LHR + Reverse Thrust?

[Geoff565]

Hi All,

First off, my apologies if this isn't in the correct forum i've also had a quick search and I couldn't find anything that answered exact my query, so i thought i'd challenge you lot instead please?.:cool:

While in class at Uni today, my lecturer(who works for NATS) mentioned two things that struck me as a little odd.
First off, i wasn't aware that apparently BAA/NATS actually implemented an extended touchdown zone for aircraft at LHR, (i.e further down the runway) is this actually true and if so why would they do this?

Also, apparently, (which I do not agree with) is that Reverse thrust is not supposed to be used when touching down at EGLL? I know that when i come in occasionally from Hol e.t.c we tend to use RTST on touchdown. He said that one, it gives off greater emmissions and that it's not used to comply with noise abatement (which i can understand for AM & late Eve dept's), particularly for older aircraft)

If anyone could give me any info, so I could prove him wrong, i would be most grateful!:)

Many thanks for your time & effort,
Geoff

[speedbird_heavy]

A note in my Jeppesen student pilot route manual for EGLL states
Avoid using reverse thrust between 2300-0600LT except for safety reason

It is dated 13 jun 97 so chances are its out of date but as I understand reverse idle is selected upon touchdown.

[Re-Heat]

The extended touchdown zone is to allow aircraft to fly higher over the residential areas of Hounslow, thus reducing noise, and is I believe still only a proposal.

Any reverse thrust greater than reverse idle is not allowed at LHR, except in wet, icing or limiting conditions - unless turnaround times are short, the usage of modern carbon fibre brakes reduces brake wear, since they are more effective at higher temperatures meaning that use as primary braking device ensures such higher temperatures but lower brake wear, lower fuel usage and lower noise.

I would hasten to add that it may only be a policy of BA during daylight hours as well, though is mandatory during night hours. With 40% plus of traffic it would be sensible for BA not to disturb residents.

He appears to be correct.

[Ttree Ttrimmer]

It may well be that the touch down zone is extended at LHR due to the autoland characteristics of modern aircraft. It is written into the Boeing performance manual on my type that when executing an autoland an additional 1000 feet should be added to the planned landing distance. This could be the reason behind the his statement.

As far as I am aware the previous comments on reverse particularly those of re-heart are correct.

[Geoff565]

Hi All,

Thank you very much for your swift responses! I must admit, i never realised that with regard to the reverse-thrust policies, do other airports implement a similar procedure, or is it just LHR?

Again, thanks for all your input, it's most appreciated!:ok:

[Mister Monty]

Hi Geoff

If you're referring to the aiming point markers.... then it's something I've been wondering myself.

I remember looking a photographs a few years ago when the aiming point was positioned at a point 1000 feet beyond the threshold.

Now I see photographs where the aiming point has moved 500 feet further along.

I too am curious to know the answer.

[nickmanl]

It was on the news a couple of months ago that British Airways intend to make all their flights land half way down the runway, as they don't need 12,000ft of runway to land on! This is in response to the ever growing protests from local residents about noise pollution.

I'm not too sure if its actually gone ahead.

[Gonzo]

Nickmanl....

The proposal that appeared in the news was just that. And BA thought it up for purely commercial reasons.....another 100ft or so altitude over London would not make any difference to noise or emissions.

However, it would mean that BA's a/c can land halfway down 27L/R and vacate just where T5 is being built! Much shorter taxi! Funny that.

I bet BA wouldn't want to pay for the extra ILS needed, or the installation of new runway lighting that's needed!

Any reverse thrust greater than reverse idle is not allowed at LHR, except in wet, icing or limiting conditions

Not heard about this........only the request that reverse isn't used at night if operationally applicable.

[Captain Rat]

I know my airline has a policy which is mentioned above ie idle reverse thrust is used normaly and the main stopping force is the carbon brakes. Its less wear on the engines, less fuel, less noise etc. Use of T/R will obviously depend on weather etc