Brakes work...

[BoilerUP]

Most airplane manufacturers do not want you to use heavy breaking. We are only talking about carbon brakes here.

Mother of God...I'm no grammar nazi with my KY public school education but for fark's sake, you profess to be a professional pilot:

break = snap. malfunction. not working properly. fail.

brake = stop.

 

[CX880]

break = snap. malfunction. not working properly. fail.
.

It could also mean to stop what you're doing and go out for a time out.

 

[PeanuckleCRJ]

Mother of God...I'm no grammar nazi with my KY public school education but for fark's sake, you profess to be a professional pilot:

break = snap. malfunction. not working properly. fail.

brake = stop.

Are you really that gullible?

 

[BoilerUP]

Are you really that gullible?

No; I knew it was flame.

I had to get my rant out anyway. :nuts:

 

[Abernathy]

I was coming in on a DL 767-4 the other day into ATL. There was no long out flare or anything, and from the look of it, we were easily in the touchdown zone. For whatever reason the brakes were stomped on and we turned off at a high speed. Being 5:30AM-ish, it wasn't a busy time at the airport. In the process of the heavy braking, a galley cart and some other stuff came loose and flew forward and you could here the shattering of stuff breaking. Loud. Startling to some pax. And it wasn't smooth braking. It was rough and jerky.

So I ask, "what's with all the heavy braking at mainline carriers?"

Now, I'm sure there was a reason. Just like there are probably reasons why you experience "so much" heavy braking on your regional flights. Must be all the "unprofessionalism" and the lack of hats at the regional carriers.

 

[CX880]

I was coming in on a DL 767-4 the other day into ATL. There was no long out flare or anything, and from the look of it, we were easily in the touchdown zone. For whatever reason the brakes were stomped on and we turned off at a high speed. Being 5:30AM-ish, it wasn't a busy time at the airport. In the process of the heavy braking, a galley cart and some other stuff came loose and flew forward and you could here the shattering of stuff breaking. Loud. Startling to some pax. And it wasn't smooth braking. It was rough and jerky.

So I ask, "what's with all the heavy braking at mainline carriers?"

Now, I'm sure there was a reason. Just like there are probably reasons why you experience "so much" heavy braking on your regional flights. Must be all the "unprofessionalism" and the lack of hats at the regional carriers.

It's probably because it was a redeye flight. the pilots probably just woke up when the autoland kicked off. Seriously though redeye landings tend to be hit or miss, that's my 2 cents.

 

[Tristar]

Probably military pilots, they never learned to give a crap about passengers, just hitting the third wire at all costs. Corporate pilots would NEVER make that mistake.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Okay, sorry - I just couldn't resist throwing the grenade in!

I'm kidding, I'm kidding!

 

[PeanuckleCRJ]

I was coming in on a DL 767-4 the other day into ATL. There was no long out flare or anything, and from the look of it, we were easily in the touchdown zone. For whatever reason the brakes were stomped on and we turned off at a high speed. Being 5:30AM-ish, it wasn't a busy time at the airport. In the process of the heavy braking, a galley cart and some other stuff came loose and flew forward and you could here the shattering of stuff breaking. Loud. Startling to some pax. And it wasn't smooth braking. It was rough and jerky.

So I ask, "what's with all the heavy braking at mainline carriers?"

Now, I'm sure there was a reason. Just like there are probably reasons why you experience "so much" heavy braking on your regional flights. Must be all the "unprofessionalism" and the lack of hats at the regional carriers.

During IOE, a demo of the "MAX" setting on the autobrakes is required at least once.

It can be quite abrupt...


Either that or Baby Huey wanted to make the first highspeed...

 

[LJ45]

I'm really surprised that this thread has gotten to page 4 and nobody has mentioned that that the carbon brakes on the E-145 are designed to be applied firmly. Unless things have changed since I flew it, one of our bulletins detailed how the carbon brakes, as opposed to conventional ones, wear less the HARDER you apply them. It seemed crazy to me and it certainly went against passenger comfort but we were advised not to use gentle, consistent braking due to it causing greater brake wear. A firm continous application resulted in less brake wear and more effective braking.

Anyone?

Bing !!

You are correct more wear occurs with Carbon brakes on the taxi out than landing. It is the cycles, or number of applications, that cause most of the wear with Carbon. There is a good video, if you can find it, made by a brake maker explaning how Carbon brakes wear.

 

[Tristar]

Bing !!

You are correct more wear occurs with Carbon brakes on the taxi out than landing. It is the cycles, or number of applications, that cause most of the wear with Carbon. There is a good video, if you can find it, made by a brake maker explaning how Carbon brakes wear.

To the best of my (admittedly very limited) knowledge, it doesn't say that one application has to be max effort. Sorry, but I see an appalling lack of judgment and airmanship - RJ or B-747 on an 10K+ foot runway you usually don't need to demonstrate max effort on the brakes...