Rolls-Royce plc

Paragraph (f) (1) (i) refers to within 625 cycles from the effective date of the FAA AD. The EASA AD refers to within 625 cycles after the 20th January 2011; should the 625 in the FAA AD be reduced to allow for the elapsed time between the issue dates of the EASA and FAA AD ? Paragraph (f) (3) should really be identified as (g) for consistency. Paragraph (g) (1) (i); should there be a reduction in the 425 cycles in the FAA AD to allow for the elapsed time between the EASA and the FAA AD. Paragraph (g) (1) doesn't allow sections 3.A.(2)(a) through 3.A.(2)(c) of the referenced RR NMSB to be used to inspect the Trent 800 whereas paragraph (f)(1) does allow this for the very similar Trent 700 NMSB. This should be made consistent. Paragraph (j) (1) could say that incorporation of 72-G402 is terminating action for (f)(1) as well as (f)(2) so that engines built from new with 72-G402 incorporated aren't inspected unnecessarily. (Alternatively these engines could be exempt from the effectivity). Similarly, paragraph (j) (2) could also say that incorporation of 72-G401 is terminating action for (g)(1) as well as (g)(2). n.b. paragraph (h) is about the Trent 500 not the Trent 800.(Alternatively these engines could be exempt from the effectivity). Paragraph (k) (1) (ii) should refer to paragraph (f) for inspection requirements. Paragraph (k) (2) (i) should refer to paragraph (g) for inspection requirements. Paragraph (k) (2) (ii) should refer to paragraph (g) for inspection requirements. Paragraph (k) (3) (i) should refer to paragraph (h) for inspection requirements. Paragraph (k) (3) (ii) should refer to paragraph (h) for inspection requirements. Also EASA have now superseded AD 2010-0266R1 with 2011-0221 so could this be referenced in the FAA AD. The EASA AD mandates the incorporation of 72-G401 and 72-G402 at the next shop visit or within 90 months of the issue date of their AD. The FAA AD should do the same.