Push forward while using thrust reversers?

jrh

Well-Known Member
Flying the Citation 560, I've heard some pilots advise the yoke should be pushed forward during landing roll when using thrust reversers to "keep the nose planted."

I've seen plenty of landings with the yoke at neutral or slightly aft during the landing roll with apparently no ill effects.

The sim school I've gone through, as well as manufacturer manuals don't give much guidance one way or the other.

Thoughts?
 

mikecweb

Well-Known Member
Flying the Citation 560, I've heard some pilots advise the yoke should be pushed forward during landing roll when using thrust reversers to "keep the nose planted."

I've seen plenty of landings with the yoke at neutral or slightly aft during the landing roll with apparently no ill effects.

The sim school I've gone through, as well as manufacturer manuals don't give much guidance one way or the other.

Thoughts?
I think we did that on the challenger as it liked to pop the nose up. Do whatever it takes to maintain directional control.
 

T/O w/FSII

Well-Known Member
Flying the Citation 560, I've heard some pilots advise the yoke should be pushed forward during landing roll when using thrust reversers to "keep the nose planted."

I've seen plenty of landings with the yoke at neutral or slightly aft during the landing roll with apparently no ill effects.

The sim school I've gone through, as well as manufacturer manuals don't give much guidance one way or the other.

Thoughts?
On the citation 500, 501, 550 and 560 yes, as it tends to be tail heavy already.

On the Astra jet yes. The engines are way up high and back.

On the Gulfstream, eh. The nose will get light but it’s nothing wild.

On the falcon, the one stupid TR didn’t do anything but make noise so...
 

Corporate Pilot

Well-Known Member
+1 on pushing on the yoke. Putting more weight on the nose wheel will give it more traction on wet/icy runways especially with a crosswind.
 

jrh

Well-Known Member
I dug into the manuals more carefully and did find mention of pushing forward after all. There is a note in the 560 AFM which states, "To prevent any possible nose pitch up during thrust reverser deployment, maintain forward pressure on the control column after the nosewheel is on the ground."

In the 550 manual, I found a note stating "...slight nosedown elevator pressure should be used during thrust reverser deployment especially at high speeds..."

Quite honestly I've never focused on pushing forward and never had an issue, but I suppose if the AFM calls for it, that's how it ought to be.

Learn something new every day.
 

Crop Duster

E pluribus unum
When I flew the 560, I just kept the stick neutral, and things seemed to work well. I fly a 525 quite a bit with a dude who normally flys a 560. He typically pushes the stick, so maybe that's a thing in the 560. He's learning to appreciate pulling the stick in the CJ. In the 525, a controlled, consistent pull counters the tail lifting moment of the ground flaps, pushes the main wheels into the pavement, and allows a nice stable and short stop. It really, really works!
 

Crockrocket94

Well-Known Member
Wait until you land that thing in a ton of wind and fly with someone or yourself who just opens the TRs and gets on them, it will swing the nose on you. Ive seen it. Get that forward pressure and make it a habit. I flew, 550,560, 560XL 650...
 

Inverted25

Well-Known Member
So what your saying is you shouldn’t pop the TRs with the nose still in the air


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

jrh

Well-Known Member
Wait until you land that thing in a ton of wind and fly with someone or yourself who just opens the TRs and gets on them, it will swing the nose on you. Ive seen it. Get that forward pressure and make it a habit. I flew, 550,560, 560XL 650...
I have 1000+ hours in the airframe, based in the Midwest, so I've done my share of landings in wind...

In my opinion, it has crappy crosswind handling in general, regardless of how much the TRs are used.

I also don't believe in hammering the TRs unless I'm also hammering the brakes, which might explain why I have yet to see anything interesting happen.
 

bucksmith

Did you lock the doors?
So what your saying is you shouldn’t pop the TRs with the nose still in the air


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Sheeet, I was thinking the same thing. I don’t fly any citations, but sounds like I’d have a tough habit to break of popping them when the mains touch down.
 

jrh

Well-Known Member
Sheeet, I was thinking the same thing. I don’t fly any citations, but sounds like I’d have a tough habit to break of popping them when the mains touch down.
That's another one of those areas where what you should do and can do don't exactly match up. You *should* have the nose on the ground, but you *can* deploy them with only the mains and get away with it. Nothing bad happens.

The nose comes down pretty quickly on its own and the TRs take a couple seconds to fully deploy. Chances are, unless you're working to hold the nose off, the nose will be down by the time the TRs are out.

I'm just speculating, but I think this advice is for directional control in the event only one TR were to deploy.
 

jrh

Well-Known Member
I won't go down this rabbit hole.....but airframes have been seriously damaged deploying TRs with the nose still in the air.
On the 500 series Citations?

I have no doubt bad things can happen on other airframes. I'm saying, on the 560, it's very unlikely unless you're specifically holding the nose up. It would have to be a weird, intentional act. It's not something that will happen by an over-anxious pilot grabbing the TRs too quickly.

The TRs are locked until one of the mains touches down. The nose comes down quickly after the mains touch. The TRs take a few seconds to deploy.

I'm not advising anyone to go out, hold the nose up, throw the TRs out, and see what happens. I'm saying if somebody like Bucksmith is worried about getting on the TRs too quickly, it's not a big deal to worry about. The natural sequence of events prevents anything terrible from happening.

Also, for what it's worth, I remind people the landing distance is calculated based on zero TR use. TRs are just icing on the cake. So there's really never a reason why a pilot MUST get on them hard and quickly. When you have that mindset, there's no incentive to be throwing them out with nose in the air.
 

jrh

Well-Known Member
I dug in to the operating manuals again regarding the use of TRs and found some interesting details and differences...

On the 550 manual, there is a description which states the following: "The nose wheel must be on the ground before actuation of the thrust reversers to eliminate the possibility of FOD and improve directional control." This is a fairly mild statement which focuses more on protecting the engines than a major safety issue.

On the 560 manual, in the exact same section, the statement was updated as follows: "The nose wheel must be on the ground before actuation of the thrust reversers to reduce the possibility of pitch-up and liftoff, and to improve directional control." This is a pretty significant statement, indicating you might find yourself airborne with the the TRs deployed, out of airspeed and options simultaneously. That's a big deal.

In both airplanes, the Landing checklist calls for Throttles to idle, Brakes applied, Speed Brakes extended, Thrust Reversers deployed, in that order.

My initial training was on the 550, then I transitioned to the 560. I think this is why the training captain during my initial training talked about the nosewheel and TRs more from a directional control perspective, rather than the possibility of becoming airborne with TRs deployed. The 550 manual addresses the issue differently and that's what we were flying.

I also think about the practical side of landings...if a pilot applies brakes and speed brakes after touchdown, THEN thrust reversers, per the checklist, I can't imagine a scenario where the nosewheel will still be in the air unless the pilot is really hauling aft on the stick. I've never flown with a pilot who threw the TRs out the moment the mains touched, before using brakes or speed brakes.
 

Inverted25

Well-Known Member
I dug in to the operating manuals again regarding the use of TRs and found some interesting details and differences...

On the 550 manual, there is a description which states the following: "The nose wheel must be on the ground before actuation of the thrust reversers to eliminate the possibility of FOD and improve directional control." This is a fairly mild statement which focuses more on protecting the engines than a major safety issue.

On the 560 manual, in the exact same section, the statement was updated as follows: "The nose wheel must be on the ground before actuation of the thrust reversers to reduce the possibility of pitch-up and liftoff, and to improve directional control." This is a pretty significant statement, indicating you might find yourself airborne with the the TRs deployed, out of airspeed and options simultaneously. That's a big deal.

In both airplanes, the Landing checklist calls for Throttles to idle, Brakes applied, Speed Brakes extended, Thrust Reversers deployed, in that order.

My initial training was on the 550, then I transitioned to the 560. I think this is why the training captain during my initial training talked about the nosewheel and TRs more from a directional control perspective, rather than the possibility of becoming airborne with TRs deployed. The 550 manual addresses the issue differently and that's what we were flying.

I also think about the practical side of landings...if a pilot applies brakes and speed brakes after touchdown, THEN thrust reversers, per the checklist, I can't imagine a scenario where the nosewheel will still be in the air unless the pilot is really hauling aft on the stick. I've never flown with a pilot who threw the TRs out the moment the mains touched, before using brakes or speed brakes.
It’s been along time since I flew the 500 series. But in the beechjet and Hawker you can deploy TRs with the nose still up with no issues. It actually helps to catch the nose from hitting too hard.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

NJA_Capt

Well-Known Member
..."The nose wheel must be on the ground before actuation of the thrust reversers to reduce the possibility of pitch-up and liftoff, and to improve directional control." This is a pretty significant statement, indicating you might find yourself airborne with the the TRs deployed, out of airspeed and options simultaneously. That's a big deal.
Yes..560, 560XL, and especially the X. (Several thousand hours in all three)

There most definitely is a possibility that you could find yourself airborne with T/Rs deployed. VERY ugly and makes very expensive noises. The fact that the possibility even exists, should be a deterrent enough not to every do it. I'm sure people get away with it all the time, but if it is your day when it happens, it would be a bad day.
 

jrh

Well-Known Member
Yes..560, 560XL, and especially the X. (Several thousand hours in all three)

There most definitely is a possibility that you could find yourself airborne with T/Rs deployed. VERY ugly and makes very expensive noises. The fact that the possibility even exists, should be a deterrent enough not to every do it. I'm sure people get away with it all the time, but if it is your day when it happens, it would be a bad day.
Just curious, do you know why the difference between the 550 and 560 manuals? Same instruction, very different reasoning.

Was it because the 560 really does have different flying characteristics from the 550? Or is the 550 equally prone to this type of accident but it wasn't discovered until later?
 

NJA_Capt

Well-Known Member
Just curious, do you know why the difference between the 550 and 560 manuals? Same instruction, very different reasoning.
It could be a number of things actually, including lawyers trying to defer risk to the manufacturer. (Every time a lawyer gets involved, more wording results). Pilots eventually find new ways to ruin perfectly good airplanes.

That said, the 560 is a bit longer and does have a better wing. Neither one have a very nose high attitude on landing but with the nose up the TRs could lighten the weight on the main gear during higher thrust applications resulting in less directional control. 737-100/200 and the DC-9 series have canted buckets to help offset this. There is also tendency to raise the nose higher, which would result in the plane becoming airborne with the TRs deployed (followed by expensive noises).
 
Last edited:

tlove482

Well-Known Member
Just curious, do you know why the difference between the 550 and 560 manuals? Same instruction, very different reasoning.

Was it because the 560 really does have different flying characteristics from the 550? Or is the 550 equally prone to this type of accident but it wasn't discovered until later?
The engines on the 560 have a bit more thrust too. Maybe that has something to do with it too.
 
Top