That picture looks like it's showing the nose and cockpit of the plane. It must have been horrific to be on board.
If you want on or off this aerospace ping list, please contact Paleo Conservative or phantomworker by Freep mail.
Posted on 07/20/2007 10:28:41 AM PDT by Ernest_at_the_Beach
They are not hard to find, when they are just off the runway. Besides they “try” to tell searchers where they are.
Much harder when they are under water, or in a dense jungle, etc.
What is the procedure for a touch and go? If the pilot didn’t think he would be able to stop, he could have taken off again. You sure don’t want RT for that.
Possibly. Can’t tell from the info we’ve got here.
Could the pilot have taken off again during the landing, as in the film “Air Force One”?
If he'd made that realization/decision soon enough to get back to flying airspeed before the end of the runway.
DAMHIK.
He could if he made the go-around decision early enough to get to flying airspeed before he got to the end of the runway.
With one, at least he would have crashed on the airport. The turning moment from one TR on a wing-mounted engine would be hard to overcome.
On the A320, there’s a special “touch-and-go” mode that you engage - and pray. :-P
Ran this past a commercial pilot and his opinion: Hard opposite rudder, pull the the other engine back to idle or shut it down entirely. Difficult, but by no means impossible. He’d had to do it on a 737 when one TR decided to quit on rollout.
With Airbus, don't you have to pray first?
Coming from France,...it’s a secular airplane,...no prayers allowed.....LOL1
The thrust reversers do not actually help all that much. Maybe 5% of the braking force in the dry, maybe 10% in the wet and more on snow/ice. The brakes always do the majority of the stopping.
It’s common not to even use the reversers anymore because of the risk of FOD and maintenance concerns.
Lack of reversers should not have been a problem.
Good post. As you stated, reverse thrust is most effective at higher speeds. Usually, you start reducing reverser use at 100 kts, with reversers stowed around 80 kts (94mph). In a two engine aircraft, you have to be very careful using reverse thrust with a reverser deactived as you may have control problems due to the asymetrical thrust, and limits on nose wheel steering to counteract the inevitable move towards the edge of the runway.
The problem here is that the pilot tried to land a somewhat heavy aircraft on a relativly short WET runway with no reverse thrust. Aircraft braking on a wet runway can be marginal due to hydroplaning, and with no reverse, you only have brakes to stop the aircraft. You can apply all the braking you want, but you are just along for the ride—a very uncomfortable feeling.
If he was trying to execute a go-around, then having the thrust-reversers off would be the correct action.
It is not crazy. The plane should be ready to make a go-around/touch and go in case of a need, and the thrust reversers should be off for that reason.
That picture looks like it's showing the nose and cockpit of the plane. It must have been horrific to be on board.
If you want on or off this aerospace ping list, please contact Paleo Conservative or phantomworker by Freep mail.
Good grief. Was he drunk?
Aren’t aircraft interiors supposed to be nominally flame-retardent?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
