Flight Safety.
With regard to your comments concerning 'a really good lawyer...', I wouldn't be so sure. If anything it was AA's training that was under the spotlight after the independant analysts provided data that showed the aircraft could take more punishment than it was designed to take by quite a significant margin.
Shore Guy.
I've recently trained to fly Airbuses after 4000+ hours on Med/Heavy Boeings. The instructors on my previous types were Boeing trained and one was a former Heavy Jet Test Pilot. They stressed from very early in the training course the use and misuse of the rudder at high speed and high altitude and we were taught that full rudder reversals were to be avoided.
Something that was beaten into me again when I re-trained to fly the Airbus.
One of my instructors was a former Airbus Test Pilot and A300/A310 development pilot. According to him, Airbus had raised concerns with AA Training prior to AA587. After trawling the 'net and watching the documentry on BBC World, it is readily apparent that this is anything but an 'open and shut case'.
The aircraft proved it could absorb more punishment than it was designed and certified to encounter to such an extent that the actual figures of what the aircraft endured leading up to the failiure surprised the manufacturer. Witnessing the Chief of AA's A300 Fleet Training' rudder technique coupled with AA's own track record of 'overstressed' rudders - almost 10% of such a small fleet (and those were the FAA's own figures) it didn't look good for AA's A300 Training Department.
I, personally, think the outcome is far from 'cut and dried'.
If it WAS the aircraft then how come airlines such as AF,LH,IB,AI,PIA...the numerous Chinese and Japanese operators haven't had a problem? But AA with a fleet of 30 something have had multiple problems? I think we'll let the investigation decide.