Russian TU-204 Crash
12-31-2012, 08:55 AM
#11
Banned
Joined APC: Aug 2011
Posts: 1,134
Originally Posted by Nicolaus
If I'm not mistaken, thrust reverse is not factored into landing distance for airline ops?
However, airlines can get "thrust reverser credit" for operative reverse when calculating certain distances under certain conditions;
Any credit for reverse is covered by the certification requirements - CS 25 or FAR 25.125
Means other than wheel brakes may be used if …
(i) Is safe and reliable;
(ii) Is used so that consistent results can be expected in service; and
(iii) Is such that exceptional skill is not required to control the aeroplane.
(i) Is safe and reliable;
(ii) Is used so that consistent results can be expected in service; and
(iii) Is such that exceptional skill is not required to control the aeroplane.
However, where reverse is included in contaminated data CS (AMC) 25.1591 7.4.3. (not in FAR) “
Performance information may include credit for reverse thrust where available and controllable”, the exposure to the higher risk is assumed to be balanced by operational caution, and by minimizing the number of landings, e.g. CS AMC 25.1591 8.1
“8.1.1 Operation on runways contaminated with water, slush, snow, ice or other contaminants implies uncertainties with regard to runway friction and contaminant drag and therefore to the achievable performance and control of the aeroplane during take-off, since the actual conditions may not completely match the assumptions on which the performance information is based. Where possible, every effort should be made to ensure that the runway surface is cleared of any significant contamination.”
“8.1.1 Operation on runways contaminated with water, slush, snow, ice or other contaminants implies uncertainties with regard to runway friction and contaminant drag and therefore to the achievable performance and control of the aeroplane during take-off, since the actual conditions may not completely match the assumptions on which the performance information is based. Where possible, every effort should be made to ensure that the runway surface is cleared of any significant contamination.”
01-02-2013, 07:59 AM
#13
Prime Minister/Moderator
Joined APC: Jan 2006
Position: Engines Turn Or People Swim
Posts: 39,275
Originally Posted by GearDownFlaps15
Reverse thrust is factored in where I work.
121? I don't think that's allowed.
You can take a hit if TR's are MEL'ed...ie can't land in certain conditions but you don't get a landing performance bonus for having TRs.
01-02-2013, 08:05 AM
#14
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2010
Posts: 2,278
Originally Posted by rickair7777
121? I don't think that's allowed.
You can take a hit if TR's are MEL'ed...ie can't land in certain conditions but you don't get a landing performance bonus for having TRs.
You can take a hit if TR's are MEL'ed...ie can't land in certain conditions but you don't get a landing performance bonus for having TRs.
01-02-2013, 10:38 AM
#15
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jul 2009
Position: Seat: Vegan friendly faux leather
Posts: 984
Originally Posted by 2StgTurbine
It is allowed, but not the norm.
Press Release [January 27, 2006] - NTSB - National Transportation Safety Board
01-02-2013, 10:43 AM
#16
Banned
Joined APC: Aug 2011
Posts: 1,134
Originally Posted by cardiomd
The NTSB has lobbied the FAA to prohibit using TR credit for 121 operations. Does anybody know what happened to this recommendation? AFAIK it did not become part of the regs.
Press Release [January 27, 2006] - NTSB - National Transportation Safety Board
Press Release [January 27, 2006] - NTSB - National Transportation Safety Board
I believe this may have been it;
FAA changes landing distance rules for commercial operators | Aviation International News
A key part taken;
If weather conditions change en route, pilots will have to recalculate the actual landing distance needed, based on runway conditions and use of available equipment such as thrust reversers and spoilers
01-03-2013, 02:04 AM
#17
New Hire
Joined APC: Dec 2012
Position: Hawker 400XP FO
Posts: 5
In EASA-land (so most of Europe), airlines can not factor in thrust reverse. I have no clue how it works in Russia.
Apart from that, the lack of thrust reverse alone shouldn't lead to a high-speed overrun on a 10,000ft runway, keeping in mind that the TU-204 is a medium airliner, roughly the size of a 757 or A321. Much more must have gone wrong.
Apart from that, the lack of thrust reverse alone shouldn't lead to a high-speed overrun on a 10,000ft runway, keeping in mind that the TU-204 is a medium airliner, roughly the size of a 757 or A321. Much more must have gone wrong.
01-03-2013, 02:26 AM
#18
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Dec 2009
Position: 127.0.0.1
Posts: 2,115
Looks similar to a bizjet accident here. Lear 60 blew a tire on t/o, tried to abort after v1 and slid thru the localizer antennae, fence and across the perimeter road. 4 fatal, 2 serious.
Not saying that's what happened here, just that the resting (RIP) place of the a/c looks eerily familiar.
DCA08MA098
Not saying that's what happened here, just that the resting (RIP) place of the a/c looks eerily familiar.
DCA08MA098
01-03-2013, 08:57 AM
#19
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jan 2009
Position: Airbus 319/320 Captain
Posts: 880
Originally Posted by Nicolaus
In EASA-land (so most of Europe), airlines can not factor in thrust reverse. I have no clue how it works in Russia.
Apart from that, the lack of thrust reverse alone shouldn't lead to a high-speed overrun on a 10,000ft runway, keeping in mind that the TU-204 is a medium airliner, roughly the size of a 757 or A321. Much more must have gone wrong.
Apart from that, the lack of thrust reverse alone shouldn't lead to a high-speed overrun on a 10,000ft runway, keeping in mind that the TU-204 is a medium airliner, roughly the size of a 757 or A321. Much more must have gone wrong.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
