If I recall Rolls knew of the issues and didn't advise QF - who is the AOC holder?!
The point is QF still appears incapable of making any independant input or decisions without RR making them.
Isn't this the exact situation that precipitated this whole drama!?!

Qantas does not own these Trent 900 engines, they are all on some leasing arrangement with power by the hour.
That may have some reason to do with why they can't make their own decisions.

Surely they wouldn't change the size of the spar? Unless it was a new model or a variant?

Superlame

Regarding QF not owning these engines - I have seen this comment a few times before on PPrune. I am not disputing this, as I have no knowledge of this particular situation.

However, most Power By the Hour ("PBH") contracts relate to engines which are owned by the airline concerned.

Do we know for sure that RR owns the engines ?

QF and JQ operate many aircraft that they do not own, but lease. This does not relieve them of any responsibility, as the AOC holder, for airworthiness compliance.

Qantas must "make their own decisions". Period. If they no longer have the professional competence to do so, then this should be investigated by the relevant authorities.

They may like to imply that they are no longer "responsible", as they have a PBH contract, but I do not think that this is correct.

or is it...
I don't know what the arrangement is either but reading between the lines with this story it appears, Qantas hanging on jumbo all-clear | News.com.au

1. I am sure that RR would not like the Australian press using words like "dodgy" IMHO created by QFs PR machine possibly leading to slow progress in getting the problem resolved and the A380 back on the pacific routes.

2. AJ was too quick to center the blame on RR in the press to get the load off his shoulders at the time, calling for compensation probably upsetting RR as all said and done QF and RR have had a long association with each other, and should have worked it out behind the scenes.

3. RR would most likely choose to work closer with SQ to sort it out as they have a fully functional engine shop unlike QF. Going back to 1746s comment... it struck me

Yeh, spot on but I feel QF management haven't really understood the engineering logistics/issues/time frame to get the thing resolved. It feels like the whole thing was legally left in RR hands.

For me this quote from Mach2point7 says it all..
Indeed, and there may well end up being an investigation, "Corporate Wally Speak" for shifting the blame, has damaged the QF share price which is not a good look for AJ and his PR advisers.

That's a billion dollars since November 4th.

More important outcome of the saga will be whether the A380 pilots have full and unreserved confidence in the engines when they are lifting off from Los Angeles Airport with an approx 14 hour flight ahead of them.

That will the crux of the issue IMHO.


Mike

Is there any truth to the rumour that RR are allowing 75 cycles at full rated takeoff thrust, before the engines needs to be removed from the wing?

Mike
it's actually more like a 16 hour hop ex LAX - none the less the comments by others continue to underscore the observations posted as early as the day of the incident.

Q Media under the direction of the pollie ferret have been an utter disgrace and have contributed to the implied credability losses through their inept communications and amateurish leaking of stories to try to push a few runs on the ASX scoreboard.

Until they and AJ understand that they must come clean and disclose the full facts of the current RR statements of faith - then the market will continue to sell down or at least stay at arms length.

It's about faith and confidence - something that Joyce continues to erode by not being open and accountable and hiding behind Olivia's ill informed meanderings.

Example: Burrito's last post: - heard same rumour today from reliable source.

If it is true then it affirms the fact that there are still issues otherwise, why would the inspection need to be off wing at 75 when the revised AD specifies 200. (that's approx 30% AQL - either the donk performs to the spec or it doesn't)

Even the fact that there is speculation over the inspection schedule clearly demonstrates the need to be genuine and open.

I believe however the reluctance to do so may be related to the "other" issues identified in the 'non stub bore problem' donks.

Maybe PriceWaterhouse need to offer Q a "Rolls Royce Audit Service" and then with INDEPENDENT, TRANSPARENT, EXTERNAL REVIEW, market confidence in Q and the share slide might just start going in the right direction.

(or could it be that to fully come clean with the facts may actually contradict the Q afidavit........)

:E
AT

The 75 cycle removal was only if they were non-modified engines running at full thrust ex LAX. It doesn't affect any brand new or latest mod engines.

All engines are still on a 20 cycle boro, not sure what they are looking at though.The EECs have had a software upgrade that monitors the areas in question more closely.

I heard a good point recently about QF engines, due to the fact that the T900 is overhauled/maintained off wing by a company which is a partnership with RR and one of QFs main competitors and the fact that there is no or very little QF representation during the outside work on these engines QF have in fact no control over these engines once they have left the A380 they were installed on.

Until QF get real about engine overhaul and outsourced quality they don't really have any comeabck when things go awry.

You only need to look at the RB211-524 dramas over the last few years to see the pattern that has formed.

And when things do go wrong, just by saying we don't overhaul the engines it is all XXXXXXXs fault,doesn't indemnify them in the eyes of the public.

If it was on a QF aircraft then according to Joe Public they are going to see it as QFs fault, not some overseas MRO.

It doesn't indemnify them period! Frankly, it is QF's fault.

You can't abdicate the responsibility just because you decide to outsource. The decision to outsource belongs to QF & the responsibility also belongs to them. If they chose badly, didn't adequately monitor & supervise, or just had bad luck, it doesn't matter.

If you want to sell a product, then you, & only you, are responsible for the perfomance & quality of that product, regardless of where you sourced it.

The modern trend in society seems to be that someone else is always to blame & management these days is no different. In fact, it seems to be their mantra, drummed into them from day one & perfected on the job.

I'm sorry, but as far as I am concerned, if a decision made for expedience, cost cutting, greed, ignorance, or any other reason, goes wrong, then the person who made that decision has to wear it. And possibly even his or her superiors. That also goes for good decisions, as well as bad.

Sounds good in theory but that person has probably already got his/her big bonus and moved on by now. :)

Correct me if im wrong but isnt the a380 issues with LAX regarding the length of the runway for take off?

I know of an airport just north of there (SFO) that can handle the 380 very nicely. Wonder if anyone has thought of that?

SFO would require an extra 1500 kg of fuel and Qantas are trying to save some money you know....

Fed Sec, I rarely disagree with your posts but SFO is closer to SYD than LAX (by about 40NM) so the only fuel difference would be due to winds.

The loads on the SFO route would not make the A380 a suitable choice over the B744.

The A380 causes major disruptions when it taxi's at LAX - it would be much worse at SFO (yes I know it has been approved for A380 ops but it wouldn't be a simple operation).

GB, sadly the point re SFO and loads. You are right, Qantas would not put the 380 in there. Heaven forbid Qantas management trying to grow a route for Qantas. They probably think Lufthansa were crazy to launch the 380 into Narita. But I'm sure Lufthansa's loads and yield tell a different story.

The 380 doesn't give too many problems when parked in the right spot in la. Example: gate 123 and then departure off 24L

Test Pilots
 

In post 26 mmciau said:

while in post 29 Bootstrap1 said:

I looked at the AD for the modifications to the EEC software
(EASA Airworthiness Directives Publishing Tool) and it gives me the willies. The relevant part of the AD is:

I know that the A380 has four engines, so it's impossible to lose all four at once. But then that's what the pilot of a Tristar thought, when the same oil seal was left out of all 3 engines. If you want to quibble - yes, one engine was still running on touchdown, but I bet his freckle was puckering a little.

And then of course, this is comprehensively tested software, not unreliable hardware. But, what about the FADEC software on some 777's, that rolled back from the commanded flex thrust ?

As an engineer who's worked on high-availability control system software (SCADA) for 20 years or so, I can tell you that nearly all the easy bugs are found during system testing, while the really curly ones pop up once a complicated system is in service. So if I was the first "test pilot" on a fully-loaded A380 taking off on a hot day on a shortish runway I think my freckle would be puckering just a little. A bit fat alarm is one thing, but shutting down engines seems very drastic to me. What if the protection software falsely triggers due to a combination of factors, say a power bus glitch plus turbulence, or a lightning strike, etc etc. I hope it never happens !

Rob
re: the EEC software mod:
the acceptance testing question has been asked and the answer may be best paraphrased as "trust us"........

the bigger issue, some more learned than me argue is that the actual cause, is the higher oil pressure of the 900's - esp under load. There is some logic in their diagnosis in that OQA Eng 2 was carrying an (alleged) 'unrelated' overspeed MEL at the time of the 4 Nov incident and other donks had some ' unrelated oil issues'

.............V1.......kinda....maybe ......hope so......rotate or (in the case of LAX) surf

AT
:E

There is NO M.E.L. relief for 'Turbine Overspeed' on QF Trent972 engines.
Continuing the myth of an 'alleged' Turbine Overspeed MEL on OQA, indicates an ignorance of the facts.

airtags,

I refer to your mention about 'high oil pressure'.

An engine builder of race cars told me that 'high' oil pressure was to be avoided as high oil pressure limited the capacity for the bearings to be properly lubricated. High oil pressure possibly "blasted away" the oil cushion between surfaces and led to increased wear or even failure of the bearing.

What was desirable was an increased volume of oil at 'medium' pressure.

Mike

How about " we have been advised by Rolls Royce...."

That girl should NEVER have been elevated to that position. Her grammar is poor and her understanding of the industry is even poorer.

Great news for crew and pax that the 380 is substantially back.

GUARD:)