bis47
You are on the money. However, the FAA is doing what it does, mitigate challenges to safe flight. Any AD is almost always a compromise, based on real world factors. One could fault the Trent design and suggest swapping out that powerplant for another less sensitive to corrupted fuel.
Holy CRAP, can you imagine? The Trent isn't the problem; in this case it is merely involved in the solution.
Initially, the carriers reacted by massaging their fueling and sourcing dependencies, including emphasizing steps on the book but not being followed.
Missing from the AD, quite naturally, is the politics and economics of yiping about the true culprit. Here is where I find fault with the FAA.
"In Spec.?" A spec isn't arbitrary, but it makes compromises in the real world. "Ice in Fuel?" Not cute, but how much is too much? The triple 7 is a brilliant aircraft, the Trent, like everything RR is an exquisite engineering feat. Chinese Fuel? The Jury is still out. My 2 pence. AF
Aside: If you are still worried about how ETOPS breaks down into a "simultaneous fault", don't be, myself and others have tried to point out that a twin op ends up functioning in unity with late stage homogeneous systems. Making "identical" demands of two engines (autothrottles) operating in a wickedly similar ambient environment produces wickedly similar results, not rocket science. Sometimes, ETOPS isn't. That can't be AD'd. ETOPS solution? One Trent, one GE per a/c. Better solution? get the water out of the Fuel.
AF
Last edited by airfoilmod; 7th Jan 2009 at 11:35.