![]() |
If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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 |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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 |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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? ![]() |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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 |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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 |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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 |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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). |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Q about lost comms on weird clearance | Paul Tomblin | Instrument Flight Rules | 34 | February 2nd 04 09:11 PM |
VW-1 C-121J landing with unlocked nose wheel | Mel Davidow LT USNR Ret | Military Aviation | 1 | January 19th 04 05:22 AM |
Good feeling landing / 200th hour | Yossarian | Piloting | 22 | December 23rd 03 12:44 AM |