RAF VC-10 in-flight reverse thrust use.

[Waddo Liney]

When my tour in Singapore ended in August 1968, my wife and I flew home in an RAF VC-10. Cyprus was one of the stops on the way back, and we landed at Nicosia airport. As we approached Cyprus at altitude, the captain (or someone from the flight deck) made an announcement over the PA system, but the quality of the system wasn't very good, so it wasn't easy to make out what he was saying, but I did catch something about "noise and vibration." After that, the VC-10 went into a steep descent and yes, there was a lot of noise and vibration. My impression was that the flight crew used reverse thrust as an airbrake because we were avoiding some other country's airspace (possibly Egypt's) in order to enter the very limited friendly airspace around Cyprus, hence the steep descent. I've read since then that using reverse thrust in flight is a no-no, but I wonder if anyone has any experience or knowledge of it being used by the RAF VC-10s?

[Herod]

If you get no response on here, try the military thread. There are a few ten drivers on there still.

[DuncanDoenitz]

On my dozen or so flights as pax on VC10s, we were always advised of noise and vibration associated with use of spoilers, not reverse thrust. And yes, it was noisy, and it vibrated.

Similar PA about clunks and bumps from extending the gear.

[brakedwell]

I am sure the VC10 did not use reverse thrust in the air, unlike the DC8, which had no airbrakes and used reverse thrust on the inboard engines.

[Mrmungus]

It was a standard practice on the Trident to deploy the reversers in flight, But I can't say if it was on a VC10.
I'm remember there was no physical interlock (Wow switches) to stop you doing so on the VC10, but I don't know if they ever did or not in flight. The system was purely mechanical. There was a light that came on on the dashboard to indicate the buckets were unlocked but it was just that a light.
All RAF VC10's only had two reversers fitted where as the early BOAC tens had all four reversers fitted.
To deploy the reversers the throttles had to be pulled all the way back to Idle to release the reverse handle which were on the front of the two centre throttle levers. As you lifted those handles they deployed the buckets. Then as you pulled the front handle further up and over towards you that then increased engine RPM by rotating the actual throttle valve at the engine end in the reverse sense, it only being closed in the mid position.
That's as I remember the system, but it was 25 years ago I was last in the cockpit.
I hope that helps.

[msbbarratt]

Reverse thrust in flight on a VC-10 has happened, but not in normal circumstances: G-AXLR Test Flying (https://www.vc10.net/Memories/Testflight.html)

[slowjet]

Dunno about the 10 but it was available on the Trident. Being a newbie, I was keen to give it a try but the sensible and experienced peers didn't like it. They suggested that it's use was admission that one had screwed up the descent and anyway -" What if you can't get it out of revers ?". Decided not to try.

[Jhieminga]

The flying manual for the VC10 says:
https://cimg7.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/772x592/screenshot_2021_05_20_at_10_59_35_f61bad5cabb8ef3c0c9d7a3990 29f06a7f9372b6.png
As mentioned before, there is no mechanical lock that precludes use in flight but I'm pretty sure that reverse was not meant to be used during descent or anywhere else in flight.

[Bergerie1]

I flew the VC10 for 14 years with BOAC and BA and, to the best of my knowledge, reverse thrust was never used in the air. Whether this was an airline decision, or not approved by the manufacturer and the CAA, I am not sure. Others may know.

[Dan Winterland]

The RAF didn't use reverse off the ground.

[Runaway Gun]

But one engine did engage in reverse during receiver tanking - much to the surprise of everyone.

[Jhieminga]

...or not approved by the manufacturer and the CAA...
A bit of speculation and guesswork on my part but I think that you would need to show during testing that use of thrust reverse in flight is safe so that you can then incorporate this into the procedures and the type's performance data. This was obviously arranged in the case of the Trident and the DC-8. Perhaps they needed it for performance purposes. A quick glance at the procedures and limitations for the VC10 has not shown any text that specifically prohibits use in flight, but judging from the bit I copied and the rest of the manual, it would appear to be intended for use on ground only.

[Bergerie1]

Jhieminga, I believe your speculation to be correct

[blind pew]

Only flew her for 18 months but seemed to remember it was tried in flight testing possibly with the insistence by the board of trade...Davies?
There were two incidents with Concorde with inadvertent in-flight reverse.. one in cruise which returned; after engineering had crawled over her and cleared the defect it happened again just after rotation...heard her roaring over our cottage near Newbury in the dark; rushed outside as thought it was a car sliding down Cold Ash Hill at high speed on it's roof. IIRC didn't get above 3 grand until over the Bristol Channel.

[mustafagander]

Hey Mr M
You say that early BOAC VC10s had 4 reversers. They did not. Only the Super VC10, alias VC15 had 4 reversers.

[Jhieminga]

Only the prototype and the Super VC10s had four reversers. On the Supers, the inner reversers were later removed. One source states that this was partially a weight saving measure that allowed the installation of a containment ring around the turbine section of the Conways (after this incident (https://www.vc10.net/History/incidents_and_accidents.html#Engine%20Disintegrates)?).

[Bergerie1]

Jh, I heard that it was to reduce drag as well as weight.

Bp, I doubt it was ever tried on a CofA airtest while with BOAC/BA. But you never know, some brave (foolish?) souls did try some strange things at times.

[brakedwell]

I only used reverse thrust once in the air over four years on the DC8. It produced a lot of vibration and was not nice to use.

[Waddo Liney]

Thank you everyone for your timely comments - I didn't except so many. So, the consensus appears to be that the VC-10 did not use reverse thrust in flight and that the noise and vibration I experienced was due the spoilers being deployed.

[blind pew]

Yes Bergerie and I’ve even been party to them...

[vascodegama]

VC10 ACM Flying 2-7 page 4 para 36

"Reverse thrust must only be used on the ground"

[biscuit74]

Thank you everyone for your timely comments - I didn't except so many. So, the consensus appears to be that the VC-10 did not use reverse thrust in flight and that the noise and vibration I experienced was due the spoilers being deployed.


Absolutely, those spoilers seemed more like airbrakes - producing an impressive rate of descent. BOAC VC-10s seemed to use spoilers a lot when descending to some Middle Eastern & East African airports, possibly because of airspace restrictions due to unrest and recent conflicts. (This was in the late Sixties and early Seventies) As you say, quite a lot of vibration and noise associated. The only aircraft in which I flew which was allowed to select reverse thrust while airborne was the DH/HS Trident - Mk1 I think. Quite a different and distinctive noise, from the engines.
Coming in to shortish runways - like Aberdeen's Dyce - you'd sometimes hear reverse thrust being selected on short finals, That generally meant no go around option. I believe one Trident did slightly over-run onto the grass at Dyce as a result.

[BEagle]

An RAF VC10 was in a descent once and the crew decided to reduce the descent rate by applying thrust....which made things worse. Then an orange reverser unlocked light came on!

It seems that a failed linkage of some sort had caused a reverser to deploy and the only solution was to shut down the offending engine.

Taxying out once I did the normal reverser check (correctly, not that stupid show off way..) and it didn't feel right. So I canned the trip and had it investigated. I went up on the safety raiser with one of the sooties who showed that the linkage had indeed come apart and would not have worked correctly.

[NutLoose]

I think it was the Lear 45 that wasn't allowed on the UK register for a while because if one deployed on that you had a second before it had itself inverted.

Edit, found it

We used to train this in the sim on the Lear 45. The thrust lever automatically snapped to idle if the reverser deployed and we were trained immediately to shut the engine down.

The aircraft was marginally controllable and between stick shaker and V2 until you shut it down. You could just about attain a positive rate. One wily TRE also trained knowing the location of and instinctively pulling the deploy CB (4th back on the bottom row since you ask https://www.pprune.org/images/smilies/evil.gif) as a backup.

It was a good sim exercise, but it was seriously demanding even if you were in "sim" mode, and over beers we wondered whether it would be survivable if it happened for real.

https://www.pprune.org/tech-log/599142-uncommanded-thrust-reverser-deployment-flight-2.html

[condor17]

Bit of thread drift as not VC10 . Tridents 1/2/1e/3s , all could use reverse in the air . Memory say max 10,000 HP rpm on the outers , ie eng 1 and 3 . We used it regularly , though rev and or speedbrake in normal use was judged to be a poorly planned/executed approach .
Though if Wx , ATC , or fun dictated was a normal op. Have forgotten minimum ht. of cancelling rev.
Positioning an empty a/c with no.2 at idle , VMO of 365 , speedbrake [ airbrake ] out and 10,000 rev on outers . Descent rates of in excess of 17000 fpm were seen.
For precision landings , or short runways [ old EDI or ABZ , specially if ILS flown {only 1 ILS then } in a max tailwind ] , or fun [ practice really ] again.... Call from Handling Pilot to Non Handling Pilot [ throttle handler , as HP could not comfortably reach throttles and stick ] was '' Power Off , 10,000 Reverse '' , if judged correctly it cushioned the touchdown nicely , got retardation in early before brakes and airbrake were used .
Don't remember any restriction on a G/A from that position , and like an Autoland G/A , the runway may be touched in it's execution .
Only later on Boeings when reverse in , then No G/A to be carried out .
Yes the cabbage fields at ABZ and EDI were regularly visited , but not by those who pulled emergency reverse [ 12000 HP RPM ] early , and kept it in to a stop .

rgds condor.

[DaveReidUK]

Yes the cabbage fields at ABZ and EDI were regularly visited , but not by those who pulled emergency reverse [ 12000 HP RPM ] early , and kept it in to a stop.

Other than the well-publicised (aquaplaning) T3 overrun at ABZ in 1978, I don't recall any runway excursions by Tridents at either of those airports.

[blind pew]

Certainly there was one at EDI in my time b4 the runway was extended. Late mate finished with the nose over the sea wall in Gib with emergency reverse still on. Skipper reached over and gently eased his hand and the levers forward « it’s all right Les, we’ve stopped ».

[dixi188]

There was an old TV cops series, (Softly, Softly, maybe), that had a clip in the opening credits of a Trident landing at GIB and you could see the reverse thrust smoke from the cascades before touchdown.

[condor17]

Dave R , they were mostly least said soonest mended , and EDI woulld have been the old 13/31.
B P , if that was the late great Les B , hope he had his 'hairy hand' on those reversers . .
Dixi , would always have been reverse in the flare at GIB .

rgds dave f.

[DaveReidUK]

Dave R , they were mostly least said soonest mended , and EDI would have been the old 13/31.

An overrun on the old 31 would have put the aircraft on the main A9 Edinburgh-Stirling road. That would have been fairly difficult to hush up ...

[condor17]

DR , mainly 13 if memory serves , and T3s to boot . Much heavier that T1/2s , wth same retardation devices ... brakes , spoilers , reversers .

rgds condor .

[condor17]

ABZ Rwy 17 was the only one with an ILS . So with the 'Haar' in , was the only one with an high probability of landing of the available instrument approach .... Thus often a tailwind , and within limits as 'reported' by ATC [ thanks guys for creatability ] ....Thus emergency reverse to a stop .
EDI may have been the same , but was a T3 route thus as a T1/2 boy didn't see it until Shuttle started with the opening of RWY 25/07 .

rgds condor .

[Jetset 88]

Flew RAF VC10s and also the Oman RF one too, totaling about 3,000 hrs on the type and NEVER ever used reverse thrust in the air. If speed were reduced below the gear limit, (my fading memory recalls this being 254 kts) one could always lower the gear and with flap the aircraft would go down like a lift.
Even when the speedbrakes (spoilers) were deployed normally there was a degree of airframe vibration which occurred and I would suspect that accounted for the vibration referred to by the instigator of this thread. Until about the mid 1980s it was common for the operating pilot doing a pa to the pax at 'top of drop' and mention that if a quickish descent were required because they had been held high by ATC, then the speedbrakes would be deployed and that they would experience this vibration which was completely normal and nothing to worry about. In time this mention on the pa was skipped as many of the pax were 'frequent flyers' and knew about it

[Top West 50]

Statute of Limitations, I reverse taxied a vc10 at Victoria BC.

[flash8]

Statute of Limitations, I reverse taxied a vc10 at Victoria BC.
Interesting, very rare too see such a beast there.

[Jhieminga]

Statute of Limitations, I reverse taxied a vc10 at Victoria BC.
All is forgiven! Now let's have the full story... ;)

[Top West 50]

All is forgiven! Now let's have the full story... ;)
it was either back into that parking space or wait until we find a tug to tow you to the other side of the airfield. To head off a crew mutiny, I decided to do it. It was uneventful - just keep the feet off the brakes!

[Top West 50]

All is forgiven! Now let's have the full story... ;)
it was either back into that parking space or wait until we find a tug to tow you to the other side of the airfield. To head off a crew mutiny, I decided to do it. It was uneventful - just keep the feet off the brakes!

[Jhieminga]

Thanks! Waiting for a tug can take a long time, and it seems even longer if you've got the solution right there...

[brakedwell]

Had to reverse out of Civil Airport gates in the United States when on RAF Britannias two times for the lack of a correct tow bar. Feet off brakes!!!

[treadigraph]

Feet off brakes!!!

That sounds very much like a phrase the late Ken Fitzroy used when describing his time on RAF Britannias!

[Fareastdriver]

A cache of ex Japanese chemical weapons were found on an island in the Solomon Islands. Uncle Sam dispatched a disposal team, about ten of them, in a C5. This C5 was now the largest man made object in the country and occupied most of the International parking ramp.

Job finished, everybody climbed in and they called for pushback.

Pushback? They didn't have anything big enough to pushback a C5; in fact they couldn't pushback anything.

Big confab with Washington: No. they could not use reverse thrust to back out and anyway it would have demolished the terminal building so an alternative was worked out.

A C17 flew in from Hawaii; offloading a massive aircraft tractor on the apron. Now nothing could get in or out.

Lots of aircraft shuffling by this tractor as it positioned its C17 and C5 so that they pointed towards the exit.

The C5 went first; the tractor loaded back into its C17 and off they went.

[Bergerie1]

In BOAC/BA we used to teach new VC10 captains, when doing their command courses, how to do three point turns on the runway. Feet under the rudder pedals, flight engineer on an extended headset lead looking out of a pax door, and reverse motion being stopped by applying forward thrust only, never the brakes. It worked like a charm. Reverse thrust could also be used to back out after taking a wrong turning on a taxiway, but not advised on the ramp due to handling equipment, etc.