That shouldn't happen - thrust reversers should only deploy when there is Weight on Wheels (ie; when the plane is on the runway). Mechanisms have been developed in recent years to prevent accidental deployment while in the air following a crash.

The engines should be able to apply max reverse thrust within a few seconds of touch down.

 

Is this not like ramming the car in reverse at 70 on the M1?
Not a better way to stop planes?

 

The engines don't actually go into reverse, it's just that the thrust is deflected up or forwards. Saves the brakes from cooking.

 

The runway number/heading is the compass orientation. Add a nought - runway 27 is 270 degrees etc. For the runway used in the opposite direction you subtract 180 degrees (or 18, dropping the zero) so the opposite heading of runway 27 will be 09, etc. They are always sited, where possible, along the axis of the prevailing wind so there is most lift and least chance of taking off and landing in a cross wind. As the prevailing wind in the South East is a South Westerly most runways in the SE are around the 230 to 270 heading. My local airport Stansted's runways are 23/05 for instance.

I have plenty of flying scare stories but will save them for another time!

 

Ta, /me goes away looking stupid

 

The old Trident (airliner, not mass urban redevelopment system) was the only aircraft known that was landed by the co-pilot rather than the pilot. His job was to engage reverse thrust at the right time and force the aeroplane to land because the wing was so efficient that at low levels ground effect made it float all the way down the runway... Hence applying reverse thrust at about 10' while the steely eyed pilot tried to keep it pointing straight!

Before you ask, DBW, ground effect is the term for the cushion of high pressure air that builds up underneath an aircraft's lift surfaces when close to the ground. It has the effect of generating rather a lot more lift than the aircraft gets when higher up.



SB

 

So who are the pilots, and who are just plane geeks ?

Dont know any pilots but have plenty of questions,

Is being a commercial pilot good money,

Is it true that American domestic pilots live in poverty ?

is there much difference in pay between a budget airline and the big ones (if any)

How much actual input in there nowadays, kick the tyres, give it some stick, V1, Rotate, autopilot, land it in Tenerife, **** stewardess (or steward), repeat in the other direction, occasional medical and play flight simulator whilst somebody makes life difficult for a bit.

Do you have to practice that voice for the pre flight announcements or do you all sound like that.

Whats the best plane to fly

Do you give it full stick for take off,

Do you ever get the nod from the stewardess that you have some rowdies on board and throw it about to scare them a bit.

Can we have some good tales please

Do you ever think, oh f*ck, whats that noise, where are we and have I got time for a crap before I have to land it ?

J4CKO, frustrated non pilot and plane geek

 

In answer to your question I've got the right bits of paper now but I've no plans to convert my fATPL mainly because of the T&Cs being crap these days and the money not as good as it once was.

If you have seniority, then its possible to earn six figure salaries but this after having made Captain although generally speaking full service airlines have more to offer than budget.

As for ******** hosties I'd think BA or Virgin would be better than Easyjet if the bunney boilers I've seen are anything to go by but that's only if you have time between sectors.

Flying isn't as much fun as you would think - at least on commercial jets as its mostly FMC driven although landing can be fun if my experience on sims is anything to go by. The industry is full of IT geeks these days so that is a deterrent alongside the expense of it which is prohibitive unless you're good/lucky enough to get on a BA cadet scheme - rare as rocking horse **** these days, unfortunately.

 

'The industry is full of IT geeks these days '

I work in IT, so thats also full of IT geeks.

 

Well I stopped flying full time when Her Majesty stopped paying me. Never really fancied civilian stuff - to many rules for one thing and as a helicopter pilot the choices are fairly limited. Though the money for some of the jobs I looked at when I first came out was spectacular. £60,000 a quarter, tax free for one position. Though the job was available because the previous incumbent was still to be recovered from (presumably) the bottom of The Gulf...

NorthWest Airlines at one point forced their pilots to sign Ts and Cs that agreed they wouldn't sign on for welfare payments even though they were entitled to them. Apparently it was deemed as bad for the company image.

I prefer being a consultant. These days I don't fly very often, though over the last few years I've flown some of the best combat choppers in existence on either side of the Iron Curtain, got paid reasonably well for doing it and got called "Sir" by people who really should have known better

Have I had a "What's that noise?" moment? Oh yes. Including one where "that noise" was the threat warning. Russian chopper, hadn't heard it before, didn't immediately realise I was not squawking what I should have been and got lit up by an American SAM installation at a time when they had *very* itchy fingers.

I fixed the squawk pretty damn' sharpish, I can tell you...

SB

 

Its amazing that somebody with such responsibility would have to worry about welfare payments as well.

What are you a consultant in ?

 

Aviation and IT

Plus running a motorbike magazine.

Grow up? Me?

Umm, no...

SB

 

Neither, but work for a well known aero engine maker

Worked on the development of the control system for the Trent 500 for the A340-500 & -600, and have also been involved in other civil projects....however, currently working on Harrier engines

 

What bike magazine is it if you dont mind me asking, you know I am a biker anyway

 

Don't mind you asking at all, mate!

It's http://www.motorbikestoday.com - the largest non Emap online bike magazine in Europe

SB

 

You certainly like your gixer 750's, I am test riding one in the spring. Thinking about upgrading my R6 as getting bored with it now, plus to be honest on bumpy roads it gets a bit unsettled when on full tilt giving it some. Love the suzuki gearboxes, nothing comes close!

 

There are some military aircraft, don't ask me which, which are designed to be able to use the thrust reversers in the air for combat. The Harrier does not really count in that respect though.

The first time I landed a Tornado and selected reverse thrust I thought someone had applied the brakes, and that was only with the engines at idle! The VC10 reverse thrust worked well too but not as startlingly well as the Tornado. It is sometimes handy to be able to taxi in reverse but you have to remember not to apply the brakes too hard or it can end up sitting on its tail!

Les

 

Sortof pilot (in training, recreational, not commercial).

If the cockpit workload in terms of nav, etc that I have to look forward to is anything to go by, flying commercially isn't much about sitting on your thumbs. However, actually flying the plane is a very small part of it.

No, they don't give it full stick on takeoff - it depends a lot on load and suchlike, running the engines to full stick reduces the time between servicing. Also, I've noticed coming into heathrow, they use little reverse thrust, and major on the brakes (noise reduction?) whereas at other places, they use the reverse thrust a lot more, and go easy on the brakes.

As for the 10 foot drop - I don't know. That was about 10 years ago, and it definately started to throttle up/slow, and landed with a bang.

 

Couple of points to make.

Was in a meeting today with a couple of A340 pilots and indeed, they do not use full power for take-off. They use somrthing called D rate, which I'm not 100% clear on yet ( Leslie?) , which is a reduction from full power for take-off based on weight/runway length and temperature. This discussion cam about because an ATC guy was recalling the old 747-100's leaving Heathrow and not being airborne until the last few yards of runway, due to lack of power! Now its a similar story, due to D rate power settings. The difference is D rate save fuel and engine life. For this particular airline, +4.5million miles on 13 aircraft so far!

As for lack of reduced thrust at LHR, yep, noise abatement procedure, but thats always left for he pilot to make the call, as safety overides everything. So on wet days, you'll get more reduce thrust than dry ones.

The other one was of an old lady who, many years ago, hung a right at the Eastchurch crossing and was poodling down 27R, thinking she was on the M4!

 

I met a guy who builds software to calculate the correct thrust to use given the fuel load, number of passengers on board, runway length etc. He reckoned his software saves the airlines thousands.

 

Back on "interesting approaches" , I have 1 word. Gibraltar.

 

All things being equal... My better ?? half tells me that it's safer to sit in the rear of the plane due to the fact that not many planes reverse into mountains.
Yve

 

I'll see your interesting word and raise you two.

Kai Tak.

I suspect Leslie will come along and trump us both, though. Gan, I believe, is the word he will use...

SB

Edited to add that the approach to Gan was fairly straightforward. You just didn't want to overshoot. Or undershoot. Or miss a taxiway...

 

I think they were probably talking about de-rated take off power.

Comercial aircraft will take off with maximum weight, but minimum thrust for the conditions. If the all-up weight is less than the maximum allowed, then the aircraft can take off using less power - which means less fuel, and less 'wear' on the engines (ie; their usable life is extended).

For example, the Trent 500 engine is certified to 60klb thrust, but is sold at 53 and 56klb thrust ratings. Airlines are unlikely to take up the full 60klb thrust rating becuase it uses up engine life at an unacceptable rate (most of the damge done to the engine is heat in the turbines at take-off power).

In the real world, the engines will be rarely run at their rated power on take off for the reasons given above - eg a 53klb rated engine would run at 50klb.

 

Cheers Dave!

 

"I'm going to put on the air-brakes; he'll fly right by..."

 

No I won't trump anyone Never landed at Gan anyway.

Yes airliners do use only as much power as they calculate is necessary for a safe takeoff to reduce operatiing costs as long as it corresponds with the required flightpath after takeoff in order to miss any obstacles after the runway.

When it comes to exciting approaches, I agree with Gibraltar with the lip at the beginning of the runway and the uphill slope to the middle of the runway which made you stand on the brakes until you realised that there was still stacks of runway left to stop in Kai Tak was oustanding, great excuse for behaving like a hooligan in the final part of the approach and the VC10 handled so well it was one of the few airliners that could do the inner visual circuit to land there on the Southerly runway too.

Ascension Island was a bit unpleasant with certain crosswinds with a very turbulent final part of the approach where the runway threshold was raised above the surrounding land as well. When you did your first landing there it was usually at night which was a good thing since you did not realise just how close the mountain was to the right hand side of the runway. Bit of a shock when you did a right hand turn to backtrack with the taxi lights on. No one ever told you about it beforehand of course-rotten lot!

Les

 

Hmm. Forgot about Ascension. My only visit there was by sea en-route elsewhere...

SB

 

Its not as bad as people make out. The more disorientating thing is that the cloud cover is often very low, so you'll be descending for what seems like ages then as soon as you break cloud cover you get a nice view of the Excel Arena (which means you're right on top of the runway) and of course the ground. Normally you get more warning!