According to Airbus:
‐ After the flight crew selects reverse thrust, they must perform a full stop landing.
Does it really make sense to have this limitation, and why? What happens if you realise there's not enough space to land, and you've still got adequate speed?
The biggest problem is that thrust reversers take time to move. During that time they are still producing reverse thrust (even if only at idle) and slowing you down. They must all completely close before you get forward thrust and can add power to start accelerating again. Then, what happens if they don't stow, or only part of them stow? Now you've used up valuable runway that could have been used to stop (or at least slow down more) and are no longer in a position to takeoff from. The consequences can be pretty severe.
According to Airbus: ‐ After the flight crew selects reverse thrust, they must perform a full stop landing. Does it really make sense to have this limitation, and why? What happens if you realise there's not enough space to land, and you've still got adequate speed?
) Category D: Speed 141 knots or more but less than 166 knots. (5) Category E: Speed 166 knots or more. So an aircraft category never changes because it is always Vref at max landing weight. What... than full flaps due to a failure (or any other operational reason). Which minimums do you use then? ...FAR 91.3 says: Aircraft approach category means a grouping of aircraft based on a speed of VREF, if specified, or if VREF is not specified, 1.3 Vso at the maximum certificated landing weight
The reason for my arguments here are (assuming that you have sufficient runway distance): That with less thrust, less force should also be required to hold the aircraft as desired, and possibly the aircraft should be easier to control and fly when the engine fails than if it does so with the thrust set to full blast. An engine event, such as a bird strike, might (?) be less likely to have catastrophic consequences for e.g. the turbine blades when they are not running at full thrust and their design limits. Never having actually commanded an aircraft, are any of these ideas correct?
FAR 61.57 says that you need to have completed three takeoffs and landings to a full stop in order to carry passengers at night. However, you only need three touch-and-gos in order to carry passengers during the day. Why the difference? Is there some rationale for this? Are full-stop landings considered safer during the night?
According to Wikipedia: Some aircraft are able to safely use reverse thrust in flight, though the majority of these are propeller-driven. Many commercial aircraft cannot use reverse thrust in flight What are the repercussions to using reverse thrust while airborne?
I remember back in the 90's that commercial planes would line up on the runway, stop, apply full power and then release the brake to take off. Now I've been on flight where they've literally rolled from the taxiway straight onto the runway and then powered up without stopping. Why has that changed? What were the reasons for the older style?
FAR 135.385 requires that at your destination airport your flight planning shows that you could make a full-stop landing "within 60 percent of the effective length" of the runway when flying transport-category turbine-powered aircraft. For piston-powered aircraft FAR 135.377 has a similar 70% rule. How do you calculate minimum runway lengths under these rules? Can you use 80% of the runway? What if the runway is wet?
An autobrake is a type of automatic wheel-based hydraulic brake system for advanced airplanes. The autobrake is normally enabled during takeoff and landing procedures, when the aircraft's longitudinal deceleration system can be handled by the automated systems of the aircraft itself in order to keep the pilot free to perform other tasks - Wikipedia How does the aircraft "know" when is time to activate the autobrake systems on a rejected takeoff and landing? Does it apply full brake to all the aircraft's wheels? Is it really used by commercial jets?
" as to when you should perform this power reduction (inches off the ground or 700-1,000 feet), and if so, have there been actual studies that say why one way is better than the other, or is this one... Manual (in my case a 1972 Cessna 182P) simply says Full Power under the Normal Take-Off procedure. The reasoning I've heard is to try not to over-stress the engine (whatever that means exactly), but on the flip side, I've heard that if an engine is going to do something funky, it's probably going to happen when you do a power reduction, or otherwise do something. I personally want all the power I
It seems that you would use full power for takeoffs, but when I have heard of airline pilots using less than full power on takeooff. Wouldn't it be safer to use full throttle?