Also while I remember, If one of your wheel drives fails, that could be an embaressing moment for the crew.
Par exemple,
Both crew being 'heads in', say dealing with a problem. (naughty, I know, but not unfeasable is it?) One of your drives fails, and asymetrically, the aeroplane rolls onto the grass. (or water at LCY
) Or say one of the drives jams up, It could be akin to using full braking on one wheel. ATC frown upon aircraft doing handbrake turns, it's considered a tad rude.
Also could you dispatch with one inop? Airliners have built in redundency in most systems to allow dispatch with a number of components inop. Would just one of your wheel tug thingies have enough power to move the aeroplane?
If certification deems it necessary that both be working, it wouldn't be fun to ground an aeroplane for something that doesnt even affect it when it's flying!
And even if you could 'switch off' the working one and taxi out on engine power, your defeating the purpose of having them installed. I imagine alot of airlines would eventually remove them anyway. Less cost, weight (and as you've stated; less weight=more pax) and complexity
Just like re-enforced flight deck doors and CVRs for example, manufacturers will only install things when they have to by law. And why? Because the airlines want a machine that is as simple as legally possible.
(granted these are safety related items, but you see my point?)
I know I've banged on about these drives but they just stick out to me as a bit unnecessary.
Just a thought
(I always think of failures, too much RJ/146 flying!!!
)
I watch with interest.
Atreyu
