Chris Scott,
Having retired over 6 years ago, admittedly from a type with fan-reversers, I'd answer: "probably not, unless there was a history of it on the type"; and "no, not as far as I can recall during my jet career (VC10, B707, BAC1-11, A310, DC10 and A320)." But none of these aircraft had bucket reversers.
With reference to the BAC1-11, I have witnessed one veering off the runway back in the '80s while it was landing at Schiphol. One of its (cascade) reversers failed to deploy and it came to rest in soggy clay to the right of rwy 01
R (currently rwy 36
R). Fortunately no one was injured but everyone had clay up to their knees after evacuating the aircraft. The aircraft only had minor damage and was fit to fly several days later.
Furloughed,
While the aircraft yaw is controllable the reverse thrust and added drag of the deployed buckets over came the thrust of the 'good' engine causing an uncontrollable descent rate. Only way to survive was to immediately shut down the engine with the deployed reverser.
From what I recall, the Fo100 with a deployed reverser is controllable/recoverable when the affected thrust lever retarding to idle is recognized as such (no triple chime ENG FAIL alert/relevant fuel lever light not on) and Vfto (final take-off speed) is established. All with a very small margin in rate of climb.
From memory (it has been several years) the logic was to leave it to the pilot to consider shutting down the affected engine. Conditions to do so depended on aircraft weight, field elevation and temperature (WAT conditions).
Because the aircraft should be controllable with the good engine fire-walled and gear retracted ASAP. Shutting down an engine would slightly improve aircraft performance, however, it also means losing system redundancy. Furthermore, human factors wise, even if with minimal rate of climb by leaving the affected engine at idle, would a pilot choose to shut down an otherwise functioning engine so close to the ground . . . . ?
If the aircraft remains controllable with minimal rate of climb, shutting down an engine would slightly increase performance but (apart from less system redundancy) would call for single engine procedures and (regarding the Fo100) a zero flap approach/landing in the case of a deployed reverser which could add to the complications already at hand. Therefore, as far as I can recall from years ago, shutting down the affected engine on the Fo100 was left to pilots discretion, depending on the actual (WAT) conditions he is confronted with.
I must emphasise that perhaps procedures and philosophy have changed over the years but this was the train of thought at the time. If anyone can update this to the current situation, please do so.
Regards,
Green-dot