Reverse vs brakes

Reverse is noisey and uncomfortable for the meat bags in the back. I use it sparingly. Never really considered the cost now that I think about it.
 
At least on the (carbon-brake equipped ones that I've flown) 140/145 and the 170/175, reverse thrust is only really used (above idle or at all) if the runway is wet or contaminated. Autobrakes low and idle reverse doesn't do much on this jet. Above those settings, though, the effect is...well, it's there.

Seggy said:
All this talk is silly.

If you depart the paved surface of the runway if you don't use brakes but use reverse you will be asked why didn't you use brakes as well as your reverse. If you don't use reverse but use brakes you will be asked why didn't you use reverse with your brakes.
Click to expand...
Yeeeeeeeeep. I know the performance data SAYS that I *can* land Flaps 5 and not use TRs at all in Santa Ana, but that doesn't mean I do it; it seems much more prudent to land FULL and use reverse until a safe stop is assured. Double ditto for Burbank. I don't want to have to explain why I didn't use all available resources to stop given the relatively short length of these runways, performance data notwithstanding.

If you THINK you need to use thrust reversers, put them out there, and put them out there early, and spool them up early. Engines can take just this side of forever to go from ground idle to a usable level of reverse, not to mention the possible delays in just getting the sleeves or buckets in the reverse position.
 
We use TRs on every landing but only in max if we really need it. Brakes get used but as they're 80K each to replace, we take it easy on them. We rarely take the jet into somewhere requiring maximum braking.
 
FlySooner9 said:
I find on the jet I fly even popping the buckets provides pretty substantial drag. It's rare that we use full reverse though, unless the obvious situations.
Click to expand...

I miss that plane, flew like a truck but amazing takeoff and landing performance. I don't think I ever used more than idle. By the time you get the speed brakes out, nose down, and feet on the brakes, you're already slowing through 65kts.
 
TrustMeI'maPilot said:
I miss that plane, flew like a truck but amazing takeoff and landing performance. I don't think I ever used more than idle. By the time you get the speed brakes out, nose down, and feet on the brakes, you're already slowing through 65kts.
Click to expand...
Yeah, same sort of thing here, really. Ground spoiler deployment is automatic, and if you have autobrakes, by the time you get the reversers out you're in that "meh" range of speed where you can certainly get her stopped quickly. Assuming you're not skating on ice...
 
My outfit had a budget war between flight ops and engineering.

Flight ops was promoting idle reverse wherever possible and loading up the (steel) brakes to the max. This saved some money from the flight ops budget as we were not burning fuel using reverse thrust. The chief pilot got a big bonus.

Then engineering noted they were having lots more unexpected brake changes and the odd brake failure costing lots of money.

After pistols at dawn between the chief pilot and head of engineering, we are now back to using reverse wherever possible. Go figure...
 
We do idle reverse unless the runway is contaminated or you have a concern about brake temps. Somewhere high and hot could call for using the reverse in that instance. That said, 99% of the time I am in Idle reverse. On my commute home however, it seems 737 drivers aren't happy until I'm eating the seat back in front of me upon landing with full reverse and heavy braking. Is it SOP on that thing?

Also, for the guys that don't select reverse until right before the high speed, that accomplishes nothing but wear and tear on the engines at that point. If you are going to use it, use it early after touchdown.
 
The guys who go heavy on the reverse, IMO it's either 1. That they like the sound, 2. it's how they flew something 20 yrs ago or 3. don't really grasp performance / systems. Just speaking for my current fleet....
 
Cptnchia said:
Don't do a whole lotta flying outside the U.S., do you? Especially Europe. Brakes and idle reverse, unless you need TRs to keep from departing the runway. Otherwise, it's a noise violation if you use them and didn't need to.

Works good, lasts a long time.
Click to expand...

Actually yes I've done a lot of flying outside the U.S. Have you?

I never said full reverse, did I?
 
rjmore said:
On my commute home however, it seems 737 drivers aren't happy until I'm eating the seat back in front of me upon landing with full reverse and heavy braking. Is it SOP on that thing?
Click to expand...

You can thank Southwest for that.
 
Even on the Dash I use a bit of brakes on the roll out. You don't want to find out that they aren't working when you do need them. Also, sometimes disc isn't nearly as effective on some planes and reverse is too much unless you REALLY need to stop. A blend of brakes and reverse or disc seems to work the best for me. Depends on how much performance I feel I need to use.
 
Nark said:
So there I was deep in thought.

I can remember a guy telling me gas is cheap and brake pads are expensive.

However after aircraft ownership, and a few annuals later, brake pads aren't expensive. I got to thinking. For the amount of short field landings that I do on my bird, I use a lot of brakes, however I've only replaced the pads once.

Translating this to the transport jets and turbo props I've flown, how much gas am I burning from touchdown, using max reverse until 70 knots?
Multiply that across hundreds if not thousands of landings when brakes need to be replaced.

It is really cheaper over all?
@Roger Roger how often did you replace brake pads when we flew together?
Click to expand...

There's always the non-monetary issue to consider.

Regardless of the expense...

Use your brakes and you wear out your brakes, which are easily replaced and not particularly critical to the safe outcome of any given flight.

Use your TRs and you risk FOD ingestion with corresponding, and sometimes unnoticed, damage. You also put a much heavier tax on the mechanicals surrounding the engine. If that tax leads to failure in flight you have a pretty big problem.

So regardless of the monetary cost, there's the question of "what would I rather have fail on my next flight?" question to be asked.

Monetarily, it's a really interesting question, though.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Murdoughnut said:
Uphill runways. Between that and my idea for a fourth wheel on the tail cone of a 737-STRETCH, I'm an a roll today.
Click to expand...

How about KCM and discounts (like every other airport in the country gives) for air crew members at the concessions where you work?

#idontbuyanythingattpa
 
Seggy said:
Actually yes I've done a lot of flying outside the U.S. Have you?

I never said full reverse, did I?
Click to expand...
Let me rephrase. Haven't done a whole lotta flying to Europe, Asia, South America or Africa? Canada, Mexico and the Caribbean is what SWA calls "near international." Doesn't really count. Especially Canada.

And seriously, you really want to do the whole transoceanic measuring contest? Oh, @Derg wanna set this fool straight?
 
There seem to be a lot of people assuming someone is dumb because they do one or the other. But I think it's important to point out that many companies have an SOP requiring one or the other. One shop I worked at required full reverse every landing no matter what. Another shop required idle reverse every landing unless there was concern that you would need more. And another shop said if breaking action was less than good and runway less than 7000ft, you had to use MAX autobrakes which is pretty darn abrupt in a 737. So for a lot of pilots flying for a lot of places, we are doing whatever we are asked to, whether or not everyone agrees with it. And if you fly a business jet with no SOP I'm silently judging your every operational choice.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top