I am not in QF (judging by your id I think I might be in the same company as you)
AB3 and idle reverse will give you more or less the same stopping dist. as AB3 and full reverse.
Operating into busy airfields and dawdling down the RWY using AB2 is not likely to get favourable commentary from the tower.
Must admit full rev is probably a bit of overkill if the rwy is long and dry, but I am sure they thought it through before they implemented it.
With my lot AB3 and idle rev. is the "standard" landing set up.
Hey, thanks for the aswer it gives me a better idea and a fully understand you
BTW actually I only happen to be a 15 year old aviation enthusiast that has fallen in love with the 744 :P
Thanks again
I always felt this was something of a knee-jerk reaction to the BKK incident. The accident report went into great detail regarding the F25, idle reverse policy and aquaplaning. The facts of the case are that the aircraft touched down with NO autobrake, and neither reverse nor manual breaking were used until it was too late due to crew confusion as to who was actually flying the aircraft.
Operators I have worked for have left it up to the crews discretion where there is a choice of flap settings and we use appropriate auto-brakes to make the most expeditious exit (i.e. get the book out and have a look at the stopping distances table!).
Reduced flap/idle reverse landings have economic (especially with carbon brakes) and noise/environmental advantages. To not use them on a long, dry runway seems overly prescriptive to me.
That is exactly what i was thinking. I mean ok there was an accident, but clearly thousands of landing had been made in the previouse config. and the accident was actually caused by crew errors and as you described above. So the extent of change seems a little to extremein my opinion.
BTW mind if i ask you if you work for QF?
Thanks
