I'm amazed.
I'll do my reply in a couple (or more) posts, the first a summary and the other(s) some extracts.
I have ploughed my way through the report and am extremely unimpressed.
I find the report extremely annoying.
The main reason is that whilst the FOHE (Fuel Oil Heat Exchanger) may be the main reason for the engine roll backs the report is amazing in the way it treats the causes (and testing).
It is amazingly obvious that they did/do not want to mention the actual water content of the fuel on the flight. It SEEMS to be mention only three times and almosy only in passing at "35 - 40" ppm, HOWEVER, all the tests were run with concentrations of 90 ppm (or more). There is no examination in detail of the actual measured water levels or what the actual state of the fuel/water mixture might have been like at the landing stage.
Also, the tests (at UNREPRESENTATIVE water content levels) were inconsistent and it would seem were never tried at more representative water content levels.
So, what did the tests show ???????
I don't know. It would seem that somehow unrepresentative tests are relevent and that the whole report should ignore the actual fuel/water conditions.
And as for the lack of future actions regarding the previously unknown phenomenum of the fuel/water slush with ALL other airframe/engine combinations that is just running away from a huge cost.
I am extremely disappointed.
Last edited by phil gollin; 9th Feb 2010 at 07:54.