Moderators: jsumali2, richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

  • 1
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
 
freqflyer
Posts: 116
Joined: Sun Apr 02, 2006 12:34 am

Re: Airbus / Qatar A350 dispute - Airbus filed defence and counter-claim

Tue May 31, 2022 9:32 am

ReverseFlow wrote:
What I don't understand is how long QTR must have left the issues happen.
Surely what was shown on the pictures/videos didn't happen on one flight to the next?

And if you always read about how important their image and appearance is for QTR with every little thing almost being micro-managed from the top - this might have been degrading over time without anything being done to it?
Unless the fix is a longer time in maintenance which would have needed to be planned?


Exactly. Airbus feels that the initial minor issue was deliberately left to fester untreated until it became a major problem, so that QR could claim compensation while parking surplus metal. With a lot of help from their regulator.

Personally, I agree with this viewpoint. Other operators took care of the same issue as soon as it appeared and are flying their planes safely.
 
User avatar
FrenchPotatoEye
Posts: 470
Joined: Sun Nov 12, 2017 1:20 pm

Re: Airbus / Qatar A350 dispute - Airbus filed defence and counter-claim

Tue May 31, 2022 10:25 am

Qwatter Air just posted news statement:

https://www.qatarairways.com/en/press-r ... s-releases
 
User avatar
PM
Posts: 5617
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 5:05 pm

Re: Airbus / Qatar A350 dispute - Airbus filed defence and counter-claim

Tue May 31, 2022 10:36 am

FrenchPotatoEye wrote:
Qwatter Air just posted news statement:

https://www.qatarairways.com/en/press-r ... s-releases

Have they never heard the adage, "When you're in a hole, the first thing to do is stop digging."?
 
Asiaflyer
Posts: 957
Joined: Fri May 11, 2007 11:50 am

Re: Airbus / Qatar A350 dispute - Airbus filed defence and counter-claim

Tue May 31, 2022 10:39 am

FrenchPotatoEye wrote:
Qwatter Air just posted news statement:

https://www.qatarairways.com/en/press-r ... s-releases

QRs interpretation of the latest court ruling is very interesting to say the least.

Reuters has also published a small article with comment from Airbus as well. Feels like the two parties still is so far apart that a court ruling next year is likely to happen.

DUBAI, May 31 (Reuters) - Qatar Airways is ready to see its legal dispute with Airbus AIR.PA over flaws with protective skin of A350 wide-body jets through to trial, the Gulf carrier said on Tuesday.

Qatar Airways is suing the European planemaker in a UK court for $1 billion in damages after grounding about two dozen of its A350s experiencing the flaws, which it says raise safety concerns - something Airbus and European regulators deny.

"Qatar Airways is ready to see this matter through to trial to ensure that its rights are protected and that Airbus is required to address an unprecedented and extremely unique and concerning defect impacting the A350 aircraft type, across the industry and multiple carriers," the airline said in a statement setting out detailed extracts from a judge's written ruling.

Airbus said it was surprised by what it termed a "complete mischaracterisation" of the ruling, saying it had rejected Qatar's requests for injunctions and awarded Airbus most costs.
 
User avatar
JerseyFlyer
Posts: 2071
Joined: Fri May 25, 2007 7:24 pm

Re: Airbus / Qatar A350 dispute - Airbus filed defence and counter-claim

Tue May 31, 2022 10:53 am

This new QR statement does get to the essence of the engineering design issue (which as far as I can see IS the "root cause"):

"It follows as a matter of logic that the Condition has resulted from the design of the aircraft so far as the relevant materials are concerned. There are only two possibilities. Either the use of this relatively new form of airframe made of CFRP (instead of a metal like aluminium), combined with any kind of ECF, will inevitably cause the Condition or something like it. Or it is in fact possible to design and manufacture the relevant materials, staying faithful to the use of CFRP, but in a way which avoids the Condition arising in the first place.

The former possibility seems unlikely. That is at least because the Boeing 787 Dreamliner is also made of CFRP and yet such aircraft (which first entered service in 2011) seem not to have exhibited the Condition. This was a point made in submissions by Qatar. For its part, Airbus adduced no evidence to suggest that the 787 had manifested the Condition."

The legal determination will be whether this is or is not (if promptly patched) also a safety issue sufficient to justify QR's legal claims.
 
Gar1G
Posts: 75
Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2021 3:31 pm

Re: Airbus / Qatar A350 dispute - Airbus filed defence and counter-claim

Tue May 31, 2022 11:21 am

The line in the statement:

"Qatar Airways will receive full disclosure on the details of the accelerated surface degradation condition from Airbus for the first time, in advance of the trial, however, for the time being Mr. Justice Waksman’s independent assessment of the Condition is an important milestone."

IMO this could be the avenue for settlement as the details disclosed might prove that if this went to trial then QR may lose on the grounds of safety, but the settlement could involve Airbus having to go through the process of redesigning the copper layer to perforated copper (which an earlier Bloomberg report had suggested they might be looking into: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-11-29/airbus-weighs-fixes-for-a350-paint-issues-behind-qatar-air-rift) or else simply have the entire remainder of the order cancelled?
 
Avatar2go
Posts: 928
Joined: Thu Apr 14, 2022 3:41 am

Re: Airbus / Qatar A350 dispute - Airbus filed defence and counter-claim

Tue May 31, 2022 11:26 am

From the Airbus response document published at Leeham, their root cause determination of the mesh exposure was as follows:

1. Thermal cycling over time results in the formation of "crazing cracks" in the surface layers of the paint protection system.

2. Crazing admits moisture that eventually penetrates to the underlying composite skin.

3. The composite skin material has porosity to moisture, such that moisture can penetrate to the mesh material layer.

4. Oxidation of the mesh material in the presence of moisture, leads to loss of adhesion to the overlying composite skin layer.

5. Further disruption of the paint protection system, by cracking or damage or removal, can allow the exposure of the mesh material, as the composite skin layer flakes away from lack of adhesion.

The remedy proposed by Airbus, which Qatar disputes as not addressing the root cause, is periodic patching of the affected areas with new composite resin, after replacement of oxidized sections of the mesh, and followed by reapplication of the paint protection system. Airbus claims this fully restores the integrity of the surface, and is the industry standard procedure.

Thus Airbus disputes the Qatar allegation that there are latent or manufacturing defects in the mesh, composite, or paint protection system layers, and regards the issue as normal surface maintenance.

Airbus acknowledges that the amount of patching required exceeds expectations, but credits some of that to Qatar painting and stripping procedures. They proposed an increase to the area tolerance limits to allow for additional patching at the existing normal maintenance intervals.

Qatar alleges that there is a material defect that Airbus has not yet identified, which will cause repeated & continuous patching, and may constitute a safety issue. Therefore they consider the root cause analysis incomplete.

Perhaps with further negotiation, Qatar will accept the patching solution in return for further refinement in the mesh and paint protection systems. As noted by comments above, Airbus is looking into that anyway.
 
Gar1G
Posts: 75
Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2021 3:31 pm

Re: Airbus / Qatar A350 dispute - Airbus filed defence and counter-claim

Tue May 31, 2022 11:36 am

From : https://www.paddleyourownkanoo.com/2022/05/31/qatar-airways-prepared-to-wait-12-months-to-get-its-day-in-court-in-dispute-with-airbus-in-1-billion-lawsuit/

Theres several points mentioned from the QR statement but this from Airbus was interesting in terms of who came out better/worse:
A spokesperson for Airbus said the manufacturer viewed the judgement very differently and slammed back: “As a simple barometer of what actually happened, the UK High Court ordered Qatar to pay 97% of Airbus’ legal costs.”
 
User avatar
enzo011
Posts: 2080
Joined: Tue Jun 21, 2011 8:12 am

Re: Airbus / Qatar A350 dispute - Airbus filed defence and counter-claim

Tue May 31, 2022 12:03 pm

Gar1G wrote:
From : https://www.paddleyourownkanoo.com/2022/05/31/qatar-airways-prepared-to-wait-12-months-to-get-its-day-in-court-in-dispute-with-airbus-in-1-billion-lawsuit/

Theres several points mentioned from the QR statement but this from Airbus was interesting in terms of who came out better/worse:
A spokesperson for Airbus said the manufacturer viewed the judgement very differently and slammed back: “As a simple barometer of what actually happened, the UK High Court ordered Qatar to pay 97% of Airbus’ legal costs.”



I am sure it is normal for the side winning the argument to have to pay the cost of the other side. That is how it works, you win the case and then to keep things fair you have to pay the cost of the loser so both of you feel like winners. :stirthepot: :sarcastic:

Gar1G wrote:
The line in the statement:

"Qatar Airways will receive full disclosure on the details of the accelerated surface degradation condition from Airbus for the first time, in advance of the trial, however, for the time being Mr. Justice Waksman’s independent assessment of the Condition is an important milestone."

IMO this could be the avenue for settlement as the details disclosed might prove that if this went to trial then QR may lose on the grounds of safety, but the settlement could involve Airbus having to go through the process of redesigning the copper layer to perforated copper (which an earlier Bloomberg report had suggested they might be looking into: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles ... r-air-rift) or else simply have the entire remainder of the order cancelled?


Agree with you there. The disclosure of documents will give QR an out as all they have been asking for is root analysis and if they see an out in the documents they will take it and should victory. They have already stated they are not in a position to judge the condition and what is happening, they are only looking for answers but they have deemed what they have gotten so far is not adequate from EASA or Airbus.

I think it is a very dangerous game they are playing. If they push too far Airbus may not be in the mood to settle and would like it be known why the QCAA grounded the aircraft without sufficient knowledge about the conditions and why they did not follow the procedures in place to report such incidents.
 
Gar1G
Posts: 75
Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2021 3:31 pm

Re: Airbus / Qatar A350 dispute - Airbus filed defence and counter-claim

Tue May 31, 2022 12:13 pm

enzo011 wrote:
I think it is a very dangerous game they are playing. If they push too far Airbus may not be in the mood to settle and would like it be known why the QCAA grounded the aircraft without sufficient knowledge about the conditions and why they did not follow the procedures in place to report such incidents.


I guess Airbus wants to settle because they don't want the public image to be that there is a design defect with the plane that could give leverage to prospective customers to bring buying price down. I do predict that part of the settlement would be that QR would have to get agreed fixes done at Airbus cost and maybe Airbus will not have to pay for the false grounding of the fleet. Again just guessing. Although I could see a situation where the same thing happens as an outcome of the trial: no safety risk so no reason for grounding nor compensation BUT some fix required at Airbus cost...
 
User avatar
JerseyFlyer
Posts: 2071
Joined: Fri May 25, 2007 7:24 pm

Re: Airbus / Qatar A350 dispute - Airbus filed defence and counter-claim

Tue May 31, 2022 12:20 pm

I don't think anyone would question that Airbus should pay for the amount of patching that exceeds expectations - unless the contract states otherwise.
 
sxf24
Posts: 1948
Joined: Wed Aug 15, 2007 12:22 pm

Re: Airbus / Qatar A350 dispute - Airbus filed defence and counter-claim

Tue May 31, 2022 12:26 pm

zeke wrote:
sxf24 wrote:
I’m drawing a conclusion from various articles and private conversations. What has been at issue is the root cause and a permanent solution to the paint peeling. I know other airlines have applied temporary patches and we haven’t seen photo evidence otherwise.

It’s important to understand that an unrelated issue could be deemed unsafe, but that temporary or permanent repairs allow an aircraft to remain airworthy.


This is utter rubbish, there is no such thing as a temporary repair.

QR has not claimed there is any paint peel, making such statements is false and deliberately misleading.

You are deliberately misrepresenting the situation over and over again.


Are there not patches or repairs made to the fuselage that may have to be reapplied before the next strip and repaint?

I recognize you continue to dispute how individuals choose to describe a situation. I would point out how petty this action appears as there is broad public discussion of surface degradation to in service aircraft that includes the spontaneous removal of paint. The press and many posters without a need to come across as technical or legal experts may choose to describe the complicated situation with simple words: paint peeling. Since this is a common, and often benign, condition for aircraft it is surprising how much negative emotion it creates.
 
User avatar
ikolkyo
Posts: 3725
Joined: Tue Nov 05, 2013 8:43 pm

Re: Airbus / Qatar A350 dispute - Airbus filed defence and counter-claim

Tue May 31, 2022 1:08 pm

QR releases another statement on the A350
DOHA, Qatar – Although Qatar Airways is not usually in the practice of issuing detailed media statements, given the inaccurate information and statements that continue to be issued by Airbus and in the interests of our customers and the industry, we now do so.

The judgment handed down by the justice, Mr. Justice Waksman in a hearing in the High Court on Thursday (26 May) has exposed for all in the aviation sector to see, the fiction of the Airbus narrative that the condition affecting the Airbus A350s is a simple “cosmetic” paint issue. In his ruling, based on evidence provided by Airbus, Mr. Justice Waksman set out his findings that there is “no simple fix to the problem” and that the only current proposed remedy, which involves extensive and potentially repeated patching of the fuselage of all affected aircraft, “deals with the symptoms of the Condition, not the Condition itself.”

Qatar Airways will receive full disclosure on the details of the accelerated surface degradation condition from Airbus for the first time, in advance of the trial, however, for the time being Mr. Justice Waksman’s independent assessment of the Condition is an important milestone.

His ruling states: “Further, it is not suggested that these problems are one-off, confined only to the aircraft already delivered to Qatar or further aircraft the subject of the A350 Agreement. Indeed, Airbus’s own positive case, as pleaded in its Defence, is that the Condition is effectively bound to occur at some point in the lifetime of an A350 aircraft because it results from a different coefficient of expansion as between the composite fibre reinforced polymer (“CFRP”) of which the airframe is made, and the expanded copper foil layer (“the ECF”) which is bonded to, or cured onto it.

The reason for the presence of the ECF is to act as a lightning conductor which prevents serious damage to the aircraft in the event of a direct lightning strike which is said to happen, on average, once a year to passenger aircraft in regular service. What this difference in the coefficient of expansion means is that these two sets of material expand and contract at different rates and at least in the form present on the A350, leads over time to (at least) the cracking of the layers of paint above.

Airbus’s present position is that in respect of the A350s already delivered to Qatar and perhaps future A350s whose assembly has not yet been completed, there is no simple fix to the problem. The only thing that can be done is to apply patches to all affected areas (principally the fuselage) which could be as many as 900. That was the figure quoted by Airbus in respect of the aircraft where repainting work was done at Shannon Airport.

Patching for other aircraft may not be quite as extensive but on any view it would seem to be considerable. The word “patch” is appropriate here. It deals with the symptoms of the Condition, not the Condition itself. The Condition itself cannot be rectified by, for example, applying some yet further coating, with or without the paintwork being removed. Nor can it be achieved by removing the ECF (which is very difficult anyway since it is cured onto the CFRP) and applying a replacement ECF. In any event, unless the new ECF differed in its composition or design from its predecessor, the Condition would be likely to emerge again, in time. The same appears to be the position if there was a simple repainting of the aircraft.

It follows as a matter of logic that the Condition has resulted from the design of the aircraft so far as the relevant materials are concerned. There are only two possibilities. Either the use of this relatively new form of airframe made of CFRP (instead of a metal like aluminium), combined with any kind of ECF, will inevitably cause the Condition or something like it. Or it is in fact possible to design and manufacture the relevant materials, staying faithful to the use of CFRP, but in a way which avoids the Condition arising in the first place.

The former possibility seems unlikely. That is at least because the Boeing 787 Dreamliner is also made of CFRP and yet such aircraft (which first entered service in 2011) seem not to have exhibited the Condition. This was a point made in submissions by Qatar. For its part, Airbus adduced no evidence to suggest that the 787 had manifested the Condition.”

A spokesperson for Qatar Airways said: “We have long been arguing that there is more to this issue than just paint and that the remedies proposed by Airbus do not deal with the fundamental issues affecting the A350. We’re very pleased that this view has now been understood and accepted by the court.”

Airbus continues to maintain that the issue is not a safety issue, however, Qatar Airways is of the opinion that the impact of the condition on safety of the affected aircraft can only be established once the condition has been properly investigated and the full root cause conclusively established.

Airbus continues to refer to the condition as a paint condition, despite the damage occurring to the underlying fuselage, and they maintain that this results from the fact that the A350 fuselage is of composite construction, however, Qatar Airways operates many other aircraft which incorporate composite elements and to date have no evidence of any such condition.

Qatar Airways has not found any other manufacturer that believes that such a condition is an acceptable condition associated with composite construction.

In relation to the A321 contract cancellation, Qatar Airways is extremely concerned about the precedent that Airbus is setting in the market to wrongfully terminate a launch customer aircraft order as they no longer wish to abide by the terms which they committed to and are legally obligated to, having entered into such arrangements freely.

Qatar Airways remains within its contractual rights to reject delivery of further A350 aircraft whilst the aircraft type suffers from a design defect which has now been acknowledged by the court, and for Airbus to abuse its strength in the market to terminate a separate and unrelated contract for another aircraft type is extremely damaging for our industry.

Qatar Airways is ready to see this matter through to trial to ensure that its rights are protected and that Airbus is required to address an unprecedented and extremely unique and concerning defect impacting the A350 aircraft type, across the industry and multiple carriers.

Qatar Airways welcomes the judgement of the High Court and looks forward to the full expedited Trial. The required early disclosure from Airbus will give us an insight into the true nature of surface degradation affecting the A350s.

Our approach to this issue reflects our commitment to Qatar Airways’ collective mission to achieve “Excellence in everything that we do,” especially when it comes to the safety of our passengers and crew.”

https://www.qatarairways.com/en/press-r ... s-releases
 
User avatar
SomebodyInTLS
Posts: 1968
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2016 12:31 pm

Re: Airbus / Qatar A350 dispute - Airbus filed defence and counter-claim

Tue May 31, 2022 1:31 pm

zeke wrote:
This is utter rubbish, there is no such thing as a temporary repair.


Airbus ISQ documents would tend to disagree with you...
 
User avatar
JerseyFlyer
Posts: 2071
Joined: Fri May 25, 2007 7:24 pm

Re: Airbus / Qatar A350 dispute - Airbus filed defence and counter-claim

Tue May 31, 2022 2:26 pm

Differential expansion due to heating is known by engineers in all disciplines (and anyone who has studied physics at school). Regarding aircraft, in the 1960s Concorde was designed to lengthen by 6 to 10 inches during a flight.

Any airline purchasing team would have been told (or asked) what Airbus expected to happen to the A350 at the interface between the copper mesh and the layers adjacent to it.

In that context it seems to me that the layers applied on top of the copper mesh must have been intended to some extent to be sacrificial layers. The problem therefore is that there is more sacrifice than expected, and / or it is occurring earlier in the lifetime of an airframe than expected.

That is why it is not a safety issue, but also why QR is seeking redress.
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 17343
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

Re: Airbus / Qatar A350 dispute - Airbus filed defence and counter-claim

Tue May 31, 2022 3:05 pm

Avatar2go wrote:
It goes without saying that the paint must come off the aircraft to expose the composite skin and the underlying mesh. So the paint did come off, however you wish to characterize that. Also visible in the Qatar videos. So that is established fact.


This is not true, have a look at lightning strikes.

Avatar2go wrote:
Further Qatar did reference airworthiness & safety concerns in the grounding, that too is established fact. Whether or not those concerns are valid is part of the dispute.


QR is the operator, the QCAA is the regulator. The QCAA did not find actual safety or airworthiness concerns, they cited potential. It is the regulator not the operator that ground aircraft. This is clearly stated in QR court filing, which you would know if you actually read it.

Avatar2go wrote:
Finally Qatar did reference concerns about the permanency of the problem resolution. That again is established fact, and is again subject to resolution of the dispute.


This is rubbish, QR is claiming around US$200,000 a day per aircraft in damages because they claim the aircraft are unsafe, not because they have spend more time or money to maintain them. They refuse to accept new aircraft for the same reason. If QRs claim was as you just stated had to do with the frequency or quantity of repairs, the damages they should be seeking would be so minor Airbus would not have battered an eyelid.

Avatar2go wrote:
In your statements, you are expressing your opinion that the case should be resolved in Airbus' favor, and are somewhat intolerant of any other view. That's fine, you are entitled to your own opinions, and I am not disputing them.


In my opinion that this case is fundamentally a vexatious claim, QR have claimed for around 1 billion dollars in AOG payments when they are not due. QRs claim was to get money out of Airbus, they have expressed no intention to maintain or repair their aircraft even when Airbus has offered.
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 17343
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

Re: Airbus / Qatar A350 dispute - Airbus filed defence and counter-claim

Tue May 31, 2022 3:15 pm

ReverseFlow wrote:
What I don't understand is how long QTR must have left the issues happen.
Surely what was shown on the pictures/videos didn't happen on one flight to the next?

And if you always read about how important their image and appearance is for QTR with every little thing almost being micro-managed from the top - this might have been degrading over time without anything being done to it?
Unless the fix is a longer time in maintenance which would have needed to be planned?


Anyone in industry is thinking the same way, these aircraft are going through phase checks all the time. And more astonishing to me is most of these aircraft are leased, the owners normally take a very dim view of their property not being maintained to a state in when they were handed over to the customer.
 
User avatar
Polot
Posts: 13427
Joined: Thu Jul 28, 2011 3:01 pm

Re: Airbus / Qatar A350 dispute - Airbus filed defence and counter-claim

Tue May 31, 2022 3:28 pm

zeke wrote:
Avatar2go wrote:
It goes without saying that the paint must come off the aircraft to expose the composite skin and the underlying mesh. So the paint did come off, however you wish to characterize that. Also visible in the Qatar videos. So that is established fact.


This is not true, have a look at lightning strikes.

By definition for the underlying mesh to be exposed nothing can be covering it. The mesh under normal conditions is covered by a composite layer and paint. So for it, or the composite layer sandwiched between it and the paint, to be exposed there can be no paint on top of it. Whether that is because it was blasted off, stripped off, or peeled off depends on the circumstances. I do not believe that Airbus thinks that every QR defect noted is the result of paint being blasted off or purposely stripped off.
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 17343
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

Re: Airbus / Qatar A350 dispute - Airbus filed defence and counter-claim

Tue May 31, 2022 3:46 pm

JerseyFlyer wrote:
I don't think anyone would question that Airbus should pay for the amount of patching that exceeds expectations - unless the contract states otherwise.


Will the expectation run both ways ? Do you address it when it is 5-10 mm or do you do nothing until it gets so bad you have to park the jet ?
 
sxf24
Posts: 1948
Joined: Wed Aug 15, 2007 12:22 pm

Re: Airbus / Qatar A350 dispute - Airbus filed defence and counter-claim

Tue May 31, 2022 4:10 pm

zeke wrote:
ReverseFlow wrote:
What I don't understand is how long QTR must have left the issues happen.
Surely what was shown on the pictures/videos didn't happen on one flight to the next?

And if you always read about how important their image and appearance is for QTR with every little thing almost being micro-managed from the top - this might have been degrading over time without anything being done to it?
Unless the fix is a longer time in maintenance which would have needed to be planned?


Anyone in industry is thinking the same way, these aircraft are going through phase checks all the time. And more astonishing to me is most of these aircraft are leased, the owners normally take a very dim view of their property not being maintained to a state in when they were handed over to the customer.


Aircraft maintenance is cyclical, not static, and the aircraft is rarely in the same state as when the lease commenced. While generally airworthy, it is not unusual for aircraft to be parked while on lease and in need of maintenance before returning to service. If lessors are getting paid, there’s generally significant contractual and commercial flexibility. Despite its reputation here, QR’s performance as a lessee is seen as impeccable within the industry.
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 17343
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

Re: Airbus / Qatar A350 dispute - Airbus filed defence and counter-claim

Tue May 31, 2022 4:19 pm

Polot wrote:
The mesh under normal conditions is covered by a composite layer and paint.


The A350 uses HexPly M59XF expanded copper foil prepreg, that is on the outside of the structural components, there is no covering composite layer. The structural component is inside that, which is the reason when the mesh being exposed is not a big deal. Inside the composite skin there are various metallic parts which connect to the mesh to form the network. The mesh does not act alone, and there are multiple paths for electricity to be distributed out of the structure.
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 17343
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

Re: Airbus / Qatar A350 dispute - Airbus filed defence and counter-claim

Tue May 31, 2022 4:21 pm

sxf24 wrote:
Despite its reputation here, QR’s performance as a lessee is seen as impeccable within the industry.


They should have no difficulties getting A321neo then if they are such a model client.
 
User avatar
Polot
Posts: 13427
Joined: Thu Jul 28, 2011 3:01 pm

Re: Airbus / Qatar A350 dispute - Airbus filed defence and counter-claim

Tue May 31, 2022 4:39 pm

zeke wrote:
Polot wrote:
The mesh under normal conditions is covered by a composite layer and paint.


The A350 uses HexPly M59XF expanded copper foil prepreg, that is on the outside of the structural components, there is no covering composite layer. The structural component is inside that, which is the reason when the mesh being exposed is not a big deal. Inside the composite skin there are various metallic parts which connect to the mesh to form the network. The mesh does not act alone, and there are multiple paths for electricity to be distributed out of the structure.

That’s semantics. There is stuff covering the mesh including paint. If you can see mesh that means that stuff is gone. If you look at a A350 fuselage you should not be able to see the mesh.
 
tomcat
Posts: 1035
Joined: Thu Sep 28, 2000 4:14 am

Re: Airbus / Qatar A350 dispute - Airbus filed defence and counter-claim

Tue May 31, 2022 5:10 pm

Polot wrote:
That’s semantics. There is stuff covering the mesh including paint. If you can see mesh that means that stuff is gone. If you look at a A350 fuselage you should not be able to see the mesh.


That stuff is epoxy resin. By definition, "composite material" means the combination of at least two distinct materials. The expanded copper foil embedded in resin forms a composite material, just like the carbon fiber/resin combo.

What's not clear to me is why this issue only affects the fuselage (according to QR's press release). The wing skins and the skin of the composite slats of the A350 also have an EME protection. There must be something different in these areas compared to the fuselage skin.
 
Avatar2go
Posts: 928
Joined: Thu Apr 14, 2022 3:41 am

Re: Airbus / Qatar A350 dispute - Airbus filed defence and counter-claim

Tue May 31, 2022 7:28 pm

tomcat wrote:

That stuff is epoxy resin. By definition, "composite material" means the combination of at least two distinct materials. The expanded copper foil embedded in resin forms a composite material, just like the carbon fiber/resin combo.

What's not clear to me is why this issue only affects the fuselage (according to QR's press release). The wing skins and the skin of the composite slats of the A350 also have an EME protection. There must be something different in these areas compared to the fuselage skin.


In the root cause determination mentioned in their response, Airbus says that differential thermal expansion causes surface crazing in the protective paint system, which is the initiator of the degradation process. Therefore it follows that surfaces that have the greatest thermal cycling, greatest curvatures, and greatest flexing cycles, would have the most trouble. That seems to be what is evident in the Qatar video, in terms of fuselage and wing surfaces.

The presence of the issue on the wing is what (rightly or wrongly) triggered the safety argument based on earlier EASA inspection guidance.

There are three other modes of failure cited as root causes. Around the window frames, the cracking is in the resin surface due to manufacturing variations in resin thickness at the edges of the frame. Resin that is too thick cracks from brittleness. Resin that is too thin cracks from stress concentration. The underlying composite cracks then surface as paint protection system cracks.

Then the degradation around rivets and fasteners is the well-known rivet-rash, which occurs on all aircraft and is well understood to be caused by the fastener materials, as well as micro-motions between fastener and structure.

Finally another form of cracking occurs at livery boundaries, where the paint protection system undergoes a step change in thickness. That too is a common and well understood issue.
 
Avatar2go
Posts: 928
Joined: Thu Apr 14, 2022 3:41 am

Re: Airbus / Qatar A350 dispute - Airbus filed defence and counter-claim

Tue May 31, 2022 8:01 pm

In Qatar's assertion of the issue, it does not begin in the surface paint protection system, as Airbus maintains, but rather in the differential expansion of the mesh and overlying composite layers. This is actually the core of the dispute. Airbus claims the origin lies in external surface factors, Qatar at least suspects it begins with internal factors, and is asking for further evidence that it doesn't.

The court appears to occupy a middle ground, acknowledging the cause in either case is thermal expansion, and that the outcome in either case is the need for periodic patching, for which there is really no mechanism of avoidance besides regular maintenance.

So the next phase will be to establish what is reasonable as an expectation for the issue to occur, given that it cannot be avoided entirely. If it can be shown, as Airbus claims, that with an increase in tolerance, the issue can be addressed in regular maintenance intervals, then there is not an increase in associated costs. Although the aircraft appearance may be less than desired by Qatar in that case.
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 17343
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

Re: Airbus / Qatar A350 dispute - Airbus filed defence and counter-claim

Tue May 31, 2022 8:47 pm

Polot wrote:
That’s semantics. There is stuff covering the mesh including paint. If you can see mesh that means that stuff is gone. If you look at a A350 fuselage you should not be able to see the mesh.


It is not semantics, it is getting the detail correct. Your post gave the impression that the mesh was contained between composite layers, and the exposure of mesh therefore means that a layer of composite material was missing. This gives rise to the impression this is then a structural issue. The mesh is a non structural sacrificial layer, a bit like galvanizing on metal. We would not describe galvanized steel as having a layer of steel on top of the galvanized material.
 
Avatar2go
Posts: 928
Joined: Thu Apr 14, 2022 3:41 am

Re: Airbus / Qatar A350 dispute - Airbus filed defence and counter-claim

Tue May 31, 2022 10:46 pm

zeke wrote:
Polot wrote:
That’s semantics. There is stuff covering the mesh including paint. If you can see mesh that means that stuff is gone. If you look at a A350 fuselage you should not be able to see the mesh.


It is not semantics, it is getting the detail correct. Your post gave the impression that the mesh was contained between composite layers, and the exposure of mesh therefore means that a layer of composite material was missing. This gives rise to the impression this is then a structural issue. The mesh is a non structural sacrificial layer, a bit like galvanizing on metal. We would not describe galvanized steel as having a layer of steel on top of the galvanized material.


According to the Airbus root cause determination, there is a layer of composite resin above the mesh layer, and below the paint protection system. This is also obvious in the photos and video Qatar released.

That layer is not a structural layer, as you mentioned. But it does exist and is a prominent feature of the root cause analysis, as oxidation of the mesh results in loss of adhesion of that layer.
 
User avatar
AirKevin
Posts: 1167
Joined: Wed Apr 26, 2017 2:18 am

Re: Airbus / Qatar A350 dispute - Airbus filed defence and counter-claim

Wed Jun 01, 2022 1:32 am

zeke wrote:
sxf24 wrote:
I’m drawing a conclusion from various articles and private conversations. What has been at issue is the root cause and a permanent solution to the paint peeling. I know other airlines have applied temporary patches and we haven’t seen photo evidence otherwise.

It’s important to understand that an unrelated issue could be deemed unsafe, but that temporary or permanent repairs allow an aircraft to remain airworthy.

This is utter rubbish, there is no such thing as a temporary repair.

I came across these two documents that state otherwise:

https://www.faa.gov/aircraft/air_cert/d ... alRule.pdf
https://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/med ... 300.13.pdf

Under repair classification, it states that Category C is "A temporary repair that will need to be reworked or replaced before an established time limit. Supplemental inspections may be necessary to ensure continued airworthiness before this limit. "

If a plane was stuck somewhere and needed to be flown elsewhere for repairs, one might perform temporary repairs to get it airworthy enough to be able to fly it there. Case and point, on August 18th, 2019, N543US, a Delta Air Lines Boeing 757-200 suffered a hard landing in Ponta Delgada that buckled the fuselage. Given the damage, it was presumed that it would be written off. However, about a month later, on September 16th, 2019, it was flown across the Atlantic all the way to Atlanta, where further repairs were made to get the plane back into service again. Presumably, some repair work had to be done in order to get it somewhat airworthy to fly it across the Atlantic for further repairs in Atlanta.
 
kurtverbose
Posts: 601
Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2014 9:33 pm

Re: Airbus / Qatar A350 dispute - Airbus filed defence and counter-claim

Wed Jun 01, 2022 5:41 am

The judge is likely to take a very dim view of Qatar selectively quoting his judgement in a press release.

I thought this bit was interesting.

Whatever else happens in this case, I now expect Qatar and Airbus to work pro-actively together to try and satisfy the [Qatari civil aviation authority] that its current approach is wrong,

It seems to me to be at least highly arguable that, if [Qatar Airways] does not work with Airbus in seeking to change the [civil aviation authority’s] mind, it would be failing reasonably to mitigate its losses.


That suggests to me that the judge doesn't think this is an airworthiness issue at all, questions the cozyness of the Qatar authorities and the airline and isn't going to buy Qatar's compensation claim for aircraft on the ground. I think they only thing Qatar can win from this case is a bit of compensation for having to paint the aircraft more frequently, and even that's questionable.
 
Avatar2go
Posts: 928
Joined: Thu Apr 14, 2022 3:41 am

Re: Airbus / Qatar A350 dispute - Airbus filed defence and counter-claim

Wed Jun 01, 2022 6:04 am

kurtverbose wrote:
The judge is likely to take a very dim view of Qatar selectively quoting his judgement in a press release.

I thought this bit was interesting.

Whatever else happens in this case, I now expect Qatar and Airbus to work pro-actively together to try and satisfy the [Qatari civil aviation authority] that its current approach is wrong,

It seems to me to be at least highly arguable that, if [Qatar Airways] does not work with Airbus in seeking to change the [civil aviation authority’s] mind, it would be failing reasonably to mitigate its losses.


That suggests to me that the judge doesn't think this is an airworthiness issue at all, questions the cozyness of the Qatar authorities and the airline and isn't going to buy Qatar's compensation claim for aircraft on the ground. I think they only thing Qatar can win from this case is a bit of compensation for having to paint the aircraft more frequently, and even that's questionable.


The court's opinion is a public document, both Airbus and Qatar are free to reference it.

The airworthiness/safety issues with the A350 are separate from the engineering issues with surface degradation, and the court is treating them that way.

The court has acknowledged that the degradation issues exist, and don't have a remedy beyond periodic maintenance. But also correctly identified the Qatari regulator as being the agency of record for the airworthiness issue. That is where the legal authority for that issue lies, not with the court in London.

If Qatar, Airbus, and the regulator can reach agreement on the engineering causes and airworthiness issues, then the other contractual claims can be sorted out by the court based on a common understanding of the facts. That seems to be what the judge is recommending as a path forward.

To do this, Qatar and the regulator have to accept the Airbus analysis of root cause determination, or propose another to Airbus. The former is by far the most probable outcome. Qatar may ask Airbus for evidence that the issue could not develop from an internal flaw. If Airbus can show that, the dispute should be resolved. Qatar's current complaint is that Airbus did not consider that possibility, but only looked into external factors.
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 17343
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

Re: Airbus / Qatar A350 dispute - Airbus filed defence and counter-claim

Wed Jun 01, 2022 6:58 am

AirKevin wrote:
I came across these two documents that state otherwise:

https://www.faa.gov/aircraft/air_cert/d ... alRule.pdf
https://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/med ... 300.13.pdf

Under repair classification, it states that Category C is "A temporary repair that will need to be reworked or replaced before an established time limit. Supplemental inspections may be necessary to ensure continued airworthiness before this limit. "

If a plane was stuck somewhere and needed to be flown elsewhere for repairs, one might perform temporary repairs to get it airworthy enough to be able to fly it there. Case and point, on August 18th, 2019, N543US, a Delta Air Lines Boeing 757-200 suffered a hard landing in Ponta Delgada that buckled the fuselage. Given the damage, it was presumed that it would be written off. However, about a month later, on September 16th, 2019, it was flown across the Atlantic all the way to Atlanta, where further repairs were made to get the plane back into service again. Presumably, some repair work had to be done in order to get it somewhat airworthy to fly it across the Atlantic for further repairs in Atlanta.


We dont call them repairs, they are classified as a permissible unserviceability. A Part 21 engineering order or a permit to fly is required by the regulator for limited operations. These items remain live in the aircraft technical log until repaired. Repaired items are signed off as a completed item they are mot revisited except as normally called for under the phase checks.
 
kurtverbose
Posts: 601
Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2014 9:33 pm

Re: Airbus / Qatar A350 dispute - Airbus filed defence and counter-claim

Wed Jun 01, 2022 7:46 am

Avatar2go wrote:
The court's opinion is a public document, both Airbus and Qatar are free to reference it.


Selectively quoting the judge and making it out you've won the case when you've just lost is not going to endear yourself to a judge.

As for the airworthiness issue, that's just laughable. Qatar has done everything possible to get these planes grounded, where as the judge has pointed out they should've been doing everything possible to keep them flying, including with the regulator.
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 17343
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

Re: Airbus / Qatar A350 dispute - Airbus filed defence and counter-claim

Wed Jun 01, 2022 8:40 am

From the Judgement Hearing date: 26 April 2022 (this in the public domain available from the Technology and Construction Court Claim No: HT-2021-000495.

The airworthiness aspects were addressed, he was somewhat surprised at the lack of discussion with the QCAA to resolve the grounding issue. I dont totally agree with his comments here as the manufacturer has no direct relationship with the local CAA, the relationship is between the operator and regulator. The normal process is for the operator to seek input from the manufacturer where required and then present that along with their arguments to the regulator. Practically this is normally done by OEM representatives that are imbedded with the airline.

"Airworthiness

16. On any view, the question of how, if at all, the Condition affects the airworthiness of the A350s in question is critical. It may affect the question of breach of the A350 Agreement and, if Airbus is correct in its interpretation of the SCL, it directly affects whether the AOG Compensation claimed is payable.

17. Here, one has the most unfortunate situation of the EASA (European Union Aviation Safety Agency) taking the view that there are presently no airworthiness implications (although it appears that it expects updates from Airbus on its investigations into the Condition), while the Qatar Civil Aviation Authority (“QCAA”) considers that there are. Or at least there might be, and that is sufficient for it to ground Qatar’s A350s. On Airbus’s case, there is no rational basis for the QCAA to have grounded these aircraft. It seems to me that the QCAA should be capable of being persuaded to change its position, provided that Airbus, as the manufacturer, can demonstrate (as it contends it can) with all the information and expertise at its disposal, that in truth there are no airworthiness concerns. So persuading the QCAA must be in Airbus’s general interests. It is, of course, also in Qatar’s commercial interests, since it says that what it seeks, above all else, is to get its grounded A350s back in the air. Indeed, that was one of the hoped-for results of the proposed Preliminary Issue Trial which it has proposed. Airbus does not accept that Qatar really does seek that, but this does not matter for present purposes.

18. When I asked why there had not been detailed and intensive contact between Airbus and the QCAA to date, I was told first by Airbus that this is essentially a regulatory matter between Qatar and the QCAA and it was not for Airbus to intervene. That does not seem a very sensible or proactive approach. I was then told that Airbus had asked to join with Qatar in dealing with the QCAA at the outset but Qatar did not invite it to participate. If that is true, that is not a very sensible approach either. Whatever else happens in this case, I now expect Qatar and Airbus to work proactively together to try and satisfy the QCAA that its current approach is wrong. The fact that, if the QCAA is prepared to change its approach, this might adversely affect Qatar’s position in the litigation, in that the aircraft, whatever other faults they may have, might not now be regarded as unairworthy, is irrelevant. Moreover, it seems to me to be at least highly arguable that if Qatar does not work with Airbus in seeking to change the QCAA’s mind it would be failing reasonably to mitigate its losses. The converse, of course, is that Airbus must be a willing partner in all of this, so as to enable Qatar to mitigate such losses."

I also could not help noticing "Or at least there might be, and that is sufficient for it to ground Qatar’s A350s. On Airbus’s case, there is no rational basis for the QCAA to have grounded these aircraft." This is a big part of the case, is there actually a safety issue needing to ground aircraft, if not, there is no AOG payments.

He also addressed the two injunctions, one to do with stopping to deliver aircraft, the other to stop termination of aircraft under the contract.

"THE INJUNCTION APPLICATIONS
Introduction
36. There are two injunction applications before me. The first, made on 17 December, 2021 alongside the Preliminary Issue Application, is for an order restraining Airbus from exercising its purported right to:
(1) tender any new aircraft for delivery, through the Technical Acceptance Process;
(2) deliver any Certificate of Acceptance in relation to any new aircraft; and
(3) seek any pre-delivery payments for new aircraft
(“The Delivery Injunction”).
37. The second, made on 10 February 2022 is to:
(1) restrain the Defendant from implementing or by any means howsoever acting on:
(a) a Notice of Termination dated 17 January 2022 with reference CT2200370 relating to an A350XWB aircraft MSN 409; or
(b) a Notice of Termination dated 28 January 2022 with reference CT2200595 relating to an A350XWB aircraft MSN 430; (collectively the "Notices"); or
(c) any other such Notice of Termination;
(2) restrain the Defendant from marketing or selling or otherwise disposing of in any way to third parties or otherwise howsoever aircraft MSN 409 or MSN 430;
(3) restrain the Defendant from issuing any further Notice(s) of Termination in respect of any A350XWB Aircraft scheduled for delivery by the Defendant pursuant to the Aircraft Specific Purchase Agreement dated 18 June 2007
(“the Termination Injunction”)."

Both injunctions were denied

"48. For all those reasons, there is no basis for the grant of the Delivery Injunction."
"61. For all the reasons given above, I refuse the application for the Termination Injunction."
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 17343
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

Re: Airbus / Qatar A350 dispute - Airbus filed defence and counter-claim

Wed Jun 01, 2022 10:17 am

Avatar2go wrote:
there is a layer of composite resin above the mesh layer, and below the paint protection system.


Resin is not placed above the mesh, the material is a pre-preg, the mesh comes in rolls embedded in a partially cured polymer matrix.
 
Avatar2go
Posts: 928
Joined: Thu Apr 14, 2022 3:41 am

Re: Airbus / Qatar A350 dispute - Airbus filed defence and counter-claim

Wed Jun 01, 2022 10:52 am

As I said, the mesh has a layer of composite resin above it. This is beyond dispute.

As I said, the court is encouraging Airbus, Qatar, and the Qatari regulator to agree on the airworthiness issue. This is necessary because the regulator holds ultimate authority on that issue.

As I said, the Airbus case is that their root cause analysis is complete, with no finding of safety or airworthiness concern. The Qatar position is that the Airbus analysis focused on external causes, but did not consider the possibility of an internal flaw.

Hence the resolution, as noted by the judge, is for Airbus to satisfy Qatar and the regulator that there is no internal flaw. This would end the engineering dispute, and allow the court to adjudicate the remaining contractual issues.

Airbus could do this by providing data to show how they were able to rule out other causes of de-bonding of the mesh from the overlying composite material. Qatar has doubts about this because visually, in some cases there does not appear to be oxidation on the mesh, which Airbus claims is the source. As well as the sporadic nature in which it arises.

But it should be possible to prove both that the de-bonding occurs in the presence of oxidation (which Airbus has already done), and also that it does not occur in typical conditions of thermal & stress cycling.

Also as the judge pointed out, Qatar has an interest in resolving the issue, and must show good faith effort in accepting the data and presenting it to the regulator as accurate.

This is why Qatar, in their public statement, has said they will have access to data they have not seen before, and the full analysis. If they act in good faith, they will have a mechanism to resolve their concerns. The court will be watching to see if they do.
 
User avatar
enzo011
Posts: 2080
Joined: Tue Jun 21, 2011 8:12 am

Re: Airbus / Qatar A350 dispute - Airbus filed defence and counter-claim

Wed Jun 01, 2022 2:51 pm

Avatar2go wrote:
As I said, the Airbus case is that their root cause analysis is complete, with no finding of safety or airworthiness concern. The Qatar position is that the Airbus analysis focused on external causes, but did not consider the possibility of an internal flaw.

Hence the resolution, as noted by the judge, is for Airbus to satisfy Qatar and the regulator that there is no internal flaw. This would end the engineering dispute, and allow the court to adjudicate the remaining contractual issues.

Airbus could do this by providing data to show how they were able to rule out other causes of de-bonding of the mesh from the overlying composite material. Qatar has doubts about this because visually, in some cases there does not appear to be oxidation on the mesh, which Airbus claims is the source. As well as the sporadic nature in which it arises.

But it should be possible to prove both that the de-bonding occurs in the presence of oxidation (which Airbus has already done), and also that it does not occur in typical conditions of thermal & stress cycling.

Also as the judge pointed out, Qatar has an interest in resolving the issue, and must show good faith effort in accepting the data and presenting it to the regulator as accurate.

This is why Qatar, in their public statement, has said they will have access to data they have not seen before, and the full analysis. If they act in good faith, they will have a mechanism to resolve their concerns. The court will be watching to see if they do.


I find it interesting that the judge is remarking on how some things are not very optimised to find a solution. Like how it is not really the process for Airbus to be in touch with the regulators as that is between the airlines and the regulators and not a place for Airbus to intervene,

18. When I asked why there had not been detailed and intensive contact between Airbus and the QCAA to date, I was told first by Airbus that this is essentially a regulatory matter between Qatar and the QCAA and it was not for Airbus to intervene. That does not seem a very sensible or proactive approach. I was then told that Airbus had asked to join with Qatar in dealing with the QCAA at the outset but Qatar did not invite it to participate.


From my non legal background this will be hard for QR to explain. If they were looking for a solution as they claim, why have they not invited Airbus to participate with discussions with the QCAA to get the aircraft back in the air? And this is where I think they will fall down. They are telling everyone what they think will paint them in the best light but its not words but actions that you need to look at. The judge will want to know what Qatar has done to mitigate the losses. If they have not been working with Airbus and the QCAA, then why should they be given any awards for having the aircraft out of service?

We will also need to get into the discussions with the QCAA and their role. It really could end up really badly for QR. I don't take their threat of taking this to court seriously at all. They are likely to lose a lot more than Airbus in this fight and that is why this will be settled out of court as soon as QR finds a big enough of a landing spot to make that u-turn. The only question at that time will be, how peeved will Airbus be with QR and will the compensation QR can give Airbus be enough to mend the relationship.

What is the saying, play with fire and you risk getting burned? QR may just learn this the hard way.
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 17343
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

Re: Airbus / Qatar A350 dispute - Airbus filed defence and counter-claim

Wed Jun 01, 2022 3:11 pm

Avatar2go wrote:
As I said, the mesh has a layer of composite resin above it. This is beyond dispute.


There is no layer of resin placed above the mesh, it comes as a premanufactured roll with the mesh and matrix as one material. This is not a dry layup, the pre-preg already contains the matrix. Very little in aircraft is made with dry layup, almost everything is pre-preg to get the material consistency.
 
User avatar
SomebodyInTLS
Posts: 1968
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2016 12:31 pm

Re: Airbus / Qatar A350 dispute - Airbus filed defence and counter-claim

Wed Jun 01, 2022 4:11 pm

zeke wrote:
AirKevin wrote:
I came across these two documents that state otherwise:

https://www.faa.gov/aircraft/air_cert/d ... alRule.pdf
https://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/med ... 300.13.pdf

Under repair classification, it states that Category C is "A temporary repair that will need to be reworked or replaced before an established time limit. Supplemental inspections may be necessary to ensure continued airworthiness before this limit. "


We dont call them repairs, they are classified as a permissible unserviceability. A Part 21 engineering order or a permit to fly is required by the regulator for limited operations. These items remain live in the aircraft technical log until repaired. Repaired items are signed off as a completed item they are mot revisited except as normally called for under the phase checks.


I'm sorry - but since you seem to be in a particularly pedantic mood in this thread then I have to call you out again. I mentioned Airbus In-Service Query documentation a few comments back... the Repair Design Approval Sheet I'm looking at *right now* has a check box for repair category A/B/C... and category C is labelled "temporary repair". This is a normal term for a normal type of repair!
 
Avatar2go
Posts: 928
Joined: Thu Apr 14, 2022 3:41 am

Re: Airbus / Qatar A350 dispute - Airbus filed defence and counter-claim

Wed Jun 01, 2022 6:25 pm

zeke wrote:
Avatar2go wrote:
As I said, the mesh has a layer of composite resin above it. This is beyond dispute.


There is no layer of resin placed above the mesh, it comes as a premanufactured roll with the mesh and matrix as one material. This is not a dry layup, the pre-preg already contains the matrix. Very little in aircraft is made with dry layup, almost everything is pre-preg to get the material consistency.


Yes, and by definition, there is a layer of resin above the mesh, and below the paint protection system, which AIrbus itself has referenced in the root cause determination. Again, there is no dispute about this whatsoever. None.
 
User avatar
Polot
Posts: 13427
Joined: Thu Jul 28, 2011 3:01 pm

Re: Airbus / Qatar A350 dispute - Airbus filed defence and counter-claim

Wed Jun 01, 2022 7:10 pm

zeke wrote:
Avatar2go wrote:
As I said, the mesh has a layer of composite resin above it. This is beyond dispute.


There is no layer of resin placed above the mesh, it comes as a premanufactured roll with the mesh and matrix as one material. This is not a dry layup, the pre-preg already contains the matrix. Very little in aircraft is made with dry layup, almost everything is pre-preg to get the material consistency.

Zeke, you are missing the forest from the trees. You are too preoccupied on how the fuselage is manufactured. The mesh is embedded in composite. By definition that means it has composite material over it (and under it, and in the spaces of the mesh). If you look at a bare unpainted A350 fuselage you should not see the mesh- if you do then you have to make some repairs.

It doesn’t matter if all that material was applied with the mesh in one step or separately. If you are seeing the mesh that means composite material (and the surface paint layer) above the mesh has fallen off the aircraft.
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 17343
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

Re: Airbus / Qatar A350 dispute - Airbus filed defence and counter-claim

Wed Jun 01, 2022 7:27 pm

SomebodyInTLS wrote:
I'm sorry - but since you seem to be in a particularly pedantic mood in this thread then I have to call you out again. I mentioned Airbus In-Service Query documentation a few comments back... the Repair Design Approval Sheet I'm looking at *right now* has a check box for repair category A/B/C... and category C is labelled "temporary repair". This is a normal term for a normal type of repair!



We don’t call them repairs, it does not rectify the issue.
 
User avatar
Polot
Posts: 13427
Joined: Thu Jul 28, 2011 3:01 pm

Re: Airbus / Qatar A350 dispute - Airbus filed defence and counter-claim

Wed Jun 01, 2022 7:28 pm

zeke wrote:
SomebodyInTLS wrote:
I'm sorry - but since you seem to be in a particularly pedantic mood in this thread then I have to call you out again. I mentioned Airbus In-Service Query documentation a few comments back... the Repair Design Approval Sheet I'm looking at *right now* has a check box for repair category A/B/C... and category C is labelled "temporary repair". This is a normal term for a normal type of repair!



We don’t call them repairs, it does not rectify the issue.

With all due respect Zeke you and your airline are not the final say in what is acceptable terminology in the industry or this forum.
 
Avatar2go
Posts: 928
Joined: Thu Apr 14, 2022 3:41 am

Re: Airbus / Qatar A350 dispute - Airbus filed defence and counter-claim

Wed Jun 01, 2022 7:30 pm

Polot wrote:
zeke wrote:
Avatar2go wrote:
As I said, the mesh has a layer of composite resin above it. This is beyond dispute.


There is no layer of resin placed above the mesh, it comes as a premanufactured roll with the mesh and matrix as one material. This is not a dry layup, the pre-preg already contains the matrix. Very little in aircraft is made with dry layup, almost everything is pre-preg to get the material consistency.

Zeke, you are missing the forest from the trees. You are too preoccupied on how the fuselage is manufactured. The mesh is embedded in composite. By definition that means it has composite material over it (and under it, and in the spaces of the mesh). If you look at a bare unpainted A350 fuselage you should not see the mesh- if you do then you have to make some repairs.

It doesn’t matter if all that material was applied with the mesh in one step or separately. If you are seeing the mesh that means composite material (and the surface paint layer) above the mesh has fallen off the aircraft.


Yes, and the adhesion of the resin to the mesh is what Qatar is concerned about (again rightly or wrongly), and feels that Airbus may not have investigated in their root cause determination (again rightly or wrongly).

I think the issue here is that some are arguing the merits of the case, toward the outcome they believe is correct, while others are identifying the structure by which the case can progress to a fact-based outcome and resolution. The latter is what the court must also do, to remain unbiased and fair.

It may be that these two approaches will align in the end, with the same outcome.
 
User avatar
SomebodyInTLS
Posts: 1968
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2016 12:31 pm

Re: Airbus / Qatar A350 dispute - Airbus filed defence and counter-claim

Wed Jun 01, 2022 7:42 pm

Polot wrote:
zeke wrote:
SomebodyInTLS wrote:
I'm sorry - but since you seem to be in a particularly pedantic mood in this thread then I have to call you out again. I mentioned Airbus In-Service Query documentation a few comments back... the Repair Design Approval Sheet I'm looking at *right now* has a check box for repair category A/B/C... and category C is labelled "temporary repair". This is a normal term for a normal type of repair!



We don’t call them repairs, it does not rectify the issue.

With all due respect Zeke you and your airline are not the final say in what is acceptable terminology in the industry or this forum.


Besides which, his airline communicates with Airbus using the maintenance documentation I'm talking about - so it *does* call them repairs. This is a weird thing to argue against...
 
Nicoeddf
Posts: 1198
Joined: Thu Jan 10, 2008 7:13 am

Re: Airbus / Qatar A350 dispute - Airbus filed defence and counter-claim

Wed Jun 01, 2022 7:50 pm

Polot wrote:
zeke wrote:
SomebodyInTLS wrote:
I'm sorry - but since you seem to be in a particularly pedantic mood in this thread then I have to call you out again. I mentioned Airbus In-Service Query documentation a few comments back... the Repair Design Approval Sheet I'm looking at *right now* has a check box for repair category A/B/C... and category C is labelled "temporary repair". This is a normal term for a normal type of repair!



We don’t call them repairs, it does not rectify the issue.

With all due respect Zeke you and your airline are not the final say in what is acceptable terminology in the industry or this forum.


:lol:

We call it „temp repair“ and not only for Airbus aircraft. And „my“ airline is far larger than CX. What now?
 
User avatar
AirKevin
Posts: 1167
Joined: Wed Apr 26, 2017 2:18 am

Re: Airbus / Qatar A350 dispute - Airbus filed defence and counter-claim

Wed Jun 01, 2022 9:21 pm

zeke wrote:
AirKevin wrote:
I came across these two documents that state otherwise:

https://www.faa.gov/aircraft/air_cert/d ... alRule.pdf
https://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/med ... 300.13.pdf

Under repair classification, it states that Category C is "A temporary repair that will need to be reworked or replaced before an established time limit. Supplemental inspections may be necessary to ensure continued airworthiness before this limit. "

If a plane was stuck somewhere and needed to be flown elsewhere for repairs, one might perform temporary repairs to get it airworthy enough to be able to fly it there. Case and point, on August 18th, 2019, N543US, a Delta Air Lines Boeing 757-200 suffered a hard landing in Ponta Delgada that buckled the fuselage. Given the damage, it was presumed that it would be written off. However, about a month later, on September 16th, 2019, it was flown across the Atlantic all the way to Atlanta, where further repairs were made to get the plane back into service again. Presumably, some repair work had to be done in order to get it somewhat airworthy to fly it across the Atlantic for further repairs in Atlanta.


We dont call them repairs, they are classified as a permissible unserviceability. A Part 21 engineering order or a permit to fly is required by the regulator for limited operations. These items remain live in the aircraft technical log until repaired. Repaired items are signed off as a completed item they are mot revisited except as normally called for under the phase checks.

I provided the FAA documentation and quoted what it said. Are you saying the FAA is incorrect.
 
WayexTDI
Posts: 3055
Joined: Fri Sep 21, 2018 4:38 pm

Re: Airbus / Qatar A350 dispute - Airbus filed defence and counter-claim

Wed Jun 01, 2022 11:33 pm

zeke wrote:
SomebodyInTLS wrote:
I'm sorry - but since you seem to be in a particularly pedantic mood in this thread then I have to call you out again. I mentioned Airbus In-Service Query documentation a few comments back... the Repair Design Approval Sheet I'm looking at *right now* has a check box for repair category A/B/C... and category C is labelled "temporary repair". This is a normal term for a normal type of repair!



We don’t call them repairs, it does not rectify the issue.

With all due respect, if the aircraft manufacturer and the aviation authorities call it a repair (and especially temporary repairs), whatever you or your employer call it is irrelevant.
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 17343
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

Re: Airbus / Qatar A350 dispute - Airbus filed defence and counter-claim

Thu Jun 02, 2022 12:32 am

AirKevin wrote:
I provided the FAA documentation and quoted what it said. Are you saying the FAA is incorrect.


What you are talking about is things like applying speed tape over a lightning strike location. It does nothing to repair the issue, it just prevents it from getting worse until a repair can be made. The idea is to stop water getting into the location. They normally come with restrictions like reinspect after every sector.

The reason for using the terminology in this case is not in the sense of fixing the issue, it is to do with who has the authority to perform the task, does the person need to hold a licence or can it just be a mechanic.

Repairs need to be performed under the supervision of a licence holder.
 
User avatar
AirKevin
Posts: 1167
Joined: Wed Apr 26, 2017 2:18 am

Re: Airbus / Qatar A350 dispute - Airbus filed defence and counter-claim

Thu Jun 02, 2022 1:07 am

zeke wrote:
AirKevin wrote:
I provided the FAA documentation and quoted what it said. Are you saying the FAA is incorrect.


What you are talking about is things like applying speed tape over a lightning strike location. It does nothing to repair the issue, it just prevents it from getting worse until a repair can be made. The idea is to stop water getting into the location. They normally come with restrictions like reinspect after every sector.

The reason for using the terminology in this case is not in the sense of fixing the issue, it is to do with who has the authority to perform the task, does the person need to hold a licence or can it just be a mechanic.

Repairs need to be performed under the supervision of a licence holder.

Yes, I'm aware of how it works, I have an A&P certificate. The point is, you claimed there's no such thing as a temporary repair, I provided the FAA documentation that states otherwise. Whoever has the authority to perform the task isn't really relevant here.
  • 1
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos