JerseyFlyer wrote:

Opus99 wrote:

There is a rumour in the 350 thread that BA is holding off deliveries of 350s based on this. They have not had deliveries of the 350 for a year and the latest one due to be delivered keeps flying in and out of storage which is true.

What I cannot confirm if it’s related to this surface issue

Has IB taken recent deliveries? IAG orders for both BA and IB.

Last was July 2020

IIRC, it was fairly late in the development of the 787s that it was realized that lightning protection had to be added to the automated layup of the fuselage. It struck me at the time that it was kind of late to realize that. Any number of people on and off site (including Airbus) did not think the technology was sufficiently developed to build 'plastic' planes without future problems emerging. And now both A and B are experiencing problems. It is truly odd how the two so often have 'mirror image' failures.

frmrCapCadet wrote:

IIRC, it was fairly late in the development of the 787s that it was realized that lightning protection had to be added to the automated layup of the fuselage. It struck me at the time that it was kind of late to realize that. Any number of people on and off site (including Airbus) did not think the technology was sufficiently developed to build 'plastic' planes without future problems emerging. And now both A and B are experiencing problems. It is truly odd how the two so often have 'mirror image' failures.

I still have questions around 787's changes to its lightening protection system (there was a burst of press on this around December 2019), but that's off topic for this thread, IMO.

frmrCapCadet wrote:

IIRC, it was fairly late in the development of the 787s that it was realized that lightning protection had to be added to the automated layup of the fuselage. It struck me at the time that it was kind of late to realize that. Any number of people on and off site (including Airbus) did not think the technology was sufficiently developed to build 'plastic' planes without future problems emerging. And now both A and B are experiencing problems. It is truly odd how the two so often have 'mirror image' failures.

The 787 was always going to have the metal mesh in the layup-this was not something new and has been used previously. You can find reports from NASA from the 1970s talking about this technique for lightning protection for non metallic material.

But lightning production of all composite fuselage and wings is extremely complex and requires careful design and engineering. It’s not as simple as incorporate metal mesh/foil in skin and call it a day. That’s probably what you are remembering-Boeing nailing down their final protection design (and how much it would end up weighing).

bikerthai wrote:

Did they drill a few holes, drain the melting water into a bucket, then patch up the hole?

The parts would be removed from service and repaired at the component repair shop.

bpatus297 wrote:

But what if the airlines have to paint these areas much faster than expected? I could see an airline getting upset if this is going to be an ongoing issue of painting that is possibly (unknown) much more accelerated than expected. Especially with a plane at the A350 price point.

That is a reality, where and how aircraft are operated change the maintenance requirements. That is the reason so many aircraft with flown to very dry areas for storage during covid, otherwise it would result in more maintenance.

Boof02671 wrote:

Now QA and inspectors (Management) do the acceptable checks before delivery.

Despite whatever title you may want to give them, being at a MRO their actual qualification would be a certificated airframe and/or powerplant mechanic, their role even if it is in a supervisory role of QA is maintenance. Signing a return to service tag, or releasing the aircraft is maintenance can only be done by a certificated individual.

bpatus297 wrote:

Are those mechanics assigned to the respective OEM or are do they drop in on occasion and do inspections? Genuinely just curious.

Where I work the “engineering” department is responsible for monitoring aircraft in production and for acceptance, and getting it onto the local register. The mechanics work for the engineering department and are assigned those roles for long term periods, they are usually very experienced.

ElroyJetson wrote:

The only scale mentioned in the Reuters article was a reference to LH that said they had a damaged area that was a meter square. That is quite large. The scale of the photos in the pics is unknown.

I think I have replied to you directly on this before, paint peel like LH had is not the same issue as we see in those Reuters photos. Paint peel normally presents itself soon after delivery. With paint peel you see a smooth green surface exposed, and in the cases I have seen were mainly on removable panels on the belly.

Revelation wrote:

QR leasing 4 77W from CX:

These are aircraft that were were returned to the lessor by CX and placed by the lessor with another customer. The way you have written this would suggest CX is leasing the aircraft to QR, the majority of 77Ws CX operated were leased, and many have been returned to lessors.

CapCadet is right, there was a big flap over lightning protection on the 787, I think it happened after the 7-LATE-7 rollout of the Trojan Horse. I recall it was a big change of the lightning protection to the embedded mesh, from some other method before that.

Polot wrote:

frmrCapCadet wrote:

IIRC, it was fairly late in the development of the 787s that it was realized that lightning protection had to be added to the automated layup of the fuselage. It struck me at the time that it was kind of late to realize that. Any number of people on and off site (including Airbus) did not think the technology was sufficiently developed to build 'plastic' planes without future problems emerging. And now both A and B are experiencing problems. It is truly odd how the two so often have 'mirror image' failures.

The 787 was always going to have the metal mesh in the layup-this was not something new and has been used previously. You can find reports from NASA from the 1970s talking about this technique for lightning protection for non metallic material.

But lightning production of all composite fuselage and wings is extremely complex and requires careful design and engineering. It’s not as simple as incorporate metal mesh/foil in skin and call it a day. That’s probably what you are remembering-Boeing nailing down their final protection design (and how much it would end up weighing).

My guess of the rivet head size here is 5 mm diameter, probably the best thing to scale. In composites the rivet head is larger than in AL with the body a similar diameter.

bikerthai wrote:

smartplane wrote:

These proactive customers don't take product with any identified defects. Zero.

Yep, I've heard of situation where they would strip off and reapply the decorative laminate on a monument for the smallest of wrinkle just because they know the customer will not accept it

bt

A golden rule in the commercial aviation finance industry, is 'it will never be better than the day it was delivered new'. However hard the OEM tries to make it so.

And it will never be easier, cheaper and less inconvenient to get it fixed before delivery, while still in the possession of, and partly financed by the OEM. Which is why some airlines have inspectors working with OEM's, even delaying milestone payments where rectification work hasn't occurred.

Common NZ expressions used to be 'good as gold' and borrowed from Australia, 'she'll be right'. Such attitudes have no place in commercial aircraft manufacture. QR, and EK, set the gold standard for taking delivery of new aircraft, even where they will be 'owned' by other entities.

Those other entities will even defer undertaking their own due diligence, if their customer has signed off.

Any notified defect or fix for in service aircraft, whether safety or non-safety related, are required to be incorporated in new builds still under construction, at the appropriate stage of production, even if remedial parts are in very short supply or non-existent. Milestone payments are frozen until incorporated. None of, we will re-visit before delivery.

At the other end of the spectrum, some customers receive the OEM generated checklist, and take delivery.

Anyone who has bought a new car and taken delivery before having the dealer remove the 'wrinkles' will know how hard it is to get satisfaction after the money has changed hands.

zeke wrote:

Revelation wrote:

QR leasing 4 77W from CX:

These are aircraft that were were returned to the lessor by CX and placed by the lessor with another customer. The way you have written this would suggest CX is leasing the aircraft to QR, the majority of 77Ws CX operated were leased, and many have been returned to lessors.

Thanks for the clarification, I'm happy to take your word over the source I linked.

It will be interesting to see what DL find when they examine the older A350s they are acquiring from LATAM, especially those previously leased to QR

zeke wrote:

I think I have replied to you directly on this before, paint peel like LH had is not the same issue as we see in those Reuters photos. Paint peel normally presents itself soon after delivery. With paint peel you see a smooth green surface exposed, and in the cases I have seen were mainly on removable panels on the belly.

I'm glad to see you state that if there is a paint issue that only the "green" surface layer of the CFRP panel is exposed, and not the buried copper mesh.

JerseyFlyer wrote:

It will be interesting to see what DL find when they examine the older A350s they are acquiring from LATAM, especially those previously leased to QR

I`m sure DL will have a close look at it and if they`re fine QR has a ............

JayinKitsap wrote:

. I recall it was a big change of the lightning protection to the embedded mesh, from some other method before that.

Expanded metal mesh was in development along with fiberplaced solid laminate composite structure as far back as 1995. So it is hard for me to believe they changed it up on the 787 after the first frames were built.

bt

bikerthai wrote:

JayinKitsap wrote:

. I recall it was a big change of the lightning protection to the embedded mesh, from some other method before that.

Expanded metal mesh was in development along with fiber placed solid laminate composite structure as far back as 1995. So it is hard for me to believe they changed it up on the 787 after the first frames were built.

bt

My memory was a bit off, Boeing was having issues getting the Lightning Protection to fully comply and requested rule changes. The issue was how gaps at the fastener holes interfered with the continuity of the carbon fibers able to carry the lightning charge such that sparking would happen in the small gap between the composite and the fastener. It was to be solved by using interference fit fasteners, basically pressed in without any gap. They proposed several alternates and managed to get it approved.

Spin forward to 2019 where Boeing was 'caught' quietly removing lightning protection from Zone 3 areas while also adding a lot of area to Zone 3 from 2. The foils etc were removed from all but Zone 1 and 2 and the insulating caps removed from the fasteners throughout except some had insulating caps still toward the interior.

So it was integrating the LPS with the fasteners, but somewhere around that time the term mesh changed to foil. I still recall but can't find the supporting article that the bronze wires laid into the barrels was something different originally. It seemed to be to be to better match the E of the wire closer to the Carbon as well as better matching thermal properties.


Leeham N & C 2008
https://leehamnews.com/2009/02/08/787-l ... rotection/

Chicago Tribune but written by D gates - Dec 2019
https://www.chicagotribune.com/business ... story.html

JerseyFlyer wrote:

It will be interesting to see what DL find when they examine the older A350s they are acquiring from LATAM, especially those previously leased to QR

I suspect they will be in good condition, having been repainted a number of times.

2175301 wrote:

I'm glad to see you state that if there is a paint issue that only the "green" surface layer of the CFRP panel is exposed, and not the buried copper mesh.

Paint has been peeling off aircraft longer than I have been flying. This is a thread from 2003 discussing this viewtopic.php?t=735007

bikerthai wrote:

Expanded metal mesh was in development along with fiberplaced solid laminate composite structure as far back as 1995. So it is hard for me to believe they changed it up on the 787 after the first frames were built.

I believe Airbus uses a couple of Hexcel products, called Redux and HexPly which contain the LSP.

zeke wrote:

JerseyFlyer wrote:

It will be interesting to see what DL find when they examine the older A350s they are acquiring from LATAM, especially those previously leased to QR

I suspect they will be in good condition, having been repainted a number of times..

Why do you suspect that? When were they repainted multiple times? Qatar never painted the LATAM A350s in their own livery when they leased them. They stayed in the LATAM livery while flying for Qatar, which led to some fun spotting pictures.

https://www.reuters.com/article/airbus- ... SKBN2IL1KM

Apparently Delta has seen some issues on their 350s as well. According to sources

Good news. A manufacturing problem is easier to rectify than a design problem.

bt

Opus99 wrote:

https://www.reuters.com/article/airbus-a350-idUSKBN2IL1KM

Apparently Delta has seen some issues on their 350s as well. According to sources

And EASA is now admitting there is a problem, yet not one that covers the twenty airplanes the Qatari regulator has grounded.

The European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) said in a proposed airworthiness directive that Expanded Copper Foil (ECF), designed to safely disperse lightning strikes, may not have been installed properly on the wing covers of 13 jets.

If a cocktail of factors comes together - including an adjacent fastener also being incorrectly installed - then a heavy lightning strike in the same zone could lead to fuel vapour igniting and “consequent loss” of the jet, EASA said.

The proposed directive calls for gradual inspections and where necessary repairs, enforcing a bulletin from Airbus, but does not call for any of the 13 planes to be grounded.

Ref: Same article linked above.

The 13 frames referred to are spread over 10 airlines so at most only 4 of these are at QR. This is not resolved yet.

Opus99 wrote:

https://www.reuters.com/article/airbus-a350-idUSKBN2IL1KM

Apparently Delta has seen some issues on their 350s as well. According to sources

Thank you for the Reuters link. It is interesting how information keeps dribbling out. So at least now there is an acknowledgement of manufacturing issues regarding at least a limited number of A350's and the copper mesh used for lightning mitigation. Further inspection for additional aircraft to follow.

The inference Airbus initially made that the issue was confined to one aircraft and then one airline and it was only "a paint issue" is clearly put to rest. Additionally, the inference made by some that the problem was solely an airline maintenance issue, and had nothing to do with manufacturing or process by Airbus appears to be, at least partially, false.

At this point it looks like virtually every major operator of the A350 has experienced problems that have been reported. The only exceptions I can think of are SQ, and BA and IB. Perhaps they are privately dealing directly with Airbus, I don't know.

A concern I have is how the EASA has responded to this situation. Imho it is starting to feel like shades of the FAA getting too chummy with Boeing and having it bite them later. I hope I am wrong, but the EASA has not exactly been a font of accurate truth and factual information imo. This situation is too big to go unresolved. Whatever the ultimate accommodations made to the various airlines involved we may never know. I just hope it gets resolved soon.

Opus99 wrote:

Apparently Delta has seen some issues on their 350s as well. According to sources

And yet searching the FAA Service Difficulty Reporting System (SDRS) ( https://av-info.faa.gov/sdrx/Query.aspx ) has no reports in the US filed on the A350 relating to paint, or copper, or composite. If DL did have “issues”, it is required to file a SDR, there is 174 SDR filed by DL on the A350 available for anyone to see, none I could see were regarding paint or composites.

EASA 02Dec
Reason:
It has been identified that, due to a production quality issue, Heavy Expanded Copper Foil (HECF) patches may not have been installed at all required locations of the WLC and WUC.
This condition, if not detected and corrected, combined with a pre-existing undetected incorrect installation of an adjacent fastener and associated nut-cap, could create an ignition source for the fuel vapour inside the fuel tanks, which, in case of a lightning strike of high intensity in the area, could possibly result in ignition of the fuel-air mixture in the affected fuel tank and consequent loss of the aeroplane.
To address this potential unsafe condition, Airbus issued the SB, as defined in this AD, to provide inspection and associated repair instructions.
For the reason described above, this AD requires repair or one-time special detailed inspection (SDI) of the affected areas and, depending on findings, accomplishment of applicable corrective action(s).
Required Action(s) and Compliance Time(s):
Required as indicated, unless accomplished previously:
Inspection(s):
(1) For Group 1 and Group 2 aeroplanes: Within the compliance time specified in Table 1 of this
AD, as applicable, accomplish an SDI of affected areas in accordance with the instructions of the SB.
Group
1 2
Table 1 - Inspection
Compliance Time
Within 12 months after the effective date of this AD Before exceeding 78 months since Airbus date of manufacture
EASA PAD No.: 21-176
Corrective Action(s) / Repair:
(2) If, during the SDI as required by paragraph (1) of this AD, HECF patches are found missing,
before next flight, accomplish the applicable corrective action(s) in accordance with the instructions of the SB.
(3) For Group 3 aeroplanes: Before exceeding 78 months since Airbus date of manufacture, repair the affected area for HECF patches in accordance with the instructions of the SB.
Ref. Publications:
Airbus SB A350-57-P076 original issue dated 05 November 2021.
The use of later approved revisions of the above-mentioned document is acceptable for compliance with the requirements of this AD

zeke wrote:

Opus99 wrote:

Apparently Delta has seen some issues on their 350s as well. According to sources

And yet searching the FAA Service Difficulty Reporting System (SDRS) ( https://av-info.faa.gov/sdrx/Query.aspx ) has no reports in the US filed on the A350 relating to paint, or copper, or composite. If DL did have “issues”, it is required to file a SDR, there is 174 SDR filed by DL on the A350 available for anyone to see, none I could see were regarding paint or composites.

DL could be finding these issues on frames it is leasing from AerCap, secondhand, especially the ex-LATAM frames, now that it turns out that QR wasn't just blowing smoke. LATAM (JJ) was the fourth worldwide customer for the A350XWB.

zeke wrote:

Opus99 wrote:

Apparently Delta has seen some issues on their 350s as well. According to sources

And yet searching the FAA Service Difficulty Reporting System (SDRS) ( https://av-info.faa.gov/sdrx/Query.aspx ) has no reports in the US filed on the A350 relating to paint, or copper, or composite. If DL did have “issues”, it is required to file a SDR, there is 174 SDR filed by DL on the A350 available for anyone to see, none I could see were regarding paint or composites.

Don’t shoot the messenger I’m just delivering the news

BOAC1966 wrote:

EASA 02Dec
Reason:
It has been identified that, due to a production quality issue, Heavy Expanded Copper Foil (HECF) patches may not have been installed at all required locations of the WLC and WUC.
This condition, if not detected and corrected, combined with a pre-existing undetected incorrect installation of an adjacent fastener and associated nut-cap, could create an ignition source for the fuel vapour inside the fuel tanks, which, in case of a lightning strike of high intensity in the area, could possibly result in ignition of the fuel-air mixture in the affected fuel tank and consequent loss of the aeroplane.
To address this potential unsafe condition, Airbus issued the SB, as defined in this AD, to provide inspection and associated repair instructions.
For the reason described above, this AD requires repair or one-time special detailed inspection (SDI) of the affected areas and, depending on findings, accomplishment of applicable corrective action(s).
Required Action(s) and Compliance Time(s):
Required as indicated, unless accomplished previously:
Inspection(s):
(1) For Group 1 and Group 2 aeroplanes: Within the compliance time specified in Table 1 of this
AD, as applicable, accomplish an SDI of affected areas in accordance with the instructions of the SB.
Group
1 2
Table 1 - Inspection
Compliance Time
Within 12 months after the effective date of this AD Before exceeding 78 months since Airbus date of manufacture
EASA PAD No.: 21-176
Corrective Action(s) / Repair:
(2) If, during the SDI as required by paragraph (1) of this AD, HECF patches are found missing,
before next flight, accomplish the applicable corrective action(s) in accordance with the instructions of the SB.
(3) For Group 3 aeroplanes: Before exceeding 78 months since Airbus date of manufacture, repair the affected area for HECF patches in accordance with the instructions of the SB.
Ref. Publications:
Airbus SB A350-57-P076 original issue dated 05 November 2021.
The use of later approved revisions of the above-mentioned document is acceptable for compliance with the requirements of this AD

The Airbus SB A350-57-P076 is not new, there are ADs in 2020 on the A350 referring to the same SB.

I dont think its related to the QR issue at all, the Airbus SB A350-57-P076 was looking for inspections on particular aircraft in specific locations before QR grounded their aircraft. This latest AD proposal is an update (05 November 2021) to the Airbus SB A350-57-P076.

zeke wrote:

Opus99 wrote:

Apparently Delta has seen some issues on their 350s as well. According to sources

And yet searching the FAA Service Difficulty Reporting System (SDRS) ( https://av-info.faa.gov/sdrx/Query.aspx ) has no reports in the US filed on the A350 relating to paint, or copper, or composite. If DL did have “issues”, it is required to file a SDR, there is 174 SDR filed by DL on the A350 available for anyone to see, none I could see were regarding paint or composites.

My understanding is that the SDRS database is only for issues that occur while in service with a USA airline. It does not cover issues found and addressed during the Inprocessing/conversion/repair process that all used aircraft goes though prior to being put into service by a USA airline.

Delta may well have discovered this issue on the 7 used A350's delivered so far that they are acquiring from LTAM and repaired it per Airbus instructions before those aircraft were put into service in the Delta fleet.

Such issues and repairs would not show up in the SDRS system as the aircraft were not yet in service with Delta.

https://onemileatatime.com/news/delta-a ... ed-planes/

2175301 wrote:

My understanding is that the SDRS database is only for issues that occur while in service with a USA airline.

SDRs are submitted for all US registered aircraft, as the registration means they have the certificate of airworthiness issued by the FAA. All of the ex TAM/LATAM have been FAA registered, they are in the series N57xDZ where x range from 0-6.

zeke wrote:

Opus99 wrote:

Apparently Delta has seen some issues on their 350s as well. According to sources

And yet searching the FAA Service Difficulty Reporting System (SDRS) ( https://av-info.faa.gov/sdrx/Query.aspx ) has no reports in the US filed on the A350 relating to paint, or copper, or composite. If DL did have “issues”, it is required to file a SDR, there is 174 SDR filed by DL on the A350 available for anyone to see, none I could see were regarding paint or composites.

Did you look through all 174 or did you rely on description search? Because the latter does not seem to work all that well. For example the first one I see when I just search Airbus A350 (control number DALA2019072404378) has the problem description:

AIRCRAFT 3510, FIRE GROUND CREW REPORTED A BRAKE FIRE ON THE NR 2 AND 6 BRAKES WHILE PULLING INTO THE GATE. CORRECTIVE ACTION: MAINTENANCE INSPECTED THE WHEEL FUSIBLE PLUG AND WAS NOT MELTED AND THE WHEEL-BRAKE TEMPERATURE WAS LESS THAN 800 DEGREES C AND FOLLOWED THE AMM. ALL WHEELS SHOWED NO DEFECTS. LP 6296308

Yet if I search “Fire” (I even tried FIRE in case case sensitive) or “brake” in problem description search field I get zero results.

zeke wrote:

2175301 wrote:

My understanding is that the SDRS database is only for issues that occur while in service with a USA airline.

SDRs are submitted for all US registered aircraft, as the registration means they have the certificate of airworthiness issued by the FAA. All of the ex TAM/LATAM have been FAA registered, they are in the series N57xDZ where x range from 0-6.

Delta may not have applied for US Registration until a used aircraft is ready to exit their in-processing/conversion/repair process.

If I buy a car to fix up. I'm not required to register it for road use (and get a license plate) until its road worthy. Some people who restore cars take years from when they acquire a vehicle to when they license it for road use.

Polot wrote:

Did you look through all 174 or did you rely on description search?

I went through the reports from this year, the vast majority were relating to lights and drop down oxygen masks. If you put a % sign in front of and behind the word works best for me, if I put in %skin% or %lightning% it filters those results correctly. The SDR search I saw one report (DALA201811206731) where DL inspected the aircraft in and identified the manufacturing lightning protection missing as identified in the Airbus SB. That was back in 11/14/2018.

AIRBUS AOT A57P011-18-00 EXPLAINS THAT SOME WING RIB TO WING LOWER SKIN GAPS WERE NOT FILLED IN PRODUCTION AS REQUIRED. UNFILLED GAPS COULD ALLOW CONTACT AND SPARKS AND POTENTIAL EWIS CONCERNS. WORK TO BE COMPLETED, APPLY ADHESION PROMOTER, MIX AND POUR SEALANT AND SUCK THE SEALANT INTO THE GAP AND APPLY FILLET SEAL WITH POLYSULFIDE SEALANT PER ER/A 572988-14AD.

2175301 wrote:

Delta may not have applied for US Registration until a used aircraft is ready to exit their in-processing/conversion/repair process.

That does not matter, the maintenance work is under that registration (which includes storage, refueling, painting as that is all maintenance), any defects are reported under that registration to the FAA. They are no longer registered in Brazil.

zeke wrote:

2175301 wrote:

Delta may not have applied for US Registration until a used aircraft is ready to exit their in-processing/conversion/repair process.

That does not matter, the maintenance work is under that registration (which includes storage, refueling, painting as that is all maintenance), any defects are reported under that registration to the FAA. They are no longer registered in Brazil.

I even looked it up (see link below). Delta cannot get a FAA airworthiness certificate until they have verified that all the ducks are in the row paperwork wise for all maintenance and repairs for the life of the aircraft, and the aircraft is currently in a condition for safe operation.

I'm quite sure that takes some time to audit the records and be sure that there are no gaps, and if there are gaps to redo the maintenance with appropriate documented repairs, and to transfer the records into Delta's data base.

In the meantime Delta can be doing other repairs, interior changes, and painting the aircraft; none of which needs to be reported as the aircraft does not yet have an FAA Airworthiness Certificate.

Since the aircraft came from out of country, it did not have a previous FAA Airworthiness Certificate to report things under.

Thus, Delta (and anyone else obtaining an aircraft from out of the USA) has a bit to do before they can apply for an FAA Airworthiness Certificate.

The fact that Delta has title to the aircraft does not mean that they have an FAA Airworthiness Certificate.

They don't need an Airworthiness Certificate until the day they decide to fly it from whatever maintenance base they do the in-processing of used aircraft for entry into commercial service.

It makes life simpler for Dela if the actual title transfer occurred after the aircraft landed at the maintenance base for the in-processing of the aircraft. We don't know when or where that occurred. Otherwise Delta would need a Special Flight Permit to get it to the maintenance base (which are issued for aircraft without a valid airworthiness certificate)

https://www.faa.gov/aircraft/air_cert/a ... td_awcert/

https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-14/c ... rt-H?toc=1

zeke wrote:

2175301 wrote:

Delta may not have applied for US Registration until a used aircraft is ready to exit their in-processing/conversion/repair process.

That does not matter, the maintenance work is under that registration (which includes storage, refueling, painting as that is all maintenance), any defects are reported under that registration to the FAA. They are no longer registered in Brazil.

Part 2 response on the SDRS database: It does not apply to routine maintenance done to defects or wear within the OEM limits that are repaired in accordance with manufactures directions.

https://www.federalregister.gov/documen ... ty-reports

Key Quote: "Section 121.704(a) requires certificate holders to report the occurrence or detection of each failure or defect that exceeds OEM established limits, and failures or defects repaired in accordance with approved data not contained in the manufacturer's maintenance manual."

So even if you claims are true that Delta would have to report work on aircraft that did not yet have an FAA Airworthiness Certificate: Delta would not have seen any need to report it at all... IF Airbus told Delta that it was within established limits (and perhaps used the lightning strike damage criteria) and instructed Delta to repair it like lightning strike damage with the approved procedures...

2175301 wrote:

I even looked it up (see link below). Delta cannot get a FAA airworthiness certificate until they have verified that all the ducks are in the row paperwork wise for all maintenance and repairs for the life of the aircraft, and the aircraft is currently in a condition for safe operation.

That is called an export CofA, usually issued by a DER of the registry where the aircraft is leaving. As DL is both a Brazilian and FAA maintenance organisation I would not be surprised they have DERs in house that can do this.

2175301 wrote:

I'm quite sure that takes some time to audit the records and be sure that there are no gaps, and if there are gaps to redo the maintenance with appropriate documented repairs, and to transfer the records into Delta's data base.

This is standard a CofA inspection, all FAA ADs will be done, and all compliance with FAA regulations performed. The aircraft is then placed into the normal DL phase inspection process, the same process is done for a new aircraft.

2175301 wrote:

In the meantime Delta can be doing other repairs, interior changes, and painting the aircraft; none of which needs to be reported as the aircraft does not yet have an FAA Airworthiness Certificate.

You are therefore claiming the aircraft is stateless without regulatory oversight and DL in its capacity of being a Part 121 and 145 maintenance organization doesn’t need to follow its own procedures. Rather bold statements to make.

2175301 wrote:

Since the aircraft came from out of country, it did not have a previous FAA Airworthiness Certificate to report things under.

The aircraft were flown to the US with Brazilian registration. DL has FAA Part 121 and 145 maintenance certificates, and Brazilian Part 145, I don’t see how your claim of being able to do unreported work on the airframes comes from.

2175301 wrote:

It makes life simpler for Dela if the actual title transfer occurred after the aircraft landed at the maintenance base for the in-processing of the aircraft.

The aircraft are leased.

2175301 wrote:

It does not apply to routine maintenance done to defects or wear within the OEM limits that are repaired in accordance with manufactures directions.

Then DL must be doing something very wrong, as most of the entries in the A350 SDR database would be corrected by replacing light globes, resetting a computer, or resetting a oxygen panel, all of which are standard maintenance tasks.

The reality is the vast majority of SDRs are discovered during routing maintenance and rectified using published procedures. The worldwide SDRs reports is one of the tools the MRB uses to modify the MPD for the type, the OEMs also use them to develop service bulletins.

zeke wrote:

2175301 wrote:

In the meantime Delta can be doing other repairs, interior changes, and painting the aircraft; none of which needs to be reported as the aircraft does not yet have an FAA Airworthiness Certificate.

You are therefore claiming the aircraft is stateless without regulatory oversight and DL in its capacity of being a Part 121 and 145 maintenance organization doesn’t need to follow its own procedures. Rather bold statements to make.

2175301 wrote:

It makes life simpler for Dela if the actual title transfer occurred after the aircraft landed at the maintenance base for the in-processing of the aircraft.

The aircraft are leased.

The aircraft are not stateless. They belong to the state (country) where the title is registered. However, being owned does not mean that the aircraft is airworthy. The museums are full of owned, but not airworthy aircraft, not to mention the scrap yards and assorted other places.

Since these are leased, I'm not sure of which country the ownership is registered: Is the title is transferred to the country where the lessee is, or maintained in the country where the lease company is?

zeke wrote:

2175301 wrote:

It does not apply to routine maintenance done to defects or wear within the OEM limits that are repaired in accordance with manufactures directions.

Then DL must be doing something very wrong, as most of the entries in the A350 SDR database would be corrected by replacing light globes, resetting a computer, or resetting a oxygen panel, all of which are standard maintenance tasks.

The reality is the vast majority of SDRs are discovered during routing maintenance and rectified using published procedures. The worldwide SDRs reports is one of the tools the MRB uses to modify the MPD for the type, the OEMs also use them to develop service bulletins.

I just pulled the exact wording out of the FAA website (and provided the link). Normal maintenance, by my reading, does not have to have and SDR reported. Only if something unexpected is found.

Now perhaps they find something unexpected during normal maintenance (say an unusual or earlier than expected failure mechanism), and thus generate an SDR. A number of similar SDRs on that unusual failure drives a the OEM to respond. I believe that is likely what you are reporting.

If you disagree with the FAA statement - I suggest you take it up with them. Not me.


Finally, please consider the process that a few museums and a few companies use where they take an existing aircraft that is almost always not airworthy and no longer has an airworthiness certificate (often has not had one for decades), rebuild and repair it, in some cases modify it (DC-3/C47 to Basler BT-67, DHC Beaver - DHC-2T Turbo Beaver); and then when done applies for and gets an airworthiness certificate in whatever country the owner wishes.

My understanding is that these museums and companies are not reporting every repair, rebuild, modification, as they do it. They report modifications as part of the process at the end of their work, and certify that all repairs and rebuild were done to standards (they have the paperwork if someone wants to check), and then get an airworthiness certificate.

2175301 wrote:

zeke wrote:

2175301 wrote:

In the meantime Delta can be doing other repairs, interior changes, and painting the aircraft; none of which needs to be reported as the aircraft does not yet have an FAA Airworthiness Certificate.

You are therefore claiming the aircraft is stateless without regulatory oversight and DL in its capacity of being a Part 121 and 145 maintenance organization doesn’t need to follow its own procedures. Rather bold statements to make.

2175301 wrote:

It makes life simpler for Dela if the actual title transfer occurred after the aircraft landed at the maintenance base for the in-processing of the aircraft.

The aircraft are leased.

The aircraft are not stateless. They belong to the state (country) where the title is registered. However, being owned does not mean that the aircraft is airworthy. The museums are full of owned, but not airworthy aircraft, not to mention the scrap yards and assorted other places.

Since these are leased, I'm not sure of which country the ownership is registered: Is the title is transferred to the country where the lessee is, or maintained in the country where the lease company is?

zeke wrote:

2175301 wrote:

It does not apply to routine maintenance done to defects or wear within the OEM limits that are repaired in accordance with manufactures directions.

Then DL must be doing something very wrong, as most of the entries in the A350 SDR database would be corrected by replacing light globes, resetting a computer, or resetting a oxygen panel, all of which are standard maintenance tasks.

The reality is the vast majority of SDRs are discovered during routing maintenance and rectified using published procedures. The worldwide SDRs reports is one of the tools the MRB uses to modify the MPD for the type, the OEMs also use them to develop service bulletins.

I just pulled the exact wording out of the FAA website (and provided the link). Normal maintenance, by my reading, does not have to have and SDR reported. Only if something unexpected is found.

Now perhaps they find something unexpected during normal maintenance (say an unusual or earlier than expected failure mechanism), and thus generate an SDR. A number of similar SDRs on that unusual failure drives a the OEM to respond. I believe that is likely what you are reporting.

If you disagree with the FAA statement - I suggest you take it up with them. Not me.


Finally, please consider the process that a few museums and a few companies use where they take an existing aircraft that is almost always not airworthy and no longer has an airworthiness certificate (often has not had one for decades), rebuild and repair it, in some cases modify it (DC-3/C47 to Basler BT-67, DHC Beaver - DHC-2T Turbo Beaver); and then when done applies for and gets an airworthiness certificate in whatever country the owner wishes.

My understanding is that these museums and companies are not reporting every repair, rebuild, modification, as they do it. They report modifications as part of the process at the end of their work, and certify that all repairs and rebuild were done to standards (they have the paperwork if someone wants to check), and then get an airworthiness certificate.

It is increasing clear that you are not familiar with maintenance procedures, airworthiness procedures, or even registration procedures. There are so many inaccuracies in your posts it would take this thread way off topic for me to explain.

SDRs are not restricted to aircraft, a SDR can be made just for a component. DL is a 121 and 145 repair station, as well as a Brazilian 145 repair station.

Aircraft in museums are generally on static display are generally not registered, and others classified that are flying in experimental category. Static display aircraft do not get maintained, they are not aircraft as defined by the FAA as there is no intent to fly them.

There is no such thing as an aircraft title certificate, and in the case of the leased DL A350s they have a US company as trustee for the aircraft, as you need to be American to register an aircraft with the FAA. Their trustee is the Bank of Utah which acts as trustee for a lot of large aircraft with foreign ownership.

The FAA has special arrangements with a number of jurisdictions where they will accept their certification, Brazil is one of those jurisdictions. The Brazilian export CofA for the aircraft will demonstrate to the FAA the conformance to the FAA TCDS.

Basler cannot take an unairworthy DC3, modify it and then get a CofA elsewhere. They aircraft gets a FAA CofA with the STC applied, the STC is recorded with the FAA via a 337, then they obtain and export CofA. The foreign jurisdiction then will go through their local airworthiness procedures using the data on the export CofA to grant the local CofA.

The FAA does keep a record of all major changes and repairs, you can request a 337 report from the FAA to learn its history.

I have personally owned aircraft in multiple jurisdictions, done import/export/ferry flights, issued export CofAs, and issued initial CofAs. I have significant experience in these matters.

Even Jalopnik picked up the story now:

https://jalopnik.com/a-mysterious-issue ... 1848169918

Dumb question, and I apologize in advance. Don't both A and B have a long history with managing these sorts of things? When both the A350 and 787 were being developed there were lots of questions about ramp rash issues, maintenance procedures, and how all those types of problems had been worked out. And the panel approach on the A350 was argued as being even easier from a maintenance point of view because all you needed to do was swap out the panel in question if there was a larger repair issue. It just seems odd that if this is only an issue about a lack of routine maintenance on an operator's part, that at this point it would be cheaper to do a panel swap than leave relatively new aircraft grounded for an extended period of time. Is this just all about who pays for that type of solution?

dk1967 wrote:

that at this point it would be cheaper to do a panel swap than leave relatively new aircraft grounded for an extended period of time.

Two clarifications.

1) At least one of the area shown in the photos is not located on the fuselage. Someone mentioned the lower wing panel. So the fuselage panel design does not come in to play.

2) While in theory, a fuselage panel swap is possible with the A350. They will attempt all other efforts to repair, including composite scarfing and fastened doublers before doing a panel swap. This is because they will have to build completely new panels, remove the interiors, jack and rig the airplane when swapping fuselage panels.

bt

bikerthai wrote:

2) While in theory, a fuselage panel swap is possible with the A350. They will attempt all other efforts to repair, including composite scarfing and fastened doublers before doing a panel swap. This is because they will have to build completely new panels, remove the interiors, jack and rig the airplane when swapping fuselage panels.

The fuselage panels are also huge. The “panel swap” idea was more PR to counter and distinguish from Boeing’s barrel approach than an actually practical thing to do. Which is why Airbus stopped bringing that up years ago when the industry moved beyond barrel vs panel and stopped caring.

alitis wrote:

Even Jalopnik picked up the story now:

https://jalopnik.com/a-mysterious-issue ... 1848169918

This article seems to be a good summary of the all situation :
- unusual paint degradation caused by lightning mesh
- not a flight safety issu as long as some additional maintenance is done
- conflict between Airbus and Qatar Airways (at least since they are the only one to complain openly) on who is responsable for the additionnal maintenance and the potential retrofit

Polot wrote:

The fuselage panels are also huge. The “panel swap” idea was more PR to counter and distinguish from Boeing’s barrel approach

Huge panels are not necessarily difficult. They replaced large sections of 747 before. Although forming aluminum to fit existing airplane contour is easier than matching cured composite panel.

Note that when that 787 had a crown fire, Boeing came in and cut the damaged area and dropped in a replacement section. So you're right, the difference in design is more or less irrelevant in major fuselage repair.

bt

alitis wrote:

Even Jalopnik picked up the story now:

https://jalopnik.com/a-mysterious-issue ... 1848169918

Much of the article is a rehash of existing stories, however, it does report that Airbus is aware of what is causing the excessive surface degradation of many A350's. The issue is if Airbus has identified the problem, per the article, it has not been communicated to QR or at least two other airlines that were asked.

So that begs the question: If Airbus knows what the causal factors are that are causing rapid surface degradation on the A350 why not tell the airline operators? There obviously must be a reason for the lack of communication, but what it is I do not know.

ElroyJetson wrote:

alitis wrote:

Even Jalopnik picked up the story now:

https://jalopnik.com/a-mysterious-issue ... 1848169918

Much of the article is a rehash of existing stories, however, it does report that Airbus is aware of what is causing the excessive surface degradation of many A350's. The issue is if Airbus has identified the problem, per the article, it has not been communicated to QR or at least two other airlines that were asked.

So that begs the question: If Airbus knows what the causal factors are that are causing rapid surface degradation on the A350 why not tell the airline operators? There obviously must be a reason for the lack of communication, but what it is I do not know.

It is possible that the dispute with QR (and maybe others) is the reason why Airbus is not openly disclosing the root cause. The dispute between Airbus and Qatar Airways seems not to be about the actual anomaly but over it's seriousness. The root cause most likely laying in the design, Airbus may want to get out of the arm wrestling contest with Qatar before admiting officialy they are responsible of the default.

ElroyJetson wrote:

it has not been communicated to QR or at least two other airlines that were asked.

The article does not say that, “Airbus says it knows the root cause of the issue, but sources with two of the airlines said that they have not been notified of it.”

ElroyJetson wrote:

So that begs the question: If Airbus knows what the causal factors are that are causing rapid surface degradation on the A350 why not tell the airline operators? There obviously must be a reason for the lack of communication, but what it is I do not know.

The article is titled “A Mysterious Issue Is Causing Paint To Peel Off Of Airbus A350s”

The reason for paint peel is known, it has been happening to airliners for decades (and discussed on this forum fir decades). The QR issue is not paint peel.

zeke wrote:

ElroyJetson wrote:

it has not been communicated to QR or at least two other airlines that were asked.

The article does not say that, “Airbus says it knows the root cause of the issue, but sources with two of the airlines said that they have not been notified of it.”

ElroyJetson wrote:

So that begs the question: If Airbus knows what the causal factors are that are causing rapid surface degradation on the A350 why not tell the airline operators? There obviously must be a reason for the lack of communication, but what it is I do not know.

The article is titled “A Mysterious Issue Is Causing Paint To Peel Off Of Airbus A350s”

The reason for paint peel is known, it has been happening to airliners for decades (and discussed on this forum fir decades). The QR issue is not paint peel.

The article is quite clear. If you have a problem with the content that is not my problem.

A new story regarding the A350 woes out of the Middle East. https://www.dohanews.co/european-regula ... et-defect/


The heart of the dispute between QR and Airbus seems to be the fundamental understanding of the problem. Key quote: "Airbus has called the flaw a “surface paint” issue while the Qatari airline describes it as problems beneath the paint, affecting the ECF and composite shell."

The article further states, "The European regulator said in an airworthiness ruling proposal that Expanded Copper Foil (ECF), which was used as a lightning-conductor on the A350s, may not have been properly placed on the wing covers of 13 jets. EASA said the EFC defect, alongside an installation flaw in an adjacent fastener, would lead to fuel vapor catching fire and a “consequent loss” of the jet in the case of a heavy lightening. EASA’S directive calls for checks and repairs if necessary, but did not make mention for any of the 13 jets to be grounded."

.

Noshow wrote:

EASA seems to have ordered lightning protective mesh inspections including for Lufthansa's A350. However these checks for production defects seem to focus on the wings.

Seems to be unrelated to the paint/skin issue. More of a manufacturing problem on a select bunch of aircraft.

Noshow wrote:

EASA seems to have ordered lightning protective mesh inspections including for Lufthansa's A350. However these checks for production defects seem to focus on the wings.

EASA at this stage has just issued a proposal, Airbus is actually the author of the document, it is an Airbus service bulletin. The service bulletin is not new, it was published last year, this is a recent update to the existing service bulletin.