What the Hell is a 'Reverse Thruster'?
 

(vis-a-vis AF4590)

I've heard of 'thrust reversers,' but a 'reverse thruster' makes me think we are talking about something more the likes of the Space Shuttle.

It was indeed a thrust-reverser - it reverses engine thrust to help aircraft brake.

Many jets have thrust reversers to help slow the aircraft on landing. Famously, a thrust reverser deployed accidentally on a Lauda Air 767 over Thailand back in the early '90s, resulting in the (at the time) first hull loss of a '67. I remember this because a couple of months after the Lauda Air accident, I was aboard a BA 767 which aborted a takeoff owing to what the crew said was a thrust reverser warning light, and I was only too happy to have them delay the flight and fix it.

And also, FWIW, in the case of the Concorde SST, it also is used in take off to force additional air through the shafts (kind of like a turbo/supercharger) to accelate takeoff speed!

I know, I know... I really know what a thrust reverser is... I was just trying to see if anybody else has noticed how blindly the media has been butchering the terminology...!

FQTV,

The mainstream media isn't butchering it any worse than they routinely butcher everything else they talk about... the news isn't news anymore, it's a mix of rookie reporters overdramatizing stupid stories to try to get their "Big Break" and indifferent, uninformed major news anchors who make millions and so stupid things like ask Dick Cheney what he thinks about the Napster hearings... I can't stand Matt Lauer...

Really, though it ISN'T surprising to me... and that's a little scary. I mean, reporters are humans too, and most of then had to fly to France immediately after the crash to cover the story (imagine THAT mind job if you don't fly much)... but, at the same time, news stations aren't interested in quality so much as sensationalism. By that I mean, in the immediate wake of the crash, no body was showing a d*** bit of useful information, all they did was show that 5 second video clip and slow pans of the crash site... that is not news, that's trying to get the viewer to hang on and watch YOUR station until you actually have something of substance to show him... all the stations do it... that's why the reporters say dumb things like 'reverse thrusters'... they're being told over the wire by their boss to tell the audience a bunch of nothing and make it interesting so that they'll keep watching...

Same as Columbine, same as Waco, same as the Kennedy crash (and when the heck did THAT become national news-worthy??), Princess Di... andonandonandon... news stations are not in the business of waiting until they have all the facts to fully inform the viewer all at once, they can't be. There are many stations out there and news IS A BUSINESS!!

Except the Fox News Channel... i REALLY like the Fox News Channel... most unbiased, balanced news coverage I've ever seen...

ok, I'm done now. that feel much better...

FQTV, sorry this was long, but all these feelings towards newscasting in general keep re-surfacing every time there's a "major" event and everyone rushes to the scene and stands among the rubble to tell us they're now in "such and such a location, standing among the rubble" ... am I the only one that feels this way??

ok, that's enough for now. http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/wink.gif

------------------
"Welcome to Mister Internet's Neighborhood..."

[This message has been edited by Mister Internet (edited 07-27-2000).]

I have a theory: this has something to do with Air France issuing the statement in French and its conversion to English.

From MSNBC:

From what I have read fact checking, in even venerable papers like NYT, has gone out the window during the last few years. Probably has to do with fewer staff available for that sort of thing to keep expenses down or something. http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/frown.gif

Years ago I owned a Peugeot, a very interesting automobile, the cylinder closest to the front was # 4, and the one closest to the rear # 1. The term "reverse thruster" sounds about right. http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/rolleyes.gif

http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/smile.gif oldgold

and i cannot stand Matt Lauer either.. http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/eek.gif

I don't watch network news for precisely those reasons.

But what I think is the more insidious factor in the race for ratings and "winning" is the complete inability to broadcast unsubstanciated rumors. No time to check the facts - they might get in the way of a good story.

I have little use for newspapers, too. They've joined their fellow media swinging their purses on the street corner.

There's still bias in the news reports on the internet, but you can read the AP, Reuters, NYT and WSJ accounts.

------------------
"I will not be pushed, filed, stamped, indexed, briefed, debriefed or numbered. My life is my own."

Not all TV news is bad. Today O'Reilly @ Foxnews took to task a congressman for not spending on airport/ATC money which has been collected for years as tax on airline tickets. After much dithering, the congressman confessed that both republicans and democrats were opposed to spending the ticket tax money on airport infrastructure. Finally, this year a bill has been passed.

ownly theng arturo kno bout thes es wat prematurexecushun tel arturo bout runin sheep toward the clif. sheep thrust en reverse whin they git to edge. mebe knews knot kno bout sheep.

------------------
Loving, Caring, Honest, Intelligent, Empathetic, Creative, and Giving.

LOLOL Arturo, are you related to Latka? i want to learn your language! http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/smile.gif

The WSJ and NYT are probably the top two U.S. papers in terms of emphasizing fact checking, just from what I've heard (I'm a newspaper editor myself). Copy editors at those papers edit perhaps two or three long stories in an eight-hour shift and are expected to make sure that everything in them is right, especially at the WSJ.

"especially at the WSJ." http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/smile.gif

about news coverage:

the same week Lady Di had the tragic accident Mother Theresa died.

Media coverage rate Ladi Di : Mother Theresa then was about 100:1 ... the humanity effects of those two celebritie's life-work was, my guess entirely, 1:>100

Do not pilots use the TERM "reverse thrust" to describe the practical effect gained by applying the airline thrust reverser?

That is the term I seem to have always read being used, so maybe that is where the mangled media use came in?

Bit like climbing a mountain is mountain climbing etc? Or flying an airline is an airline flight, or a shot from a gun is a gunshot etc, etc.

It may also be that the media was quoting directly from Air France's spokesman. Perhaps his English may not have been letter perfect or he was reading a translation from French.

Concorde uses afterburners, not thrust reversers on their RR Olympus 503s to obtain additional speed at takeoff. Thrust reversers are only used during the landing rollout. It would not be a very good idea to use reverse thrust at takeoff unless it's aborted before V1 (the point in which the aircraft is committed to takeoff).

------------------
AlphaSigOU
Causa latet vis est notissima - the cause is hidden, the results are well-known.

For an interesting (albeit technical at times) discussion of the thrust reverser system on Concorde, a good place to look is the Professional Pilots Rumour Network (aka PPrune) which has been referred to here @ FT several times.

They also have interesting thoughts on what might have caused the crash. Moreover, they really hate non-specialist journalists who report on aviation matters.

If you think FT can be intimidating, I've been reading PPrune for almost as long as I've been reading FT, and I wouldn't even dream of posting there (I only have a couple hours in a Cessna under my belt) but it's fascinating stuff if you're interested in aviation business and the way the world works for pilots.

Greg
http://www.pprune.org/ubb/NonCGI/For...ML/009030.html

Interesting site! BOY you are right it is super techno in some of those forums.

Each thread (it is same kinda UBB board as this) has an icon at left showing "mood of the topic". I smiled to try and figger what some of the icons would need to say here! Take a peek:
http://www.pprune.org/cgibin/forumdi...er=1&SUBMIT=Go

Of course, a jet engine doesn't reverse it's thrust. A jet engine only goes in one direction, forward. There are systems that mechanically deflect much of the thrust, sending some of it backwards. Older just use a manifold that moves over the exhaust. Newer ones have a sort of door that opens and the exhaust deflects more efficiently through a system of slots angled backwards.

I always like to see these working when I am flying in a seat where the jets are visible. Many times the pilots don't use "reverse", it is sometimes not working and isn't required to land the plane (spoilers and brakes are required however).

The 767 that deployed reversers mid-flight was the victim of a design flaw in the earlier 767s.

yeah, ozstamps, i love the blue one with tears, and the dancing smiley (with a skirt?)... soooo cute! http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/smile.gif
other than that, i learned a lot about reverse thrusts too! thanks! http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/smile.gif

NO ONE in our newsroom knew what a reverse thruster is.

So to compensate when the term was used in an EXACT QUOTE I said the president of Air France says... blah blah -- reverse thruster.

Since I thought it was an engine component I would see "an engine component known as a reverse thruster."

A few more words but the viewer understood the term a little better.

Unlike my babbling on Flyertalk, my news writing is to the point and written in a way everyone can understand.

Not that i"m Tom Brokov and never want to me.

Arturo,

Did not know you were an expert on sheep! You must be from Mohohohohohohohohohohntana, where the men are men and the sheep run scared.

Or from New Zealand where 30 million sheep are VERY nervous!

I won't get the NZ High Commission involved by relating a few 100 of the NZ "Sheep Jokes" that Ozzies rejoice in telling after a few beers!