Thrust reversers

[goldwing2006]

For all the airbus buffs, would cancelling thrust reversers or not use them altogether a good idea on an A320?
1)Had heard some guys not using them in the name of saving fuel but wouldn't the added use of the carbon brakes cancel the fuel savings and how much fuel can we really save?
2)If nothing else what about the safety reasons?

[lomapaseo]

I agree there are lots of previous discussions on this.

But to only a few points in the initial question above.

You do have to also consider all maintenace costs as well as part costs. In this case brakes are much cheaper than thrust reversers.

From a safety standpoint, a well advised pilot is just as safe with only brakes alone. The biggest problem with locked out reversers is the trials and tribulations of a difficult landing and not being able to use the full reverse in that situation.

[divinehover]

There is a very simple answer to this question. You wil always deploy reversers as per Airbus SOP. The only variation would be whether max or idle reverse is used. Don't listen to this rubbish about cost of rev vs carbon brakes. What a load of bollocks. Next thing we aren't to pull up the gear on short sectors because the gear cycles are to expensive.

[Dani]

you might have heard it wrong, lots of operators using idle reverse instead of full reverse to save fuel. They use the autobrake function instead.

Not using reversers at all is not a good thing because the lever triggers different functions, not only the reversers.

hth,
Dani

[Iceman49]

As Dani said, not using at least idle reverse should not be an option since certain safety functions are triggered by the action...additionally the best braking and the least amount of wear occurs around