First Choice Airways 757 Reverse thrust

[360 degree mason]

Hi
Thought id post this here.

Any of you spotters know why the 757's of FCA dont use reverse thrust when landing?

Regards.

[GW76]

These pics would say otherwise....

http://www.!!!!!!!!!!!!!!/photos/small/6/9/6/924696.jpg
http://www.!!!!!!!!!!!!!!/photos/small/0/1/4/888410.jpg
http://www.!!!!!!!!!!!!!!/photos/small/1/9/1/857191.jpg
http://www.!!!!!!!!!!!!!!/photos/small/3/6/4/827463.jpg
http://www.!!!!!!!!!!!!!!/photos/small/3/6/5/772563.jpg
http://www.!!!!!!!!!!!!!!/photos/small/0/5/9/762950.jpg

[360 degree mason]

thanks for your reply.

however, ive been on them and landed at manchester, faro, and paphos and they didnt use it then. could it have been a noise restriction thang?

[holyflurkingschmitt]

Maybe certain runway lenghs and weather conditions mean they can get away without using reverse, less engine wear.

HFS

[360 degree mason]

HFS,

cheers mate, but in january we landed in manchester with 40kts gusting winds (i asked the SFO after the flight). remember the beginning of the year when we had those gale force winds.

reverse thrust wasnt used then, either.

[Localiser]

Only idle reverse is used at FCA. So the reverser cowlings will still be seen to be deployed but no increase in thrust. This is deamed because carbon brakes are cheaper than the enhance engine wear. Also with high amounts of reverse, particularly at the slower end of the speed regime there is always a danger of sucking up stones/debris etc. which will potentially cause fundamental damage to an engine.

Hope that answers your question?!

LOC
(SFO for FCA)

[GW76]

Thats what this forum is really all about, Professional answers from the professionals.
Cheers

[Strepsils]

360 degree mason - If it's gusting 40knots mostly down the runway, this will actually help braking, thereby reducing the need for reverse thrust. If it was all across then the runway length and condition would decide if reverse thrust was required, and if there was a tailwind component it would be reversers and hard on the brakes!

[360 degree mason]

Thanks

Cheers for contributing. Localiser, You definately answered my question. I should have asked the SFO but I forgot, I was too busy boring him about my flying training.

Respect.

[Sir Richard]

BA has been doing it that way for several years now almost everywhere on most fleets. So much quieter and no "shake rattle and roll" at the end of the flight.

[mutt]

Are landing calculations based upon the use of reverse thrust??

Mutt.

[Swedish Steve]

In the technical office, one engineer looks after wheels and brakes and another looks after engines. You have some problem with the brakes wearing out and the wheel man says to the pilots use thrust reverse. Then a reverser fails and the engine man says use the brakes. This used to happen frequently years ago, but nowadays the balance usually swings towards using the brakes. On a normal landing reverse thrust will be selected to idle only and the brakes will stop the aircraft.
Note that the A380 only has two thrust reversers!

[Sir Richard]

Mutt

Yes it is used in the calculations. On the 744 for example using Flap25 and autobrake 2, 2reversers reduce the landing distance by about 200ft, 4 reversers by about 450 feet ( if my memory serves me correctly)

Using autobrake 3 the difference is about 40 ft and 90 ft.

Autobrake 4 and Max have no difference.

[mutt]

Sir Richard,

Are you talking about planned landing distances or actual landing distances?

Mutt

[Sir Richard]

According to Mr Boeing, these will be the achieved landing distances under various conditions, a table is provided to work it out.

The table has a basic landing distance from the runway end and then a series of additions/subtractions depending on aircraft weight, altitude, head/tail wind, temperature, runway slope, speed increments above Vref and 2 or 0 reverse.

Reverse Thrust reduces the Brake Energy but makes lots of noise and vibration doing it.