds and at idle to reduce noise, although one would think the heavies would have a few problems with those restrictions. Try landing a 744 at max landing weight without using full flaps and without reversers (and please do it in Flight Sim instead of the real world, I do not want to get sued for some idiot taking this suggestion too seriously and trying it in the real world).
 
AOMlover
Posts: 1191
Joined: Sun Jul 22, 2001 6:03 pm

RE: Airports That 'Ban' Thrust Reversers

Mon Jun 07, 2004 2:54 am

Nice ? are your sure ?
I've landed 4 times at Nice lately and the pilots always used thrust reversers, even at night.
 
dbo861
Posts: 864
Joined: Tue May 18, 2004 2:20 am

RE: Airports That 'Ban' Thrust Reversers

Mon Jun 07, 2004 3:04 am

He said minimum flap setting for GA aircraft. It shouldn't be much of a problem considering how many zero flap landings you must practice before you get your private certificate. On the smaller airplanes, it just means you have a faster approach and you remain in ground effect longer during the flare. Should be no problem for an experienced pilot. Those planes use up so little runway space that runway length shouldn't be a factor at a larger airport.
 
planesarecool
Posts: 3208
Joined: Sun Nov 11, 2001 12:37 am

RE: Airports That 'Ban' Thrust Reversers

Mon Jun 07, 2004 3:09 am

Can't aircraft use their brakes anyway? Isn't that the 'squeeky' noise you sometimes hear after an aircraft touches down. When i landed at SAN on a BA B777-200 we didn't use reverse thrust at all and that is a smaller runway to a lot of runways that take Triple-7's. Although i do remember turning off the runway over the piano keys so we must have used the full length.

I think BMABound is referring to GA aircraft when he says minimum flap settings. I've seen a lot of single props stop using less than 100m of runway.

-Stephen
 
dbo861
Posts: 864
Joined: Tue May 18, 2004 2:20 am

RE: Airports That 'Ban' Thrust Reversers

Mon Jun 07, 2004 3:13 am

I believe airliners usually use the full lenght of the runway on their rollout....especially big ones like 777s. And I'm pretty sure they use breaks simultaneously with reverse thrusters, but reverse thrusters are probably more effective and a prefered way of stopping because brakes will ware out pretty quickly if you only use them for slowing down after landing.
 
BMAbound
Posts: 654
Joined: Fri Nov 14, 2003 5:59 am

RE: Airports That 'Ban' Thrust Reversers

Mon Jun 07, 2004 3:43 am

Regarding the question about minimum flap setting -

as a matter of fact, not only general aviation is encouraged to use minimum flap setting. Corporate pilots do the same (if able). The reason for using less flaps is that not as much power is required to move the ship forward (flaps in landing configuration create a whole lot of drag), thus reducing noise.

Vxg has a point about having less of a Vref with more flaps, but if the runway is long enough (5500 ft in BMA's case), each option, especially this one, is a viable one.

regards

johan
Altitude is Insurance - Get Insured
 
Horus
Topic Author
Posts: 5131
Joined: Sun Feb 22, 2004 1:04 am

RE: Airports That 'Ban' Thrust Reversers

Mon Jun 07, 2004 3:52 am

AOMlover

Nice ? are your sure ?

Here is a section of the article:

Despite its coastal location and because of the high density of residential development, Nice knows it needs to be a considerate member of the local community. In its favour is the fact that it is not a 24 hour airport and its operational procedures ensure noise is kept to a minimum. These includes using the seaward runway for take-offs, a ban on the use of reverse thrust (except when required for safety reasons) and limits on engine test running and APU use. As soon as DGAC (the French CAA) approval is recieved, new anti-noise measures are due to be introduced for arrivals to Runways 22L/22R, routing traffic even further out over the sea.

Hope this helps

Horus
EGYPT: A 7,000 Year Old Civilisation
 
SegmentKing
Posts: 3224
Joined: Sun Aug 27, 2000 7:16 am

RE: Airports That 'Ban' Thrust Reversers

Mon Jun 07, 2004 4:01 am

I've noticed more and more pilots doing an "idle reverse" when they land, meaning the shells (or cowlings) that are used to redirect the airflow are still activated at landing, just the engine isn't powered up. this is probably what was going on with the poster who had mentioned he flew into SAN and didn't use reverse thrust...

My boss, who is a former TWA pilot, said that idle reverse is used in noise restricted areas as it still helps to slow the plane down versus not doing it at all..

-nate
~ ~ ~ ~ pRoFeSsIoNaL hUrRiCaNe DoDgEr ~ ~ ~ ~
 
Horus
Topic Author
Posts: 5131
Joined: Sun Feb 22, 2004 1:04 am

RE: Airports That 'Ban' Thrust Reversers

Mon Jun 07, 2004 4:07 am

SegmentKing, is that method effective?
EGYPT: A 7,000 Year Old Civilisation
 
SegmentKing
Posts: 3224
Joined: Sun Aug 27, 2000 7:16 am

RE: Airports That 'Ban' Thrust Reversers

Mon Jun 07, 2004 4:20 am

No... cause you need to use thrust reversers to help ya stop... otherwise using lots of braking action can cause a minor fire..

-n
~ ~ ~ ~ pRoFeSsIoNaL hUrRiCaNe DoDgEr ~ ~ ~ ~
 
access-air
Posts: 1576
Joined: Thu Sep 21, 2000 5:30 pm

RE: Airports That 'Ban' Thrust Reversers

Mon Jun 07, 2004 8:08 am

Well I know that when I did my enthusiats flight on the EAL BAC 111-500 out of Bournemouth on 23 March 2002, I was expecting the thunderous use of Thrust reverse upon rollout but was sadly disappointed that none was used especially since every seat in the plane was taken.

I think Hushkitting and mandating that planes meet certain noise regulations is one thing but when cities mandate that airlines not use Thrust reversal just to pacify some self rightous bunch of snobs and endanger the lives of those onboard the planes then we have a serious problem. Thrust reverse is not only used for slowing the plane down but slowing it down FAST to clear the active runway, because if you are in a busy ternminal area like Heathrow or OHare or some other large airport, you usually have a plane barrelling down on your ass next in line to land.
Un-real!!!!!

Access-Air
Remember, Wherever you go, there you are!!!!
 
ConcordeBoy
Posts: 16852
Joined: Thu Feb 01, 2001 8:04 am

RE: Airports That 'Ban' Thrust Reversers

Mon Jun 07, 2004 8:14 am

And I'm pretty sure they use breaks simultaneously with reverse thrusters, but reverse thrusters are probably more effective and a prefered way of stopping because brakes will ware out pretty quickly if you only use them for slowing down after landing.


...considering what you claim in your profile, I should consider the emboldened quote a [not-so-well-played] joke, no?  Nuts
Faire du ciel le plus bel endroit de la terre c'est impossible sans Concorde!
 
sacflyer
Posts: 364
Joined: Tue Jan 13, 2004 8:19 am

RE: Airports That 'Ban' Thrust Reversers

Mon Jun 07, 2004 10:18 am

When airplanes are certified and the testing data regarding the minimum landing distance goes into the POH the bonus of using the thrust reversers is not included. The airplane is required to use a runway that will allow the airplane to stop without using the thrust reversers. In most cases, there is more than enough runway with spoilers, flaps, and up elevator, with moderate braking to easily bring the aircraft to a stop. Selecting the reversers without throttling up the engines removes some of the residual thrust making life easier on the brakes, like the attentuators do on the Citationjets. I don't think that brake fires are a real issue except after stops using maximum braking, unless there is some type of malfunction. Maximum braking stops are not normal and very uncomfortable for passengers and one would wonder why a plane is landing on such a short runway to require them.

I've heard that squeaky noise as well after a plane touches down, and I believe it has more to do with the action of the thrust reversers. The air whistles as the size and speed of the airflow changes around the reversers and cowlings.



I'm just happy that RR ratings can't be in negative numbers!
 
tekelberry
Posts: 1309
Joined: Tue May 13, 2003 6:37 am

RE: Airports That 'Ban' Thrust Reversers

Mon Jun 07, 2004 12:57 pm

Frugalqxnwa,

I would hope someone flying a 747 is not an idiot. Big grin
 
Cessna172RG
Posts: 642
Joined: Wed Aug 30, 2000 8:31 am

RE: Airports That 'Ban' Thrust Reversers

Mon Jun 07, 2004 1:04 pm

I believe that I read somewhere on my Jeppesen approach plates once that Seattle-SEA asks that thrust reverser use is to be kept to a minimum, and I believe that the notice was for the daytime as well. Not sure if that has changed, that was two years ago.
Save the whales...for dinner!!!
 
AirframeAS
Posts: 9811
Joined: Thu Feb 05, 2004 3:56 pm

RE: Airports That 'Ban' Thrust Reversers

Mon Jun 07, 2004 4:47 pm

SEA just recently became a noise abatement airport. So yeah, I think the T/R restrictions applies at SEA now.
A Safe Flight Begins With Quality Maintenance On The Ground.
 
planenutz
Posts: 1156
Joined: Fri Dec 31, 1999 5:50 am

RE: Airports That 'Ban' Thrust Reversers

Mon Jun 07, 2004 5:09 pm

I beleive SNA/Orange COunty John Wayne Airport maintains a t/r ban on certain commercial aircraft types (not all). This airport has always been a noise abatement airport because of its location right in the middle of a mixed use residential/commercial zoned area.

Years ago in the 80's aircraft taking off had to exercise abatement take-offs. These were amazing. I remember flying on an HP 737-200 and upon lift off, the plane took a perilously steep climb with engines roaring and then their power was cut back. I imagine the goal was to get as high an altitude as possible as quickly as possible.
Not all who wander are lost....
 
JGPH1A
Posts: 15080
Joined: Thu Aug 14, 2003 4:36 pm

RE: Airports That 'Ban' Thrust Reversers

Mon Jun 07, 2004 5:42 pm

The last few flights I've had into NCE have not used thrust reversers - all were late evening arrivals (post 2300), so I don't know if the ban is just at night, or all day.
Young and beautiful and thin and gorgeous AND BANNED ! Cya at airspaceonline.com, losers
 
SailorOrion
Posts: 1959
Joined: Tue Feb 06, 2001 5:56 pm

RE: Airports That 'Ban' Thrust Reversers

Mon Jun 07, 2004 5:44 pm

You cannot "ban" thrust reversers. If a pilot thinks safety requires it to use thrust reversers, (s)he will, not matter what any regulations say.

Here's the rule for MUC/EDDM:

When landing, reverse thrust other than idle thrust, can only be used to an extent for safety reasons in order to minimize noise impact.

Which means in reality, that on the 4000m(13 123ft) runways, I've never seen anything larger than an A320 or a 737-800 land without (non-idle) reverse thrust. On wet or contaminated runways, even much smaller planes use the reversers.

SailorOrion
 
SegmentKing
Posts: 3224
Joined: Sun Aug 27, 2000 7:16 am

RE: Airports That 'Ban' Thrust Reversers

Tue Jun 08, 2004 3:06 am

at SNA, you will see almost EVERY plane use thrust reversers on landing (with exception of UA's Embraers & American's Saabs). There is just no way you can land safely without using them to slow you down... that runway is small enough...

The noise restriction is mainly for departures OVER newport beach, not necessarily at the airport itself..

-n
~ ~ ~ ~ pRoFeSsIoNaL hUrRiCaNe DoDgEr ~ ~ ~ ~
 
Thrust
Posts: 2585
Joined: Wed Sep 17, 2003 12:17 pm

RE: Airports That 'Ban' Thrust Reversers

Tue Jun 08, 2004 3:20 am

The only reason I would imagine "banning" thrust reversers for would be for doing powerbacks...as those clearly have many drawbacks. But if you don't permit jets, that is also a reason. Thrust reversers are needed for landing...I tell ya, I wouldn't book a flight to an airport on a jet if that airport banned thrust reversers from being used  Laugh out loud
Fly one thing; Fly it well
 
Horus
Topic Author
Posts: 5131
Joined: Sun Feb 22, 2004 1:04 am

RE: Airports That 'Ban' Thrust Reversers

Tue Jun 08, 2004 9:28 am

Thrust, the ban on the use of reverse thrust is applied except when required for safety reasons. So you can fly with no worries  Big thumbs up
EGYPT: A 7,000 Year Old Civilisation
 
vxg
Posts: 94
Joined: Sun May 02, 2004 12:31 pm

RE: Airports That 'Ban' Thrust Reversers

Tue Jun 08, 2004 2:33 pm

SEA just recently became a noise abatement airport. So yeah, I think the T/R restrictions applies at SEA now.

Woah when did this happen? I would have thought the noise sensitive areas around SEA would be around Magnolia, Mercer Island and Bellevue - all of which are out of T/R earshot. I know late night departures during a north flow are first routed at a 310 heading over Elliott Bay before being turned east to avoid Magnolia. Would the crowd in the city of Sea-Tac really care about thrust reversers?

 
PhilSquares
Posts: 3371
Joined: Sun Mar 28, 2004 6:06 pm

RE: Airports That 'Ban' Thrust Reversers

Tue Jun 08, 2004 2:56 pm

First of all, you can land a 747400 at max landing weight and not use reverse thrust. No problems at all. Going into places like AMS in the middle of the night, the procedure is to use idle reverse and auto brakes. In the new aircraft, the brakes are carbon and have no problems at all handling the energy absorbed in a heavy weight braking.

For certification purposes, the landing distance is calculated without thrust reversers. So, there is no performance need to use reverse thrust on a dry runway. Obviously, we're talking about a 3000m+ runway.

Minimum flap settings are recommended to minimize thrust requirements on final approach. True the -400 is Stage III but trying to be a good neighbor is also important. So, if you can use 25 flaps, do it.

I have flown into most of the airports that have been mentioned. They all have a disclaimer that allows the PIC to use what ever he needs to if the situation dictates.
Fly fast, live slow
 
jwenting
Posts: 9973
Joined: Mon Apr 23, 2001 10:12 pm

RE: Airports That 'Ban' Thrust Reversers

Tue Jun 08, 2004 7:57 pm

There used to be restrictions at AMS where noise abatement was more important than aircraft safety.
These were imposed by a former environment minister who was ultra-green and ultra-leftist together with his party-mate who was transportation minister.
When within a year there were several near accidents and one accident (luckily noone was killed or seriously injured but a 757 received serious damage to the landing gear) the regulations were loosened and safety concerns could once again override noise restrictions.

Reversers were banned at night and only idle reverse allowed during all other hours, runway use was determined only by noise restrictions and not by wind.
As a result a 757 had to land with 25 knot crosswind at night without reversers.
It was blown off the runway into muddy grass causing damage.
I wish I were flying
 
User avatar
RayChuang
Posts: 8007
Joined: Sat Jun 24, 2000 7:43 am

RE: Airports That 'Ban' Thrust Reversers

Tue Jun 08, 2004 11:23 pm

I think while not using thrust reversers can work on really long runways over 10,000 feet in length, I think thrust reverser use should be mandatory in high crosswind and wet weather conditions for safety reasons. Jwenting's post about the incidents at AMS when the reverser use ban was effect tells me that the AMS airport officials were extremely lucky they didn't get sued for a fatal accident at the airport due to the plane's inability to stop in adverse weather conditions.
 
Horus
Topic Author
Posts: 5131
Joined: Sun Feb 22, 2004 1:04 am

RE: Airports That 'Ban' Thrust Reversers

Fri Jun 11, 2004 10:00 am

Though not an airport, I remember reading a few years back that Qantas pilots were adviced not to use their thrust reversers during landing but instead to rely on the carbon braking system to prolong engine life.

But I remember in 2000 (?) Qantas had its first crash when a B747-400 was landing in Bangkok during the night. There were strong winds, low clouds and heavy rains. The aircraft touched down on the runway after a significant length but the pilots continued with the landing (instead of making an emergency go-around) using their braking system (no thrust reversers) as they felt it was enough according to FAA regulations. The aircraft ended up overrunning the runway at 79 knots and made a stop in a field. None of the 400 or so on board were injured severly but I think the incident made Qantas review their regulations. Does anybody know any more info on this situation?
EGYPT: A 7,000 Year Old Civilisation
 
sovietjet
Posts: 2549
Joined: Sat Mar 15, 2003 12:32 am

RE: Airports That 'Ban' Thrust Reversers

Sat Jun 12, 2004 1:59 am

These noise restrictions that keep getting made are becoming increasingly lame. I mean seriously in today's quiet Boeing and Airbus aircraft, you gotta be outside waiting for the plane to pass to actually hear it. And reversers on Boeing and Airbus aircraft are also quiet, I was on the ramp at AB) (FRA / FRF / EDDF), Germany">FRA boarding a 737 which was right by the runway and a 744 was landing with reverse and it seriously wasnt that loud even though it was pretty close. And yes it was not idle reverse because I heard it spool up. I bet outside the airport territory you can't even hear it unless your house is at the airport fence. The only reverse I've heard outside an airport is Tu-154 and especially -134s but these dont fly to Europe anymore. I dont get where all this noise is made that people actually complain about it. If you're that sensitive to noise you shouldnt be living next to an airport. Plus I bet there's at least 50 other noises that you would hear that are also loud and annoying like cars, or over here we have people cutting the grass at 7AM, or garbage trucks....noise is part of the world and planes if anything are not that big a contributor to noise pollution, I used to live by ORD and you get used to it in a week.
 
AirframeAS
Posts: 9811
Joined: Thu Feb 05, 2004 3:56 pm

RE: Airports That 'Ban' Thrust Reversers

Sun Jun 20, 2004 4:41 am

Woah when did this happen? I would have thought the noise sensitive areas around SEA would be around Magnolia, Mercer Island and Bellevue - all of which are out of T/R earshot.

I saw on the north end of the runway in SEA that had a lighted sign for pilots and it said "Noise Abatement Procedures Required......" or something like that. I cant remember word for word what it really said. But it is now a noise abatement airport.
A Safe Flight Begins With Quality Maintenance On The Ground.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Alexdk, angusjt, ASFlyer, barney captain, blackbox67, blue100, BobPatterson, flydia, flyyul, kriskim, msycajun, seat64k, thaiflyer, Yahoo [Bot] and 142 guests