Originally Posted by
airsupport
I really couldn't care less whether you back away or not.
Just PLEASE stop twisting what I say.
I am NOT talking about how to fly or not fly the A300, and I am certainly NOT accusing anyone of anything (that should please Danny), however after being based at JFK NY with an Airbus A300 operating throughout the Caribbean, and seeing this lack of anything but a token external visual inspection of the composite tail, and this water that was always trapped in the tail for weeks on end, I just cannot help thinking that these could have been factors in this tragic accident.
The exact type of composite tail on the A300s in question is unique to ONLY the A300/A310.
Also, as I said, I am sure Airbus now have a better inspection schedule and have fixed the drainage problem.
OK, friend; don't hyperventilate; I have no interest in “twisting” anything – particularly what you have to say. I thought that when you said, “this crash had little to do with the pilots,” you meant that the pilots had little to do with the crash. I was merely reading what was posted. If you are not talking about how to fly or not fly an Airbus A-300, then apparently you and I are talking two different problems. OK, fine. I know nothing about the water drainage issues on the subject aircraft. Perhaps this
was a situation peculiar to the A-300/A-310 aircraft – and I certainly have no problem in yielding to your familiarity with those circumstances.
My comment was strictly related to the cockpit control inputs made during the last few seconds of the FDR recordings of AA587. As I said, the cockpit control inputs recorded on the FDR would have done serious damage to any aircraft – regardless of what the structure was – composites, weakened composites, aluminum, stainless steel, or wet cardboard – and that is all I was saying.