2009PP:
"Perhaps there is a similar philosophy on the MD-11"
"No! Nothing like that on LH-Cargo MD-11. All REVs or none".
Is it a German thing to isolate lateral thinking? I seriously doubt that. Why on earth would you want to put No.2 in reverse if you don't need it?
Let's face it, except for wet runway operations, the use of reverse thrust is not predicated in your performance figures.
You tell me that it is ALL or NONE in LH Cargo. Nothing in between.
Have you ever had to stow a stuck reverser after landing? It involves something like a hexdrive with a winding handle. The wing engines are easy (we, and I use the term "we" - ie: including me - the captain -with some consideration) wound one close at an airfield where we didn't have company support one night.
I suppose that is the difference. If you have LH maintenance available on a worldwide basis with 30 foot cherry pickers on instant standby then you can indeed go for the ALL or NONE scenario.
Which takes me very neatly to the original query;
"No.2 engine reverser does not appear to be deployed".
So; are you really telling us that LH Cargo ALWAYS (that means ALWAYS) go for an ALL or NONE scenario as a matter of SOP? If so, could you please explain to all of us out here why it was that the crew of 'CQ apparently did NOT deploy ALL or NONE contrary to what you tell us?
Even in Germany, SOPs are SOPs.