Reverse thrust policy for Fokker F100 landings

[cessnapete]

Originally Posted by Xeptu

There was or is a time limited prohibition range which applied to the smaller F70 engine. Unfortunately the software is the same for both the F70 and F100. The issue is that should this condition be tripped it cannot be cleared by the pilot and cannot continue on until it is, along with any maintenance conditions applied of course in the case of the smaller F70 engine.

Today most dinosaurs have the same problem, there are few if any software engineers who still hold the approvals and skills to make changes to fundamental operational software. Even if there is, since the manufacturer no longer exists who carries responsibility for those changes. It’s not all that simple both software packages must be changed in order to ensure the right software is applied to the right engine. The easier solution is to implement an operating procedure which is less likely to cause the issue. This in itself creates new problems if it’s not though through and most often comes to light literally by accident.

For example for the F50, it came to light that pilots couldn’t be trained reliably to properly reject a takeoff bringing about a significant increase in stop distance. The solution was to lock out reverse and rely on brakes alone. It follows then that the takeoff antiskid inop charts and procedure must be removed also, it wasn’t. I would be curious today as to how many think they can still takeoff with antiskid inop. It will certainly come to light the first time someone rejects a takeoff with no reverse and no antiskid.

When on the B744 with a Big Airline in UK, Idle Rev was the `SOP on all landings, unless runway conditions were adverse.
Less engine wear, and carbon brakes cheaper than engine life. Plus I suppose a small fuel saving.
This is still the norm on all types from A380, 777/787 to A320 etc.

[Kagamuga]

Duck,
Probably before your time; BUT the Dash 7 was the ideal aircraft for internal PNG Ops.
Excellent S/Field performance
Pop an engine ?/ no problems, three engine ferry back to POM
Leave #4 running as the APU, out of harms way ….

[601]

The Dash 7 never seemed to take-off - sorry

[Xeptu]

Originally Posted by cessnapete

When on the B744 with a Big Airline in UK, Idle Rev was the `SOP on all landings, unless runway conditions were adverse.
Less engine wear, and carbon brakes cheaper than engine life. Plus I suppose a small fuel saving.
This is still the norm on all types from A380, 777/787 to A320 etc.

It's unlikely to be for any of those reasons, more likely ground handling characteristics going from flight idle to full reverse before the nose wheel is weighted, particularly is a thrust reverser fails to deploy or there is any significant asymmetric thrust, rudder alone might not be enough.

[bcflyer]

Originally Posted by 8314

It’s been a while since, but I remember that with those Tays you had to transit from idle to full reverse in one streak. If you lingered too long in a certain EPR(?) range, you’d get a ‘Fan Blade Inspection’ ECAM (?) which required the engine to be boroscoped. Had to do with resonance\ vibrations. Like I said, it’s been 15 years...

I recall the same thing from my Fokker days. Most guys used idle reverse only as a result.