Can any non-Russian plane do this?

[Check Airman]

Tupolev 154 Reverses Power Before Touchdown! - YouTube

...or is it just a Russian thing? Secondly, has anybody ever done this?

[Denti]

Yes, even in production planes can do that. For example the 737 can open the reversers below 10ft RA. Not recommended at all and bloody dangerous. Still did it in my very early years and it was the smoothest greaser i ever did... If only one opens it is most probably game over.

[ITman]

The DH Trident did this too.

[NG1]

The DC-8 as far as I know.

[bubbers44]

DC 8's could use inboard reversers on descent. Don't know about landings.

[Pub User]

I think the C17 can do it.

[Capt Chambo]

The IL62 can..

(Google Ilyushin IL-62 Cubana Airlines landing & take off at Berlin)

And I believe Concorde could too.

[stilton]

You can do anything once :eek:

[USMCProbe]

You can do anything on your last flight.

[Capt Claret]

Douglas/Boeing 717 requires weight on nose wheel for reverses to deploy.

[Wizofoz]

And I believe a lot of Ruskie aircraft need to because they have so much residual thrust- A mate jump seated in a "Biz Jet" version of one of their three-engined aircraft, and was amazed to see they put the centere engine in reserse at TOD- otherwise the thing wouldn't descend!

[galaxy flyer]

C-5 used in-flight reverse on the inboards, no speed brakes installed. NOT fo landing, though, 215 knots minimum.

[SKYlove]

It was a yakovlev 40

[The SSK]

I've experienced it on a BKS Trident landing on packed snow at Newcastle, it came down with a thump and stayed down :)

[con-pilot]

On the 727 one can use the reversers anytime you want*. I never used them except after touchdown, except for screwing around in the sim.

Technically, as there is no WOW or squat switch that needs to be made to allow the reversers to work.

In fact, I never heard of anyone every using them in flight.

[Check Airman]

Very interesting indeed. The C17 and C5 don't surprise me. I am surprised that the 727 can do it though. If the 737 can do it below 10ft RA, I imagine most company manuals prohibit it?

[CV880]

The DC8 had no in-flight speedbrakes so reversers were used for emergency descent. The amount of reverse thrust and which reversers could be deployed varied from model to model and engine type. I was familiar with a JT3D powered version (50 series) that could attain near full reverse thrust on the inboards and idle reverse on the outboards when airborne. I only ever saw one deploy reversers prior to touchdown - a Swissair DC8-62 landing on 31 at Kai Tak was fast over the fence and the reversers were seen deploying with the main gear a few feet off the ground.
BEA Tridents seem to routinely select reverse before touchdown.

[Wizofoz]

If the 737 can do it below 10ft RA, I imagine most company manuals prohibit it?

Oh indeed. (777 is also 10ft RA).
It's just meant to ensure REV is available straight after touchdown.

Wouldn't be suprised if the PF of the Aircraft in the video THOUGHT he was down.

[ATC Watcher]

The CV990 (Coronado) could deploy the 4 reverses in flight for fast descents. That was SOP.
I have witnessed inboards reverses being selected on APP to reduce speed .
Knowing the airline ( Spantax) I am not sure it that was SOP or improvisation , but it worked well .

[RAT 5]

If the 737 can do it below 10ft RA,

On the B732 version I flew there was a squat switch on the nose gear to prevent this. I don't know if it was a company option or standard. It seemed a good idea, because on bucket reversers ground contact as the a/c reared onto its haunches was a real threat; there-after the tail. I suspect the same tail strike hazard is alive & well on later versions with by-pass engines. And why would you want to anyway? if you're floating, and depending on the length of hard pan left in front of you, then either drop a wing to contact one wheel or scare yourself and squeeze the speed brake open a touch. Ultimately go-around. Still possible with the last 2 options but not after TR's have been activated.

[autoflight]

I don't think it was authorised, but common enough, to select reverse pitch on RAAF Caribous before touchdown during Vietnam war. To minimise risk from ground fire, a steep approach was often needed. For maximum protection, the touchdown point was also planned past the end of the strip, and any misjudgement could result in excess energy and insufficient length remaining.
Close to ground, select reverse idle, check actually achieved (2 blue lights), select max reverse power and full back stick as power applied to prevent nose gear damage.
I have witnessed one stuck in forward and max power applied on both without waiting to check the blue lights. Of course it was a short and very narrow strip. A STOL landing could often be completed in the length of the aircraft, but high and fast, one in forward meant it was a difficult touchdown and landing roll. A previous post refers.
Don't try this at home!

[ChrisJ800]

NASA used the Grumman Gulfstream as a shuttle training aircraft (STA) with main gear down and reverse thrust enabled in flight. Shuttle Training Aircraft - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shuttle_Training_Aircraft)

[FlyingStone]

I think the main reason for Boeing allowing TR deployment below 10ft RA is that you don't have problems with "smart logic" preventing use of thrust reverse when aircraft gets into situation, not predicted by aircraft designers (e.g. frozen switches, aquaplanning, etc.).

[j_davey]

Whilst decending into DUB in a Mytravel 320, there was a sudden loud buffeting sound that lasted around 10mins of the descent.
The cabin crew made an announcement apologising for the noise and said it was due to the fact that they were using thrust reversers to slow the aircraft. :ugh:

So apparently the 320 can do it....... not.

[Pontius]

Harrier :ok:

[con-pilot]

IIRC in flight deployment was not physically prevented with the external clamshell reversers, but their use was prohibited in flight.


That is what I recall as well, once in recurrency school we got into a discussion on just why there was no physical prevention to opening the reversers in flight and the instructor, an old 727 FE since day one of the 727, said that when Boeing made the 727, they figured pilots were smart enough not activate the reversers in flight. But, if for some reason if a pilot thought he really needed to, Boeing made it to where if they had to, they could.

Now, just how true that is, got me, sounded damn good at the time.

Oh, the School was Dalfort, the former Braniff training school.

[STBYRUD]

Of course it can be done, I had the misfortune to see it on a 737. Now THAT was a hard landing!

[DozyWannabe]

The DH Trident did this too.

Indeed - it wouldn't surprise me if the original Tu-154 (as well as the B727) owed at least some of its features to the original Medway-powered DH.121 design, before BEA "Speyed" it.

[Check Mags On]

Specially modified Gulfstream used by NASA

Space Shuttle Landing Practice - YouTube

[China Flyer]

Pontius - you beat me to it!

We used to pop the parachute on the Hunter in the flare. God forbid you did it too high, though..

[Check Airman]

Oh indeed. (777 is also 10ft RA).
It's just meant to ensure REV is available straight after touchdown.

Whiz,

I did some homework (talked to a few pilots) and was told that the 777 needs to be on the ground before the reversers will work. Got similar answers from A320 and 767 pilots. Perhaps the 10ft limit is only on the older (727, 737) Boeing designs- lawyers maybe?

[JammedStab]

If the 737 can do it below 10ft RA,

On the B732 version I flew there was a squat switch on the nose gear to prevent this. I don't know if it was a company option or standard.

Photos: Boeing 737-230/Adv Aircraft Pictures | Airliners.net (http://www.airliners.net/photo/SKY-Airline/Boeing-737-230-Adv/1183542/L/&sid=cf1ad80d385d2ecc286534e08dd37252)

Must have been an option.

[westhawk]

Oh, the School was Dalfort, the former Braniff training school.

Small world Con, that's who administered the B727 maintenance training course I attended back in about 1992. Though I was working on bizjets like Jetstars and Falcons at the time, several of us were sent to this school in preparation to bring an ex-Lufthansa -200 out of long-term storage and return it to service. That turned out to be a couple of months long project for about 10 mechanics. That old three-holer still had the nosewheel brakes plumbing installed as I recall. It had the oval #2 eng inlet as well. (some -200s did and some didn't)

But back on topic. On the IAI Westwinds I flew, there was nothing preventing the reversers from being deployed in flight. When deployed in the landing flare a couple of feet off the runway, a firm arrival is likely! Inadvertent deployment of one reverser during takeoff was a common SimuFlite sim training exercise and the source of much fun. Actually you could fly away from the ground like that in the sim scenario with aggressive and timely rudder input, but I'm happy to say I never had to in the airplane.

The CP at one company I flew for had an inadvertent deployment during a checkride while doing 320 KIAS but managed to regain control before it got too far out of hand. Not only wasn't the offending T/R ripped off the airplane but there wasn't even any damage. None. Tough old beasts.

[AlphaZuluRomeo]

Concorde used internal engines reversers as airbrakes, IIRC. For greater RoD from (high) altitude, if needed.

[edit] Obviously not during final approach, the delta wing was far enough an airbrake, then.

[etudiant]

Air Canada had a serious accident because of a premature in flight TR deployment on a DC-8 at Malton in the 1960s, to get the plane down for landing.
The plane landed very hard, the pilot took off again, but the aircraft had received serious structural damage and was lost along with its full load of passengers as it crashed during the go around.
So as SLC I'm a strong proponent of squat switches for passenger jetliners TR.

[con-pilot]

Inadvertent deployment of one reverser during takeoff was a common SimuFlite sim training exercise and the source of much fun

Same with Flight Safety. I was flying in the sim one day with another pilot and in the takeoff briefing he 'ordered' me that if anything happened after V-1, not to say a word until we reached 500 AGL. He had a bit of an attitude.

Not one to be happy being ordered by someone with much less experience, I never the less agreed. Just so happened that the sim instructor heard this 'order'.

So the very next takeoff, you guessed it, the right thrust reverser deployed. He managed to keep it airborne and we were staggering along at about 50 AGL, not picking any airspeed nor climbing.

So finally the guy in the left seat said, "Well I guess we lost an engine, but why won't it climb?"

I shot back, "If we make it to 500 feet I'll tell you." :p

The rest of the sim lessons were much more friendly. And no more orders given.

I'm one real brave SOB in a simulator, in an actual aircraft, not so much. ;)

[rogerg]

Like that.

[DozyWannabe]

Air Canada had a serious accident because of a premature in flight TR deployment on a DC-8 at Malton in the 1960s

I'm pretty sure it was premature spoiler deployment rather than TR.

Air Canada Flight 621 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_Canada_Flight_621)

This was the accident which had a resultant recommendation that the spoiler levers have a placard fitted stating "NOT TO BE DEPLOYED IN-FLIGHT". Some wags at the time said it might as well say "IT IS FORBIDDEN TO CRASH THIS AIRPLANE".

[stilton]

That's priceless ConPilot :E

[BobM2]

If the 737 can do it below 10ft RA,

On the B732 version I flew there was a squat switch on the nose gear to prevent this. I don't know if it was a company option or standard. It seemed a good idea, because on bucket reversers ground contact as the a/c reared onto its haunches was a real threat; there-after the tail.
Original 737s had clamshell reversers with short nacelles like 727. These proved ineffective as the reverse airstream was directed under the wing & actually took weight off the wheels. About 1970, Boeing came out with the "target type" reverser that extended the nacelle to put the reversers behind the wing trailing edge. This mod included squat switches on main & nose gear so reversers were inop until all wheels on ground. Switches were provided on overhead panel to overide the squat switches & still get reverse in event of switch malfunction. After about 10 yrs (1980?), it was realized that the nose gear switch was not needed & it was removed. This is because opening the reversers imparts such a strong nose-down pitching moment that reverser ground contact is no problem & it enables reverse immediately at main gear touchdown where it is most effective. As previously stated, the 300 & subsequent models use 10' ra to enable reverse instead of the squat switch, but I never heard of opening them prior to touchdown.

[galaxy flyer]

Con-pilot can correct me, but the Sabre 65 could deploy the TRs in-flight if they were armed. There was an arm switch on the pedestal; the lot I flew it with would at places like Hilton Head do this "non-standard" procedure.

[Wizofoz]

Whiz,

I did some homework (talked to a few pilots) and was told that the 777 needs to be on the ground before the reversers will work. Got similar answers from A320 and 767 pilots. Perhaps the 10ft limit is only on the older (727, 737) Boeing designs- lawyers maybe?

Hi Checky,

I just checked the FCOM, and it does indeed say "On the ground", but I'm sure they unlock at 10ft RA as I've done it in the Sim. I'm pretty sure that was also stated on the CBT on the type course, but in their wisdom we don't have access to that any more.

As yo know, Boeing can be a bit "Ecconomical" about what gets in their manuals.

[Check Airman]

Thanks Whiz.

Now, in the interest of academia, are you willing to try it next time you go fly?;)

[con-pilot]

Con-pilot can correct me, but the Sabre 65 could deploy the TRs in-flight if they were armed. There was an arm switch on the pedestal; the lot I flew it with would at places like Hilton Head do this "non-standard" procedure.

Boy, you're asking me to wake up some the old gray cells now. Yes, there was a switch that had to be turned on to arm the reversers, it also served as the emergency stow function.

But for some reason I want to say that one of the main gear squat switches had of have been made before the reversers would deploy. I'll try and find my old Flight Safety Sabre 65 training manuals and find out for sure.

Remember, a coupe of Sabre 40s did have accidental airborne deployments. This of course got the FAA's attention and all subsequential Sabre aircraft had the switch installed during its manufacturing and all others were retrofitted.

In any case, I never tried to deploy the reversers in flight, as just before touchdown, no matter how much I was tempted to operating in and out of Aspen.

I do remember the emergency stow procedure, if the throttle auto-snatch (retard)* did not bring the affected throttle (thrust lever for those that insist), you did and then move the reverser switch to auto/emergency stow and hope to hell it worked.

Oh, and just remembered, if a thrust reverser accidental unlocked, the hydraulic system would immediately force it back into the lock position and then (I think) keep the pressure on the reverser until the aircraft landed and shut down.

There were a lot of safe guards built into the 65 reverser system and I never heard of one actually opening without commanded to, with the switch armed.

It always worked in the sim. :p


* That was a one time only function, once the throttle was advance again, the auto-snatch (retard) function was no longer in the system.

[hawker750]

Trident inflight reverse:
Get a ex Trident pilot to desribe the "Westcott Snatch". That was when flying was fun!

[etudiant]

Dozywannabe said:

I'm pretty sure it was premature spoiler deployment rather than TR.




You are of course correct. That was premature spoiler deployment, nothing to do with thrust reversal.
Still feel that a squat switch is an important element of sensible design for passenger aircraft.

[Tableview]

Lauda Air 767 BKK-VIE crash in 1991 was due to thrust reverser deployment in flight.

[Check Airman]

That was a system fault though, wasn't it?

Along those lines, does anybody have uncommanded reverser deployment as an emergency memory item? If so, what airplane is it?

[westhawk]

Along those lines, does anybody have uncommanded reverser deployment as an emergency memory item? If so, what airplane is it? Sure CA, the airplane is the IAI Westwind and the memory items follow:

Taken from the IAI 1124/1124A SimuFlite QRH: (from memory since I don't have the QRH handy at the moment)

Uncommanded T/R deployment in flight:


Take immediate command of the flight controls
Ensure affected engine thrust lever is in the idle position.

It should be noted that the T/R sub lever should be checked to ensure it's in the STOWED position too.

When a T/R deploys in (simulated) flight, significant yaw, roll and pitching moments will occur. Aggressive nose down elevator input will be required to overcome the nose up pitching moment created by a deployed reverser. Plenty of rudder will be required to counter the yaw and timely yet gentle use of ailerons will counter the rolling moments. Overcontrolling is the common pilot response in this situation so the value of previous exposure is notable. Really it's just like an engine failure only much more so! :D

The checklist for uncommanded T/R in flight deployment continues and calls for the following actions. (again paraphrased from memory)

Establish an airspeed at or below 150 KIAS.
Disengage the affected T/R power CB (leave the T/R indication CBs engaged)
If these actions are unsuccessful in stowing T/R, shutdown the affected engine and land at the nearest suitable airport

The normal initial and recurrent S/F sim scenarios involved a T/R deployment prior to V1 and another after liftoff at around V2+10. The reject prior to V1 was easy if you reacted quickly but the other could be a challenge, especially with a good sim instructor who knows how to make it a true surprise. At mid level training weight near SL, the sim would even climb 500 fpm or better. Don't ask about Aspen! One sim instructor popped a T/R on us while doing 300 plus on A/P. That checked off the "unusual attitude recovery" box nicely. I'm happy to report that I've never had this happen in the real airplane, but found the sim training to be enlightening.

[B Fraser]

As others have said, the DH121 Trident could do it with distinction. It also had the ability to drop the main wheels as a speedbrake. With wheels down and engines 1 and 3 in reverse, a descent rate of 20,000 feet a minute could be achieved. The engineer had to descend the cabin first otherwise the aircraft would overtake it.

They don't build them like that anymore :(

[Ex Douglas Driver]

On the 777 the applicable engine's EEC must see Airplane on Ground, Engine Running, and Thrust Lever angle in reverse range to energise the isolation solenoid valve and therefore allow hydraulic pressure to open the reverser sleeve.

i.e. no reverse available airborne

[B Fraser]

There are a few ex Trident drivers around who may know. I've only flown the DH Chipmunk and Beaver. I always thought that "The Westcott Snatch" was a term of endearment however others may know better.

The main gear use as a second stage airbrake was rated up to 300kts however it was deleted after the aircraft entered service. I understand somebody tried to land one with the nose gear retracted.

[DozyWannabe]

From Google's cached version of http://www.shockcone.co.uk/hs121/trident/tales.htm :

Shuttle arrivals into Heathrow with easterly ops were routed to Westcott then onto Garston (now renamed Bovingdon) then a westerly radar heading towards Marlow, left turn to Maidenhead and then the ILS 10L.

If Heathrow was "quiet" there was always the chance of the infamous "Westcott Snatch", basically 180 degree heading from Westcott direct to Maidenhead with the speed kept up, reducing the track distance by about twenty miles. If the offer of the snatch was made overhead Westcott then speedbrake and/or reverse idle might be needed to get the height off.


On the approach in question we were flying with one of our very senior management Captains who obviously did very little flying and very very little Shuttle. The Captain had done the sector to Manchester with myself as P2 and it was the other copilots sector back to Heathrow.

The standard operation had the Captain handling the autopilot and the copilot doing the radio. It was relatively quiet so, about ten miles short of Westcott the copilot enquired of Air Traffic.. "What's the chance of a Westcott Snatch".. "Looking good " was the reply. The management type who had obviously not heard of the "Snatch" seemed confused. He obviously thought about it and after a short period turned to the copilot and asked "what heading do you think we will get?"... In a flash the copilot enquired of Air Traffic... "and the Snatch heading?" Air Traffic responded "You should get the standard heading".

It was by now getting rather too much for the Captain. His next question.. "And the speed?".. "I'll check with ATC"... "And the speed?"...Air Traffic were now enjoying the whole episode "Standard Snatch speed"

The Captain not having a clue what to expect then played his master card. He turned to the copilot and stated "I haven't done a Snatch in a while, perhaps you could demonstrate one for me" at which point he leaned down and moved the autopilot compass switch from Port to Starboard!

Reverse idle, full airbrake by the copilot and the situation was recovered.

Throughout the episode I just sat quietly as P3 and smiled.

And one I especially like (to those for whom this won't be stating the bleedin' obvious, Lord King was BA Chairman at the time):

Paris-Heathrow, Delays due to Paris Air Show, Airborne slot allocated but just before starting informed by Ops that Lord King's Kingair will be taking the slot and we are to get the next one.

By the time we got to Biggin the Kingair was only about three miles ahead, heading 280 degrees at FL70 for an easterly landing at Heathrow. The controller, having held us at FL80 suggested the Kingair was "doing 140kts so we might catch him and with no other traffic we can keep our speed up!"

What more could you want? Keeping you speed up in a Trident 1 meant 380Kts, so as we passed directly over the Kingair 1000' above him it looked as if he was going backwards at 240kts!

:D

[blind pew]

Some bull here from R G dozy...
Shuttle started mid 70s long after Garston was renamed.
As is VNE of 380 knots...

[DozyWannabe]

Hey, I said the stories were good, I didn't vouch for accuracy. :)

[Georgeablelovehowindia]

Furthering the thread drift, I'd just like to add that the pilot of Lord King's B200 was a laid-off Trident first officer ...

who amongst other things, went on to a command on Concorde.
:ok:

[NWA SLF]

I thought that after the Lauda Air 767 crash which was determined to be Boeing's fault they had to instal an interlock that prevented reverse thrust until the plane was on the ground. Boeing had proven to the FAA that flying low and slow the plane could be controlled if one engine reverser deployed, but the Lauda Air deployed at high altitude and unexpectedly so a couple hundred souls on board died. But I guess in the time span since they could have made the alteration that allows reverse near ground level. Seems like companies always need bad news to convince them that an almost impossible occurrence happens, and really hurts when it does.

[FlightPathOBN]

1994 crash flight 427 737-300, mid air deployment of one rev thruster at 6000 feet

also found this...

The logic of thrust-reverser deployment, taken from the Boeing 737 Operations
Manual, revision 001.1, April 1988, p 21.20.08, is that the Boeing 737 can
deploy the thrust reverser on either engine if ...

EITHER: spin-up is detected on any two main gear wheels,
OR: at least one of Captain's and First Officer's Low Range Radio Altimeters reads below 10ft,
OR: right main gear strut is compressed,

[DaveReidUK]

Seems like companies always need bad news to convince them that an almost impossible occurrence happens, and really hurts when it does.'Twas ever thus.

[BobM2]

1994 crash flight 427 737-300, mid air deployment of one rev thruster at 6000 feet
USAir 427 was a rudder hardover, not reverser deployment.


USAir Flight 427 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USAir_Flight_427)