No TR's

[ultrarunner]

Noticed lately on several RJ flghts, both the C and the E types, no TR's on landing, and obviously massive braking....

Are these TR's MEL'd and regularly pinned, or is this an SOP thing? I'm sure BFG likes it!

 

[jws717]

Noticed lately on several RJ flghts, both the C and the E types, no TR's on landing, and obviously massive braking....

Are these TR's MEL'd and regularly pinned, or is this an SOP thing? I'm sure BFG likes it!

Idle reverse, saves engine ware. SOP for long runways and nice weather at a few regionals.

 

[ultrarunner]

Gotcha....

 

[BoilerUP]

Air Wisconsin is BIG on minimal reverse...saying brakes are cheaper than engines.

The on-pylon statistics for worldwide CF34 airline operators would tend to validate such a thought process...but yeah, I'd love to be their Goodrich salesman!

 

[Mike man]

Calculations to assess the actual benefits of not using reverse
thrust on landing run were done. The worst case, in which full
reverse was used during 15 seconds, causing a 117°C ITT
difference between using and not using reverse, resulted in a
18% life degradation. Consequently, not using reverse can
save up to 18% of engine life.

Right from Embraer, 135/145 Family.

 

[LewisU_Pilot]

No need for TRers on long runways the brakes work just fine. Eagle uses idle for anything under 7000 feet and even then I find myself not needing them. I think it is cheaper to do maintenance on the brakes then the buckets.

 

[ultrarunner]

Right from Embraer, 135/145 Family.

[/QUOTE]Calculations to assess the actual benefits of not using reverse
thrust on landing run were done. The worst case, in which full
reverse was used during 15 seconds, causing a 117°C ITT
difference between using and not using reverse, resulted in a
18% life degradation. Consequently, not using reverse can
save up to 18% of engine life.[/QUOTE]

So on strictly a cost-saving basis, you could argue to take the things right off the plane....

...then you can calculate the cost savings of not maintaining the TR's.

...plus the fuel savings related to not carrying around the weight of the TR's and all their components...

That, I would think would really add up!

 

[Flyer1015]

Since when do I care about mx costs of TRs. Until I get to a quality airline that actually pretends to at least care about their employees, I will not care about mx costs. use TRs to my hearts content. Even on a long runway. Just don't break limitations, idle reverse by 60 knots for us.

 

[LewisU_Pilot]

Since when do I care about mx costs of TRs. Until I get to a quality airline that actually pretends to at least care about their employees, I will not care about mx costs. use TRs to my hearts content. Even on a long runway. Just don't break limitations, idle reverse by 60 knots for us.

Boy that's a great attitude. Who do you work for Mesa?

 

[SpauldingSmails]

We are also told to use min reverse whenever prudent. Our Company also cites carbon brakes as a factor as they are more efficient when hot and supposedly wear at slower rate when at operating temperature compared to cold.

With that said, I still use the reversers quite a bit in the winter months.