Taking off from Santa Ana (SNA) - wooo that was fun.
- Thread starter pezzy84
- Start date
- Joined
- Feb 22, 2021
- Messages
- 891
Impressive performance. You can skid the brakes on the Airbus but it won’t be climbing like that thing, not even close.
- Joined
- Feb 22, 2021
- Messages
- 891
Looks like the reverse thrust is very effective. Nice looking airplane.
Some of the comments are saying that a stop like that would be extremely hard on the brakes and that it wouldn't normally be done except as a demonstration.
- Joined
- Feb 22, 2021
- Messages
- 891
Most airline pilots do not get a chance to do any extreme short landing , hard braking type stuff because we carry passengers and they wouldn’t like it. We fly like limo drivers when possible.....gently.
More later on brakes and reverse thrust on the Airbus ( wife’s calling me to watch a movie ). Hint, reverse thrust is not very effective ( sounds like it should be ).
That's the Meggitt auto brake system in action. Dial in low, med or maximum. It's fly by wire, so you will notice the ailerons moving up upon touchdown, to help spoil lift, along with the spoilers. What you don't see is the tail position moves to maximize load on the main tires. On the highest setting, the plane will stop with incredible G force, there are claims that it peaks at 3G. It's very uncomfortable, even for those of us accustomed to race car brakes.
We tried it a few times and that's enough.
The brakes are carbon/carbon and don't exhibit much wear per landing, regardless of how hard they are used. They last about 1500 landings, then require a spacer for an additional 1000 landings.
And, yes, it will make the first taxiway at many airports.
Talk to Astro. He's said that flying for the US Navy, he would slam right into a runway like he was landing on an aircraft carrier. Of course I don't think he would do that flying for an airline or with any kind of recreational flying.
I've looked out the window and have seen thrust reversers of different types.
There was a scene from the 2003 S.W.A.T. movie where pilots are paid off to land a Learjet on a bridge in order to pick up an escaped drug dealer. And they do it with their paid passengers onboard.
- Joined
- Feb 22, 2021
- Messages
- 891
It’s like a sports car in the air and on the ground.
- Joined
- Feb 22, 2021
- Messages
- 891
Aircraft ( Airbus anyways ) are more worried about brake temperature than how hard you put the brakes on due to “turn around” times ( 1 hour my company....but less if we came in late ) as they more you press , the hotter they get. The Airbus has Auto brakes ( low, medium for landing ) but a pilot can land with manual brakes if they choose ( depending on conditions ). Brake temperatures ( Airbus for this post ) can get very hot and cause a delay for take off ( unless that aircraft has optional brake fans ) because they cannot be more than 300 celcius and may have reached 450 celcius ( A321 ) after landing. That’s rare but it can be an operational concern in the Caribbean or in Las Vegas . As for brake wear, aircraft carbon brakes like it hot ( disc temperature ) as they experience less wear, up to a point ( 500 celcius or higher causes oxidation plus we have advise ramp personnel we have “hot brakes“ and advise maintenance ....never seen that ). On the Airbus , the least brake wear actually occurs after the “brakes hot” warning ( 300 c ) comes on and is about 450 c. If we landed on a long runway and hardly touched the brakes, we would actually be causing more wear because the brakes would be at a much lower temperature. Brake wear is also dependant on the number of brake pedal applications ( increased wear from more applications ). Thats why Autobrake is recommended for all landings because they apply one application and cause less wear. Taxiing on the ground also causes wear obviously but it’s worse than many think as pilots ( they try not to ) have to apply more brake applications ( allow plane to accelerate to 35 MPH THEN apply brakes to reduce speed to 10 MPH then allow it to accelerate to 35 MPH again and slow down and repeat this cycle until close to the gate to avoid too many applications which cause increased wear and heat ).
Pilots approach differently how they will brake ( manual, Autobrake and what level ) , where they will plan on existing the runway and whether they will use reverse thrust. Personally, it shows me how well a pilot knows the plane when they brief it.
As for reverse thrust , it’s not very effective on the narrow body Airbus. I “never” use it unless the landing performance app on our iPads says we need it ( A321 on wet runway 7000 feet ). Airbus used ( before we had the app ) to say it reduced the landing distance 3% dry and 6% wet runway but now it’s not even that effective calculations wise. e.g If landing at KNSA ( 5700 ) it says the plane needs the same amount of runway, with or without reverse. Why use it if it’s not required, more noise, an extra 48 pounds of fuel every landing for nothing IIRC. It helps on the A321 with Wet runways.
I was not trying to make it about the Airbus but that’s the plane I fly and know very well. Hopefully I answered you question well enough.
Last edited:
I'm more familiar with fictional accounts. Like a TV when I was a kid where somehow a kid had to be coached into landing a 747. Long story, but it was a sci-fi/time travel fantasy show where they end up on a 747, and eventually save future President Jimmy Carter from a hijacker. What I remember was the kid being yelled at by a pilot (brought to ATC) to absolutely stand on the pedals in order to brake really hard.
I watched it and a hijacker had released some sort of incapacitating gas, but the kid manages to get to the cockpit alone and closes the door behind and puts on the cockpit emergency air. I see that he was asked to just use the brakes but I didn't see any thrust reversers. It seems like NBC has these available free now. However, I understand that it may not be available in your country.
Watch Voyagers! Episode: All Fall Down - NBC.com
Watch All Fall Down (Season 1, Episode 18) of Voyagers! or get episode details on NBC.com
Phineas spars with boxing legend Joe Louis in the hopes of preventing him from quitting his career; Jeffrey must land a 747 airplane after a hijacking - and future President Jimmy Carter is on board.
"Voyagers!" All Fall Down (TV Episode 1983) - IMDb
Directed by Ron Satlof. With Jon-Erik Hexum, Meeno Peluce, John Hancock, L.Q. Jones. In 1938, Jeffrey and Phineas must convince Joe Louis not to quit his rematch with Max Schmeling. They also save a doomed 747 aircraft that had future President Jimmy Carter on board in 1970.
www.imdb.com
- Joined
- Feb 22, 2021
- Messages
- 891
About people trying to be able to fly who aren’t pilots ....look up Helios 522. The flight attendant was alive and made their way into the flight deck.....before it crashed IIRC.I'm more familiar with fictional accounts. Like a TV when I was a kid where somehow a kid had to be coached into landing a 747. Long story, but it was a sci-fi/time travel fantasy show where they end up on a 747, and eventually save future President Jimmy Carter from a hijacker. What I remember was the kid being yelled at by a pilot (brought to ATC) to absolutely stand on the pedals in order to brake really hard.
I watched it and a hijacker had released some sort of incapacitating gas, but the kid manages to get to the cockpit alone and closes the door behind and puts on the cockpit emergency air. I see that he was asked to just use the brakes but I didn't see any thrust reversers. It seems like NBC has these available free now. However, I understand that it may not be available in your country.
Watch Voyagers! Episode: All Fall Down - NBC.com
Watch All Fall Down (Season 1, Episode 18) of Voyagers! or get episode details on NBC.comwww.nbc.com
Phineas spars with boxing legend Joe Louis in the hopes of preventing him from quitting his career; Jeffrey must land a 747 airplane after a hijacking - and future President Jimmy Carter is on board."Voyagers!" All Fall Down (TV Episode 1983) - IMDb
Directed by Ron Satlof. With Jon-Erik Hexum, Meeno Peluce, John Hancock, L.Q. Jones. In 1938, Jeffrey and Phineas must convince Joe Louis not to quit his rematch with Max Schmeling. They also save a doomed 747 aircraft that had future President Jimmy Carter on board in 1970.
I've had the discussion with many of our flight attendants, and more than a few people, on the "both pilots incapacitated - can I fly the airplane" scenario. It's a lot like being in an OR, and the surgeon keels over, and so do the nurses. Can a passer-by walk in and save the patient?
Maybe. Not looking good for that patient.
In my estimation, the principal challenge was communication. You can't fly an airplane unless you know how to fly an airplane. They most certainly do not "fly themselves". Flight management systems manage - optimizing speed and other flight parameters. They don't choose runways, manage speed and descent to that runway (unless programmed to do so in advance, and in conjunction with proper mode control panel inputs), configure airplanes, or land them.
So, our Walter Mitty "save the day" hero must first establish communication and then be talked through how to program, configure, etc. the airplane by a pilot who cannot see what they are doing. It must be a pilot familiar with that airplane. I can talk someone through flying a 757 if I am sitting next to them and can see what they are doing. I've done it with friends/family in the simulator.
But it's going to be close to impossible if I can't see what they are doing.
And all that is IF we have established communication.
Take a look in a cockpit one day. Tell me how you would establish communication with someone on the ground. No hints from me, because you have to figure that out on your own as step one. Tell me which is the radio panel. How you use the radio. And what frequency you're going to tune.
Maybe. Not looking good for that patient.
In my estimation, the principal challenge was communication. You can't fly an airplane unless you know how to fly an airplane. They most certainly do not "fly themselves". Flight management systems manage - optimizing speed and other flight parameters. They don't choose runways, manage speed and descent to that runway (unless programmed to do so in advance, and in conjunction with proper mode control panel inputs), configure airplanes, or land them.
So, our Walter Mitty "save the day" hero must first establish communication and then be talked through how to program, configure, etc. the airplane by a pilot who cannot see what they are doing. It must be a pilot familiar with that airplane. I can talk someone through flying a 757 if I am sitting next to them and can see what they are doing. I've done it with friends/family in the simulator.
But it's going to be close to impossible if I can't see what they are doing.
And all that is IF we have established communication.
Take a look in a cockpit one day. Tell me how you would establish communication with someone on the ground. No hints from me, because you have to figure that out on your own as step one. Tell me which is the radio panel. How you use the radio. And what frequency you're going to tune.
I don't think I EVER said that I slam an airliner onto a runway. I used to carrier land the F-14 on a runway because that is how it was designed to be landed.
But I assure you all that if you're on my airplane now, the landing will be smooth.
We land on relatively short runways quite often. SNA for example. LGA and turn off early. JAC is short. EGE isn't short, but it's got some challenges with terrain and elevation.
The Boeing autobrakes, like the A320, command a pre-programmed rate of deceleration in M/sec2. Level 1, 2, 3, 4, and max*. 1 and 2 are quite gentle. 3 and 4 are noticeable. Even on a wet, snowy runway, I've never needed max.
*I know, max on the A320 is RTO, full braking. You don't select max for a landing in a 320, ever. But on the Boeing, they should just call it "5" because it's only a bit more aggressive than 4 and nowhere near max braking. You can beat the autobrakes max setting by full manual braking.
But I assure you all that if you're on my airplane now, the landing will be smooth.
We land on relatively short runways quite often. SNA for example. LGA and turn off early. JAC is short. EGE isn't short, but it's got some challenges with terrain and elevation.
The Boeing autobrakes, like the A320, command a pre-programmed rate of deceleration in M/sec2. Level 1, 2, 3, 4, and max*. 1 and 2 are quite gentle. 3 and 4 are noticeable. Even on a wet, snowy runway, I've never needed max.
*I know, max on the A320 is RTO, full braking. You don't select max for a landing in a 320, ever. But on the Boeing, they should just call it "5" because it's only a bit more aggressive than 4 and nowhere near max braking. You can beat the autobrakes max setting by full manual braking.
- Joined
- Feb 22, 2021
- Messages
- 891
From people I have flown with who have flown the 767, they prefer the 767 AB due to more selections.
About not using reverse thrust after landing on the Airbus....we always select “ idle” reverse at a minimum as that will ensure the ground spoilers ( shorten landing distance ) deploy in case someone forgets to arm them in the landing check.
About not using reverse thrust after landing on the Airbus....we always select “ idle” reverse at a minimum as that will ensure the ground spoilers ( shorten landing distance ) deploy in case someone forgets to arm them in the landing check.
Last edited:
Hahahahaha, very well said. I kind of feel bad for the patient..... Hahahahahahaha.
I prefer the Boeing AB as well - more precise selections. There were many times in an A320 when "low" wasn't enough and "med" was too much.
Our FM says this about reverse - Idle or as necessary. I honestly use idle, generally, unless the runway is slippery.
Reverse thrust works best above about 80 knots. Below that, it's just noise, and below 50, you're looking to blow FOD into the engine anyway.
Idle reverse allows you to warm up the brakes (see the above discussion on carbon brake wear) and it just "sounds smoother". When you land gently, brake smoothly, and there is little roar from the engines, it's just a more pleasant "feel".
It's about style points, I think, in what is perceived by the passengers on a normal landing.
I'll use what is needed to keep the operation safe and well within calculated performance, but on a normal day in say, EWR, or DEN (where I'm flying today) I'm pre-disposed to use idle reverse.
Our FM says this about reverse - Idle or as necessary. I honestly use idle, generally, unless the runway is slippery.
Reverse thrust works best above about 80 knots. Below that, it's just noise, and below 50, you're looking to blow FOD into the engine anyway.
Idle reverse allows you to warm up the brakes (see the above discussion on carbon brake wear) and it just "sounds smoother". When you land gently, brake smoothly, and there is little roar from the engines, it's just a more pleasant "feel".
It's about style points, I think, in what is perceived by the passengers on a normal landing.
I'll use what is needed to keep the operation safe and well within calculated performance, but on a normal day in say, EWR, or DEN (where I'm flying today) I'm pre-disposed to use idle reverse.
- Joined
- Feb 22, 2021
- Messages
- 891
Operating into KLAS ( Vegas ) in the summer......there is a big difference in elevation between the west runway area ( or end of 26L ....the normal landing runway ) and the area where we park ( over 120 feet ) and , combined with any tailwind ( land on 26 L with a HW, now a TW when clear runway and taxi east to gate ) and it’s hard to not ride the brakes with two engines running. We need minimum 3 minutes after landing before we can shut one down if Max reverse if used. We only need 2 minutes if idle reverse. I find that makes a big difference in brake temperatures. The elevation difference actually makes it hard to taxi outbound ( departing 1R or 8R ) on single engine despite Airbus saying there is no weight limit taxiing on one engine. You cannot do it if your heavy UNLESS you never allow the plane to come to a stop taxiing out.
- Joined
- Feb 22, 2021
- Messages
- 891
Helios 522.
www.aviationpros.com
Flight Attendant Tried to Save Cypriot Plane
A flight attendant tried to save a Cypriot airliner that crashed near Athens earlier this year, wrestling with controls for at least 10 minutes before the Helios Airways flight...
www.aviationpros.com
Yeah
It’s a long way from “seen in the cockpit” to “wrestled with the controls for ten minutes to save the airplane” as this article suggests.
Power to idle, lower the nose, trim for airspeed works as well in a Boeing as it does a Cessna...but you have to know how to fly first, and how to disengage the autopilot (or, start an open descent for Airbus guys, FLCH for Boeing).
My understanding of Helios was a pressurization problem, caused by crew error, that went unsolved because of a language barrier between the two pilots. They passed out as the cabin altitude was too high. In the upper 20s, I believe. Not a very long time of useful consciousness up there.
The FA went into the cockpit to help. He was unable to establish communication, or to control the airplane. He passed out.
The airplane continued on autopilot until flameout, escorted by F-16s who briefly observed the Flight Attendant in the cockpit.
Helios 522.
Flight Attendant Tried to Save Cypriot Plane
A flight attendant tried to save a Cypriot airliner that crashed near Athens earlier this year, wrestling with controls for at least 10 minutes before the Helios Airways flight...
It’s a long way from “seen in the cockpit” to “wrestled with the controls for ten minutes to save the airplane” as this article suggests.
Power to idle, lower the nose, trim for airspeed works as well in a Boeing as it does a Cessna...but you have to know how to fly first, and how to disengage the autopilot (or, start an open descent for Airbus guys, FLCH for Boeing).
My understanding of Helios was a pressurization problem, caused by crew error, that went unsolved because of a language barrier between the two pilots. They passed out as the cabin altitude was too high. In the upper 20s, I believe. Not a very long time of useful consciousness up there.
The FA went into the cockpit to help. He was unable to establish communication, or to control the airplane. He passed out.
The airplane continued on autopilot until flameout, escorted by F-16s who briefly observed the Flight Attendant in the cockpit.
If you’re able to have a sense of humor about this scenario, and Air Traffic control, Google up the James McAvoy SNL skit on Scottish Air Traffic Control. It’s on YouTube and a variety of social media platforms. I can’t link it right now, but it’s totally worth it.
Absolutely hilarious as a Scottish air traffic controller tries to talk to a passenger on an American plane in which both pilots are incapacitated.
Absolutely hilarious as a Scottish air traffic controller tries to talk to a passenger on an American plane in which both pilots are incapacitated.
