In deference to the NTSB, it has been mentioned here before that, left to
their own devices, they would not have initiated the "probable cause"
reporting that the news media and most of the rest of the world zooms in
on, but would have preferred to keep their report factual. This said, the
"C" and "F" shorthand we have become accustomed to ("C" for causal and "F"
for factor) appear to favor a superficial reading and attribution of
blame.
I agree we find, at times, and almost surreal ability to put the blame on
the shoulders of the flight crew, and this latest incident is an example.
After all, one of the oft-cited criteria for assigning crew responsibility
(or "pilot error"), is the determination of whether the crew acted in
accordance with their training. It is after all unreasonable to expect the
crew to become test pilots and invent hitherto unexplored techniques in
dealing with an emergency, or to consider them at fault for not having
done so. Yet, from the information we have, this would appear to be the
standard being applied to this flight crew. Clearly, nothing in their
basic training, advanced training or type certification indicated they
could not use full rudder deflection for airplane control within
maneuvering speed.
If we accept the arguments submitted by Airbus, who claim they tried for
years to improve the training program at American to reflect this reality,
this further vindicates the flight crew, as we understand that this
training was never implemented. In our world today, had the unfortunate
first officer had the miraculous chance to survive the accident, having
been found at fault, he would certainly be fired, and could even face
involuntary manslaughter charges - a criminal. This smacks of
scapegoating, and one is hard pressed not to see a political expedient at
work here.
G Faris
|