I just watched that BBC programme on the loss of AA587. If (-BIG if) the programme was right in portraying AA as promoting the use of rudder to recover from extreme attitudes - and there appeared to be training video supporting this - then surely this must be the crux of the issue.
I've been flying the A300 for the last 11 years, and the 737 before that. I was always trained since basic flying that the rudders in flight were foot rests only, apart from an engine failure or the first/last 5 seconds of the flight. I can think of no other circumstances where I would use rudder - A300 roll input is perfectly adequate. Shortly after the crash Boeing also issued a notice pointing out that their rudders were not designed to be used in this way.
I recall a cross-wind approach some years ago when the PF reverted to his previous turboprop type and applied rudder in the last 500'. There was a sickening, uncomfortable wing-drop as well as a most unusual noise before I clamped my feet on the pedals.
The one thing that continues to puzzle me is the wake turbulence. The A300 easily outclimbs a 747, and vortices move downward. How could AA587 have encountered JAL's wake ?