lewis
Posts: 3576
Joined: Thu Jul 08, 1999 5:41 am

Landing Without Reverse Thrust?

Thu Jan 18, 2001 12:08 am

I am not quite shure but i clearly remember that when i went to NEW YORK (JFK) in 1993 we landed without using reverse thrust. Is this really possible? It is not possible to have missed it because the 747-200s make really loud noise so it is always noticeable.
 
Critter_592
Posts: 269
Joined: Sat Jun 17, 2000 3:07 pm

RE: Landing Without Reverse Thrust?

Thu Jan 18, 2001 12:37 am

It could be possible, JFK has one really long runway. I'm not sure if it is required in order to stop.......but I've done it in FS.
 
Airbus_A340
Posts: 1439
Joined: Sat Mar 11, 2000 8:41 pm

RE: Landing Without Reverse Thrust?

Thu Jan 18, 2001 12:44 am

in some airports like in Hong Kong, Chek Lap Kok, i have noticed the reverse thrust doors open, but i didnt notice if reverse thrust was activated, this is because i did not hear much of a rumble, this has occured on 3 out of 4 of the landings. I have been told that this is called "idle reverse thrust" where the doors of the reversers are just opened to stop the air flowing straight through the engine scince reverse thrust is not so effective on some aircraft.

Can someone please clarify, i was told this, i am giving you infomation from a pilot not me.

Regards
Trevor A.K.A. Airbus_A340
People. They make an airline. www.cathaypacific.com
 
Nightfly
Posts: 212
Joined: Mon Nov 13, 2000 6:24 am

RE: Landing Without Reverse Thrust?

Thu Jan 18, 2001 1:37 am

Landing without reverse thrusts is possible. Pilots are allowed to fly with deactivated or defect reverse thrusts because there are 2 other break systems which can stop the plane.

Because of security, this break systems are necessary.

best regards,
nightfly
 
flashmeister
Posts: 2671
Joined: Fri Apr 28, 2000 4:32 am

RE: Landing Without Reverse Thrust?

Thu Jan 18, 2001 1:55 am

I've landed at DEN a couple of times using braking only, not reverse thrust...
 
ILS25R
Posts: 28
Joined: Sat Jan 06, 2001 8:12 am

RE: Landing Without Reverse Thrust?

Thu Jan 18, 2001 3:58 am

Hi,
for landing, thrust reversal is not included in the performance calculation. It's used as an additional factor of safety and therefore not necessary but it reduces the braking distance about 20%.
The maximum share of thrust reverse is about 30% of the total braking effect on a dry runway.
At some airports the use of reverse thrust, except idle reverse, is not allowed, except for safety, due to noise abatement.

BRGDS
ILS
 
prebennorholm
Posts: 6419
Joined: Tue Mar 21, 2000 6:25 am

RE: Landing Without Reverse Thrust?

Thu Jan 18, 2001 4:11 am

In Copenhagen (CPH) use of thrust reversers is banned due to noise restrictions.
Normally they open the doors and spool the engines up a little higher that idle. I guess that it is only to get a faster responce if the reversers are needed - in case of a problem with the wheel brakes.
In case of any problem they are of course allowed to do what they can do.
Best regards, Preben Norholm
Always keep your number of landings equal to your number of take-offs
 
JETPILOT
Posts: 3094
Joined: Tue May 18, 1999 6:40 am

RE: Landing Without Reverse Thrust?

Thu Jan 18, 2001 4:19 am

It has been found that aircraft using carbon brakes have much less brake wear if the wheel brakes are used exclusively to slow the plane down.

Carbon brakes wear siginificantly less when they are hot.

If carbon brakes are used like steel brakes (only below 60 kts) they spend little time in their optimal operating temperature zone and wear is increased.

The newest procedures for airplanes equiped with carbon brakes is to bring the engines into idle reverse, and use auto braking to slow the aircraft. This puts the brakes in the optimal heat zone quickly minimizing wear.

If anything other than the proposed procedures are used the modern planes will rat you out to ops for too low break temps, or using reverse above idle. This info is compiled in to a unique profile for each pilot recording his or her flying habits. Letters are sent out regarding aircraft operations outside the prescribed parameters. Big brother knows all.

JET
 
XFSUgimpLB41X
Posts: 3960
Joined: Fri Aug 25, 2000 1:18 am

RE: Landing Without Reverse Thrust?

Thu Jan 18, 2001 7:06 am

Like has been said.. landing without reverse thrusters is not necessary. They are pretty much ineffective and suck up things when the plane's speed drops under 100kts.
Chicks dig winglets.
 
Guest

RE: Landing Without Reverse Thrust?

Thu Jan 18, 2001 7:47 am

On the 737, most runways we operate are well beyond what we need to stop! I always arm the reversers just to have them handy but slow the airplane down on brakes, I find that it provides a much more comfortable landing to the passengers without all this extra noise. Now if operational needs dictate the use of them then by all means they will be used!
 
YXDFan
Posts: 189
Joined: Sat Dec 09, 2000 4:29 pm

RE: Landing Without Reverse Thrust?

Thu Jan 18, 2001 7:52 am

Idle reverse is a pretty common practice, they did it once when I was riding in the jumpseat of an AC DC-9. There are also a few smaller jets that have no reverse thrust at all, such as the F-28 and the BAe-146. Mind you, the landing on the F-28 is about the only thing thats quiet!
 
redngold
Posts: 6673
Joined: Wed Mar 22, 2000 12:26 pm

RE: Landing Without Reverse Thrust?

Thu Jan 18, 2001 7:56 am

Strangely enough, most jets landing at CLE use reverse thrust, even though we have an 8,999 ft. runway. Even the Embraer RJs regularly use their reversers.

redngold
Up, up and away!
 
Shawn Patrick
Posts: 2465
Joined: Tue Jan 11, 2000 7:30 am

RE: Landing Without Reverse Thrust?

Thu Jan 18, 2001 8:32 am

If you ever fly to Denver (DEN), you'll notice that thrust reversers are usually never used.

This is because of 3 basic reasons

1.) The air at one mile high is pretty thin, so the reversers are not very effective. Just waste gas.

2.) Every runway in DEN is 12,000 ft long (with a new 16,000 footer coming soon!  !), so there is more than enough room to slow to taxi speed.

3.) The concourses are usually at the end of the runways (depending on which way you arrive, see pic), so if you stopped halfway down, you'd have to taxi for a while.



Hope this helps!

-Shawn

BTW, come to DEN! It's a great airport!
If you must connect anywhere, DEN is the place!  
 
JETPILOT
Posts: 3094
Joined: Tue May 18, 1999 6:40 am

RE: Landing Without Reverse Thrust?

Thu Jan 18, 2001 8:46 am

Reversers ineffective??? Hardly.
 
Guest

RE: Landing Without Reverse Thrust?

Thu Jan 18, 2001 8:48 am

Thrust reversers are NEVER necessary to make "book" stopping distances. Book distances are based upon the use of wheel brakes only. Basically, the use of T/Rs provides the crew with a cushion or extra margin. It costs money to use the brakes (brake overhauls are big $$$) and T/Rs cost more or less nothing to use so they make sense from an economic point of view. Are they mandatory - never, nice to have - yes.
 
SegmentKing
Posts: 3224
Joined: Sun Aug 27, 2000 7:16 am

RE: Landing Without Reverse Thrust?

Thu Jan 18, 2001 10:10 am

Reverse thrusters somewhat ineffective?? I sure hope not... have you flown into Chicago Midway???

I'd hate to be the pilot of your 727 landing staring at all the car traffic just on the otherside of that fense.............
~ ~ ~ ~ pRoFeSsIoNaL hUrRiCaNe DoDgEr ~ ~ ~ ~
 
Red Panda
Posts: 1433
Joined: Wed Jun 14, 2000 12:58 pm

RE: Landing Without Reverse Thrust?

Thu Jan 18, 2001 11:09 am

Thrust Reversers should not be ineffective by any mean. Even tho the air is thin, the engines can compress the inflow of air to 1:40 (when cruising). So I don't think thin air is a reason why thrust reversers are ineffective. The thinness of air is only a matter to propellers, but not Jet. (a/c w/ jet engines).

Regards,
R panda
 
Airbus_A340
Posts: 1439
Joined: Sat Mar 11, 2000 8:41 pm

RE: Landing Without Reverse Thrust?

Thu Jan 18, 2001 6:27 pm

But it is a known fact only idle reverse thrust is used at some airport, if not, most.
Any pilot want to comment?
Trev
People. They make an airline. www.cathaypacific.com
 
L-188
Posts: 29881
Joined: Wed Jul 07, 1999 11:27 am

RE: Landing Without Reverse Thrust?

Thu Jan 18, 2001 6:32 pm

Jetguy is right.

The landing distances for an aircraft are determined without the use of thrust reversers.
OBAMA-WORST PRESIDENT EVER....Even SKOORB would be better.
 
FaisZ
Posts: 97
Joined: Mon Sep 04, 2000 6:12 pm

RE: Landing Without Reverse Thrust?

Thu Jan 18, 2001 6:37 pm

Recently i was on an SQ 744 fully packed to Tokyo - Narita. I was suprised to find that we did not need reverst thrust as we were landing in narita since the plane must have been pretty heavy!
 
cedarjet
Posts: 8101
Joined: Mon May 24, 1999 1:12 am

RE: Landing Without Reverse Thrust?

Thu Jan 18, 2001 6:50 pm

Air-India didn't use them at JFK a few months ago in one of their 744s when I was over there in Spring. Nor did British Meditteranean in an A320 at Beirut a few years ago, which was more surprising cos the runway isn't an alternative landing site for the Space Shuttle (as the long runway at JFK is). Quite short in fact.

Whoever said reverse thrust is less costly than wheel brakes is mental - changing brake pads (not really "$$$" at all) is a fraction of the cost in significantly shortened engine life from the rigours of reverse thrust, and of course fuel used spooling up to 80%-odd power.
fly Saha Air 707s daily from Tehran's downtown Mehrabad to Mashhad, Kish Island and Ahwaz
 
advancedkid
Posts: 740
Joined: Wed Jun 14, 2000 1:27 pm

RE:FaisZ+(all) Landing Without Reverse Thrust?

Fri Jan 19, 2001 12:22 am

Hi there,
A heavier plane needs more breaking power than a lighter one because of a greater inertia.
The use of reverse thrusts is mostly left to the
pilot's logical decision at any particular airport.
Several airports and or runways almost always require
the use of thrust reversers on some airplanes.
With some others it is hardly required.
I hope that helps.
Regards,
Advancedkid
 
cfalk
Posts: 10221
Joined: Mon Dec 04, 2000 6:38 pm

RE: Landing Without Reverse Thrust?

Fri Jan 19, 2001 1:14 am

I was told not long ago that in order to recieve civil transport certification from the FAA, the aircraft must be able to land safely using either only wheel brakes or only reverse thrust, so that if there is a problem with either system, you don't have a major problem. I suppose a "standard" runway length is specified for this, but I don't know how that is calculated. Anybody know?

Charles
The only thing you should feel when shooting a terrorist: Recoil.
 
SegmentKing
Posts: 3224
Joined: Sun Aug 27, 2000 7:16 am

RE: Landing Without Reverse Thrust?

Fri Jan 19, 2001 4:31 am

I was reading an article that a friend (mgr of an Illinois airport) gave me and it stated that the new "standard" length runways are about 6,300 feet by 150 feet...

I guess 5,300 is cutting it short....

Nate
~ ~ ~ ~ pRoFeSsIoNaL hUrRiCaNe DoDgEr ~ ~ ~ ~
 
AA777
Posts: 2358
Joined: Thu May 20, 1999 7:07 am

RE: Landing Without Reverse Thrust?

Fri Jan 19, 2001 7:13 am

I flew into LHR once on A 747-200 IAD- LHR and it arrived at 6 in the morning, i believe the reverse thrust wasnt used b/c it was so early that day....
-AA777
 
Guest

RE: Landing Without Reverse Thrust?

Fri Jan 19, 2001 10:56 am

If you ever fly to Denver (DEN), you'll notice that thrust reversers are usually never used.

Not on turboprops, pilots like to jam on the reverse-pitch!!! When I flew into DEN on one of UAX's Beech 1900s, the pilot hit the reverse almost as soon as we touched down. (and we taxied for what seemed like forever to get to the gate...) Same with a UAX Dornier 328 a year later...maybe turboprop pilots are just reverse happy?

Corey777
 
B727-200
Posts: 1008
Joined: Fri Nov 05, 1999 11:28 am

RE: Landing Without Reverse Thrust?

Fri Jan 19, 2001 12:39 pm


I suppose like most things, there are a number of logical reasons for why thrust reverse would or would not be used (a number have been mentioned above).

For example, at SYD the curfew is ceased at 0600, but inbound longhaul international aircraft can land from 0530. This must be done from the south (from over Botany Bay - weather permitting) and without the use of thrust reverse for noise abaitment reasons. Also, the terminals are at the northern end of the airfield so by the time you have rolled out on nearly all the 13000' runway you have just about stopped.

In contrast, MEL has no curfew, but also quite a long N/S runway like SYD. Reverse thrust is always used here, predominantly because the terminals (both domestic and international) are in the centre of the airfield on the eastern side. The main runway at MEL has highspeed run-offs in both directions opposite to the terminals so as to minimise aircraft taxi-time.

It really is wierd though the first time you are on an aircraft that lands without them. I have been on aircrarft that have landed at both SYD and HKG without them.

B727-200.
 
Guest

Its Possible

Fri Jan 19, 2001 3:16 pm

It is very possible that you landed without reverse thrust. In fact, UAL 777 pilots are trained to conserve fuel by not using reverse thrust. The 777 has large enough brakes that reverse thrust is not essential.

 
OE-LDA
Posts: 207
Joined: Thu Sep 28, 2000 5:29 pm

RE: Its Possible

Fri Jan 19, 2001 11:13 pm

I once landed on a Qantas 747-400 in FRA without reversers. Its kind of strange, but it works.

OE-LDA
I am totally missing basics and clueless about airline flying!

Who is online