I got this far in the article: ".....three of the Airbus crashes involved a separation of the composite vertical stabilizer (tail fin) from the fuselage..." then stopped reading. 100% of CFIT crashes involved flying - maybe the question should be "Let's Ban Flying"; or 100% of airplane crashes involved aircraft, so "Should we Ban Aircraft".
If they had a better premise to start I might have read further, but for now - Sensational rubbish (IMHO)
Due to the recalculation of loads for the Multi Role Transporter and Tanker (MRTT) aircraft, it has been found that a structural reinforcement at the aft section of the fuselage (FR (frame) 87- FR91) is required for A300-600 aircraft and A310 aircraft with a Trim Tank installed. * * *
The unsafe condition is the potential loss of structural integrity in the aft section of the fuselage between FR87 through FR91, inclusive, during extreme rolling and vertical maneuver combinations. The proposed AD would require actions that are intended to address the unsafe condition described in the MCAI.
If everyone thought like you , no investigation would be needed to make aviation safer. Accident investigation would be just to serve public curiosity and blame crew and the airlines and get some profit from the accident.
The problem is that accident investigation nowadays has a tendency to bend to comercial and financial interests.
As I read on a book a couple of years ago , "If a pilot is not dead in an accident , investigation will kill him".
This kind of report is of ultimate importance and shows up the true which is hidden behind the interests.
Of course I will not quit flying because of this , but I will not die stupid.
With the autopilot disengaged, the pilots had to manually contend with an ever-escalating series of failures in the flight control systems. All of this had to be done with alarms sounding, in absolute darkness, with no natural horizon to observe and with aerodynamic forces erasing all sense of up or down. The pilots were entirely dependent upon the plane’s instruments and the sensors that provided electronic data.
Then, there was a cascading series of failures within the flight control computer and systems to monitor air speed, altitude and direction.
The pilots were flying blind.
The wing spoilers failed, the rudder limiter became inoperative and the rudder may have locked into place. At this point, it is likely that the plastic stabilizer was ripped from the plane. 
All we know for sure is that the plastic tail fin separated from the fuselage under conditions that should have been expected to occur at some time during the life of the airplane.
So has the black box been found, or was he flying along side with his all metal wings and witnessed the entire thing!
Media Sensationalism, no doubt fueled by a vested lobby.
Of course I will not quit flying because of this , but I will not die stupid.
So A3-TWENTY will you be looking to retrain on a Boeing aircraft then?
Are any ATPLs aware that the quote below is based on any facts at all?
More than 20 American Airlines pilots asked to be transferred to Boeing aircraft, “although this meant months of retraining and loss of earnings.” One pilot wrote that “he had refused to let any of his family take an A300 or A310 and had paid extra to take a circuitous route on holiday purely to avoid them.
I have just read the article which heads this thread, whilst I agree with a lot of the comments, I have a feeling that there may be some truth. There has recently been a "Seconds from Disaster" program re the Bristow helicopter tail separation & crash in the North Sea in 1996. AAIBs Edward Trimble was the lead investigator, & his conclusion was the composite tail rotor failed after a lightning strike which partially melted, damaged. the structure. The original design had used metal which allowed electrical energy to disipate easily. This discharge does not happen so easily with composites and can lead to heating. His conclusions were not accepted by the CAA, and to my knowledge no redesign has been ordered. SO could we read this across to composite fins etc on current fixed wing a/c. They do get struck by lightning and presumably discharge through their empenage. Could this lead to a weakening of the tail fastenings, and could this explain the large number of tail separations which seem to be occuring on Airbus a/c. We do know that AF 447 went through a severe thunderstorm, a lightning strike may? have been a major/minor contributory factor.
My posting was not taking sides but merely pointing out that the ex head of the AAIB was not happy that enough testing had been done on composites, which he agreed were stronger weight for weight, but could have problems with electrical discharges flowing through them. It is possible that electrical bonding is superior in Boeings. Also until the B 787 flies then I dont believe that much structual composite material has been used on Boeings. The Bristow helecopter which crashed in 1996 had its rotor blades (tail & main) retrofitted with composite blades viz metal. They were proved to be stronger BUT, the AAIB found in certain circumstances they could fail. So if for example the A 330 has a composite fin attached with a mixture of metal and composite attachments, then is it not possible in certain cases for similar delamination to take place. I do believe the CAA should consider running an investigation. I consider the Airbus range to be a fine product, but to bury your head in the sand is not good airmanship.
27 November 2002: New York flight loses part of lower rudder 8 October 1998: Part of lower rudder detaches off Newfoundland 21 March 1992: Large section of upper rudder lost at twice speed of sound 4 January 1991: Portion of upper rudder separates during London - New York flight 12 April 1989: Part of upper rudder detaches at 44,000 feet
The old girl(s) survived all these - Tough as old boots.
@Walnut. You said: "It is possible that electrical bonding is superior in Boeings. Also until the B 787 flies then I dont believe that much structual composite material has been used on Boeings."
It is just as possible that the electrical bonding in Boeings is inferior. Your statement is without foundation, and, it appears, without reason. Also, what you BELIEVE about the use of composite material on Boeings is irrelevant - what they ACTUALLY use has far greater relevance than your beliefs. Check the facts.
It is possible that electrical bonding is superior in Boeings.
This statement is clearly contradicting your earlier statement. What makes you say that electrical bonding is superior in Boeings ? Can you conclusively link any Airbus crashes to inferior electrical bonding ? As I mentioned earlier, B777 structural composite make up is similar to the A330s. Does that mean that CAA should run an investigation against Boeing ? FYI, almost all aircrafts designed in the 80s and 90s have some amount of composites in them irregardless of manufacturer.
I consider the Airbus range to be a fine product, but to bury your head in the sand is not good airmanship.
And for you to make that statement after declaring impartiality and pinpoint Airbus is clearly both biased and hypocritical of you.
When any aircraft is rolled out, the major aviation authorities such as FAA and EASA would conduct numerous amount of tests to validate its airworthiness. I'm pretty sure that electrical conductivity and lightning tests is among them. If there were any problems, the a/c would not be allowed to fly. If there were fundamental design flaws discovered in the course of AF447 investigation, or any other for that matter, that needs immediate attention, they will be grounded till they are fixed.( E.g: DC 10)
If you concerned about safety, please do so without double standards.
well Boeing denied responsibility for the rudder problems until enough people had died to make it financially viable to fix despite the evidence and it seems to be the same scenario with the Airbus fin. It happens with ALL manufacturers of cars, trains, boats whatever.....and is perfectly normal. Money is King. Time will tell and in the meantime the Censorship Ostriches will continue to tell everyone what they can and cannot believe.
Whats wrong with the Airbus fin? One failed having been subject to loads above it's maximum design strength, one fell off after the aircraft hit the sea at high speed. Where's the evidence of a design flaw?