RJ reverse thrust... overdose!

[aa73]

The other day we were waiting to cross 4 at LGA and this USAir ERJ lands.... and he about blew our ears off with the amount of reverse! despite using maybe half of the runway. Now, I've noticed this while riding in the back of CRJs/ERJs, but it seems like you guys practically go to 2.00 EPR on reverse, even if your touchdown speed is in the low 120s... and then the reverse is only on for like, 4 seconds! Is that really necessary, or do you guys just like to hear your engines roar. Not criticism, just curious.

 

[FlyAuburn]

We don't reference EPRs. Don't even have the gauges. Just pull back all the way for a short time.

 

[CitationLover]

have you heard your brakes in the S80's at AA? it sounds to me like you use no reverse at all. squeak squeal all the while taxiing. no criticism, just curious.

besides these are NEW jets. what's EPR?

keep picking up open time with 3000 comrAAdes on the street.

 

[ohplease!]

cheaper than brakes....

 

[Flyeys]

Pop the buckets but dont spool up the engines in reverse unless you need to(i.e last leg of a 4-day and you need to catch a flight home) . It is really loud in the back and you typically dont need them on normal day.

 

[Birddog]

Depends, at LGA it seems like you can never get off the runway fast enough, but at other airports, I will always open the reversers, but how much I wind them up will depend on where the turn off I need/want is.

 

[Baronman]

I agree with your assesment....Even though I'm just a gear jockey I see a lot of captains bury the TRs, some even pop them out 5 seconds after touchdown only to spool them up all the way at about 70 kts with about 6,000' of RWY looking us in the face. Our procedures however state that idle reverse should be used unless previoulsy briefed.

Of course there are certain circumstances (ie wet rwy) or the crappy 145-ER brakes that heat up in summer when it makes sense to spool'em up.

Maybe they haven't sat in the back lately, it's really anoying sitting in rows 17-19.

 

[J32driver]

We don't use anything more than idle reverse at Air Willy unless the runway is under 6000 feet.

Yeah... I was wondering about the brakes on the -80s as well. Seems like when you're coming to a stop... the whole airplane shakes like a dog sh1tting razor blades!

 

[Strikefinder]

cheaper than brakes....

Tell that to the folks that manufacture the several million dollars worth of propulsion on your aircraft.

I've been told that full reverse is EXTREMELY hard on most jet engines. That doesn't mean you shouldn't use it if you need to, but a half empty aircraft landing in daylight on a dry 10,000 foot runway is not "needing to".

 

[pacsky72]

Eagle is only on runways 7000' or less or contaminated runways/caps discretion. Brakes work just fine, or idle reverse if ya want.

 

[flatspin7]

Xjt just put guidance about reversers in the CFM... They want us to pop the buckets and use brakes go into reverse only if you need it.

 

[Stealthh21]

Tell that to the folks that manufacture the several million dollars worth of propulsion on your aircraft.

I've been told that full reverse is EXTREMELY hard on most jet engines. That doesn't mean you shouldn't use it if you need to, but a half empty aircraft landing in daylight on a dry 10,000 foot runway is not "needing to".

How is it hard on the engines? I have been told the opposite. Of course it could depend on the engine. I heard that Jet Blue doesnt use mush reverse either. But using alot does get loud, and may be uncomfortable on the PAX in the back! I learned and have been told that its much better on the brakes, which in the long run will be replaced more, if you use thrust reverse. What I hate, and I have noticed this alot flying on the airlines is the TRs get deployed for like a second or two, then stowed, then the pilot slams on the breaks.

I agree, long runway nice day land long. In some cases. Try doing that a IAD and see how many go around fly by your head!!

fly safe!!

 

[CitationLover]

Tell that to the folks that manufacture the several million dollars worth of propulsion on your aircraft.

I've been told that full reverse is EXTREMELY hard on most jet engines. That doesn't mean you shouldn't use it if you need to, but a half empty aircraft landing in daylight on a dry 10,000 foot runway is not "needing to".

please educate me regarding this. we're just redirecting bypass air and spooling the engine up.

 

[73belair]

please educate me regarding this. we're just redirecting bypass air and spooling the engine up.

Agreed.

 

[Strikefinder]

How is it hard on the engines? I have been told the opposite. The effect of Using reverse thrust is negligible.

What I've been told by the Embraer representatives is that use of deep reverse is very hard on engine components. What I was told was that it was "about three times as bad as a full power takeoff" (we typically use a reduced, or "ALT" takeoff on the Embraer 145). The best reason I can think of is FOD ingestion, since if you've watched an aircraft going slowly with reverse thrust, you'll see all kinds of you know what flying into those fan blades that gets blown up by the thrust going in the "wrong" direction. Also the pressure on the reverser doors (depending on what type you have), etc. I'm certain there are more reasons.

Furthermore, the implementation of "minimum reverse thrust" procedures by the cash-strapped airlines implies to me that there is some consensus that use of reverse thrust is hard on the engines.

Don't get me wrong, aircraft brake pads are expensive and all. I don't downshift when I stop my car, though, since the clutch is more expensive to replace than a $15 brake pad.

I agree, long runway nice day land long. In some cases. Try doing that a IAD and see how many go around fly by your head!!

Of course there are places where more aggresive use of TRs is required (though even in IAD, I scarcely need to use the TRs past idle to get stopped quickly, and several of our aircraft have no TRs installed and I've never had anybody behind me in IAD go-around).

I would never imply that there isn't a reason to use TRs in certain circumstances. Simply because you landed on a 10,000 foot runway but you want to prove that you can get off in 3,000 feet is not a good reason to dig deep into reverse until you're passing ten knots while locking the brakes from touchdown. Even if it's not hard on the aircraft, it's hard on the people in the back who paid your salary that day, and that's enough reason for me.

 

[CF34-3B1]

Helps keep the BTMS numbers in the green on short turns.

 

[DoinTime]

The best reason I can think of is FOD ingestion, since if you've watched an aircraft going slowly with reverse thrust, you'll see all kinds of you know what flying into those fan blades that gets blown up by the thrust going in the "wrong" direction.

Having max reverse going at taxi speeds probably isn't a great idea but maintaining a good forward airspeed keeps the inlets clear of any redirected air. Judging by the number of powerbacks that NW utilizes it cant be to hard on the engines anyway.

 

[wahoo250]

they wouldnt make it if it wasnt supposed to be used.

 

[blzr]

You guys ever use the TR's during taxi? (just the bucket, no reverse). We used them for the last brake cycle and got 300 more landings out of our brakes than before. 'Course we only weigh 24k as opposed to 50-60k.

 

[wahoo250]

You guys ever use the TR's during taxi? (just the bucket, no reverse). We used them for the last brake cycle and got 300 more landings out of our brakes than before. 'Course we only weigh 24k as opposed to 50-60k.

used to fly for a corp company where the brakes were hardly ever used. same thing was observed heavier airplane also. they say you cant taxi on the 145's with tr's but how many times do you see g4's and so on do it with essentially the same engine mounted the same distance from the ground. i think its all bs. you can say dont pressurize an airplane because its stresses the airframe. where do you want to stop overanalyzing. The worst thing to do to a car engine is to start it in the morning, WTF?