I think the Spline Wear AD has to do with the IP Shaft, and not the LP Shaft.
Thanks,
Bearfoil, for mentioning that. I may have drifted to the wrong coupling, accounting for my difficulty in determining how the coupling or the shaft splines were keeping the IPT from moving aft. I'm going to do a bunch of re-reading. Sometimes I fall into the keyboard at 2am.
Is this engine certified for 80,000 pounds thrust anywhere? No version of this engine seems to be certified in the US by the FAA, but that apparently is because there is no AC using it under US ownership. The ADs for it are picked up by the FAA and made effective in the US without change or comment (comment after the US AD is issued are accepted)-- but that is because there are no US interests involved. Paperwork reduction act, possibly. I would think that the US would have some interest in whether this engine could get its AC clear of LA on TO.
Perhaps the FAA did not certify the RR Trent 1000s-B787 as eligible for ETOPS because they were for test-bed AC, and had not accumulated enough flight time to establish ETOPS capability. Or perhaps the engine is still in development. I doubled checked after your comment, and that note appears to generally apply to all 6 of the certified versions. A TC is required to import a foreign engine into the US regardless of its developmental stage.
That has made me wonder if a similar situation might exist for using 80,000 pounds thrust with the RR-972(?)-A380 engines. Is there a European certification for that, or is European certification set up to cover this situation in the same way as FAA seems to be? It appears to me that the FAA considers each computer-authorized increase in the thrust output, of the same otherwise identical engine, to be a separate engine type, and to requlire a separate TC. This was true back at least to the days of the 747. I double-checked also that all 6 versions of the Trent 1000 are identical to the pound in weight. Are Europe and the US regulators divergent in this regard?
OE