Simple minded comment: I saw a Qatar A350-1000 takeoff at LAX and it was cool.

Avatar2go wrote:

accentra wrote:

As an aside, there's an interesting snippet in the article that references Airbus wanting to know the justification for why particular frames have been grounded while others (with similar issues, is that what's being suggested here?) have not been. The implication again seems to be that the decision is arbitrary? Perhaps more dictated by Qatar Airways' needs for specific frames? If it turns out that there is not a consistent approach by the QCAA that will, again, undermine Qatar's case, surely?

Agreed, that is an interesting question. Qatar has released video evidence for the earliest examples, but not for subsequent aircraft.

Another factor is that it's clear the grounded aircraft could be remedied, to the satisfaction of QCAA, which would lift the grounding. Which has been Judge Waksman's point, to address the issue first and then litigate and redress the cause.

Qatar has said in response, they are concerned they will be saddled with a chronic issue from a latent defect, if they yield on that point.

Ultimately Qatar wants to see a thorough analysis from Airbus that no latent defect exists, but Airbus is adamant that they have already identified the cause. Perhaps the judge will appoint an independent technical party to establish the basis for both conjectures.

There is a clear difference of interpretation between Airbus and Qatar on the paint/surface/mesh degradation matter causing one of the largest fallout ever seen in the industry, that is a fact.

But if we get technical, you can't put Airbus and Qatar "on a par". You speek about independant third party. How about EASA? To close to Airbus maybe? OK, how about FAA or CAAC.
At this stage Airbus technical answer to the problem is satisfying everywhere but in Qatar. If Qatar has tangible elements to back their decision to ground some planes, it as to be shared with the OME and the certifying authority or it is a clear lack of transparancy that could be criminal. Tangible evidence beyound the raw video of untreated damages ...
Anyway, even an authority is accountable and has to justify it's decision. For now, Qatar position is just arbitrary even if the starting point of all that is a manufacturing or design flaw from Airbus.

mig17 wrote:

But if we get technical, you can't put Airbus and Qatar "on a par". You spak about independent third party. How about EASA? To close to Airbus maybe? OK, how about FAA or CAAC.

I would think it could not be a regulator who had any authority over the aircraft. Already there is a conflict over two regulators with differing opinions.

In the construction industry, the authorities will hire independent engineering firms to evaluate disputed claims, involving failures. Sometimes they appoint an independent panel of experts, as Boeing did in their conflict with USAF over the KC-46.

Of course for that to work, both sides have to agree to abide by the results, which is a form of arbitration. Don't know how willing they would be here.

From the beginning, I've thought that Airbus could show that the specifications for their surface bonding were met at manufacture, then also show with testing that it would not degrade under reasonably expected circumstances. And further show what the expected life and failure mode would be under extreme circumstances.

Once all that is established, It should be possible to show that the Qatar degradation falls within expected limits. If so, then it's not a latent defect.

Perhaps they have done this and Qatar has not accepted it. But Qatar is saying publicly that they haven't seen this, and that Airbus skipped over this analysis in favor of paint-related causes.

I'm seeing recommissioning activities at QR hangars on the grounded A350-1000s. If I'm not mistaken (and I truly hope I'm not), it's seems QR is planning to return some -1000s to service.
If they do, it would be really great news, as QR has been struggling with the old A330s dispatch reliability.
And it would be interesting to read what the official announcement says.

But if not, what else could the repair activities be on the grounded -1000s? Why remove coverings and do engine runs if not recommissioning? The same is not being done on the -900s

Good news indeed - keep us informed please, including which actual 350's are receiving the attention.
But my guess is that they will just quietly re-introduce them, as any official announcement could be seen as a climb down on QR's behalf.

They could be sending them back to Airbus

strfyr51 wrote:

the problem might not be ALL of airbus but the A350 in particular. the 787 is a single winding in construction while the A350 is CFRP panels mounted to a frame. Could really be something in the construction like a dissimilar metal reaction. Airbus might need an entirely new paint undercoating formula and testing.

You're talking about the planes' fuselages. Whereas the delamination issue is on the wings.

TC957 wrote:

Good news indeed - keep us informed please, including which actual 350's are receiving the attention.
But my guess is that they will just quietly re-introduce them, as any official announcement could be seen as a climb down on QR's behalf.

Re-introducing the aircraft to service would weaken QR's case, so I hope these activities may be preliminary to a settlement.

LTEN11 wrote:

They could be sending them back to Airbus

This may not be such a crazy idea. If I put on my pink glasses, maybe QR and Airbus have settled on a repair procedure, to be performed by Airbus.

I know Airbus does this regularly with stored aircraft, but one of the QR NTU's has been doing taxi and RTO tests the past few days. Maybe QR will take the NTU's after all, as part of a final settlement? I may be overly optimistic about this, I realize. But IMO it won't be easy to remarket the NTU A35K's as they have the old spec cabin interior widths. I don't think this saga will result in a clear winner, and IMO both parties will need to limit damage as much as still possible.

afriwing wrote:

I'm seeing recommissioning activities at QR hangars on the grounded A350-1000s. If I'm not mistaken (and I truly hope I'm not), it's seems QR is planning to return some -1000s to service.
But if not, what else could the repair activities be on the grounded -1000s? Why remove coverings and do engine runs if not recommissioning? The same is not being done on the -900s

Just to clarify are you seeing this happen first hand (or visually) or simply based on the aircraft showing up on FR24?

The grounded planes have in the past periodically shown up on the radar probably with routine systems checks etc. But if this is a more active set of recommissioning activities then it is indeed very encouraging - and possibly a hidden admission that some a350s were grounded for more minor paint flaking vs the exposed lightning mesh damage.

Supposedly the meeting between Airbus and QCAA is tomorrow so shouldn't be too long before Reuters or Bloomberg have a report.

https://www.flickr.com/photos/aircrafts/52619497856/in/feed-47063168-1673376226-1-72157721652949258

Thought to add one more interesting thing to the mix. Seems the child that started this whole fiasco has been spotted again being towed somewhere in Toulouse after what feels like an age.
Not sure if its been kept in a hangar for the past 2 years or if its been sitting outside but hidden.

Wonder if anyone can explain what those lines are all over the body. Is that just generally what a stripped aircraft looks like?

Looks like some form of protection coating for the fasteners to me, possibly Alodine?

Yes Yes I know its simple flying but nonetheless,,,

UK Court Demands Qatar Airways Produce Evidence Of QCAA Grounding Airbus A350s

https://simpleflying.com/qatar-airways- ... rbus-a350/

Now, it sounds like Waksman has had enough. He demanded that either the evidence be presented on April 21st, or that a witness statement from Al Baker be submitted stating that no evidence exists. Without evidence to back up their arguments, the Qataris now face elements of their claim being struck out or, ultimately, the entire case being thrown out of court. Waksman concluded,

xwb565 wrote:

Yes Yes I know its simple flying but nonetheless,,,

UK Court Demands Qatar Airways Produce Evidence Of QCAA Grounding Airbus A350s

https://simpleflying.com/qatar-airways- ... rbus-a350/

Now, it sounds like Waksman has had enough. He demanded that either the evidence be presented on April 21st, or that a witness statement from Al Baker be submitted stating that no evidence exists. Without evidence to back up their arguments, the Qataris now face elements of their claim being struck out or, ultimately, the entire case being thrown out of court. Waksman concluded,

This is something I have mentioned previously, the authority that is in charge of the TCDS, EASA says they are safe, it is highly unusual for some aircraft on the QCAA register of the same type to be flying, and others to be grounded. It is also unusual how the list of grounded aircraft is being expanded. The crux of the compensation being claimed by QR is AOG. AOG payments are not there to pay for routine maintenance.

It is also unusual that no other jurisdiction has grounded the aircraft type, and neither the FAA or EASA have said they are unsafe.

In reality i see this as being a commercial issue rather than a safety issue, almost exactly the same as the repairs to the 787 exterior. A reasonable level headed discussion between the parties could have resulted in Airbus to fix the aircraft, like they offered for the first one.

Agree Zeke but the terms level headed discussion and QR / Akbar al Baker don't mix too well. I'm sure Airbus tried .
My gut instinct is that Airbus will come out of the court case favourably ( I wont use the term win ) meaning that heads will roll at QR's HQ and possibly at the QCAA.

What I find baffling is that QR can't show any evidence the QCAA grounded their airplanes. If I read the article correctly, QR says airworthiness certificate was withdrawn verbally, which IMO is not very credible.

zeke wrote:

it is highly unusual for some aircraft on the QCAA register of the same type to be flying, and others to be grounded. It is also unusual how the list of grounded aircraft is being expanded.

It is not unusual for specific aircraft to be grounded and not the whole fleet. When there were engine issues grounding RR powered 787, and PW powered NEOs, it didn't ground the whole fleet. It is also not unusual for certain jurisdictions to have bans when many others don't such as the 777 PW ban or the India with specific GTF engines (not all). It affected specific engines on specific airframes and the number of grounded aircraft changed.

This was addressed in an earlier court submittal you posted where Airbus posed the same questions and QR's answer was that specific aircraft are grounded as the 'condition' is discovered during routine maintenance, aircraft where the condition is not discovered yet are not grounded. The 'safety' concern of QR in their court filings lies mainly with the adequacy of the lightning protection post repair especially when QR alleges that some of the proposed repairs leave gaps in the protection, its not a question of the inherent safety of the type.

Both sides accuse each other of not disclosing sufficient data, using tactics to delay the disclosure of data or hindering the process. That is normal in a case like this.

Another example from the same hearings which mentioned Airbus' concerns about non-disclosure.

Airbus implements A350 design change amid Qatar Airways feud

Qatar Airways seeks access to raw modelling data that would allow its technical experts to simulate the impact of lightning.

But there were tense exchanges in court on Thursday after Airbus said French security services had raised concerns about sharing data models on jets, some of which are used by European governments. Airbus cited cyber attacks on such data.

Qatar Airways accused Airbus of resorting to a new tactic to block the release of data that could be valuable to its case, after the planemaker was overruled in a previous bid to use a special blocking law defending French interests.

Source: https://www.reuters.com/business/aerosp ... 023-01-19/

Other examples:

"Airbus loses bid to use French blocking law in Qatar row"
https://www.reuters.com/business/aerosp ... 022-07-15/

Airbus says ‘foot-dragging’ risks delaying trial in Qatar feud
https://www.ajot.com/news/airbus-says-a ... qatar-feud

"Crucial Airbus-Qatar meeting rescheduled after being scuppered by attendance rules"
https://www.flightglobal.com/airlines/c ... 19.article

Pelly wrote:

It is not unusual for specific aircraft to be grounded and not the whole fleet.

You have missed a significate point then that QR has claimed, it has claimed that this is a design flaw, that even new build aircraft have, and that is the justification for not accepting new aircraft.

zeke wrote:

Pelly wrote:

It is not unusual for specific aircraft to be grounded and not the whole fleet.

You have missed a significate point then that QR has claimed, it has claimed that this is a design flaw, that even new build aircraft have, and that is the justification for not accepting new aircraft.

Yes, in the filings QR claim that is a defect in that the 'condition' will present itself eventually due to the design and materials used, not that it is unsafe as is. QR is not satisfied about the proposed repairs and has safety concerns about the lightning protection post repair, their filings also presented other concerns about the repairs such as the durability of the repairs, their cost and fuel burn penalties. That in their view is reason not accept the aircraft until they understand the causes and solutions. Airbus does not agree and sees that the aircraft meet contractual requirements to trigger delivery and hence QR is defaulting by not accepting.

As you know there are many specifications and performance criteria in aircraft contracts not just airworthiness. For example the LH 747-8 and the terrible teen 787 were safe but not taken up by their original customers.

Pelly wrote:

zeke wrote:

Pelly wrote:

It is not unusual for specific aircraft to be grounded and not the whole fleet.

You have missed a significate point then that QR has claimed, it has claimed that this is a design flaw, that even new build aircraft have, and that is the justification for not accepting new aircraft.

Yes, in the filings QR claim that is a defect in that the 'condition' will present itself eventually due to the design and materials used, not that it is unsafe as is. QR is not satisfied about the proposed repairs and has safety concerns about the lightning protection post repair, their filings also presented other concerns about the repairs such as the durability of the repairs, their cost and fuel burn penalties. That in their view is reason not accept the aircraft until they understand the causes and solutions. Airbus does not agree and sees that the aircraft meet contractual requirements to trigger delivery and hence QR is defaulting by not accepting.

As you know there are many specifications and performance criteria in aircraft contracts not just airworthiness. For example the LH 747-8 and the terrible teen 787 were safe but not taken up by their original customers.

None of which changes the fact that QR claims the QCAA grounded specific aircraft "for safety reasons" but has failed to provide any evidence to support this claim. QCAA has also been notably silent on the issue.

scbriml wrote:

None of which changes the fact that QR claims the QCAA grounded specific aircraft "for safety reasons" but has failed to provide any evidence to support this claim. QCAA has also been notably silent on the issue.

Exactly, was pointing out why it was aircraft specific and not the whole type.

Also important to note the QCAA wording in one of the earlier filings for nuance on the "for safety reasons" as you say:

It is confirmed that with the exclusion of [MSN 36] which was located
in Toulouse, France at the time of the campaign, we have verified and
validated the reported acceleration of the surface degradation on all
affected aircraft including the aircraft A7-ALV and A7-ALW. The
acceleration of the surface degradation is very much evident and
prevalent during our inspections that [QTR] was requested by [the
QCAA] to further perform more detailed assessment and inspections
on the affected aircraft to determine the severity of the accelerated
surface degradation on the airworthiness condition of the affected
aircraft and to rectify the findings.

For the time being, the seriousness of the effect of the accelerated
surface degradation to the affected aircraft structure is unknown to
this Authority.

In view of the absence of the result of the root-cause analysis from
the manufacturer and the non-availability of approved data that may
be used for permanent rectification of the accelerated surface
degradation, it is deeply concerning that the safe condition of the
affected aircraft may be compromised.

This condition lowers safety standards and seriously endangers flight
safety, a level 1 finding of significant non-compliance with the
technical requirements of Annex to QCAR 1003.

As a precautionary measure to prevent an untoward incident or
accident that may be caused by the above-mentioned condition and in
accordance with the procedure for the Authority, in particular point
M.B.903.1 of the Annex to QCAR 1003 as amended, the Airworthiness
Review Certificates of the following Airbus A350-941 aircraft affected
by accelerated surface degradation are hereby suspended, until
further advise"

Another quote, the issue is not with getting ZERO documents or ZERO communication from the QCAA.

Airbus and Qatari regulator set for crucial meeting over A350 grounding

Airbus insists disclosure of information provided to the authority regarding the condition, airworthiness, and grounding of the A350s, by the due date of 30 September, should have been “straightforward” but claims this has not yet been done.
It adds that it would expect the authority to have a “minimum core” of evidence supporting each aircraft’s grounding – including a damage report, assessment and photographs – but that Qatar Airways has provided Airbus with such documentation for only seven of the 29 aircraft grounded.

Source: https://www.flightglobal.com/airlines/a ... 78.article

Find it interesting that the QCAA does not want to meet with more than 2 people from EASA or Airbus. You would think if they were truly trying to find a solution they would not be limiting who would be able to attend the meeting with them. But that supposes that the QCAA is not just QR and doing the bidding of Al Baker. You would think the longer this process goes on in the courts the worse it will be for QR. You cannot win a case outside of Doha based on your word only. I guess they may be used to the way things have happened in Qatar for too long and now they expect the rest of the world to follow their tune as well.

I guess it is now time to put up or shut up, the meeting from the end of January with the QCAA and then the deadline for Qatar to provide documentation is quickly looming. You suspect there may be a quick resolution whereby Qatar suddenly sees the light and orders more A350 because of the "new information and processes Airbus had brought to the table". The prices of said aircraft may not be as favourable as they had before. Airbus gets to confirm their aircraft are not unsafe, QR gets to keep its cozy relationship with the QCAA and not have that relationship exposed.

Or Airbus is really tired of QR and will not relent, in which case it gets really interesting. Who knows what will happen then, but suspect it will be entertaining if it goes that far.

enzo011 wrote:

I guess it is now time to put up or shut up, the meeting from the end of January with the QCAA and then the deadline for Qatar to provide documentation is quickly looming.

If you look at the Judge's orders there are constantly orders for new disclosures for both sides with deadlines. For example Airbus was ordered to provide information on the compensation deals they have given other customers for this issue on the A350. QR was ordered to hand over parts of their contracts with Boeing for the MAX. Its a normal tactic in cases like this.

The root cause has become the basic stumbling block in this dispute.

Airbus claims they have provided the root cause, in the form of surface degradation due to moisture incursion, with standard surface repair & mitigation techniques.

Qatar doesn't accept that analysis, and wants to see a separate analysis conducted on the quality control and adhesion of the surface composite layers, to ensure there is no latent defect.

Airbus responds that this analysis is neither necessary nor Qatar's concern, in terms of revealing that proprietary data.

Qatar counters that the degradation represents a potential safety risk in terms of loss of lightning protection, since the underlying cause is not understood, and is supported by QCAA in that conclusion.

Airbus responds that the safety risk is minimal, is supported by EASA in that conclusion, and again contends that there is not a need to hand over proprietary data to Qatar as justification.

So possibly one solution would be to get EASA and QCAA together, apart from Airbus and Qatar, and have them sort out the technical and proprietary aspects, to agree on safety and root cause conclusions. That wouldn't involve the disclosures that Airbus and Qatar are arguing over in court. Each regulator has power of discovery for their respective litigant, so disclosure is not an issue.

Not sure if Judge Waksman has the authority to compel this as a resolution, but maybe the two regulators would undertake it voluntarily, if asked.

I have always been under the impression that the QCAA grounded these specific airplanes because QR refused to perform the required maintenance. (?)

And the reason for not doing that, was because the A350 required more maintenance than anticipated, expensive maintenance. QR feels that there is an underlying design flaw that is causing, more than justified snd repeated maintenance requirements. QR is seeking compensation, more compensation than Airbus is willing to commit to.

reidar76 wrote:

I have always been under the impression that the QCAA grounded these specific airplanes because QR refused to perform the required maintenance. (?).

As far as I am aware the QCAA has never made a class 1 finding for any A350 (grounding due to immediate safety risk, like MCAS), it has been for a potential safety risk (like the A350 engine master spill protection), class 2.

The QCAA has not notified EASA of any class 1 findings. The QCAA has never issued an AD relating to this issue.

My understanding is all that has happened is individual suspension of the certificate of maintenance review, which essentially means they have not been doing the required maintenance.

zeke wrote:

reidar76 wrote:

I have always been under the impression that the QCAA grounded these specific airplanes because QR refused to perform the required maintenance. (?).

As far as I am aware the QCAA has never made a class 1 finding for any A350 (grounding due to immediate safety risk, like MCAS), it has been for a potential safety risk (like the A350 engine master spill protection), class 2.

The QCAA has not notified EASA of any class 1 findings. The QCAA has never issued an AD relating to this issue.

My understanding is all that has happened is individual suspension of the certificate of maintenance review, which essentially means they have not been doing the required maintenance.

According to the court filings this was in the QCAA's letter to QR:

This condition lowers safety standards and seriously endangers flight
safety, a level 1 finding of significant non-compliance with the
technical requirements of Annex to QCAR 1003.

As a precautionary measure to prevent an untoward incident or
accident that may be caused by the above-mentioned condition and in
accordance with the procedure for the Authority, in particular point
M.B.903.1 of the Annex to QCAR 1003 as amended, the Airworthiness
Review Certificates of the following Airbus A350-941 aircraft affected
by accelerated surface degradation are hereby suspended, until
further advise

These are the relevant excerpts from the QCAR

A level 1 finding is any finding of significant non-compliance with the requirements of
this Annex, which lowers the safety standard and seriously endangers flight safety.

M.B.903 Findings
If during aircraft surveys or by other means evidence is found showing non-compliance to a Part-M requirement, the Authority shall take the following actions:

1. for level 1 findings, the Authority shall require appropriate corrective action to be taken before further flight and immediate action shall be taken by the Authority to revoke or suspend the airworthiness review certificate

After receipt of notification of findings according to point M.B.903, the person or organisation accountable referred to in point M.A.201 shall define a corrective action plan and demonstrate corrective action to the satisfaction of the Authority within a period agreed with this authority including appropriate corrective action to prevent reoccurrence of the finding and its root cause.

Source: the QCAA website.

zeke wrote:

The QCAA has not notified EASA of any class 1 findings. The QCAA has never issued an AD relating to this issue.

Not all Level 1 findings require a MCAI (AD or SB). Do you have any information on the content of the communication between EASA and QCAA as referred to here?

EASA has investigated the issue of paint and protection degradation on certain A350s and was made aware of it at the end of 2020, Janet Northcote, a spokeswoman for the regulator, said in an email. 

“Based on the data provided to EASA and EASA’s examination of some affected aircraft, there is no indication that the paint and protection degradation affects the structure of the aircraft or introduces other risks,” Northcote said.

[...]

An EASA spokesperson declined to discuss specific emails but said the agency had “multiple interactions” with the QCAA “as is normal”. The aim was purely to explain EASA’s position and offer technical support to the QCAA, the spokesperson said.

Sources:
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles ... r-air-rift
https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/reg ... ccounter=1

Pelly wrote:

zeke wrote:

reidar76 wrote:

I have always been under the impression that the QCAA grounded these specific airplanes because QR refused to perform the required maintenance. (?).

As far as I am aware the QCAA has never made a class 1 finding for any A350 (grounding due to immediate safety risk, like MCAS), it has been for a potential safety risk (like the A350 engine master spill protection), class 2.

The QCAA has not notified EASA of any class 1 findings. The QCAA has never issued an AD relating to this issue.

My understanding is all that has happened is individual suspension of the certificate of maintenance review, which essentially means they have not been doing the required maintenance.

According to the court filings this was in the QCAA's letter to QR:

This condition lowers safety standards and seriously endangers flight
safety, a level 1 finding of significant non-compliance with the
technical requirements of Annex to QCAR 1003.

As a precautionary measure to prevent an untoward incident or
accident that may be caused by the above-mentioned condition and in
accordance with the procedure for the Authority, in particular point
M.B.903.1 of the Annex to QCAR 1003 as amended, the Airworthiness
Review Certificates of the following Airbus A350-941 aircraft affected
by accelerated surface degradation are hereby suspended, until
further advise

These are the relevant excerpts from the QCAR

A level 1 finding is any finding of significant non-compliance with the requirements of
this Annex, which lowers the safety standard and seriously endangers flight safety.

M.B.903 Findings
If during aircraft surveys or by other means evidence is found showing non-compliance to a Part-M requirement, the Authority shall take the following actions:

1. for level 1 findings, the Authority shall require appropriate corrective action to be taken before further flight and immediate action shall be taken by the Authority to revoke or suspend the airworthiness review certificate

After receipt of notification of findings according to point M.B.903, the person or organisation accountable referred to in point M.A.201 shall define a corrective action plan and demonstrate corrective action to the satisfaction of the Authority within a period agreed with this authority including appropriate corrective action to prevent reoccurrence of the finding and its root cause.

Source: the QCAA website.

Sorry, you are barking up the wrong tree. That level 1 finding is saying the airline has failed in its maintenance oversight/procedures. It is not a level 1 finding for a technical defect, hence no AD, and no notification to EASA.

For level 1 findings, immediate action shall be taken by the Authority to revoke, limit or suspend in whole or in part, depending upon the extent of the level 1 finding, the maintenance organisation approval, until successful corrective action has been taken by the organisation.

For level 1 findings, immediate action shall be taken by the Authority to revoke, limit or suspend in whole or in part, depending upon the extent of the level 1 finding, the continuing airworthiness management organisation approval, until successful corrective action has been taken by the organisation.

A level 1 finding shall be issued by the Authority when any significant non-compliance is detected with the applicable requirements of Law no. 15/2002, as amended and its ensuing Regulations, with the organisation's procedures and manuals, or with the organisation's certificate including the terms of approval, which lowers safety or seriously endangers flight safety.

A level 1 finding in that part can result from simply QR not letting the QCAA to inspect aircraft, procedures, or maintenance history.

Pelly wrote:

Not all Level 1 findings require a MCAI (AD or SB).

They would require an emergency AD if it’s a technical defect. You simply are unaware that a level 1 finding can be issued to a maintenance organisation or AOC holder for ineffective safety oversight.

Pelly wrote:

Do you have any information on the content of the communication between EASA and QCAA as referred to here?

That should be available to the public, I’ll see if I can dig up a link. Literally thousands of defect reports are lodged with local CAAs who in turn transmit them to EASA or FAA that maintain the TCDS.

These defect reports gathered from all operators then are used to develop ADs and/or modifications to the maintenance planning manual for the type.

zeke wrote:

Sorry, you are barking up the wrong tree. That level 1 finding is saying the airline has failed in its maintenance oversight/procedures. It is not a level 1 finding for a technical defect, hence no AD, and no notification to EASA.

You are the one saying there is no AD issued and I am responding by saying that they don't need to issue an AD. You are explaining what I am trying to explain when it coems to the AD.

zeke wrote:

That level 1 finding is saying the airline has failed in its maintenance oversight/procedures.

That is not what the QCAA level 1 finding says, it says:

"In view of the absence of the result of the root-cause analysis from the manufacturer and the non-availability of approved data that may be used for permanent rectification of the accelerated surface degradation, it is deeply concerning that the safe condition of the affected aircraft may be compromised.”
This condition lowers safety standards and seriously endangers flight safety, a level 1 finding of significant non-compliance with the technical requirements of Annex to QCAR 1003."

Source: https://leehamnews.com/wp-content/uploa ... -25-22.pdf

For level 1 findings, immediate action shall be taken by the Authority to revoke, limit or suspend in whole or in part, depending upon the extent of the level 1 finding, the maintenance organisation approval, until successful corrective action has been taken by the organisation.

For level 1 findings, immediate action shall be taken by the Authority to revoke, limit or suspend in whole or in part, depending upon the extent of the level 1 finding, the continuing airworthiness management organisation approval, until successful corrective action has been taken by the organisation.

A level 1 finding shall be issued by the Authority when any significant non-compliance is detected with the applicable requirements of Law no. 15/2002, as amended and its ensuing Regulations, with the organisation's procedures and manuals, or with the organisation's certificate including the terms of approval, which lowers safety or seriously endangers flight safety.

You are quoting an irrelevant part, a Level 1 finding is a significant noncompliance, it can be in many contexts. The QCAA letter referred to M.B.903 where it says the action Level 1 Finding the authority should take the following action follows:

If during aircraft surveys or by other means evidence is found showing non-compliance to a Part-M requirement, the Authority shall take the following actions:
1. for level 1 findings, the Authority shall require appropriate corrective action to be taken before further flight and immediate action shall be taken by the Authority to revoke or suspend the airworthiness review certificate.

Source: QCAR 1003

zeke wrote:

Pelly wrote:

Not all Level 1 findings require a MCAI (AD or SB).

They would require an emergency AD if it’s a technical defect. You simply are unaware that a level 1 finding can be issued to a maintenance organisation or AOC holder for inefficient safety oversight.

That is exactly what I am saying that a Level 1 finding can be issued for many things. Based on your previous post I thought you were insinuating that there is no level 1 finding because there is no AD.

That should be available to the public, I’ll see if I can dig up a link. Literally thousands of defect reports are lodged with local CAAs who in turn transmit them to EASA or FAA that maintain the TCDS.

These defect reports gathered from all operators then are used to develop ADs and/or modifications to the maintenance planning manual for the type.

I know about MCAI and SDR and the responsibilities of operators towards their regulators, and also the state of registry towards the state of design. You are saying that the QCAA has not communicated a Level 1 finding to the EASA, I am asking for your source of that information. A lot of people here on A.net say there has been no communication between EASA and QCAA on the matter, and that is not correct.

Pelly wrote:

Source: QCAR 1003

Which is maintenance oversight, not related to a type design.

Qatar Civil Aviation Regulation

No. 1003 of 2006

governing the continuing airworthiness of aircraft and aeronautical products, parts and appliances, and on the approval of organisations and personnel involved in these tasks

Pelly wrote:

[You are saying that the QCAA has not communicated a Level 1 finding to the EASA, I am asking for your source of that information. A lot of people here on A.net say there has been no communication between EASA and QCAA on the matter, and that is not correct.

The QCAA level 1 finding related to the maintenance organisation has no pathway to get to EASA, the issue of local AOCs and maintenance approvals are an internal matter for the State of Qatar.

This is a matter between the airline and its local regulator. The court has said it finds it unthinkable that QR has not taken Airbus representatives with them to the QCAA to sort this documentation issue out.

As I said previously a level 1 finding can simply be issued because they did not grant access to an aircraft or documents. What you have posted clearly says the maintenance organisation has failed to provide satisfactory data to the regulator.

This really has nothing to do with EASA, this has not been flagged as a technical defect. It has been flagged as the airline not having maintenance oversight of their aircraft.

zeke wrote:

Pelly wrote:

Source: QCAR 1003

Which is maintenance oversight, not related to a type design.

Qatar Civil Aviation Regulation

No. 1003 of 2006

governing the continuing airworthiness of aircraft and aeronautical products, parts and appliances, and on the approval of organisations and personnel involved in these tasks

YES, as part of their role in maintenance oversight, the QCAA stated in their letter to QR referred to in the filings linked earlier:

[1] In view of the absence of the result of the root-cause analysis from the manufacturer. [...]
[2] the non-availability of approved data that may be used for permanent rectification of the accelerated surface degradation. [...]
[3] As a precautionary measure to prevent an untoward incident or accident that may be caused by the above-mentioned condition and in accordance with the procedure for the Authority, in particular point M.B.903.1 of the Annex to QCAR 1003 as amended.
[4] the Airworthiness Review Certificates of the following Airbus A350-941 aircraft affected by accelerated surface degradation are hereby suspended, until further advise.

QCAR 1003 says: "Damage shall be assessed and modifications and repairs carried out using approved data" and the QCAA letter claims there is 'non-availability of approved data'

It does not say this:

zeke wrote:

That level 1 finding is saying the airline has failed in its maintenance oversight/procedures.

zeke wrote:

The QCAA level 1 finding related to the maintenance organisation has no pathway to get to EASA, the issue of local AOCs and maintenance approvals are an internal matter for the State of Qatar.

Agreed

zeke wrote:

What you have posted clearly says the maintenance organisation has failed to provide satisfactory data to the regulator.
This really has nothing to do with EASA, this has not been flagged as a technical defect. It has been flagged as the airline not having maintenance oversight of their aircraft.

It does not say the airline doesn't have maintenance oversight of the aircraft, the quote is clear in the previous post. We go back again to QR's claims that they did not receive the sufficient data (root cause analysis) to provide to the QCAA to be able to repair the aircraft, and to Airbus' claim that they have provided sufficient data and that is what the court will determine.

Pelly wrote:

QCAR 1003 says: "Damage shall be assessed and modifications and repairs carried out using approved data" and the QCAA letter claims there is 'non-availability of approved data'

It does not say this:

zeke wrote:

That level 1 finding is saying the airline has failed in its maintenance oversight/procedures.

The approved data has withheld by the maintenance organisation from the regulator. That is what that sentence is saying.

The approved data exists, for example QR in their own filings stated that Airbus provided over 900 individual repairs for the first aircraft. Airbus also offered to undertake those repairs.

It is not the regulator or the manufacturer that has stopped that.

This argument is over the semantics of the language. It's clear that QCAA made a Level 1 finding and that EASA is aware of this, and has had discussions with QCAA regarding it.

As mentioned earlier, the EASA position is that the surface degradation, if remedied according to the Airbus specification, does not represent a safety of flight issue.

The QCAA position, is that without an analysis determining the root cause, and data showing that it has been remedied, the Level 1 finding will stand. In stating this, they are implicitly rejecting the Airbus analysis as insufficient.

This is why I said the dispute reduces to the root cause. That is the issue that must ultimately be settled, to move forward.

If I were the court, I would ask the regulators to jointly look into the Qatar concerns. If they are invalid, it should be possible to determine that fairly quickly. Or if there is some partial contribution, and a combination of factors including what Airbus has already determined, then establish what the individual contributions are.

All other claims and counterclaims between the litigants, depend on settlement of the root cause. The case will be a mess, until that is resolved.

Avatar2go wrote:

This argument is over the semantics of the language. It's clear that QCAA made a Level 1 finding and that EASA is aware of this, and has had discussions with QCAA regarding it.

Lawyers have become involved in this dispute and arguing over the sematics of the language is precisely what lawyers charge high fees for doing!

With all the lawyers and courts involved, who knows how this may turn out. But I find it instructive that no other aviation safety body in the world has yet found that the "problem" is a safety issue. Mho, but it appears that Qatar and AAB need an "out." By out, I mean some way to claim victory yet also exit the situation.

Apologies if this was discussed earlier and I missed it-- but what is the plan for Qatar's grounded A350s? I saw at least 15 of them parked next to each other in Doha last month. Are they going to be repaired? Repainted? It is a shame for such new jets to be sitting idling.

Well well well... Not too much detail but for the first time the reporting indicates that an agreement might be reached...

https://www.reuters.com/business/aerospace-defense/airbus-qatar-edge-towards-agreement-a350-dispute-sources-2023-01-31/

Gar1G wrote:

Well well well... Not too much detail but for the first time the reporting indicates that an agreement might be reached...

https://www.reuters.com/business/aerospace-defense/airbus-qatar-edge-towards-agreement-a350-dispute-sources-2023-01-31/

I can see that the QCAA have no evidence for the ground and Akbar have decided to end the battle before the hearing later this year.

xwb777 wrote:

Gar1G wrote:

Well well well... Not too much detail but for the first time the reporting indicates that an agreement might be reached...

https://www.reuters.com/business/aerospace-defense/airbus-qatar-edge-towards-agreement-a350-dispute-sources-2023-01-31/

I can see that the QCAA have no evidence for the ground and Akbar have decided to end the battle before the hearing later this year.

Agreed! And conveniently the QR mouthpiece is back to reminding people on twitter the QR side of the argument.

If I hazard a "finger in the air" guess, the agreement might look like the following:
- No AOG compensation for QR for the past 2 years BUT Airbus might offer the same repairs as offered to other carriers at their cost
- The a350 and a321 orders will be reinstated and the NTUs will go to QR after all
- QR will give the media narrative that they got Airbus accountable (the saving face)
- Airbus will stay pretty muted and say something about having QR as a valued customer

Gar1G wrote:

Well well well... Not too much detail but for the first time the reporting indicates that an agreement might be reached...

https://www.reuters.com/business/aerospace-defense/airbus-qatar-edge-towards-agreement-a350-dispute-sources-2023-01-31/

This was always going to be the likely outcome, and there was no need to get the courts involved to reach this point. Oh well, at least some law firms probably cashed out.

I think many thought this likely, post the UK judge's statement (reported up thread) that the QCAA would have to provide their rationale or, failing that, AAB would have to take the stand. To me, this has always been a brinkmanship thing between AAB and Airbus. But it seems the road ran out for AAB (with the judge potentially putting him on the spot) and a face-saving 'accomodation' then became a priority to be found?

Gar1G wrote:

xwb777 wrote:

Gar1G wrote:

Well well well... Not too much detail but for the first time the reporting indicates that an agreement might be reached...

https://www.reuters.com/business/aerospace-defense/airbus-qatar-edge-towards-agreement-a350-dispute-sources-2023-01-31/

I can see that the QCAA have no evidence for the ground and Akbar have decided to end the battle before the hearing later this year.

Agreed! And conveniently the QR mouthpiece is back to reminding people on twitter the QR side of the argument.

If I hazard a "finger in the air" guess, the agreement might look like the following:
- No AOG compensation for QR for the past 2 years BUT Airbus might offer the same repairs as offered to other carriers at their cost
- The a350 and a321 orders will be reinstated and the NTUs will go to QR after all
- QR will give the media narrative that they got Airbus accountable (the saving face)
- Airbus will stay pretty muted and say something about having QR as a valued customer

Pure fantasy, one sided leaks from Qatar trying to bounce Airbus into an agreement.

Why would Airbus agree to these things when its clear that QR have no case and have been dragging their name through the mud for over a year?

Repair at QR's cost, sure but Airbus have already placed some of the A350's and A321's are selling for more now than the original QR order. And QR is not a valued customer its a PITA.

Avatar2go wrote:

This argument is over the semantics of the language. It's clear that QCAA made a Level 1 finding and that EASA is aware of this, and has had discussions with QCAA regarding it.

They have not been transmitted to EASA or provided to the court, everyone has been asking for the documents that have grounded the aircraft. The judge in the last session has given an ultimatum for these documents or evidence to be provided to the court.

What has been provided to the court by QR indicate the level 1 finding has been made against the maintenance organisation (ie the Part 145 organisation). That makes it an internal issue between the QCAA and QR, as it is the QCAA that overseas the QR Part 145 maintenance organisation.

The documentation submitted suggests that the Part 145 organisation has failed to provide the required Part 21 approved data when requested by the regulator.

zeke wrote:

They have not been transmitted to EASA or provided to the court, everyone has been asking for the documents that have grounded the aircraft. The judge in the last session has given an ultimatum for these documents or evidence to be provided to the court.

What has been provided to the court by QR indicate the level 1 finding has been made against the maintenance organisation (ie the Part 145 organisation). That makes it an internal issue between the QCAA and QR, as it is the QCAA that overseas the QR Part 145 maintenance organisation.

The documentation submitted suggests that the Part 145 organisation has failed to provide the required Part 21 approved data when requested by the regulator.

And now the judge has given QR / QCAA this ultimatum to produce documents that reasonable people suspect do not exist, which has forced QCAA to sit down with Airbus and EASA to present this suspected non existent evidence, some posters in this thread would have us believe that Airbus is going to cave and agree with QR that things can go back to normal, in order to save QR's face.

If you believe that I've got a bridge to sell you..

BoeingVista wrote:

zeke wrote:

They have not been transmitted to EASA or provided to the court, everyone has been asking for the documents that have grounded the aircraft. The judge in the last session has given an ultimatum for these documents or evidence to be provided to the court.

What has been provided to the court by QR indicate the level 1 finding has been made against the maintenance organisation (ie the Part 145 organisation). That makes it an internal issue between the QCAA and QR, as it is the QCAA that overseas the QR Part 145 maintenance organisation.

The documentation submitted suggests that the Part 145 organisation has failed to provide the required Part 21 approved data when requested by the regulator.

And now the judge has given QR / QCAA this ultimatum to produce documents that reasonable people suspect do not exist, which has forced QCAA to sit down with Airbus and EASA to present this suspected non existent evidence, some posters in this thread would have us believe that Airbus is going to cave and agree with QR that things can go back to normal, in order to save QR's face.

If you believe that I've got a bridge to sell you..

I can't see it happening. While there may be an agreement to end the legal dispute, I can't see Airbus wanting QR as a customer again any time soon. The only way I can see that changing is if Al Baker is no longer involved with QR.

scbriml wrote:

I can't see Airbus wanting QR as a customer again any time soon. The only way I can see that changing is if Al Baker is no longer involved with QR.

High end business simply doesn't work that way; corporations are not nearly so sentimental.

After all of this, if QR comes knocking with adequate money, then Airbus will sell them planes.

If you don't believe it, rewind a decade and review the Airbus vs. AA "beef" over AA587 that A.net was convinced would last for all time..... AA ended up coming back to Airbus for (what was then) the biggest order of all time.