New answers tagged

4

The guys flying cargo in and out of our local airport in Cessna Caravans also claim that the time spent in reverse thrust has to be accounted for in the plane's log, and is counted against the engine's TBO in a special way. For this reason, they generally avoid using reverse thrust as an airbrake during steep descents- but they claim that just setting the ...


7

In addition to FOD, the use of reverse thrust, as pretty much any mechanical system in aircraft is limited to safest possible minimum. Using reverse on high power settings imposes considerable loads on structures, and even low power use slowly but certainly wears down the propeller blade adjustment system. These considerations are not a major safety issue ...


3

As Bianfable stated, FOD ingestion is a big risk when using reverse power settings. It does come down to an analysis of the runway one is operating on, and a risk assessment of the conditions. Typically on unpaved runways or ones covered in snow or ice, reverse will be discontinued below 40 kias to minimize FOD ingestion risks. Paved and well cared for ...


17

We used lots of reverse thrust in the C-130; it was normal to go to full reverse on landing, and also to use some reverse thrust in order to back the plane into or out of parking spots. The two common cautions were oil temperature (on older engines) and dust ingestion / brown-out (on dirt or unimproved runways). On early model engines, sustained reverse ...


17

One concern is Foreign Object Damage (FOD). More reverse thrust means more dirt is thrown into the air, which can then be ingested by the engine: Damage to turboprop engines is not as common as in jet engines, because the inlets are generally smaller and the propeller serves as a first line of defense. Nevertheless, first-stage impeller nicks and scratches ...


0

Yellowknife, as an example I'm personally familiar with, has 2 runways: 16/34 is 7503 feet, 10/28 is 5001 feet. I've been a passenger in assorted models of 737 landing in all sorts of conditions on both of them and have had hard landings and soft ones, and the runway length didn't have much to do with it. I was once in the same aircraft with the same flight ...


13

Your pilot flying simply made a really firm landing. I'm typed on the 737 and have flown the -800 in and out of short runways (Chicago Midway and New York La Guardua). A skilled pilot can grease it on in gusty winds and can slam it on in calm conditions. (Don't flame me bruhs, this next bit is about copilots, but anyone - in either seat - can make a firm ...


18

Could be that crazy winds or wake turbulence (from another aircraft) pushed the aircraft out of the funnel and forced some maneuvering to get it back on centerline and guide slope. I later heard that pilots do sometimes make soft landings there — but shouldn’t good landings be routine? You are relying on "passenger comfort" as an indicator of a ...


33

You're probably being hard on them... it was not windy or gusty as we debarked (disembarked) The conditions you feel on the ground can be very different 50 feet in the air. Even from one end of the airport to the other can be different. As you were disembarking, I'm guessing you were near the terminal, which means you may have had some wind shielding as ...


3

To answer question No. 2, such technique would reduce engine wear only in that it would involve applying reverse thrust later in the landing roll and for a shorter time (assuming reverse thrust is disengaged always at the same speed, which is normally in the region of 60 kt), something that the pilot in the video might not have taken full advantage of. ...


53

This is not a recommended procedure for landing the 747 (or any other jet airliner I know of). The FCTM (Flight Crew Training Manual) says this: After main gear touchdown, initiate the landing roll procedure. If the speedbrakes do not extend automatically move the speedbrake lever to the UP position without delay. Fly the nose wheels smoothly onto the ...


Top 50 recent answers are included