NTSB: Brakes No Longer Allowed During Landings...

[Lakeview Bill]

Just kidding, but...

I just heard that the NTSB has recommended that pilots no longer be allowed
to include thrust reversers when they calculate landing distances, following
the Midway accident.

Fortunately, the FAA usually manages to override this sort of bureaucratic
BS...

[Rob]

Lakeview Bill wrote:
> Just kidding, but...
>
> I just heard that the NTSB has recommended that pilots no longer be allowed
> to include thrust reversers when they calculate landing distances, following
> the Midway accident.
>
> Fortunately, the FAA usually manages to override this sort of bureaucratic
> BS...

This is the part of the article at cnn.com that got my attention:

"The pilots had used a laptop computer to calculate how far the plane
needed to go to land, the NTSB said. When the runway's condition was
entered as "wet-poor," the computer calculated they would be able to
stop with 30 feet to spare."

-R

[Bob Gardner]

You have misread something. This is taken from Chapter 15 of the Airplane
Flying Handbook, "Transition to Jet-Powered Airplanes:"

"Certified landing field length requirements are computed for the stop made
with speed brakes deployed and maximum wheel braking. Reverse thrust is not
used in establishing the certified FAR landing distances. However, reversers
should definitely be used in service."

Moreover, the airplane must be brought to a stop (without reversers) in 60
percent of the effective runway length. If the runway is forecast to be wet
or slippery, 15 percent should be added to this distance. These calculations
must be made before takeoff, because a pilot cannot file to an airport where
s/he cannot land within the calculated landing distance under the conditions
forecast to exist.



"Lakeview Bill" > wrote in message
om...
> Just kidding, but...
>
> I just heard that the NTSB has recommended that pilots no longer be
> allowed
> to include thrust reversers when they calculate landing distances,
> following
> the Midway accident.
>
> Fortunately, the FAA usually manages to override this sort of bureaucratic
> BS...
>
>

[Bob Gardner]

Ooops. Clicked on Send instead of Send Later.....

Read the entire press release. Some aircraft are permitted to use reversers
in calculating landing distance...the prohibition mentioned in the AFH is
not universal.

http://www.ntsb.gov/Pressrel/2006/060127.htm


"Bob Gardner" > wrote in message
...
> You have misread something. This is taken from Chapter 15 of the Airplane
> Flying Handbook, "Transition to Jet-Powered Airplanes:"
>
> "Certified landing field length requirements are computed for the stop
> made with speed brakes deployed and maximum wheel braking. Reverse thrust
> is not used in establishing the certified FAR landing distances. However,
> reversers should definitely be used in service."
>
> Moreover, the airplane must be brought to a stop (without reversers) in 60
> percent of the effective runway length. If the runway is forecast to be
> wet or slippery, 15 percent should be added to this distance. These
> calculations must be made before takeoff, because a pilot cannot file to
> an airport where s/he cannot land within the calculated landing distance
> under the conditions forecast to exist.
>
>
>
> "Lakeview Bill" > wrote in message
> om...
>> Just kidding, but...
>>
>> I just heard that the NTSB has recommended that pilots no longer be
>> allowed
>> to include thrust reversers when they calculate landing distances,
>> following
>> the Midway accident.
>>
>> Fortunately, the FAA usually manages to override this sort of
>> bureaucratic
>> BS...
>>
>>
>
>

[Robert M. Gary]

I think the "30 feet to spare" already includes a safety buffer though.


-Robert

[Jim Macklin]

GIGO




"Robert M. Gary" > wrote in message
oups.com...
|I think the "30 feet to spare" already includes a safety
buffer though.
|
|
| -Robert
|

[Darrell S]

Lakeview Bill wrote:
> Just kidding, but...
>
> I just heard that the NTSB has recommended that pilots no longer be
> allowed to include thrust reversers when they calculate landing
> distances, following the Midway accident.
>
> Fortunately, the FAA usually manages to override this sort of
> bureaucratic BS...

The Southwest accident at Midway was the reason for the proposed rule
change. Basically air carriers don't/can't use the decelleration of thrust
reversers for computations for takeoff and landing distances (they DO use
them, they just can't compute for them). Any decelleration produced by the
rerversers is just "money in the bank". Certain operators, however, have
authority in flight to use reverser decelleration in their computations of
stopping distance for landing "only" with contaminated runways. Southwest
did that. Their computations showed they could stop barely within the
runway length. On the actual landing for whatever reason the reversers
didn't get deployed until near the end of the landing roll. That's why
they went off the end of the runway resulting in a fatality.

The NTSB recommendation will only effect those users who have authority to
compute landing distance (in flight) using reversers on a contaminated
runway. It would have no effect on most users and minor effect on users who
had that authority before. I think it's a good idea.

--

Darrell R. Schmidt
B-58 Hustler History: http://members.cox.net/dschmidt1/
-