Moderators: richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR
fr8mech wrote:3 installed, 2 required. One can be put on MEL.
But, as Starlionblue indicated, the aircraft are certified to stop without their use.
rjsampson wrote:? (Better way of asking: What aircraft can be dispatched on a 121 with all T/R inop?)
rjsampson wrote:fr8mech wrote:Can the AC be dispatched with either #1 or #3 inop?
How many airliners have thrust reverse on MEL for dispatch? Or does this vary by the conditions for a given flight? (Better way of asking: What aircraft can be dispatched on a 121 with all T/R inop?)
IFlyVeryLittle wrote:How much thrust are we actually talking about with idle reverse? I always wondered if there was something to be gained simply by the doors opening and adding a bit more drag to the slowiing-down-the-beast equation, particularly in the case of the flower-petal style reversers and maybe the clamshells. Or is idle reverse a means of simply killing off ANY forward thrust (like coasting with the clutch disengaged approaching a traffic signal.)?
Woodreau wrote:Actually the carrier I worked for has it in their manual that thrust reverser usage is prohibited if you have working thrust reversers and the runway is over 7000ft long. So basically can’t use them even if I have them. The only time I’m allowed to use them is if I’m about to go off the end of the runway where they are the least effective and brakes are more appropriate.
rjsampson wrote:fr8mech wrote:3 installed, 2 required. One can be put on MEL.
But, as Starlionblue indicated, the aircraft are certified to stop without their use.
Can the AC be dispatched with either #1 or #3 inop?
How many airliners have thrust reverse on MEL for dispatch? Or does this vary by the conditions for a given flight? (Better way of asking: What aircraft can be dispatched on a 121 with all T/R inop?)
IFlyVeryLittle wrote:How much thrust are we actually talking about with idle reverse? I always wondered if there was something to be gained simply by the doors opening and adding a bit more drag to the slowiing-down-the-beast equation, particularly in the case of the flower-petal style reversers and maybe the clamshells. Or is idle reverse a means of simply killing off ANY forward thrust (like coasting with the clutch disengaged approaching a traffic signal.)?
fr8mech wrote:
Every type I’ve worked on allowed a reverser to be deferred. None allowed all the reverser to be deferred. I seem to recall the DC8 allowed one per wing, but I’m fuzzy on that.
fr8mech wrote:rjsampson wrote:fr8mech wrote:Can the AC be dispatched with either #1 or #3 inop?
How many airliners have thrust reverse on MEL for dispatch? Or does this vary by the conditions for a given flight? (Better way of asking: What aircraft can be dispatched on a 121 with all T/R inop?)
Any of the 3 can be deferred.
Every type I’ve worked on allowed a reverser to be deferred. None allowed all the reverser to be deferred. I seem to recall the DC8 allowed one per wing, but I’m fuzzy on that.
Types I’ve worked:
B727-100/200, B747-100/200/400/8, B757, B767, A300/310, DC8, L1011, MD11
I don’t list the DC10 because I only worked it once as a contract mechanic, but that once was to MEL a reverser…wing thank God.
tjwgrr wrote:Prohibited, even on a contaminated runway?
Woodreau wrote:tjwgrr wrote:Prohibited, even on a contaminated runway?
The only thing I remember the last time I flew the plane 13 years ago is that thrust reverse use is prohibited on runways longer than 7000ft. Reversers may be used on runways less than 7000ft and reverser use is mandatory to prevent runway excursion is how I remember the limitation. There was nothing that I specifically remember about condition of the runway. I’d have to refer to the flight manual that I no longer have access to. So you didn’t consider using it except right before you go off the end of the runway.
It would be a bad day if you use the reversers at an airport where you landed on a runway that was 7000ft and longer and you needed to call maintenance for a reverser fault afterwards. while you wouldn’t be in any trouble with the FAA (although you demonstrated intentional disregard of a limitation in a FAA approved manual) You’d still have to do a coach and counseling session with the chief pilot afterwards for using the thrust reversers when their use is prohibited.
FlapOperator wrote:EMB-145 reversers are pretty nominal from a effectiveness standpoint, sort of some in extremis conditions (and I've stopped a -145 entirely with T/Rs.) I believe some European operators elected to take delivery without them (Swiss/CrossAir?) and the biggest issue was that EMB had determined most W&B planning with T/Rs and without the aft weight of the T/Rs, the non-T/R aircraft had a weird loading schedule, to the point the operator just put in aft ballast to make life easier.
Max Q wrote:Don’t really understand that mindset
Woodreau wrote:Max Q wrote:Don’t really understand that mindset
Me neither. Not my rules. It was the airlines rule approved by the FAA.
I agree with everything you’ve posted.
The limitation looks like it was written by lawyers.
pilots would get counseled by the chief pilot for using thrust reversers.
Don’t work there anymore.
But the airline recently had lots of planes go off the end of the runway and has been under FAA scrutiny
They fly grey regional airplanes with red white and blue tails.
Woodreau wrote:Max Q wrote:Don’t really understand that mindset
Me neither. Not my rules. It was the airlines rule approved by the FAA.
I agree with everything you’ve posted.
The limitation looks like it was written by lawyers.
pilots would get counseled by the chief pilot for using thrust reversers.
Don’t work there anymore.
But the airline recently had lots of planes go off the end of the runway and has been under FAA scrutiny
They fly grey regional airplanes with red white and blue tails.
mxaxai wrote:FlapOperator wrote:EMB-145 reversers are pretty nominal from a effectiveness standpoint, sort of some in extremis conditions (and I've stopped a -145 entirely with T/Rs.) I believe some European operators elected to take delivery without them (Swiss/CrossAir?) and the biggest issue was that EMB had determined most W&B planning with T/Rs and without the aft weight of the T/Rs, the non-T/R aircraft had a weird loading schedule, to the point the operator just put in aft ballast to make life easier.
BE had them without reversers, which suprised me when I read about this (minor) runway overrun. http://avherald.com/h?article=412df767/0001&opt=0
shamrock137 wrote:mxaxai wrote:FlapOperator wrote:EMB-145 reversers are pretty nominal from a effectiveness standpoint, sort of some in extremis conditions (and I've stopped a -145 entirely with T/Rs.) I believe some European operators elected to take delivery without them (Swiss/CrossAir?) and the biggest issue was that EMB had determined most W&B planning with T/Rs and without the aft weight of the T/Rs, the non-T/R aircraft had a weird loading schedule, to the point the operator just put in aft ballast to make life easier.
BE had them without reversers, which suprised me when I read about this (minor) runway overrun. http://avherald.com/h?article=412df767/0001&opt=0
Trans States also had E145's with no T/R's. They experienced 4 runway overruns, 3 in YOW. Lack of T/R's was listed as a contributing factor for at least one of them.