In general, a go-around, in a jetliner, must either be performed before thrust reverser deployment, or not at all. This is because, if a go-around is attempted after the reversers have been deployed, there is no guarantee that all reversers will completely stow before the aircraft lifts off (at which point the reverser actuators are automatically locked out and depressurised1); if even a single reverser bucket or clamdoor is not fully stowed at this point, it will be blown back to its fully-deployed position by the aerodynamic forces on said piece of reverser hardware, potentially resulting in a loss of control of the aircraft.

However, some aircraft are capable of, and certified for, the safe use of reverse thrust in flight (typically to steepen descents by using reverse thrust as an airbrake, or to shorten the landing roll by deploying the reversers while still airborne rather than having to wait until after touchdown), and, as such, the reversers on these aircraft are not locked out when airborne. Consequently, even if the aircraft lifted off before all reversers had fully stowed, the reversers would simply continue to stow, no harm done.

This would be especially important for aircraft like the Tu-154 and Il-62, which routinely deploy reversers before touchdown, which would completely preclude very-low-altitude go-arounds if going around after reverser deployment was prohibited on these aircraft.

Are aircraft certified for in-flight thrust reversal (and, thus, not equipped with an in-flight reverser lockout mechanism) allowed to go around even after the thrust reversers have been deployed?

1: This is done to minimise the risk of an uncommanded in-flight reverser deployment, which, for aircraft not certified for in-flight thrust reversal, is generally bad.

  • 1
    $\begingroup$ I'm not aware of any condtion where you would be allowed to initiate a GA at all when you are at that point in a landing. Even a GA initiated right at touchdown, called a "Balked Landing", is something you would initiate long before you even get the reversers out. Once you ave all three wheels down and are deploying them, you are committed. $\endgroup$ – John K May 26 at 2:49
  • $\begingroup$ @JohnK Looks like the basis for an answer. $\endgroup$ – KorvinStarmast May 26 at 15:22
  • $\begingroup$ However, @JohnK, as pointed out in the OP, some aircraft intentionally use reversers while still in the air as part of their routine landing procedure. I think the question would be best served by some editing to focus on the GA procedures for these aircraft (Tu-154 & Il-62). Asking what the GA procedure for these (or similar) is once the reversers have been deployed, but while the aircraft is still in the air. (Maybe eliminate the initial paragraph to avoid confusion.) $\endgroup$ – FreeMan May 26 at 15:46
  • $\begingroup$ I won't post as an answer because I don't have any official data. We did balked landing training in the sim when I was flying RJs but that was a case of a go-around initiated right at or just before touchdown, long before reverser and never discussed trying to do one while on the brakes with reverser out. It was out of the question. You could do that if the runway was long enough but how to know what is long enough. Also when it comes to what the Russians do, it's an alternate universe with a somewhat different approach to risk. $\endgroup$ – John K May 26 at 17:28
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ This question is ANSWERED in the first link. One engine producing reverse thrust with the other at high thrust is a recipe for asymmetric thrust far beyond any VMCA. Even if certified for in-flight deployment so as to come down quickly (C-17, for instance), the asymmetric issue can still kill you. As explained in the Duplicate question. VTC. $\endgroup$ – Ralph J Jun 1 at 3:06

An aircraft approaching to land with a reverser deployed or unlocked, particularly one that's deployed unintentionally, will be at idle power, or shut down on the deployed reverser.

A go-around or missed approach is conducted in the same manner as if the engine is shut down for any other reason.

| improve this answer | |
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ I don't think this really answers the question - yes, if you had a malfunction prior to the go-around, you'd have shut down the engine with the malfunctioning TR. But he's asking how would the go-around be conducted $\endgroup$ – SSumner Jul 20 at 0:32

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.