Testing of idle reverse thrust before takeoff. A wise precaution?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Australia
Posts: 1,414
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Testing of idle reverse thrust before takeoff. A wise precaution?
https://avherald.com/h?article=4c5b3f3d&opt=0
An A320 lands and reverse thrust fails to operate. There had been no prior warning flags in the cockpit. Maintenance staff had forgotten to remove the reverser lockout pins after servicing. The situation could have been critical if a high speed rejected takeoff occurred at the departure airfield and the crew were unaware the reversers had been locked out.
System caution lights have removed the once good airmanship requirement of the momentary testing of brakes after moving from the tarmac. However, the above incident illustrates that on this occasion a fault in reverser operation did not show up to the cockpit crew until too late
A short test of reverse idle at an appropriate point before takeoff would have revealed this maintenance defect.. Another cue for good airmanship?
.
An A320 lands and reverse thrust fails to operate. There had been no prior warning flags in the cockpit. Maintenance staff had forgotten to remove the reverser lockout pins after servicing. The situation could have been critical if a high speed rejected takeoff occurred at the departure airfield and the crew were unaware the reversers had been locked out.
System caution lights have removed the once good airmanship requirement of the momentary testing of brakes after moving from the tarmac. However, the above incident illustrates that on this occasion a fault in reverser operation did not show up to the cockpit crew until too late
A short test of reverse idle at an appropriate point before takeoff would have revealed this maintenance defect.. Another cue for good airmanship?
.
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A short test of reverse idle at an appropriate point before takeoff would have revealed this maintenance defect.. Another cue for good airmanship?
.
.
https://avherald.com/h?article=4c5b3f3d&opt=0
An A320 lands and reverse thrust fails to operate. There had been no prior warning flags in the cockpit.
An A320 lands and reverse thrust fails to operate. There had been no prior warning flags in the cockpit.
..........and the crew were unaware the reversers had been locked out.
......... Another cue for good airmanship?
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I’m with the previous poster. Why make things more complicated? KISS. YMMV
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Having a margarita on the beach
Posts: 2,420
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just in case I would also check the spoilers movement, and check the engines are getting up to toga thrust should I need it, and also check the flaps travel down to 3 if I need to come back quickly and also I would close manually the outflow vale and pressurise the plane to check it does pressurise. Anyway short answer to the above : no, it's not, as performance data is there for you to consider a no reverse situation up to a contaminated runway.
I agree with most of the posters here: it’s not a major issue 99.99% of the time should they not deploy, plus static use of of thrust reversers is not helpful in terms of FOD and/or surging. After all, if you’re going to check they work properly that involves full reverse...
Many aircraft require a pre-take-off reverser check as part of the taxi checklist.
Forty+ years ago on the B707-436 with R-R Conway engines reverse was indeed checked on taxy out. Try that with a JT3D powered aircraft and you will be in a whole world of pain!
Only half a speed-brake
- wet runway or worse
- ASDA limited take-off
- RTO at V+-10 to V1
The chances are very remote. For what is left, the standard walk around check of REV lock-out pins should cover. No need to envisage new procedures where at least 50% compliance with the present ones would do. Agreed?
-----
although from the report: https://www.atsb.gov.au/media/577576...-064_final.pdf
it is not clear whether the standard pin as seen here https://www.atsb.gov.au/media/577576...-064_final.pdf was visible on the outside of the casing.
Now, the paragraph "AMM specific wording of HMU deactivated ..." of the report is the funny part.
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Middle East
Posts: 352
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
https://avherald.com/h?article=4c5b3f3d&opt=0
An A320 lands and reverse thrust fails to operate. There had been no prior warning flags in the cockpit. Maintenance staff had forgotten to remove the reverser lockout pins after servicing. The situation could have been critical if a high speed rejected takeoff occurred at the departure airfield and the crew were unaware the reversers had been locked out.
An A320 lands and reverse thrust fails to operate. There had been no prior warning flags in the cockpit. Maintenance staff had forgotten to remove the reverser lockout pins after servicing. The situation could have been critical if a high speed rejected takeoff occurred at the departure airfield and the crew were unaware the reversers had been locked out.
Join Date: Sep 2016
Location: Amongst the Gum Tree's
Posts: 90
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The HCU is under the pylon on left side underneath the cowling, it isn't visible externally so can't detect incorrect HCU config during walk-around.
There is a streamer-free pin that lives up there and stays with the aircraft. that is what the engineers used to lock out the reversers and forgot to remove.
Very sloppy maintenance. If I'm not mistaken, landing performance is predicated on braking action with nil reverser credit? (I'm not a pilot).
There is a streamer-free pin that lives up there and stays with the aircraft. that is what the engineers used to lock out the reversers and forgot to remove.
Very sloppy maintenance. If I'm not mistaken, landing performance is predicated on braking action with nil reverser credit? (I'm not a pilot).
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Having a margarita on the beach
Posts: 2,420
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Correct. The only difference is that, in case of landing on a contaminated runway, You need to take it into account from a performance point of view (i.e. add the impact of a no reverser configuration).
Just follow SOPs
I agree with the ‘not a good idea’ crowd.
Also on every Boeing I’ve flown selecting REV on the ground deletes all your Vspeeds from the FMC.
Keep It Simple, just follow manufacturer and company SOPs.
The willingness not to, as alluded to by some of the questions on this forum, do make me worry about my fellow aviators.
Also on every Boeing I’ve flown selecting REV on the ground deletes all your Vspeeds from the FMC.
Keep It Simple, just follow manufacturer and company SOPs.
The willingness not to, as alluded to by some of the questions on this forum, do make me worry about my fellow aviators.
Guest
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 876
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: 5° above the Equator, 75° left of Greenwich
Posts: 411
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A proper walk around/cockpit preparation goes a long way to prevent stuff like this... Should’ve spotted the reverse lockout pins and all this discussion would be inexistent.
As sonicbum said, might as well check everything every time, just in case.
Reverse is not credited for RTO in dry runways, it is credited for wet or contaminated runways though
As sonicbum said, might as well check everything every time, just in case.
Reverse is not credited for RTO in dry runways, it is credited for wet or contaminated runways though