bearfoil
My intent was to describe LHT as involved in the retro/repair/upgrade. Their service of the id'd engines that failed/faced failure, is critical to the explanation for the defects.
I agree with your statement. However, I think it to be appropriate to separate aircraft C check maintenance from significant engine inspection. I think there are limited shops you can take an A380 aircraft to have a C check done. What comes to mind at this point would be Airbus, LHTek, Singapore International Airlines and that is about it for now. So Qantas probably didn't have much choice based on their hours and operational schedule. SIA were probably busy C checking their own aircraft. LHTek was probably the only logical choice for the airframe.
The issue of Qantas Trent 9072 engine maintenance, under the Rolls Royce "Total Care Program" seems murky to me at best. I know what the program title says, but what does it mean? If RR had knowledge of technical issues discovered from any of their engine overhaul/repair stations, Germany, Singapore. UK, etc., it is up to them to provide this information to all operators in a timely fashion and in the case of Qantas, notify and take care of any technical issues on the 9072's.
What is the nature of the actions taken that now create a reduced possibility of in flight Burst?
In reality, we will probably never know the details. But the real point is that it should not have happened in the first place if the "checks and balances" during the engine design and review stages had been accomplished properly. There were "lessons learned" that were not learned.
Is the Mission of the EASA to protect Corporate proprietaries? Or is its Mission to protect the safety of the Public in Carriage??
In the US we have the NTSB that investigates incidents and accidents, determines the cause/causes and provides corrective action recommendations to the FAA. The FAA can either chose to accept, partially accept, or reject the NTSB recommendations. There has been a lot of "flak" flying in recent times that the FAA is too close to the airlines and manufacturers in the carrying out of their responsibility of safety to the general public, ignoring many NTSB recommendations. Don't know if the EASA has this sort of problem.