Reverse thrust in flight

Cheers,point taken and i do tend to agree:-)

I’m not offended, don’t worry.
You’re right, I’m not telling you that Concorde or Trident were unsafe because they could use reverse in flight (even though I’m not really sure Concorde crews ever used this feature… I was said that it could be part of an “urban legend” 😉 ).
I’m just saying that this kind of design can simply not be allowed nowadays.
Of course the loss of an airplane can be due to mechanical failure. This is why we have triple line of defense, as we have triple (even quadruple) flight computers, triple hydraulic systems, etc… 😉

Sorry if im taken the wrong way but arn’t we missing the point here Reverse thrust in flight was and is perfectly safe not a single Trident or Concorde was lost in this way it was rather unfortunate that a Lauda Air 767 was lost due to a mechanical faulire on one of its engines.IMHO it’s not a problem and i have flown on a Concorde and Trident and am still here.Sorry if this may offend but it’s reality.

PS bear in mind the Trident and Concorde were certified to use Reverse thrust in flight and the 767 was not,it was a sad case of Mechanical failure. :rolleyes:

As said before, LaudaAir accident was caused by a inadvertant reverse deployment during the flight. From that day, very drastic security rules applie to reverser design and development. I know a little bit what I’m talking about as I work in a company that designs, develops and builds thrust reverser and nacelles. :rolleyes:
In modern designs you have (it’s FAA/JAA “law” if I’m correct) three lines of defense before inadvertant deployment.
So you can imagine that seeing that picture make me think about never book a flight on such an aircraft… 😉

Trident 1E’s were certified to use reverse thrust in flight and loose 10,000ft per minute,Concorde used idle reverse from the supersonic cruise.Hope this info helps.

(“Dear Old” HS Trident )who has been watching Discovery Wing’s Classic British Aircraft!! by the way i am on it) 😮

I may be wrong, but wasn’t the “Dear Old” HS Trident the first aircraft that was able to deploy reverse thrusters whilst still in flight?
I’m sure I’ve heard this somewhere.

It is a nice shot of the Illyushin, and of an airline thats rarely seen outside of North Korea and China

Nice shot there. I’ve never seen an Ilyushlin but I’ll probably see loads when I’m in Beijing

I haven’t read the report but if memory serves me right didn’t the Lauda crash because 1 reverser deployed? like was stated above if it was the inadvertant deployment of both it probably would have been ok (provided the crew could get them to retract)

I seem to remember an Air NZ DC-8 on a training flight inadvertantly deployed reverse thrust on one side on take-off and stalled into the ground, killing the crew. 🙁

TNZ

Can’t see it being a problem as they are on idle thrust, but TOGA might be different. If they nail the throttle – ouch.

dme

DC8’s can use inboard engine thrust reversers for in flight speed brakes.

Thanks, Flex. 😀

This indeed was a SOP (Standard Operating Procedure) on the IL62. The reverse was deployed before landing to act like an air-brake that you can find on the BAe 146/Fokker 70/100 to give maximum retardation on the flare/landing.

Flex 35

I may be wrong, but I’m sure I read somewhere that partial reverse thrust deployment on landing – as in this example – was SOP on the IL62.

Can anyone out there confirm/deny?

Certification procedures for thrust reversers on jet transport aircraft have traditionally included tests, supported by theoretical analysis, to demonstrate that inadvertent inflight deployment was fully controllable. But the catastrophic and mysterious loss of a Lauda B767 in darkness over Thailand on May 26 1991, raised serious questions as to the validity of such certifications

http://www.airdisaster.com/cgi-bin/view_details.cgi?date=05261991&reg=OE-LAV&airline=Lauda+Air