"nobody" wrote in message
...
Morgans wrote:
Seems to me that Airbus is, if not criminally responsible, morally and
legally responsible.

Then Boeing would also be guilty because the NTSB, very early in the
investigation, found that Boeing planes were also liable to lose tailfin
upon
misused of rudder during flight.

Also early on, it had been revealed that AA stood out amongst all other
airlines with regards to rudder usage while in flight (training issue).
If
the rest of airlines told pilots not to use Rudder to such an extent, then
AA
stands out.

Airbus insists it has sent warnings about misused of rudder while in
flight.
The question is whether a maufacturer (Airbus , Boeing etc) needs to
approve
an airline's training programme for a specific plane. If so, the Airbus
could
be held responsible for not forcing AA to change training to avoid misused
of
Rudder. But if Airbus did not need to approve AA's training programme,
then
why should it be held responsible ?

Seems to me if Airbus or any other manufacturer was aware AA was training
it's pilots to fly/operate its products in a manner it was not engineered to
be operated the manufacturer would be responsible for saying so "LOUD &
CLEAR" in a manner that could not be construed as ambiguous.
Ralph Nesbitt
Professional FD/CFR/ARFF Type