I agree Vanity Fair does'nt really have credibility when it comes to aircraft accidents. The thing that disturbed me about Goldberg's comments were that he made these derogatory remarks about the Airbus that AA operated in a public forum---a magazine. Why would an AA pilot basically tell the public that the aircraft AA flew were'nt safe? I see he's on the 767 out of LGA now, but I'm just curious.
I also hold Airbus responsible for assuring the aircraft was safe, including the tail striking the ramp at Toulouse during a windstorm before it was delivered. How much do we really know about composites incorporated in aircraft structures? How much damage could they incur if things like tail-strikes and severe turbulence encounters (or inflight upsets) happen?
AA training must have some responsibility also, if F/O Molin was doing something AA taught. Advanced or rapid manuevers in transport category jets just are'nt smart and certainly could lead to fuselage/flight control damage. Seems to me AA kind of has radical procedures in some areas, including having Captains make PA announcements while he/she taxiies the airplane, and re-briefing approaches (both pilots' heads down) below 10,000 feet, and that ridiculous PA announcement the FO makes approaching the gate when he/she should be watching the ramp for equipment. Would you trust those wing-walkers, Wino?
FAA would have some responsibility also, if lack of oversight caused these AA procedures to be approved without some sort of research/review/dialogue.