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.

 

[Data]

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

If I worked at Pinnacle, I'd have that attitude too.

 

[snap145]

at Pinchanickle...we use full bore reversers on every landing...crack your jokes, but if you arent at full reverse and off of 30R in Minny in no time...your gonna have a DC-9 up your APU....

 

[Brasilia Pup]

I just like the noise the TR's make.

 

[nerjdriver]

at Pinchanickle...we use full bore reversers on every landing...crack your jokes, but if you arent at full reverse and off of 30R in Minny in no time...your gonna have a DC-9 up your APU....

Wow that sounds really intense. I bet nobody at the bar has ever heard that story.

 

[flyf15]

at Pinchanickle...we use full bore reversers on every landing...crack your jokes, but if you arent at full reverse and off of 30R in Minny in no time...your gonna have a DC-9 up your APU....

In a CRJ-200? I assume that DC-9 is landing on 22?

 

[aa73]

An Eagle pilot once told me they don't use TRs on the EMB because of some kind of elevator structural limitation.

 

[great cornholio]

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!

Most of our 145s don't have the TRs. Its annoying. Planes are super nose heavy so pretty much every leg we have to move pax from the front to the back...they really love doing that. They added a few hundred lbs of ballast to the cargo bin to help offset this, but it doesn't do too much help really. Plus its not a very good feeling when you start sliding and have no other way to try to stop. You're just along for the ride and have to hope that you get some traction before you run off the end. I've come within 500 ft of going off the end due to hydroplanning in Canada...its AMAZING how much those runway grooves help with traction.

 

[great cornholio]

An Eagle pilot once told me they don't use TRs on the EMB because of some kind of elevator structural limitation.

I've never heard of that. Only elevator limit I've heard of is to start trimming before reaching 160kts to keep the horiz stab trim motors from "stalling" and not being able to trim the plane.

Both my company and EMB stress idle reverse due to
1. Brake wear is better the hotter the brakes are.
2. Fuel savings.

 

[snap145]

Wow that sounds really intense. I bet nobody at the bar has ever heard that story.

no i dont sit at the bar and tell that story...i have a life...thanks though...i was simply stating that they pack us in like sardines in MSP...and if you dont fly in there on a regular basis....which u probably dont if you fly an E145...u wouldnt have the first idea what you are talking about...which brings me back to my original point...nice verbal diahrea though junior....go back to vero beach

 

[SBD]

Save the company money? Ha, ha, ha. You guys are real funny. TR to the fullest. I swear some of you guys think you own these airplanes.

 

[DrewBlows]

no i dont sit at the bar and tell that story...i have a life...thanks though...i was simply stating that they pack us in like sardines in MSP...and if you dont fly in there on a regular basis....which u probably dont if you fly an E145...u wouldnt have the first idea what you are talking about...which brings me back to my original point...nice verbal diahrea though junior....go back to vero beach

I don't know a gentle way to put it so I'll just be direct.

I've never experienced trouble at MSP and have never heard of MSP as a challenging airport from an ATC perspective (weather is a different story). The CRJ-200 is faster on approach than every airplane I've flown there. Perhaps you may want to explore your technique. When the controller says "maintain 170 knots until the marker" are you maintaining that speed all the way to the marker? If you are, maybe you are slowing more quickly than other aircraft? If you are using more than the minimum flap setting to maintain 170 knots this may be the case.

 

[jet pipe ovht]

I don't disagree with no thrust reverser, but If you go off the runway for any reason and the thrust reverser's are not deployed, I hope you have a good lawyer. I think that is why most companies wont touch the subject of not deploying the thrust reverser's.

 

[PeanuckleCRJ]

at Pinchanickle...we use full bore reversers on every landing...crack your jokes, but if you arent at full reverse and off of 30R in Minny in no time...your gonna have a DC-9 up your APU....

1. The reversers take forever to come out, if you stick it on the runway you will be below 80 by the time the reversers spool anyway.

2. Did you fly a different CRJ2 than I did? Last I checked, the butthole on the CRJ was listing lazily to the right....

 

[svcta]

Temperature cycles on turbine blades are a big point of wear. That is to say, the less you hear them up and cool them down the longer they last. The point was made above: by the time the TRs on a CF-34 unlock and deploy your at such a speed where the use of increased reverse thrust (beyond idle) is so ineffective it's not worth the wear. I also remember from back when I was flying CRJs that our company had figured that each TR deployment cost $17. That adds up. Also, carbon brakes (I can't remember for sure if the CRJ had them but I think it did, and I don't know about the EMBs) need to get hot if they're used. If you use them, USE them; they're work better and last longer. All better for you, the pilot.

Performance is figured without TRs involved and the airplane has brakes that will meet all the published #s, and temperature cycles on an engine are worse than anything. Throw out the trypical airline "US vs THE COMPANY" crap and take care of an engine that will be less likely to fail on you in the future. Again: better for the pilot. Screw the company, but don't f*ck the next crew.

 

[LazyLightnin']

The problem is that there are so many aholes who force the airplane down at Vref+10. If these guys would fly the thing like an airplane, TRs would hardly have to be used.

 

[Flyer1015]

Performance is figured without TRs involved and the airplane has brakes that will meet all the published #s, and temperature cycles on an engine are worse than anything. Throw out the trypical airline "US vs THE COMPANY" crap and take care of an engine that will be less likely to fail on you in the future. Again: better for the pilot. Screw the company, but don't f*ck the next crew.

BS. Using TRs will not screw the next crew. And our contaminated landings are predicated on MAX TRs until 60 knots (and then idle below). If you don't use max TRs, those landing performance numbers are out the window for contaminated runways.

Look how many carriers have run CRJs off runways. Pinnacle at TVC, Skywest at CWA, at some point, it just ain't worth it. If you deploy them and then snap them up full reverse, they will kick in quick and are still very useful.

 

[Flyer1015]

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

Worse - Pinnacle. And if you were here, you would have the same attitude.

 

[svcta]

BS. Using TRs will not screw the next crew. And our contaminated landings are predicated on MAX TRs until 60 knots (and then idle below). If you don't use max TRs, those landing performance numbers are out the window for contaminated runways.

Look how many carriers have run CRJs off runways. Pinnacle at TVC, Skywest at CWA, at some point, it just ain't worth it. If you deploy them and then snap them up full reverse, they will kick in quick and are still very useful.

In the case of contamination you're absolutely correct, so long as you don't lose control due to the TRs.

The point is that doing hundreds of cycles a month the numbers has proved that you can shorten the life an engine with extra temperature cycles. And in the case of the CRJ, as I recall, the airplane slowed pretty quickly on the ground so by the time the reversers unlocked and actually would begin to spool you were already slowing the such speeds where they become less and less effective, no matter how hard you use them. They are the most effective at high speeds, so why blow the snot out of them slowing through 90 or even 100 knots. My experience showed (CRJ) that deployed at idle at near touchdown speeds the TRs rapidly slowed the airplane along with modest braking down to speeds where the brakes could be used with great authority and control and I remember there being very little need to run the piss out of the TRs. And if you take better care of the engine, much like a rented trainer, you're leaving it that much more likely to continue working for the next guys. That seems pretty simple.

That having been said, if you have an operational need for use of max reverse, then have at it. But on a 12000' runway what's the point?

The statistics from the manufacturers and operators are clear.

 

[PeanuckleCRJ]

In the case of contamination you're absolutely correct, so long as you don't lose control due to the TRs.

The point is that doing hundreds of cycles a month the numbers has proved that you can shorten the life an engine with extra temperature cycles. And in the case of the CRJ, as I recall, the airplane slowed pretty quickly on the ground so by the time the reversers unlocked and actually would begin to spool you were already slowing the such speeds where they become less and less effective, no matter how hard you use them. They are the most effective at high speeds, so why blow the snot out of them slowing through 90 or even 100 knots. My experience showed (CRJ) that deployed at idle at near touchdown speeds the TRs rapidly slowed the airplane along with modest braking down to speeds where the brakes could be used with great authority and control and I remember there being very little need to run the piss out of the TRs. And if you take better care of the engine, much like a rented trainer, you're leaving it that much more likely to continue working for the next guys. That seems pretty simple.

That having been said, if you have an operational need for use of max reverse, then have at it. But on a 12000' runway what's the point?

The statistics from the manufacturers and operators are clear.

Excellent post!

Don't beat up the airplane just because you hate your employer.