Woodpecker
I was merely thinking while writing, but you are right, it’s not a clear cut case as long as you do not know where the leak is.
If the leak was know to be in the centre tank then, provided enough fuel was carried in the wing, I agree that emptying the centre was a good idea.
I do not have the figures but irrespective of MLW I would then probably have landed with full wings, to cope with the fact that I may have gotten it wrong on the exact location of the leak, if that brings me over the MLW so be it. I would be looking for a good compromise that is defendable.
I would then be left with 3000 m to land, thinking that a hot brake is worse than the use of the rev and assuming the worst case scenario of the leak still being there.
Basically that would mean an average deceleration of 1 m/s*s a very low value that you can get from the rev only with only a little braking. Not many people look at the deceleration/acceleration indicator.
1. (a=v*v/2*d) using 160 kts and 3000 m a= 1 m/s*s
2. example: arrow indicates + 20 kts over next 10 sec = 2 kt/1 s*s = 1 m/s*s = +/- 1.5 cm arrow
I am not aware of a limitation/caution on the use of rev in this case (QRH ?)
So the question really is? What do I consider the most important?
I think that any reasoning that is reasonably defendable is therefore acceptable. There is no absolute yes or no.
Interesting issue and good exchange of ideas.
Thanks.
PS: I really do not know about reversers and fuel leak combining adversely. Surely the fuel will be dispersed by the rev BEFORE it can enter the engine. If it does do so, the concentration will be quite low. But I must say I really do not know and am interested in why Airbus came up with the idea to caution doing so. Surely, Boeing must have thought about this after so many years of building these aircraft?