Gerard M Foley wrote: > From: "Blaine Thompson" <blaine@xxxxxxxx> > > Sent: Monday, February 20, 2006 8:44 AM > <snip> > 2. My Uncle and Aunt recently did SEA-DTW-MIA-MSP-SEA on NW. On the > >> return MIA-MSP-SEA itinerary, their flight from MIA was in the air >> when the pilot announced they were returning to MIA with one reverse >> thruster failed (A320). Plane landed without incident (however, with >> the usual cadre of emergency vehicles flanking the runway). > > <snip> > > Little strange to try a thrust reverser while in flight? Better check > it before takeoff, if at all. I didn't think thrust reverser > operability was required anyway. > > Gerry > http://www.pbase.com/gfoley9999/ > http://www.wilowud.net/ > http://home.columbus.rr.com/gfoley > http://www.fortunecity.com/victorian/pollock/263/egypt/egypt.html IIRC, the Maintenance Manual and Aircraft QRH would be the final arbiters. Generally, if you know about a reverser issue beforehand, you want it physically locked out, on the ground, before flight, to avoid an assymetric deployment on landing, or "creep" inflight. The report suggests it was noticed inflight, suggesting anything from (most likely) a microswitch out of alignment to "creep", to a partial deployment. Best to get it back on the ground and sort it out there, which sounds from the report like what happened. Reversers are not required on landing, but they need to be there and symmetric, if you are relying on them for landing performance calculations. - RWM