767 Reverse Thrust
 

Enjoyed my first flight on a 767 recently into JFK. On touchdown, the pilot used only wheel braking and spoilers. I thought that reverse thrust was standard operating procedure. The aircraft was a Delta -300. Do pilots have a free rein, or is this an effort to reduce engine wear, fuel consumption etc.? Just a query from a keen PPLer. Also flew on to Orlando on a 737-200. Have to say that I was very impressed by both Delta pilots - they seemed to have a real concern for passenger comfort. Touchdown at Orlando was as perfect as I have encountered.

Use of reverse thrust is SOP at all major carriers I am aware of - - - HOWEVER, if one of the reversers is inoperative, generally crews will not use reverse thrust (or just idle on the good one) so they do not have to counteract the assymetric reverse thrust.

Hope this helps.

My outfit used to avoid normal use of reverse on the 767, arguing reduced engine wear. We then discovered that brake wear was more expensive and began using idle reverse. Latterly we use 70% N1, with more available for hot days and quicker turnarounds (to keep the brake cooling times down).

Was this a night flight and were the crew only using idle reverse due to local restrictions?

No, flight landed early afternoon, and I didn't notice any reverse at all.

On later model 767's with carbon brakes the
brake life is extended,strangely enough by
using minimum reverse and one intense brake
application.

This might explain your reverse free landing!

steel brakes=use reverse carbon brakes=use brakes.....in any event idle reverse is almost always selected..(I always do) as it cancels out any residual thrust produced by the engine at idle (no sense in braking against thrust) but idle reverse wouldn't be noticeble in the cabin unless you were sitting abeam the engine and could see the reversers travel aft..

WHEN RETURNING FROM MALTA WITH BRITTANIA AIRLINES ON 4/5TH SEPTEMBER(ON A 757-200).I ARRIVED BACK AT BIRMINGHAM INTERNATIONAL AT ABOUT 12.30IN THE MORNING.I TOO NOTICED THAT NO REVERSERS WERE USED ON LANDING,JUST BRAKES.I WAS SITTING NEXT TO THE WING TOO AND I NOTICED NOT MUCH NOISE.AFTER THE FLIGHT I WAS CONFUSED AS APPARANTLY SOMEONE NEAR THE FRONT OF THE PLANE HAD A HEART ATTTACK AND I THOUGHT THAT MAYBE THIS WAS WHY, BUT IT COULD HAVE ALSO BEEN DUE TO THE TIME OF DAY.I WOULD BE INTERESTED TO KNOW IF IT WAS BECAUSE THE TIME OF DAY OR NOT?!

Ah relax guys: If the runway is long, light A/C weight and some head wind, no need to use reverse thrust beyond idle.

Slick and short RWY, heavy A/C, some tailwind, aye, ya will feel and hear max reverse, max braking and cursing from the flight deck.

:eek:

Thrust reversers are wonderful devices for making noise, but they are not very efficient in stopping aircraft on dry runways when the brakes and spoilers are working.

For certification purposes they are not even considered in either the aborted takeoff calculations or the landing calculation.

So the next time that you are sitting on an aircraft where the crew decided only to use partial or no thrust reverse, dont panic, you will still safely stop within the planned landing distance.


Mutt.

Question ??? Due to the fact that they are not required for certification or performance, there is no data readily available to indicate the effectiveness of reverse thrust. My airline operates 757's with two powerplant types, RR and P&W. The Pratt's will lean you forward in the seat with reverse, while the RR just seem to make noise. Does anyone have access to any data to quantatively show this?

Shore Guy

The data should be available in the B757 Performance Engineers Manual. I referred to the PEM for the B747 before making my statement, for the RR powered aircraft the difference in stopping distance was between 100-200 feet depending on weight.

Mutt

Mutt,
Thanks. I'll see if our Boeing rep will let me borrow a copy.

Shore Guy