>The brakes are a backup system for the thrust reversers, not the other way around. Absolutely *NO!* Thrust reversers are always supplementary to the brakes,

>The brakes are a backup system for the thrust reversers, not the other way around. Absolutely *NO!* Thrust reversers are always supplementary to the brakes, the brakes are always the primary means of bringing the aircraft to a stop on the ground. If the tires blow, the brakes burn out, and the landing gears are a goner in an emergency landing then so be it, that is all part of the design specifications. Why is it like this? Well what happens when the aircraft loses all engines? This has happened many times, and far more frequently than failures concerning the brakes. If an aircraft is not designed and certified to land safely with just brakes, it means an aircraft with all engines out can't land safely. That is absolutely unacceptable. Incidentally, plenty of flights land nominally without using thrust reversers depending on the situation. Using them is preferred because the brakes are worn out less and the aircraft spends less time on the runway, but if the pilot in command appropriately decides to land without thrust reversers that is still perfectly safe without any of the fireworks. Thrust reversers are marvels of engineering, that is never in doubt, but they are never the primary means of stopping an aircraft.