You got it a little backwards lompasso.
AA wanted to pull the tails of the airbuses at various times and was "Advised" in the strongest manner not to, that the risk of damage from removing the tails for NDI was higher than the probability of finding anything wrong with them and that Tap tests and partial ultra sound (it is not possible to get an accurate full ultrasound while installed) of the tail would be more than enough.
Airbus was doggedly sticking to this position because they were claiming that there were no aging aircraft issues with composites and were presenting it as a cost savings over aluminum. When they pulled the tail of the other airplane and found damage, THEN airbus changed their position on inspections of the tail.
That the aircraft had flown for 5 years with that damage undiscovered at various C and D checks means the aircraft ALL need to be ultrasounded as part of a heavy check. Again, Airbus is fighting that tooth and nail....
CHeers
Wino