BR715-A1-30
Topic Author
Posts: 6525
Joined: Thu May 30, 2002 9:30 am

Why No Reverse Thrust On Landing In ATL?

Sat Feb 09, 2008 1:12 am

Yesterday, I flew on DL4285 from EVV to ATL, and upon landing in ATL, we didn't use reverse thrust. Was there a reason for this?

Only reason I can think of is that we had enough runway, and the weather was good, so the pilot opted for brakes only, either that, or one may have been malfunctioning. Also, while I'm talking about it, watch the video.. The landing gear was EXTREMELY noisy (more-so than normal) on this aircraft... You can hear how it sounds like we're on loose gravel.

Puhdiddle
 
luisde8cd
Posts: 2444
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 12:02 am

RE: Why No Reverse Thrust On Landing In ATL?

Sat Feb 09, 2008 1:21 am

I fail to notice anything irregular in your landing. It was flawless in my opinion.

Saludos desde Caracas,
Luis
 
BAKJet
Posts: 393
Joined: Thu Nov 08, 2007 8:58 pm

RE: Why No Reverse Thrust On Landing In ATL?

Sat Feb 09, 2008 1:24 am

What type of plane were you on( I assume a CRJ)? The landing gear didn't sound noisier than usual to me. The only reason besides yours that I can think of is that you came in under 60 knots (doesn't it damage the engine or something like that if you use r/t under 60 knots?). I'm pretty sure on most of the ERJ flights I've been on have use R/T in the air, not on the ground, maybe it is an RJ thing not to use r/t on the ground. Any ERJ/ CRJ( or any)pilots here that can shed some light on this.

[Edited 2008-02-08 17:26:21]

[Edited 2008-02-08 17:26:54]
 
airtran737
Posts: 3218
Joined: Mon Apr 05, 2004 3:47 am

RE: Why No Reverse Thrust On Landing In ATL?

Sat Feb 09, 2008 1:27 am



Quoting BR715-A1-30 (Thread starter):
and upon landing in ATL, we didn't use reverse thrust. Was there a reason for this?

It's very common now. If the runway is long enough, and weather conditions are ideal many regionals are now landing without using the TR's. It saves wear and tear on the engine.
Nice Trip Report!!! Great Pics, thanks for posting!!!! B747Forever
 
Viscount724
Posts: 18846
Joined: Thu Oct 12, 2006 7:32 pm

RE: Why No Reverse Thrust On Landing In ATL?

Sat Feb 09, 2008 1:29 am



Quoting BR715-A1-30 (Thread starter):
Yesterday, I flew on DL4285 from EVV to ATL, and upon landing in ATL, we didn't use reverse thrust. Was there a reason for this?

That is very common all over the world. Airlines avoid using reverse thrust when the runway is long enough and it's not wet or snow-covered. Saves a lot of wear and tear on the engines and reduces maintenance expenses. They often put the engines in idle-reverse but that isn't noticeable by passengers. The only recent landings I can recall where significant reverse thrust was used involved slippery or short runways, or occasionally when they don't want to miss a runway exit to reduce otherwise long taxi times.
 
BR715-A1-30
Topic Author
Posts: 6525
Joined: Thu May 30, 2002 9:30 am

RE: Why No Reverse Thrust On Landing In ATL?

Sat Feb 09, 2008 1:32 am

As for the noisy landing gear, it honestly sounded like we had burst a tyre on landing...

If that happens, can the pilot still taxi to the gate?
Puhdiddle
 
BAC111
Posts: 63
Joined: Sun Feb 11, 2007 3:13 am

RE: Why No Reverse Thrust On Landing In ATL?

Sat Feb 09, 2008 1:40 am



Quoting BAKJet (Reply 2):
I'm pretty sure on most of the ERJ flights I've been on have use R/T in the air, not on the ground, maybe it is an RJ thing not to use r/t on the ground.

Reverse thrust while in the air?? News to me, RJ or mainline jet. Why would RJs use it and not mainline?
 
BAKJet
Posts: 393
Joined: Thu Nov 08, 2007 8:58 pm

RE: Why No Reverse Thrust On Landing In ATL?

Sat Feb 09, 2008 1:43 am



Quoting BAC111 (Reply 6):
Reverse thrust while in the air?? News to me, RJ or mainline jet. Why would RJs use it and not mainline?

I don't know why they do it,I thought it was dangerous to use r/t in the air, but I'm pretty sure that is what I heard.
 
Tornado82
Posts: 4662
Joined: Thu May 26, 2005 10:19 am

RE: Why No Reverse Thrust On Landing In ATL?

Sat Feb 09, 2008 1:57 am



Quoting BAKJet (Reply 2):
The only reason besides yours that I can think of is that you came in under 60 knots (doesn't it damage the engine or something like that if you use r/t under 60 knots?). I'm pretty sure on most of the ERJ flights I've been on have use R/T in the air, not on the ground, maybe it is an RJ thing not to use r/t on the ground. Any ERJ/ CRJ( or any)pilots here that can shed some light on this.

First off there's no way a CRJ landed at a speed below 60 kts. More than double that actually.

Secondly, nothing regularly used as a commercial passenger airliner currently is able to use R/T in the air, at all.
 
MQTmxguy
Posts: 129
Joined: Sun Nov 11, 2007 3:58 pm

RE: Why No Reverse Thrust On Landing In ATL?

Sat Feb 09, 2008 2:25 am



Quoting BAKJet (Reply 2):
What type of plane were you on( I assume a CRJ)? The landing gear didn't sound noisier than usual to me. The only reason besides yours that I can think of is that you came in under 60 knots (doesn't it damage the engine or something like that if you use r/t under 60 knots?). I'm pretty sure on most of the ERJ flights I've been on have use R/T in the air, not on the ground, maybe it is an RJ thing not to use r/t on the ground. Any ERJ/ CRJ( or any)pilots here that can shed some light on this.

ERJ outboard spoiler and T/R logic is routed though the nose gear weight on wheels sensors. In english, that means the T/Rs cannot deploy if the the nose gear is not down and locked and on the ground.
Well at least we can all take comfort in the fact that NW will never retire their DC-9s
 
avioniker
Posts: 1099
Joined: Tue Jan 01, 2002 5:38 am

RE: Why No Reverse Thrust On Landing In ATL?

Sat Feb 09, 2008 2:54 am



Quoting Tornado82 (Reply 8):
Secondly, nothing regularly used as a commercial passenger airliner currently is able to use R/T in the air, at all.

Nothing is a very strong word. There's still a number of DC-8's in passenger service; not a lot but they're there.

 Smile
One may educate the ignorance from the unknowing but stupid is forever. Boswell; ca: 1533
 
Tornado82
Posts: 4662
Joined: Thu May 26, 2005 10:19 am

RE: Why No Reverse Thrust On Landing In ATL?

Sat Feb 09, 2008 4:33 am



Quoting Avioniker (Reply 10):

Nothing is a very strong word. There's still a number of DC-8's in passenger service; not a lot but they're there.

That's why I said regularly used... they're not over here. Unless you're a box riding on UPS/DHL... which I always thought would be a more convenient way to travel anyways, haha.
 
Stealthz
Posts: 5546
Joined: Wed Feb 02, 2005 11:43 am

RE: Why No Reverse Thrust On Landing In ATL?

Sat Feb 09, 2008 5:46 am



Quoting Tornado82 (Reply 8):
Secondly, nothing regularly used as a commercial passenger airliner currently is able to use R/T in the air, at all.

Maybe not over "there" but the world extends beyond California & New Hampshire.

The TU-154....

View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Thierry Deutsch
View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Markus Schuster

If your camera sends text messages, that could explain why your photos are rubbish!
 
User avatar
Starlionblue
Posts: 17055
Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2004 9:54 pm

RE: Why No Reverse Thrust On Landing In ATL?

Sat Feb 09, 2008 6:20 am



Quoting BAKJet (Reply 7):
I don't know why they do it,I thought it was dangerous to use r/t in the air, but I'm pretty sure that is what I heard.



Quoting Tornado82 (Reply 8):
Secondly, nothing regularly used as a commercial passenger airliner currently is able to use R/T in the air, at all.

Il-62 and Tu-154 regularly do it. It was also done on the DC-8 for air braking.
"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots." - John Ringo
 
Tornado82
Posts: 4662
Joined: Thu May 26, 2005 10:19 am

RE: Why No Reverse Thrust On Landing In ATL?

Sat Feb 09, 2008 6:51 am



Quoting Starlionblue (Reply 13):

Il-62 and Tu-154 regularly do it. It was also done on the DC-8 for air braking.

But none of those are flying EVV-ATL.  Cool
 
Stealthz
Posts: 5546
Joined: Wed Feb 02, 2005 11:43 am

RE: Why No Reverse Thrust On Landing In ATL?

Sat Feb 09, 2008 7:00 am



Quoting Tornado82 (Reply 14):
But none of those are flying EVV-ATL

An entirely valid point which I accept but in your original post...

Quoting Tornado82 (Reply 8):
Secondly, nothing regularly used as a commercial passenger airliner currently is able to use R/T in the air, at all.

You made a fairly absolute statement with no conditions as to location or route.

Cheers
If your camera sends text messages, that could explain why your photos are rubbish!
 
Tornado82
Posts: 4662
Joined: Thu May 26, 2005 10:19 am

RE: Why No Reverse Thrust On Landing In ATL?

Sat Feb 09, 2008 7:06 am



Quoting StealthZ (Reply 15):

You made a fairly absolute statement with no conditions as to location or route.

Yeah, I saw that after I posted and was glancing back at this thread but the edit window had passed by. I meant to say "regularly used *here* as a...."
 
phxpilot
Posts: 59
Joined: Fri Jul 22, 2005 5:25 am

RE: Why No Reverse Thrust On Landing In ATL?

Sat Feb 09, 2008 7:21 am

One of the things that drives me crazy are the people that post regarding T/R being used or not used. This is especially true in the trip report section. Unless you have a clear view of the T/R you really have no idea if they are used or not.

Often they will be used, but at idle reverse. This is done if the runway is long enough. The buckets/cascades (depending on engine and airframe types will deploy, but the engine is not commanded to spool up. This negates most of the residual forward thrust produced at idle while eliminating most of the stress of full reverse.

The original poster was on a CRJ, of which I am a qualified Captain. On the -200, the T/R are pneumatically actuated. This results in a relatively lengthy deployment time. As a result, by the time they are deployed and the engines spool up you are already almost slowed to 60 knots. You get almost the same deceleration result using idle reverse as full reverse. On the -700 and -900, the T/R are hydraulically actuated. They deploy and stow very rapidly. Also, the FADEC keeps the engines spooled up slightly to enable rapid application of full reverse thrust. Thus in these models you can take advantage of full reverse for a longer and more effective period of time. In any event, on these aircraft it is impossible to see the actual reverser from the cabin. Therefore, unless the engines spool up above idle reverse, the passenger will have no way of knowing whether the T/R were used.  Yeah sure
 
flynavy
Posts: 2177
Joined: Fri Mar 15, 2002 1:48 am

RE: Why No Reverse Thrust On Landing In ATL?

Sat Feb 09, 2008 12:05 pm



Quoting BR715-A1-30 (Reply 5):
As for the noisy landing gear, it honestly sounded like we had burst a tyre on landing...

If that happens, can the pilot still taxi to the gate?

Considering that I watched your flight from EVV land in person yesterday, I can tell you that no, you didn't burst a tire. And how would you know what a tire bursting sounded like anyway?
Change is: one airline, six continents!
 
FlyASAGuy2005
Posts: 3964
Joined: Sun Sep 23, 2007 4:55 am

RE: Why No Reverse Thrust On Landing In ATL?

Sat Feb 09, 2008 2:21 pm



Quoting BAKJet (Reply 2):
The only reason besides yours that I can think of is that you came in under 60 knots (doesn't it damage the engine or something like that if you use r/t under 60 knots?).

Came in under 60 kts? Not likely...

Quoting BAKJet (Reply 2):
I'm pretty sure on most of the ERJ flights I've been on have use R/T in the air, not on the ground, maybe it is an RJ thing not to use r/t on the ground. Any ERJ/ CRJ( or any)pilots here that can shed some light on this.

Ok. And I can tell you that you have never been on an ERJ that has deployed their reversers in-flight. Are you confusing the engine reverse with spoilers maybe? you seem very convinced of the first.
What gets measured gets done.
 
VC-10
Posts: 3546
Joined: Tue Oct 26, 1999 11:34 am

RE: Why No Reverse Thrust On Landing In ATL?

Sat Feb 09, 2008 3:42 pm

Not using T.Rev on modern a/c, as well reducing wear & tear on the engine/T.rev structure, also allows the carbon brakes to warm up their working temperature more quickly. At this temp brake wear is reduced.
 
A10WARTHOG
Posts: 200
Joined: Mon Jul 12, 2004 7:32 am

RE: Why No Reverse Thrust On Landing In ATL?

Sat Feb 09, 2008 4:23 pm



Quoting BR715-A1-30 (Thread starter):
Yesterday, I flew on DL4285 from EVV to ATL, and upon landing in ATL, we didn't use reverse thrust. Was there a reason for this?

Could be on MEL also.

Quoting FlyASAGuy2005 (Reply 19):
Ok. And I can tell you that you have never been on an ERJ that has deployed their reversers in-flight. Are you confusing the engine reverse with spoilers maybe? you seem very convinced of the first.

They should not, if the FADEC gets a signal that the T/R are delpoyed it automaticly takes the engine to idle.

Also some ERJ do not have T/R it is a option.
 
BR715-A1-30
Topic Author
Posts: 6525
Joined: Thu May 30, 2002 9:30 am

RE: Why No Reverse Thrust On Landing In ATL?

Sat Feb 09, 2008 5:17 pm



Quoting A10WARTHOG (Reply 21):
Also some ERJ do not have T/R it is a option.

Actually, to be honest, T/R is an option on ALL aircraft.. Any airplane must successfully prove it can land in any weather without the use of T/R before it is certified, so technically, you can fly a 747 w/o T/R, but not using T/R is obviously pilot discretion
Puhdiddle
 
A10WARTHOG
Posts: 200
Joined: Mon Jul 12, 2004 7:32 am

RE: Why No Reverse Thrust On Landing In ATL?

Sat Feb 09, 2008 5:52 pm

Sorry what i ment is that in the ERJ they may not even be installed.
 
dl767captain
Posts: 1206
Joined: Wed Mar 07, 2007 8:51 am

RE: Why No Reverse Thrust On Landing In ATL?

Sat Feb 09, 2008 6:19 pm



Quoting Phxpilot (Reply 17):
One of the things that drives me crazy are the people that post regarding T/R being used or not used. This is especially true in the trip report section. Unless you have a clear view of the T/R you really have no idea if they are used or not.

I can definitely tell, it gets very loud when the thrust reversers come on at full power even in the front of the cabin where you can't even see the engines.
 
EMBQA
Posts: 7795
Joined: Sat Oct 25, 2003 3:52 am

RE: Why No Reverse Thrust On Landing In ATL?

Sat Feb 09, 2008 7:01 pm



Quoting BAKJet (Reply 2):
I'm pretty sure on most of the ERJ flights I've been on have use R/T in the air,

If that had actually happed you'd be dead now.........
"It's not the size of the dog in the fight, but the size of the fight in the dog"
 
vikkyvik
Posts: 11765
Joined: Thu Jul 31, 2003 1:58 pm

RE: Why No Reverse Thrust On Landing In ATL?

Sat Feb 09, 2008 7:13 pm



Quoting DL767captain (Reply 24):
I can definitely tell, it gets very loud when the thrust reversers come on at full power even in the front of the cabin where you can't even see the engines.

He didn't say at full power though....Idle reverse probably sounds about the same as idle forward thrust.
I'm watching Jeopardy. The category is worst Madonna songs. "This one from 1987 is terrible".
 
kcrwflyer
Posts: 2533
Joined: Tue May 18, 2004 11:57 am

RE: Why No Reverse Thrust On Landing In ATL?

Sat Feb 09, 2008 7:30 pm



Quoting BR715-A1-30 (Thread starter):
Yesterday, I flew on DL4285 from EVV to ATL, and upon landing in ATL, we didn't use reverse thrust. Was there a reason for this?

Only reason I can think of is that we had enough runway, and the weather was good, so the pilot opted for brakes only, either that, or one may have been malfunctioning. Also, while I'm talking about it, watch the video.. The landing gear was EXTREMELY noisy (more-so than normal) on this aircraft... You can hear how it sounds like we're on loose gravel.

They could have used the reverse thrust at idle. And the reason for not using it is usually because the pilot decided not to.

Quoting BAKJet (Reply 2):
What type of plane were you on( I assume a CRJ)? The landing gear didn't sound noisier than usual to me. The only reason besides yours that I can think of is that you came in under 60 knots (doesn't it damage the engine or something like that if you use r/t under 60 knots?). I'm pretty sure on most of the ERJ flights I've been on have use R/T in the air, not on the ground, maybe it is an RJ thing not to use r/t on the ground.

Its not even remotely possible for a CRJ to be in any phase of flight at 60kts. Also, Erjs cant reverse in the air.
 
N231YE
Posts: 2620
Joined: Tue Jul 25, 2006 9:24 am

RE: Why No Reverse Thrust On Landing In ATL?

Sat Feb 09, 2008 10:40 pm

Come to think of it, I remember flying into ATL on a DL 73S (back when they had them), and was disappointed when the classic Clam Shell deployed but the JT8D made no evidence that it spooled up...idle reverse.
 
twincommander
Posts: 180
Joined: Thu Apr 14, 2005 11:54 pm

RE: Why No Reverse Thrust On Landing In ATL?

Sun Feb 10, 2008 5:32 pm



Quoting MQTmxguy (Reply 9):
ERJ outboard spoiler and T/R logic is routed though the nose gear weight on wheels sensors. In english, that means the T/Rs cannot deploy if the the nose gear is not down and locked and on the ground.

not exactly.

its determined by the main gear WOW switchs and N2 rotation detection.

you cant deploy T/Rs if the N2 detection is 0, gear are up or off the ground, or if any gear is in the up and lock position.
 
MQTmxguy
Posts: 129
Joined: Sun Nov 11, 2007 3:58 pm

RE: Why No Reverse Thrust On Landing In ATL?

Mon Feb 11, 2008 9:38 pm



Quoting TwinCommander (Reply 29):
not exactly.

its determined by the main gear WOW switches and N2 rotation detection.

you cant deploy T/Rs if the N2 detection is 0, gear are up or off the ground, or if any gear is in the up and lock position.

I was 99% sure I was right to begin with, but I looked it up at work today just to be sure

As per EMB145 AMM part 1 78-30-00 the following conditions must be met for T/R deployment:

NLG WOW prox sensors ON

Wheel speed > 25 Kts (can be overridden)

Air/Ground Position switch in ground

Thrust lever T/R microswitches ON (TLA in reverse position)

T/R deployed microswitches in the not deployed position


MLG WOW and N2 speed are not T/R logic inputs on the ERJ 135/145.

No offense, but I'd recommend some fact checking before getting correction happy.
Well at least we can all take comfort in the fact that NW will never retire their DC-9s
 
IAHFLYR
Posts: 3941
Joined: Sat Jun 25, 2005 12:56 am

RE: Why No Reverse Thrust On Landing In ATL?

Mon Feb 11, 2008 11:54 pm

Some airlines (CO comes to mind) are requesting/training their pilot groups to use the brakes and idle reverse in order to save gas. As was mentioned in reply 22,

Quoting BR715-A1-30 (Reply 22):
Any airplane must successfully prove it can land in any weather without the use of T/R before it is certified, so technically, you can fly a 747 w/o T/R, but not using T/R is obviously pilot discretion

Makes for a very nice quiet roll out with firm braking, I like it.
Any views shared are strictly my own and do not a represent those of any former employer.
 
tdscanuck
Posts: 8572
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2006 7:25 am

RE: Why No Reverse Thrust On Landing In ATL?

Tue Feb 12, 2008 1:05 am



Quoting BAC111 (Reply 6):
Reverse thrust while in the air?? News to me, RJ or mainline jet. Why would RJs use it and not mainline?

Mainline can use it, there's just relatively few aircraft that can and even fewer that need to.

Quoting BAKJet (Reply 7):
I thought it was dangerous to use r/t in the air,

It depends on the aircraft. For lowbypass jets with bucket reversers it can be done without tremendously ill effects.

Quoting Tornado82 (Reply 8):
Secondly, nothing regularly used as a commercial passenger airliner currently is able to use R/T in the air, at all.

Except for ~2500+ 737NG's. A 737NG can deploy reversers below 10' radio altitude without weight on wheels.

Tom.
 
Pope
Posts: 3995
Joined: Thu Mar 24, 2005 5:57 am

RE: Why No Reverse Thrust On Landing In ATL?

Fri Feb 15, 2008 2:26 pm

There are many reasons why not to use reverse on landing. I'll add another one. The tower may have given them a turnoff that was quite a ways down the runway. If that's the case, why decelerate hard just to have to taxi down to a turn off that's quite a ways away? Doing that could cause the aircraft behind you to have to go missed because you haven't cleared the active runway in enough time.

Given the volume ATL handles, ATC frequently uses all the taxiways to accumulate aircraft before allowing them to cross the inner runways en-mass so as to minimize the delay to departing aircraft.

Atlanta on a busy day truly is a beautiful ballet of aircraft handling.
Hypocrisy. It's the new black for liberals.
 
User avatar
ThrottleHold
Posts: 545
Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2006 11:00 pm

RE: Why No Reverse Thrust On Landing In ATL?

Fri Feb 15, 2008 3:01 pm



Quoting Pope (Reply 33):
There are many reasons why not to use reverse on landing. I'll add another one.

I'll add another.....
Some airports, especially in noise sensitive areas, request no reverse thrust be used on landing between specified times unless required for operational reasons.
 
Pope
Posts: 3995
Joined: Thu Mar 24, 2005 5:57 am

RE: Why No Reverse Thrust On Landing In ATL?

Fri Feb 15, 2008 3:53 pm



Quoting Tdscanuck (Reply 32):
Except for ~2500+ 737NG's. A 737NG can deploy reversers below 10' radio altitude without weight on wheels.

Interesting fact. Can any pilot tell us why this would be done?

Thanks,

Mike
Hypocrisy. It's the new black for liberals.
 
tdscanuck
Posts: 8572
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2006 7:25 am

RE: Why No Reverse Thrust On Landing In ATL?

Fri Feb 15, 2008 6:47 pm



Quoting Pope (Reply 35):
Quoting Tdscanuck (Reply 32):
Except for ~2500+ 737NG's. A 737NG can deploy reversers below 10' radio altitude without weight on wheels.

Interesting fact. Can any pilot tell us why this would be done?

In order to have reliable T/R actuation, you want two independent air/ground inputs. On larger aircraft you get that from the weight-on-wheels sensor and the truck-tilt sensor. However, for obvious reasons, a 737 can't have a truck tilt sensor. So they tagged the radio altimeter for the other input. The system would work just as well if you let the T/R's deploy at 0' radio altitude but the radio altimeter has an existing discrete signal for 10' so they used that.

In practical terms, the T/R deploy time is so long compared to the time to descend 10' that you're on the ground before the engine starts to spool up in reverse (the throttle is interlocked to prevent reverser thrust above idle prior to deployment of the T/R sleeves).

Tom.
 
Pope
Posts: 3995
Joined: Thu Mar 24, 2005 5:57 am

RE: Why No Reverse Thrust On Landing In ATL?

Fri Feb 15, 2008 8:46 pm



Quoting Tdscanuck (Reply 36):
In practical terms, the T/R deploy time is so long compared to the time to descend 10' that you're on the ground before the engine starts to spool up in reverse (the throttle is interlocked to prevent reverser thrust above idle prior to deployment of the T/R sleeves).

I appreciate the explanation. Learned something new today.

Mike
Hypocrisy. It's the new black for liberals.
 
MQTmxguy
Posts: 129
Joined: Sun Nov 11, 2007 3:58 pm

RE: Why No Reverse Thrust On Landing In ATL?

Sat Feb 16, 2008 10:15 pm



Quoting Tdscanuck (Reply 36):
However, for obvious reasons, a 737 can't have a truck tilt sensor. So they tagged the radio altimeter for the other input.

Any idea why they didn't just use prox switches?
Well at least we can all take comfort in the fact that NW will never retire their DC-9s
 
QFA380
Posts: 2013
Joined: Fri Jul 22, 2005 4:38 pm

RE: Why No Reverse Thrust On Landing In ATL?

Sat Feb 16, 2008 11:14 pm



Quoting Pope (Reply 33):
Given the volume ATL handles, ATC frequently uses all the taxiways to accumulate aircraft before allowing them to cross the inner runways en-mass so as to minimize the delay to departing aircraft.

I have a question in regards to this. I was flying around ATL in flight simulator the other day and lots of planes were waiting to cross one of the inner runways. I normally just cross anyway as the ATC isn't very cleveer.

What exactly does the ATC say? Do they say something along the lines of 'All aircraft holding 08R cleared to cross', or do they read out all the aircrafts callsigns? I can easily see how you may have 10 or so aircraft waiting to cross at any time.
 
kcrwflyer
Posts: 2533
Joined: Tue May 18, 2004 11:57 am

RE: Why No Reverse Thrust On Landing In ATL?

Sun Feb 17, 2008 2:36 am



Quoting QFA380 (Reply 39):
What exactly does the ATC say? Do they say something along the lines of 'All aircraft holding 08R cleared to cross', or do they read out all the aircrafts callsigns? I can easily see how you may have 10 or so aircraft waiting to cross at any time.

They do it plane by plane. They say "(callsign) continue taxi".
 
Pope
Posts: 3995
Joined: Thu Mar 24, 2005 5:57 am

RE: Why No Reverse Thrust On Landing In ATL?

Mon Feb 18, 2008 4:41 pm



Quoting QFA380 (Reply 39):
What exactly does the ATC say? Do they say something along the lines of 'All aircraft holding 08R cleared to cross', or do they read out all the aircrafts callsigns?

They'll read off each of the calls signs rapid fire. The pilots know what to expect so it's not like they're taken by surprise.
Hypocrisy. It's the new black for liberals.
 
tdscanuck
Posts: 8572
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2006 7:25 am

RE: Why No Reverse Thrust On Landing In ATL?

Mon Feb 18, 2008 9:26 pm



Quoting MQTmxguy (Reply 38):
Quoting Tdscanuck (Reply 36):
However, for obvious reasons, a 737 can't have a truck tilt sensor. So they tagged the radio altimeter for the other input.

Any idea why they didn't just use prox switches?

They do use a prox switch for the weight on wheels sensor (it looks for oleo compression). You could go with dual prox switches, I supposed, but then you run a risk of common mode failure. Picking up a radio altimeter input was certainly lighter.

Tom.
 
ajd1992
Posts: 2390
Joined: Mon Jul 24, 2006 7:11 am

RE: Why No Reverse Thrust On Landing In ATL?

Tue Feb 19, 2008 4:50 pm



Quoting BAKJet (Reply 2):
The landing gear didn't sound noisier than usual to me. The only reason besides yours that I can think of is that you came in under 60 knots (doesn't it damage the engine or something like that if you use r/t under 60 knots?)

My PA-38 Traumahawk lands faster than that, i seriously doubt a CRJ can even fly that slow. Hell, it takes off doing more than 60!
 
User avatar
DocLightning
Posts: 19624
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2005 8:51 am

RE: Why No Reverse Thrust On Landing In ATL?

Thu Oct 02, 2008 12:17 pm

I'm going to resurrect this thread. Today I flew on an IB A321 MAD-LHR and we landed with no T/R.

OK, it saves wear on the engines, sure. But why does T/R cause more wear-and-tear than take-off or any other engine use? It seems like the 10 seconds that they use the T/R for wouldn't significantly add to engine wear or fuel use. But it's gotta be hell on the brakes, no? Especially for an A/C like the A321 that is designed for high-frequency, short-duration flights.
-Doc Lightning-

"The sky calls to us. If we do not destroy ourselves, we will one day venture to the stars."
-Carl Sagan
 
User avatar
Starlionblue
Posts: 17055
Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2004 9:54 pm

RE: Why No Reverse Thrust On Landing In ATL?

Thu Oct 02, 2008 3:05 pm



Quoting DocLightning (Reply 44):

OK, it saves wear on the engines, sure. But why does T/R cause more wear-and-tear than take-off or any other engine use? It seems like the 10 seconds that they use the T/R for wouldn't significantly add to engine wear or fuel use. But it's gotta be hell on the brakes, no? Especially for an A/C like the A321 that is designed for high-frequency, short-duration flights.

The brakes hardly notice it. They're being used anyway. The T/Rs get wear and tear plus there is the risk of damage plus they don't add that much compared to the brakes.
"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots." - John Ringo
 
Bartonsayswhat
Posts: 353
Joined: Sun Oct 28, 2007 8:42 am

RE: Why No Reverse Thrust On Landing In ATL?

Thu Oct 02, 2008 5:49 pm

as my grandpa says for the car, "its alot easier to change brakes than clutch" same goes for the jet, its alot easier to change brakes than an engine. whilst using one saves the other, one is more economical to use. rwy lenght an wx permiting.
 
smcmac32msn
Posts: 1661
Joined: Thu May 13, 2004 9:25 am

RE: Why No Reverse Thrust On Landing In ATL?

Thu Oct 02, 2008 6:30 pm



Quoting BAKJet (Reply 2):
I'm pretty sure on most of the ERJ flights I've been on have use R/T in the air, not on the ground, maybe it is an RJ thing not to use r/t on the ground. Any ERJ/ CRJ( or any)pilots here that can shed some light on this.

What the??? Tell passengers and Crew on Lauda Air 004 (Boeing 767 - May 26, 1991) that its safe to use R/T in the air on most new aircraft. 20 minutes after takeoff from BKK, the crew got a warning that the #1 T/R deployed, the checklist told them "No Action Required", 9 minutes later, it DID deploy and the plane disintigrated at around 4000ft. In flight use of the T/R is almost always catastrophic.
Hey Obama, keep the change! I want my dollar back.
 
vikkyvik
Posts: 11765
Joined: Thu Jul 31, 2003 1:58 pm

RE: Why No Reverse Thrust On Landing In ATL?

Thu Oct 02, 2008 10:03 pm



Quoting Smcmac32msn (Reply 47):
What the??? Tell passengers and Crew on Lauda Air 004 (Boeing 767 - May 26, 1991) that its safe to use R/T in the air on most new aircraft. 20 minutes after takeoff from BKK, the crew got a warning that the #1 T/R deployed, the checklist told them "No Action Required", 9 minutes later, it DID deploy and the plane disintigrated at around 4000ft. In flight use of the T/R is almost always catastrophic.

While most aircraft are not designed for in-flight use of T/R's, there are always exceptions:

Quoting Starlionblue (Reply 13):
Il-62 and Tu-154 regularly do it. It was also done on the DC-8 for air braking.



Quoting Starlionblue (Reply 45):
The brakes hardly notice it. They're being used anyway. The T/Rs get wear and tear plus there is the risk of damage plus they don't add that much compared to the brakes.

Not to mention, newer carbon brakes are more efficient as they heat up. Using more brakes and less T/R allows the brakes to get to their optimum temp quicker.
I'm watching Jeopardy. The category is worst Madonna songs. "This one from 1987 is terrible".
 
User avatar
Starlionblue
Posts: 17055
Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2004 9:54 pm

RE: Why No Reverse Thrust On Landing In ATL?

Thu Oct 02, 2008 11:43 pm



Quoting Smcmac32msn (Reply 47):
. In flight use of the T/R is almost always catastrophic.

As mentioned, some aircraft can and do use T/R in flight.
"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots." - John Ringo

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Dalmd88, Majestic-12 [Bot] and 14 guests