Reverse Thrust usage vs. Engine Life

[safety_worker]

Hi All,

Does any one have/know of any information regarding Reverse Thrust usage vs. Engine Life.

Curious if a policy of 'maximum' reverse thrust usage (most manufaturer's recommendation) - until taxi speed/surge/etc. - affects Engine Longevity/failures/IFSD rates?

What are your 'Company' Reverse Thrust usage Policies out there.

Heard that a far-eastern airline uses idle reverse thrust, but used to use 'Maximum Reverse Thrust'. Anyone know why the change in policy? Was it engine maintenance being more expensive than brake replacements?

Safe Wishes
:ok:

[TopBunk]

We at the 'Worlds favourite' use idle reverse unless operationally necessary (rarely). Less noisy!

Even with this policy, I was led to believe that BA has the best brake wear life amongst 744 operators.

[Flight Detent]

I understand that the red rat also 'used to' use idle reverse thrust as a policy, partly for noise, partly for heating up the brakes properly (they work better!), and partly for the fuel used.

But they changed their mind after they found the parking/green fees to high in the Bangkok golf course a couple of years ago!

Cheers