The over use of autobrakes
Thread Starter
The over use of autobrakes
Over many years as a 737 simulator instructor I have watched the almost robot like use of autobrakes for practically every landing regardless of the amount of excess runway length. One Asian operator uses Auto-brake 2 for every landing - good or bad weather. Given an all flaps up landing on a marginal length dry runway, the pilot still used Autobrake 2 "because that is what the SOP said." Needless to say he over-ran the end of the runway at 60 knots despite full reverse. When these pilots were asked to use manual braking, it was jerky, uncoordinated and the aircraft continually swerved either side of the runway centreline because lack of practice at manual braking.
One major Australian airline operating a Boeing 747 over-ran a 10,000 ft runway following a botched touch down in heavy rain. Due to a combination of crew errors the autobrake was inadvertently disarmed without the crew being aware. From that experience, the operator mandated that autobrakes were to be armed for every landing on its 737 fleet, regardless that the incident aircraft was a Boeing 747.
Many years ago a DC9 brake manufacturer published an article called "The High Cost of Heavy Braking" in which it compared the cost of tyre and brake wear when brakes were applied immediately on touchdown and at various lower speeds, with and without reverse thrust. The results demonstrated that instant brake application on touch down was by far the most expensive in terms of servicing costs.
It is instructive therefore to read the following comments made during a Boeing 727 flight operation symposium conducted in Seattle over 40 years ago by the Boeing Flight Operations Group.
Under the heading: Autobrakes - Wear and Usage, a question was asked "Did Boeing or operators register increased wear of wheels and brakes upon using the Autobrake System"?
Boeing replied:
"When we started using the Autobrake System, we made a 3-month evaluation within a group of thoroughly briefed check captains with no complaints.
After general implementation, we registered a sudden increase in the rate of replacements on wheels and brakes. It was determined that much of the increase was attributable to improper use and techniques and that the correct use and application of Autobrakes and reverser needed emphasis.
The presentation [at this Symposium] on Autobrakes usage outlines Boeing's philosophy on when and how the Autobrakes should be used. To re-emphasize; the autobrakes should be used on all landings when stopping distances are marginal. This is for short, wet or slippery runway conditions. Additionally, autobrakes should used when the workload is higher than normal, such as engine out, low visibility, etc.
This philosophy would suggest, during normal landing on long dry runways, with the desired turnoff point a considerable distance from the touchdown point, autobrakes need not be used".
From the above comments it would seem that operators using the Autobrake System for all landings, regardless of perceived operational necessity, are wasting their money; as well as denying crews the opportunity to maintain manual braking skills.
One major Australian airline operating a Boeing 747 over-ran a 10,000 ft runway following a botched touch down in heavy rain. Due to a combination of crew errors the autobrake was inadvertently disarmed without the crew being aware. From that experience, the operator mandated that autobrakes were to be armed for every landing on its 737 fleet, regardless that the incident aircraft was a Boeing 747.
Many years ago a DC9 brake manufacturer published an article called "The High Cost of Heavy Braking" in which it compared the cost of tyre and brake wear when brakes were applied immediately on touchdown and at various lower speeds, with and without reverse thrust. The results demonstrated that instant brake application on touch down was by far the most expensive in terms of servicing costs.
It is instructive therefore to read the following comments made during a Boeing 727 flight operation symposium conducted in Seattle over 40 years ago by the Boeing Flight Operations Group.
Under the heading: Autobrakes - Wear and Usage, a question was asked "Did Boeing or operators register increased wear of wheels and brakes upon using the Autobrake System"?
Boeing replied:
"When we started using the Autobrake System, we made a 3-month evaluation within a group of thoroughly briefed check captains with no complaints.
After general implementation, we registered a sudden increase in the rate of replacements on wheels and brakes. It was determined that much of the increase was attributable to improper use and techniques and that the correct use and application of Autobrakes and reverser needed emphasis.
The presentation [at this Symposium] on Autobrakes usage outlines Boeing's philosophy on when and how the Autobrakes should be used. To re-emphasize; the autobrakes should be used on all landings when stopping distances are marginal. This is for short, wet or slippery runway conditions. Additionally, autobrakes should used when the workload is higher than normal, such as engine out, low visibility, etc.
This philosophy would suggest, during normal landing on long dry runways, with the desired turnoff point a considerable distance from the touchdown point, autobrakes need not be used".
From the above comments it would seem that operators using the Autobrake System for all landings, regardless of perceived operational necessity, are wasting their money; as well as denying crews the opportunity to maintain manual braking skills.
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Inside their OODA loop
Posts: 243
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It gets worse! They are now in the idle reverse phase ("strongly encouraged"). This combined with marginally achievable high speed exits in the NG. Apparently sidewall failures have increased dramatically, as have brake hydraulic leaks.
Of course, that was after the management mandated phase of Autobrakes "Max" for routine ops for anything even remotely marginal. Only did a handful before the policy was changed, but wow, what a ride... 14 m/s/s is quite a deceleration rate for line ops
Of course, that was after the management mandated phase of Autobrakes "Max" for routine ops for anything even remotely marginal. Only did a handful before the policy was changed, but wow, what a ride... 14 m/s/s is quite a deceleration rate for line ops
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: USA
Posts: 2,521
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I set the autobrakes for every landing. If i plan to roll to the end, I simply disengage them at the appropriate time. I can't think of a reason not to use AB.
Of course, blindly using the same setting, regardless of the conditions is a bit silly.
Of course, blindly using the same setting, regardless of the conditions is a bit silly.
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: last time I looked I was still here.
Posts: 4,507
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Due to a combination of crew errors the autobrake was inadvertently disarmed without the crew being aware. From that experience, the operator mandated that autobrakes were to be armed for every landing on its 737 fleet, regardless that the incident aircraft was a Boeing 747.
I don't follow the logic here. The auto brakes were armed and then disarmed without the crew realising; so how does arming them as an SOP solve anything?
I don't follow the logic here. The auto brakes were armed and then disarmed without the crew realising; so how does arming them as an SOP solve anything?
Check airman, I am with you.
I dont necessarily think so much in terms of the autobrake or reverse, i tend to think of a braking solution and what i need to use to get off the runway at the exit i want to use. It might be an autobrake setting combined with max reverse, or idle reverse, depends on the circumstance.
I would rather start with autobrake and kick it out as it provides an even deceleration.
I dont have an issue with idle reverse. If you are using autobrake then it doesnt really matter whether you use reverse thrust as the autobrake modulates the wheel brakes to provide the desired deceleration rate. More reverse less brake, less reverse more brake.
As long as you dont have a brake cooling problem then idle reverse isnt a big issue. I reckon it gives the punters a better landing...more a psychological thing more than anything else, but the sudden spool up and roar of reverse leaves a different impression when compared to a touchdown and quiet roll through, no science in that opinion other than my experience as a pax
I dont necessarily think so much in terms of the autobrake or reverse, i tend to think of a braking solution and what i need to use to get off the runway at the exit i want to use. It might be an autobrake setting combined with max reverse, or idle reverse, depends on the circumstance.
I would rather start with autobrake and kick it out as it provides an even deceleration.
I dont have an issue with idle reverse. If you are using autobrake then it doesnt really matter whether you use reverse thrust as the autobrake modulates the wheel brakes to provide the desired deceleration rate. More reverse less brake, less reverse more brake.
As long as you dont have a brake cooling problem then idle reverse isnt a big issue. I reckon it gives the punters a better landing...more a psychological thing more than anything else, but the sudden spool up and roar of reverse leaves a different impression when compared to a touchdown and quiet roll through, no science in that opinion other than my experience as a pax
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Wanderlust
Posts: 3,407
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
but the sudden spool up and roar of reverse leaves a different impression when compared to a touchdown and quiet roll through
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 1,186
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This philosophy would suggest, during normal landing on long dry runways, with the desired turnoff point a considerable distance from the touchdown point, autobrakes need not be used".
Idle reverse after touch down makes little difference in the landing roll with the brakes only getting hotter for the next take off. That might be fine for carbon brakes that work more efficiently when hot. But not for others. If for some reason the pilot suddenly decides to apply full reverse from idle during the landing run, by then the speed is usually relatively slow.
The end of the runway may be coming up faster than he thought and he needs the reverse urgently. By then it is too late since it takes considerable time to spool up from idle reverse to full reverse. Reverse is ineffective at low speeds and full reverse at low speeds runs the risk of compressor stall and engine damage. .
idle reverse isnt a big issue. I reckon it gives the punters a better landing...more a psychological thing more than anything else,
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: last time I looked I was still here.
Posts: 4,507
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The world has moved on a long way, and perhaps not for the better. It seems more & more DFO/CP's don't trust the judgements of their captains. There was a day when you trained your crews well, had reasonably brief SOP's combined with the FCTM, and experienced captains. You gave them a duty and off they went will full confidence on both sides that they were equipped to handle what they would find.
The captain had auto-brakes, or not, Thrust reversers and a choice of flaps. You reviewed the weather and runway conditions and made a sensible judgement of how to combine them. OK, there might be an SOP that said minimum idle reverse, perhaps even AB 1. There might even be a request of F30 (B737) is suitable. You adjusted each item to create the most suitable combination. It's what experience captains do.
Having a standard landing config' and landing technique, come what may, encourages trained monkey non-thinking; and that will bite you very hard where the sun don't shine one day.
I did operate for a very young growing B733 operator who had a minimum idle reverse policy. Sometimes we used to land on a 3000m runway with the turnoff at the end. I confirmed no AB's was acceptable - yes - but what about no TR's; they were unnecessary. The sensible reply was, "if appropriate, select idle and then cancel will satisfy the SOP." I could live with that. It sometimes needed thrust to be added to expedite vacating.
The trained monkey thinking was shown quite often the F/O's selected F30, AB-3 because the runway was shortish, 2000m. Immediately on touchdown size 10's stamped on the brakes, disconnecting the AB's, and we had a very crowded cockpit. WTF?? "I wanted to make the shorter turnoff?" What about F40 then and AB-3? Uh, SOP is F30!. Agh!
I used to use F40, AB-3 and 'rest' my feet on the brakes as I pulled TR's. My belief was it stopped the AB's from releasing and thus you achieved brakes + TR's. Was I wrong?
The captain had auto-brakes, or not, Thrust reversers and a choice of flaps. You reviewed the weather and runway conditions and made a sensible judgement of how to combine them. OK, there might be an SOP that said minimum idle reverse, perhaps even AB 1. There might even be a request of F30 (B737) is suitable. You adjusted each item to create the most suitable combination. It's what experience captains do.
Having a standard landing config' and landing technique, come what may, encourages trained monkey non-thinking; and that will bite you very hard where the sun don't shine one day.
I did operate for a very young growing B733 operator who had a minimum idle reverse policy. Sometimes we used to land on a 3000m runway with the turnoff at the end. I confirmed no AB's was acceptable - yes - but what about no TR's; they were unnecessary. The sensible reply was, "if appropriate, select idle and then cancel will satisfy the SOP." I could live with that. It sometimes needed thrust to be added to expedite vacating.
The trained monkey thinking was shown quite often the F/O's selected F30, AB-3 because the runway was shortish, 2000m. Immediately on touchdown size 10's stamped on the brakes, disconnecting the AB's, and we had a very crowded cockpit. WTF?? "I wanted to make the shorter turnoff?" What about F40 then and AB-3? Uh, SOP is F30!. Agh!
I used to use F40, AB-3 and 'rest' my feet on the brakes as I pulled TR's. My belief was it stopped the AB's from releasing and thus you achieved brakes + TR's. Was I wrong?
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: FL410
Posts: 860
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Agree with those practising good airmanship on here, too many factors for a simple one-option solution.
- determine conditions on landing;
- determine options to vacate, the first one is not always best even if a runway occupancy reduction can be achieved;
- determine flap/brake combinations for each option to vacate safely;
- determine if any flap/brake combination can make use of idle reverse without affecting turnaround schedule;
Decision is now in crew hands...
In regards to money saving and fuel reduction, the order (737) in which I prefer to opt:
- Idle flap, 30, using auto-brake 1 or 2, if possible
- Idle flap 40 if 30 requires too much cooling time or is unable to make a planned exit
- Increase auto brake if required requiring second detent reverse on most landings
When considering configuring at 4-5nm, fuel savings can then be summarised as:
- Flap 30 saves ~10-15kg
- Idle reverse saves ~50-70kg
Sometimes only one or none of the above choices can be made for safety or operational reasons, sometimes they are not mutually exclusive.
In our operation, there seems to be a prominent lack of knowledge when it comes to fuel saving and costs.
The amount which can be saved can widely vary on operational techniques, if taught correctly in the good airmanship classes during training, significant savings on a (large) fleet are possible.
- determine conditions on landing;
- determine options to vacate, the first one is not always best even if a runway occupancy reduction can be achieved;
- determine flap/brake combinations for each option to vacate safely;
- determine if any flap/brake combination can make use of idle reverse without affecting turnaround schedule;
Decision is now in crew hands...
In regards to money saving and fuel reduction, the order (737) in which I prefer to opt:
- Idle flap, 30, using auto-brake 1 or 2, if possible
- Idle flap 40 if 30 requires too much cooling time or is unable to make a planned exit
- Increase auto brake if required requiring second detent reverse on most landings
When considering configuring at 4-5nm, fuel savings can then be summarised as:
- Flap 30 saves ~10-15kg
- Idle reverse saves ~50-70kg
Sometimes only one or none of the above choices can be made for safety or operational reasons, sometimes they are not mutually exclusive.
In our operation, there seems to be a prominent lack of knowledge when it comes to fuel saving and costs.
The amount which can be saved can widely vary on operational techniques, if taught correctly in the good airmanship classes during training, significant savings on a (large) fleet are possible.
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: 5° above the Equator, 75° left of Greenwich
Posts: 411
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I can say I relate regarding the one option fits all SOP.
Ours says for wet runways and "unexpected" tailwind landings we should use ABRK MED (A320) and max reverse, no mention of runway length. I'm aware that a wet runway implies a different set of certain circumstances, but some captains select this option even for a damp, 3800 metre long runway...
Ditto on the tailwind landings, they would use that setting even if the performance was run and the numbers were good. I ask some of them if the performance is good if we can use ABRK LOW and idle rev (and if the runway isn't *that* wet); some agree, some don't. What a waste...
BTW, I do select ABRK for every landing, I use the lowest setting that will comply with a safe landing and then revert to manual braking as I see fit to leave the runway at an appropriate speed. And I'm all for comfort, so I won't use ABRK MED unless required, quite the jolt when they kick in...
Ours says for wet runways and "unexpected" tailwind landings we should use ABRK MED (A320) and max reverse, no mention of runway length. I'm aware that a wet runway implies a different set of certain circumstances, but some captains select this option even for a damp, 3800 metre long runway...
Ditto on the tailwind landings, they would use that setting even if the performance was run and the numbers were good. I ask some of them if the performance is good if we can use ABRK LOW and idle rev (and if the runway isn't *that* wet); some agree, some don't. What a waste...
BTW, I do select ABRK for every landing, I use the lowest setting that will comply with a safe landing and then revert to manual braking as I see fit to leave the runway at an appropriate speed. And I'm all for comfort, so I won't use ABRK MED unless required, quite the jolt when they kick in...
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: last time I looked I was still here.
Posts: 4,507
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
TA: I can understand you asking about using Max instead. That would give quite a violent fixed rate, initially, uncomfortable at best, then TR's would keep it at that rate. My thinking was set 3, apply TR's and feather the brakes to achieve a rate that can be varied to suit. It was certainly less than Max, and used for only a short distance. I used the QRH advisory distances as a start point. Sometimes I used this with AB 2 and it seemed to work to shorten the distance just that smidgen when AB 2 was too long and AB 3 was unnecessarily short. It seemed to work and avoided a sharp stab approaching the turn off; i.e. it killed the energy early, but gradually, and then I would release my feet and allow AB's to do were thing. It was not akin to riding the brakes. The pressure I felt I was using was less than disconnect.
My query was it seemed to work, but was that an misconception or was it not even a possibility?
My query was it seemed to work, but was that an misconception or was it not even a possibility?
When Airport Authorities mandate Minimum Runway Occupancy Time it doesn’t matter how long the RWY is. The requirement is to slow up and get off quick. Autobrake gives the smoothest start to that process. Full reverse helps keep the brakes cooler, important in hot climates and short turnarounds. No shame in using both.
I'm with Killaroo. The "old" guys still frequently dream of the world of aviation as it used to be... which is long gone history.
Noise regulations frequently require idle reverse.
ATC frequently requires minimum runway occupancy.
Companies have stricter SOPs because fleets have expanded, and the goal of the modern pilot is not a simple question of "knowing how to fly", the requirements are a lot broader.
Autobrakes do a good job in applying perfect initial deceleration. Not too fast, not too slow. Our company has an SOP that calls for AB 1 or off if the situation allows for it. AB 2 for wet runway, autolands,.. AB 3 short runway, plenty of non normal situations etc. you are allowed to disconnect as required by the situation. Which in my eyes is a safe habit, safer than standardizing AB OFF landings. As far as I'm aware you need to give me a bullet proof reasoning that brake wear is a direct of result of AB ON vs OFF, and not the environmental changes that aviation has gone through over the years asking for "general heavier braking".
As far as the "brake wear" reasoning goes: I am a pilot, I am not an engineer, I'm not an aviation cost expert. I make sure I'm able to stop the aircraft in a safe way and as operationally required by my company/ATC/situation/... If this on the long term results in higher costs, I'm not the one to solve that problem.
Noise regulations frequently require idle reverse.
ATC frequently requires minimum runway occupancy.
Companies have stricter SOPs because fleets have expanded, and the goal of the modern pilot is not a simple question of "knowing how to fly", the requirements are a lot broader.
Autobrakes do a good job in applying perfect initial deceleration. Not too fast, not too slow. Our company has an SOP that calls for AB 1 or off if the situation allows for it. AB 2 for wet runway, autolands,.. AB 3 short runway, plenty of non normal situations etc. you are allowed to disconnect as required by the situation. Which in my eyes is a safe habit, safer than standardizing AB OFF landings. As far as I'm aware you need to give me a bullet proof reasoning that brake wear is a direct of result of AB ON vs OFF, and not the environmental changes that aviation has gone through over the years asking for "general heavier braking".
As far as the "brake wear" reasoning goes: I am a pilot, I am not an engineer, I'm not an aviation cost expert. I make sure I'm able to stop the aircraft in a safe way and as operationally required by my company/ATC/situation/... If this on the long term results in higher costs, I'm not the one to solve that problem.
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: N/A
Posts: 72
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The world has changed a lot since the 727 was designed. So did the brakes of almost every aircraft type.
Modern carbon brakes are completely different than old metal brakes. Carbon brakes wear down with times of application, not with "braking power". As the auto brake is perfectly in applying brake pressure only one time it is to be preferred over manual braking.
Nevertheless a little bit of thinking should not be forbidden: If I want to leave the 4000m RWY at the End with an A320 the only reasonable choice will be Autobrake OFF.
Modern carbon brakes are completely different than old metal brakes. Carbon brakes wear down with times of application, not with "braking power". As the auto brake is perfectly in applying brake pressure only one time it is to be preferred over manual braking.
Nevertheless a little bit of thinking should not be forbidden: If I want to leave the 4000m RWY at the End with an A320 the only reasonable choice will be Autobrake OFF.
If I want to leave the 4000m RWY at the End with an A320 the only reasonable choice will be Autobrake OFF.
Once a skipper from the golf course landing airline called my preference to land without A/BRK and using THR IDLE highly irresponsible.
Last edited by compressor stall; 10th Feb 2018 at 22:15. Reason: Clarity
Some aircrew don't appear to have much in the way of mechanical sympathy - or perhaps their SOPs don't allow for it. A big aeroplane has plenty of drag immediately after landing so why not let that initiate the deceleration before you then take wheel brake and TR?
We had a very average (capacity-limited) standards pilot on the 'Global' who didn't accept that that you could leave the Autobrake off for landing. Same guy regarding 'high speed' approaches - he mandated 160kts Man Spd with 30 Flap. He just couldn't accept that a faster approach needs less flap. Unbelievable!
It's similar to maximum braking after any abort. Why use max braking for a benign abort - or do we not allow the crew to decide when it is or isn't needed? Same outfit - badly damaged tyres from an abort at.... 30kts!! Inexcusable really, especially as the abort failure was totally self-induced.
We had a very average (capacity-limited) standards pilot on the 'Global' who didn't accept that that you could leave the Autobrake off for landing. Same guy regarding 'high speed' approaches - he mandated 160kts Man Spd with 30 Flap. He just couldn't accept that a faster approach needs less flap. Unbelievable!
It's similar to maximum braking after any abort. Why use max braking for a benign abort - or do we not allow the crew to decide when it is or isn't needed? Same outfit - badly damaged tyres from an abort at.... 30kts!! Inexcusable really, especially as the abort failure was totally self-induced.
Tee Emm, i would not have a problem justifying my decision to a lawyer.
I just love the fall back position of “the lawyers” whenever someone says something that the other doesnt agree with.
I just love the fall back position of “the lawyers” whenever someone says something that the other doesnt agree with.
I can, the brakes will engage automatically, or I can disengage by braking. If I don't want to use the brakes the only way to achieve that is to not use auto brakes. I'm in and out of Vegas all the time and have had to lower the gear after take off several times because of temperature. I don't use the brakes until I reach 80kts during roll out, anytime you use auto brakes you will be waiting at the hold short line for the brakes to cool on the next sector.
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: USA
Posts: 142
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Used to operate the 747-200 into a 7500 foot runway and were usually close to max landing weight and 25C Would witness all kinds of methods, from braking shortly after touch down or waiting till something just about 80 kts. Just about every time the large ground fans were blowing shortly after block in. Even witnessed on ground tech pouring bottled water over the top of the tires (that is a whole another topic).
The best results were to wait for as long as you could, 80 kts or so, then get on the binders with some gusto. They almost never got hot.
Brakes have certainly gotten a lot better over the years.
The best results were to wait for as long as you could, 80 kts or so, then get on the binders with some gusto. They almost never got hot.
Brakes have certainly gotten a lot better over the years.
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Seattle
Posts: 3,196
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Indeed!
Hopefully, the people who use those brakes will read a bit and understand them before blindly using other people's techniques...
With steel brakes such as on the 747 Classic, any hard braking above 80 kts was likely to result in hot brakes, as was any use of MAX autobrakes. Sometimes it was required, so you just had to wait out the cooling period if you were turning it around... Remember also that 160-80 kts requires three times the energy dissipation as 80-0; so stomping on the brakes at 80 will incur MUCH less heating than doing it at 160...
With carbon brakes such as on the 744, heating and wear is less of a problem, but is still a consideration. Best practice would be to get into the performance charts/tables/app and find out the minimum level of autobrakes needed to stop in the distance you plan to use for rollout. In some cases (e.g., light airplane, long runway such as Rwy 9 at CVG), that level of autobrakes will be OFF. Idle reverse will eliminate residual forward thrust and help a bit with deceleration, allowing you to wait until a reasonable speed to check the brakes and use them for final control when thrust goes back to forward.
There is NO "one-size-fits-all" solution, so use your head and "do that pilot stuff"!
Hopefully, the people who use those brakes will read a bit and understand them before blindly using other people's techniques...
With steel brakes such as on the 747 Classic, any hard braking above 80 kts was likely to result in hot brakes, as was any use of MAX autobrakes. Sometimes it was required, so you just had to wait out the cooling period if you were turning it around... Remember also that 160-80 kts requires three times the energy dissipation as 80-0; so stomping on the brakes at 80 will incur MUCH less heating than doing it at 160...
With carbon brakes such as on the 744, heating and wear is less of a problem, but is still a consideration. Best practice would be to get into the performance charts/tables/app and find out the minimum level of autobrakes needed to stop in the distance you plan to use for rollout. In some cases (e.g., light airplane, long runway such as Rwy 9 at CVG), that level of autobrakes will be OFF. Idle reverse will eliminate residual forward thrust and help a bit with deceleration, allowing you to wait until a reasonable speed to check the brakes and use them for final control when thrust goes back to forward.
There is NO "one-size-fits-all" solution, so use your head and "do that pilot stuff"!