F-HPJE has been sitting in Goose for 45 days now, with no imminent obvious movement...

I guess AF has decided maybe they can live without her for some time? Or... not worth it to repair?

Via Flightradar24:

FR24 doesn't quote any source for the 3-engine-ferry scenario (and I doubt they have access to any inside information) so that likely comes from the same source (Reuters) that originally quoted speculation about the recovery by an unnamed investigator from the BEA (who won't have any say in how it's done).

AFAIK there has been no subsequent announcement from those who will decide - the airline and the regulator - in support of that proposition, so don't be surprised if the aircraft finally departs with a full complement of operating engines.

For the damaged engine to be flown out on 25th November will require it to have been removed from F-HPJE (obviously) - so work on F-HPJE will be expected soon.

Engine has already been removed and is quarantined in the hangar.

Would EA have had the opportunity to change things (in the engine control, FADEC or whatever it is called on this engine) to redefine when engine is shut down e.g. with increased vibration ... assuming existing data supports such a modification ?
If that happened (change of firmware/software as a result of the accident), who would know?

I think you will find they thought of that one too, way back at the design stage.

Well yes of course :)
But it does not mean that there can't be any fine tuning later on?

Edit: maybe I misunderstood. That is _not_ done? Warning only, maybe? (Still the question stands ... thresholds could be adjusted ... no?)
I understand there might have been no sign until too late. But someone has that data.

Are there any recent pics of this A380 parked at this cold snowy remote airport ?

Designers (and regulators) are very leery of systems that can automatically and unilaterally shut down an engine in-flight. That's because, no matter how much testing you do, you can never completely rule out a 'false positive'. Worse, since it's in software, the conditions that result in a false positive could easily exist on multiple engines at the same time (say, for example, a lightning strike transient that fools the detection logic). Having all your engines suddenly shut down automatically in flight generally results in a really bad day. :(
So, flight deck warning that instructs the pilot to shut it down - yes, auto-shutdown, no...

I drive past it several times a day. It's a military airfield so photography is not allowed without permission otherwise I would take a few.

Given the overall situation with the A380 it would be interesting to know at what point it would become more economical to write off the aircraft? The lease runs ten years and Air France are currently not investing in the cabins. They need to return the aircraft in good condition which may be tricky given the event. An insurance loss followed by parting out must be being considered. It sounds crazy with such a young aircraft so hopefully not. But then again might this also be the aircraft that was involved in the collision with the regional jet at JFK? Of course it can just as easily be argued that it may be simpler to repair the aircraft and extend the lease rather engage in a battle which may further harm the A380 programm and therefore indirectly France.

No, it isn't.

The aircraft is insured to a defined value which declines at an agreed rate over the years: it has no relation to whatever the actual current market value of the aircraft is at any point in time. In this instance, as in the case of the QF A380, the costs of the repair will be substantially less than the insured hull value so no insurer would agree to a write-off followed by part out.

agree ... but I have seen cases in the past where airlines pressure the repairer to inflate cost estimates in the hope of getting a write off. I don't mean to suggest that is the case here, but only that it is a possible response in a case.

The aircraft belongs to a group of investors, who I suspect would have been pretty happy then, if the aircraft had been damaged sufficiently to be written off, of course without injury, as that sounds to be a lot more than the current realistic valuation. I wonder how the economic cost of the aircraft on ground (aog) is covered. The leasing cost alone will be around 50,000 euros a day without any of the associated replacement aircraft costs. My airline only insures part of this. Probably lucky for Air France it happened in autumn rather than spring in terms of maybe having spare capacity.

I doubt that AF carry AOG cover but I suspect, depending upon the eventually determined cause of the engine disintegration, EA may be making a contribution - possibly via spares or other MTX credits. I believe that RR did something similar after QF32.

Will AF or Airbus pilots fly it back?

Very unlikely to be Airbus - insurance companies really frown on having someone other than an employee of the insured company flying the insured aircraft. If something does go wrong the lawyers would have a field day (used to run into that when Boeing wanted to do a remote flight test on a customer aircraft - getting the insurance straightened out was usually the biggest stumbling block since we needed a Boeing flight test pilot to fly the test).
They may well have one or more Airbus people ride along as 'consultants' though.

Finance/Insurance always gets in the way. I'd have thought that any pilot with the right certification / license / formally documented training and hours would be as good as any other. Or do the insurance companies think that all that training somehow produces significantly uneven results?