The recent question [When a large commercial jet touches down, is it committed to stopping?](https://aviation.stackexchange.com/q/15335/755) referenced the crash of [Red Wings Airlines Flight 9268](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Wings_Airlines_Flight_9268), which overran the end of the runway at nearly full touchdown speed due to failure of the reversers to deploy. According to the Wiki article, due to a crosswind, the aircraft touched down on only one of its main gear. Even once the nose gear was on the ground, the right main gear strut had still not compressed. The pilots selected full reverse thrust when the nose gear touched down. Since the right gear strut had not been compressed, the reversers were not deployed, however, the engines still spooled up, resulting in forward thrust.

I understand the reasoning behind not deploying the reversers when one or both of the main gear struts isn't compressed. However, it seems to me that preventing deployment of the thrust reversers should also prevent spooling up the engines for exactly the reasons that the Red Wings flight crashed. Applying full forward thrust when the pilots have selected full reverse thrust seems like a very bad idea to me.

I'm wondering whether this behavior is typical of modern transport-category jets. **That is, would, for example, a Boeing or Airbus aircraft prevent the reversers from deploying, but still spool up the engines (as the Tu-204 did in this accident) or would they also prevent engine spool up when reverse thrust is selected while thrust reverser deployment is locked out?**

Am I missing a reason why still spooling up the engines would be desired when reverser deployment is locked out?