OK, so what kind of cognitive dissonance is going on here to derive this...
Originally Posted by
bubbers44
The Airbus supporters would like to blame that crash on the FO because of that program
from what barit, myself and a host of others actually said, which is this:
Originally Posted by
barit1
Thus while the fin failure might be classified as pilot-induced, the system failure occurred at a much higher level; and I'm not inclined to point my finger at the crew.
(Emphasis mine)
Originally Posted by
bubbers44
His training was a day course which we were paid for and did not change the way we flew an airplane, just to make sure we knew at high angle of attack upsets we also had the rudder to help recover. Nobody was taught to agressively use rudder input unless aileron input wasn't working in a roll situation. It didn't change my method of flying at all. Just added another way of getting out of a bad situation.
It's not just about the training though, it is about how training is interpreted by the trainee. We have evidence that the FO had been known to use aggressive rudder inputs, whether as a result of - or prior to that training we do not know, and that the FO seemed nervous around wake encounters. We have evidence that the control inputs as recorded (not the actual rudder deflection, the inputs) would have placed a load on the vertical stabiliser well in excess of the ultimate design load, which would result in the same situation regardless of who made the aircraft.
We are not robots and one "How to fly" course is not going to make us misuse flight controls like that.
No, but it may have validated in his mind his way of doing things, which was incorrect for an A300.
I still think the tail broke off because they delivered it to us patched with rivets along the break line because of delamination in the factory.
Then why did the thing fail well aft of that line?
Again, while a lot of people (especially Boeing fans) are wont to say that the Airbus use of composites must be to blame, and that Airbus make aerial Citroens that don't stand up to punishment like Uncle Sam's product, the fact remains that the only airliner to land safely after a missile encounter was an A300, so they've got to be reasonably sturdy.