Looked into some threads started in PPRuNe during past year all dealing with AA 587.
Interesting.
Some contributions a bit far from reality, some more emotional
posts motivated more by sympathy for the poor crew or the company involved rather than dealing with facts. And than those brilliant tech. theories or explainations indicating profound system
knowledge and competence.(i.e. BELGIQUE, JOHN TULLAMARINE and others).
In a thread "witnesses saw AA 587 exlpode in flames" JAN2002
I wrote:
"I dare say during the next weeks the profs will circle again around those AA-Procedures you all heard about
: the recovery out of unusual attitudes by applying full rudder. Believe me, the Airbus A 300-600 got a huge one and after takeoff you better get your feet off the pedals."
Reaction was not very friendly: "Captain of a C150 me thinks"
Or MCD wrote that application of "full rudder" was not the point.
Reading BOINGS post in this thread:
"The US airlines with whose training I am familiar have all been teaching inappropriate rudder use in upset recoveries for about five years. It did not start as excessive use of rudder. Initially the teaching was that an "appropriate" amount of rudder would be used to aid recovery. Over the years "appropriate" slowly evolved into "full" use of rudder. It was easy to see this transition take place sitting in the left hand seat during simulator check rides. My objections that excessive rudder was being used were ignored by the training system"
and following the nice informative post by PICKY PERKINS (thank you) I'm rather shocked that some forgotten oldfashioned pilot habits could have caused or contributed to this tragic accident.
411A in his charming manner is quite right: in big commercial airliners easy on the rudder.
BTW N380UA: when I was sitting LH on a A300-600 or A310 years ago recycling FAC CB (pull-push) to reengage pitch trim or YD was daily bread and butter routine. The FAC "needed" it sometimes.
Regards