On landing and holding short

[Ramapriya]

A commercial pilot I was chatting up recently told me that, in most
European countries, the use of forward thrust is illegal.

Makes me wonder what would happen if a 747 was instructed to land and
hold short but the craft can't be brought to a halt (because of, say,
an error in landing beyond the right spot or due to some skidding on an
icy surface) before an intersecting runway, with another 747 on its
takeoff roll there?

Does anyone know whether the forward thrust ban isn't too strictly
applied when safety is on the line?

Cheers,

Ramapriya

[Stefan]

Ramapriya wrote:

> A commercial pilot I was chatting up recently told me that, in most
> European countries, the use of forward thrust is illegal.

Bull****. Fact ist, on many European airports, reverse thrust is
forbidden for noise abatement reasons. Of course, those airports provide
runways long enough so you don't need that reverse thrust.

> Does anyone know whether the forward thrust ban isn't too strictly
> applied when safety is on the line?

As soon as there is a safety concern, the pilot is allowed to do
anything he needs.

Stefan

[Ben Hallert]

I'm a student pilot, so take this with the proper skepticism.

I'd expect the following:
1. It's probably airport or city specific, not national law.
2. I would guess it's most likely a noise abatement procedure.
3. As with noise abatement in the US, aircraft and passenger safety
would probably be a legit reason to deviate. I guess it would come
down to the airport administrator as to whether or not they'd want to
make a fuss.
Just my $.02, any thoughts from someone who actually KNOWS? :D

[Bob Gardner]

I suspect that you misunderstood or misinterpreted what you were told. How
do these European carriers taxi without thrust?

Bob Gardner

"Ramapriya" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>A commercial pilot I was chatting up recently told me that, in most
> European countries, the use of forward thrust is illegal.
>
> Makes me wonder what would happen if a 747 was instructed to land and
> hold short but the craft can't be brought to a halt (because of, say,
> an error in landing beyond the right spot or due to some skidding on an
> icy surface) before an intersecting runway, with another 747 on its
> takeoff roll there?
>
> Does anyone know whether the forward thrust ban isn't too strictly
> applied when safety is on the line?
>
> Cheers,
>
> Ramapriya
>
>

[Ramapriya]

Bob Gardner wrote:
> I suspect that you misunderstood or misinterpreted what you were
told. How
> do these European carriers taxi without thrust?
>
> Bob Gardner

Seeing your and Stefan's posts, I think I should've said reverse thrust
instead of forward thrust :)

Ramapriya

[Bob Gardner]

That kind of makes sense. I am not a world traveler, but I have flown
into/out of Europe on SAS, Lufthansa, and British Airways, and as far as my
imperfect memory goes they used their reversers on landing. Dumb not to do
so.

Bob Gardner

"Ramapriya" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> Bob Gardner wrote:
>> I suspect that you misunderstood or misinterpreted what you were
> told. How
>> do these European carriers taxi without thrust?
>>
>> Bob Gardner
>
> Seeing your and Stefan's posts, I think I should've said reverse thrust
> instead of forward thrust :)
>
> Ramapriya
>

[Peter Clark]

On Mon, 27 Dec 2004 09:15:48 -0800, "Bob Gardner" >
wrote:

>That kind of makes sense. I am not a world traveler, but I have flown
>into/out of Europe on SAS, Lufthansa, and British Airways, and as far as my
>imperfect memory goes they used their reversers on landing. Dumb not to do
>so.

I think it's universal for jetliners to use reversers on landing
regardless of where you're landing, but the requested noise abatement
practice is to leave them in idle reverse (only the cowling ducts are
opened, changes the idle thrust airflow to the sides/forward instead
of out the back) instead of 'full' reverse (for lack of a better term)
where they un-stow the reversers, and spool the engines back up to
create additional airflow (and obviously noise).

[Scott D.]

On 26 Dec 2004 10:28:10 -0800, "Ramapriya" > wrote:

>A commercial pilot I was chatting up recently told me that, in most
>European countries, the use of forward thrust is illegal.
>
>Makes me wonder what would happen if a 747 was instructed to land and
>hold short but the craft can't be brought to a halt (because of, say,
>an error in landing beyond the right spot or due to some skidding on an
>icy surface) before an intersecting runway, with another 747 on its
>takeoff roll there?
>
>Does anyone know whether the forward thrust ban isn't too strictly
>applied when safety is on the line?
>
>Cheers,
>
>Ramapriya


If he is given a LAHSO command and the pilot can not do it without the
use of the reverse thrust, then all he has to do is say "CAN NOT
COMPLY with LAHSO", If such a reg does exists that prevents him from
using reverse thrust.

Scott D.