Re: F-100 crash in Sao Paulo

Date:         18 Nov 96 10:11:13 
From:         Stephan Stephany <stephan@lac.inpe.br>
Organization: INPE
References:   1 2
Next article
View raw article
  or MIME structure

mikem727@aol.com wrote:
>
> In article <airliners.1996.2349@ohare.Chicago.COM>, Stephan Stephany
> <stephan@lac.inpe.br> writes:
>
> > Any message like
> >"reverser not locked" was inhibit during take-off.
>
> Why the hell is "reverser not locked" inhibited during takeoff?
> That's a terrible idea!  I can't think of a much more critical
> emergency on takeoff than a reverser deploying.

Maybe it was the this-never-happens syndrome. NTSB issued a safety
recommendation (report number A-91-48) concerning in-flight deployment
of thrust reversers (I can post it if someone wants a copy). According
to it, FAA and the Aerospace Industries Association Steering Committee
issued the document "Criteria for Assessing Turbojet Fleet Thrust
Reverser System Safety". In brief, manufacturers were required to
either demonstrate that the aircraft thrust reverser system had the
same reliability as critical flight systems (I suppose that means
no single point failure) or that the aircraft meet controllability
criteira under in-flight deployment of a thrust reverser (the latter
was chosen by Fokker and other aft fuselage mounted engines jets).

So, I suppose that, at least in the US, that alarm is not inhibited
during take-off and initial climb and the crew get training for
take-off and in-flight thrust reverser deployment (not only in-flight).
Am I correct?

Stephan Stephany
stephan@lac.inpe.br
National Institute for Space Research
S. Jose dos Campos - BRAZIL