Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Aeroflot deactivates brakes on nine aircraft, relies solely on reverse thrust

aeroxplorer.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 386 posts

Re: Aeroflot deactivates brakes on nine aircraft, relies solely on reverse thrust

#31

Post by zapdrive »

How hard is it to manufacture an airplane brake? Surely Russia does have the required precision machining equipment and expertise. Of course a lot of that is being devoted to mass manufacture of weapons and other military equipment. I'm sure they can (and maybe in due time, they will) reroute some of those resources towards airplane parts.

In my opinion, Russia is sometimes a little slow to react, but once the shit hits the ceiling (aka things come to the attention of the top leadership) they fix their shit up pretty quickly.

Edit: don't wanna say it, but it DOES sound like Western propaganda. Unless I see planes falling out of the sky in Russia, I will not believe this is a big issue for Russia.

Re: Aeroflot deactivates brakes on nine aircraft, relies solely on reverse thrust

#32

Post by ars »

barbazoo wrote: post #11

Take off and landing aside, can you properly control the aircraft on the ground without brakes? I'm thinking of stopping at hold short lines, at the gate, etc. How precise, responsive is reverse thrust in those cases? Or will they get picked up by those little cars and pulled right after landing?

I suspect they can still use them in those situations, since there is very little wear just holding still.

The planes probably still have brakes, just the pilots are told not to use them when landing - this would make them last much longer, but still be available.

Re: Aeroflot deactivates brakes on nine aircraft, relies solely on reverse thrust

#35

Post by wkat4242 »

barbazoo wrote: post #11

Take off and landing aside, can you properly control the aircraft on the ground without brakes? I'm thinking of stopping at hold short lines, at the gate, etc. How precise, responsive is reverse thrust in those cases? Or will they get picked up by those little cars and pulled right after landing?

It's not very responsive at all. Nor is it meant for this purpose. It's just a brake assist for use on the runway.

Also, reverse trust is hard to maneuver with considering you will immediately start reversing once you've stopped moving. Unlike a brake that has a stop as an "end state". If they really start taxiing using that it'll lead to collisions at least, I'm sure, because of unintended reversing.

It's a harebrained plan as presented here IMO.

But perhaps it's more nuanced? Just not using the brakes unless you really need them? This is what we used to do at the gliding club too, since brake pads are expensive and our runway was 5x the length needed for an unassisted rollout.

I don't think the margins are ever that high on airliners though... It still sounds very dangerous and has the risk of pilots getting confused.

Re: Aeroflot deactivates brakes on nine aircraft, relies solely on reverse thrust

#36

Post by krisoft »

woodruffw wrote: post #24
keddad wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I flew from Moscow to Vladivastok recently, and it's a choice between 8 hour flight and a week in a train. The planes might be missing some maintenance, but they are certainly not falling out of the skies, and it's not like the trains can't fail (especially considering occasional train tracks sabotages). There are always risks, it's not that big of a deal.

I think the more apples-to-apples comparison here would be a train without breaks, wouldn't it be? After all, people can sabotage airfields and airplanes as well.

> I think the more apples-to-apples comparison here would be a train without breaks, wouldn't it be

No. Not really. Russia has the means to produce brakes for their trains. They do not have the means to do the same for these airplanes.

So the reality on the ground is that the trains have brakes while the airplanes don't (or they have breaks but with rapidly aging out of compliance parts.)

Re: Aeroflot deactivates brakes on nine aircraft, relies solely on reverse thrust

#38

Post by blibble »

keddad wrote: post #20
reacharavindh wrote: post #3

How in the world would any common Russian trust an airplane in this current sanctioned state in Russia and fly in one?! Are people that brainwashed to trust their leader to get on a plane that doesn’t have brakes?!

I flew from Moscow to Vladivastok recently, and it's a choice between 8 hour flight and a week in a train. The planes might be missing some maintenance, but they are certainly not falling out of the skies, and it's not like the trains can't fail (especially considering occasional train tracks sabotages). There are always risks, it's not that big of a deal.

> but they are certainly not falling out of the skies

they will be shortly

and you won't hear about it unless you're on it

Re: Aeroflot deactivates brakes on nine aircraft, relies solely on reverse thrust

#39

Post by [deleted] »

woodruffw wrote: post #24
keddad wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I flew from Moscow to Vladivastok recently, and it's a choice between 8 hour flight and a week in a train. The planes might be missing some maintenance, but they are certainly not falling out of the skies, and it's not like the trains can't fail (especially considering occasional train tracks sabotages). There are always risks, it's not that big of a deal.

I think the more apples-to-apples comparison here would be a train without breaks, wouldn't it be? After all, people can sabotage airfields and airplanes as well.

[deleted]

Re: Aeroflot deactivates brakes on nine aircraft, relies solely on reverse thrust

#40

Post by amethyst »

barbazoo wrote: post #11

Take off and landing aside, can you properly control the aircraft on the ground without brakes? I'm thinking of stopping at hold short lines, at the gate, etc. How precise, responsive is reverse thrust in those cases? Or will they get picked up by those little cars and pulled right after landing?

> How precise, responsive is reverse thrust

Not at all. Thrust reversers, depending on engine model, can take a few seconds or more to engage, and the engines themselves can take even longer to spool up thrust from idle or to spool down when no longer needed.

Post reply on HN