"JL Grasso" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 28 Oct 2004 21:00:03 -0400, nobody wrote:

Ralph Nesbitt wrote:
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.


In principle, probably correct. But legally, wouldn't it be the FAA that
would
be in charge of ensuring that AA's training adheres to both its own as
well as
manufacturer's standards ?

Airbus says it sent letters of concern to AA. Perhaps it should have sent
those letters with a CC to the FAA and let the FAA ensure AA fixes the
problem. Not sure Airbus has any authority on ist customers, but FAA has
authority over US airlines.

All Airbus would have had to do was to put the statement/information in
the AFM, AOM, QRH, ops bulletins, etc for it to be mandated. Sending
letters to cheif pilots, cas mgrs, training departments, etc doesn't mean
much, although it would probably be compelling evidence to a court.

The FAA also has some authority(leverage) over manufacturers of
US-registered aircraft, and they frown on "training by memo". Generally
speaking, if it's worth writing in a letter, it needs to be in the
appropriate ops or maintenance manual. One exception would be a case where
urgency dictated the need for immediate notification, followed by a manual
revision asap.

Jerry

Well said. If it isn't in the proper/appropriate Manuel it is nothing more
than a matter of opinions. Opinions. They are like anus's, they all have
an odor of some kind.
Ralph Nesbitt
Professional FD/CFR/ARFF Type