Am only a humble APTL student and PPL holder, but I watched the Horizon programme with great interest.
As part of my course I recently read the UK CAA's circular on Wake Turbulence (AIC 17/1999, Pink 188, 25 Feb, for those in the UK). The thrust of it, especially the latter half is that avoidance is the key.
The Horizon programme compared the flight paths of the JAL 744 and the A300, noting that the A300 turned inside JALs track, and that this meant the wake vortex had drifted down to the A300's track position - hence the encounter.
My first question is were both aircraft flying a SID or not, and if they were, was the portion of the SID in which the accident occured (ie the left climbing turn following departure) a part in which there was no track guidance? (I believe the ICAO stuff on track guidance states track guidance to be achieved within 10km for a turning departure). If both follow the same track, given the wind drift the A300 should not have encountered the 744's wake.
Having been warned of wake turbulence danger, how much consideration was given to their intended flight path with regard to where JALs wake was likely to be - namely turning inside is probably not a good idea. Given the wake turbulence drifts down I was also surprised that the A300 was not above JALs wake, as I would have expected an A300 to outclimb a 744. Overriding this it must be said that there is still much to learn about wake turbulence encounters.
Perhaps of more alarm to someone who is working toward a career as a commercial pilot was Airbus Chief Test pilot saying that wing low should only be corrected with aileron, even at high pitch angles. When taught to fly from day, albeit in Cessna and Piper, we are taught correct wing low at high pitch angle and low speed with rudder. Using aileron will may result in stalling the wings. The problem IMHO in this area lies in the fact that handling a commercial jet and a light training aircraft are completely different - and the problem is that there is little training to bridge the gap. That said I believe from earlier posts the variant of the A300 concerned had no outboard ailerons, hence stalling the wind by applying aileron at high pitch angle following a wing drop maybe unlikely on this particular aircraft type. Thoughts? If this is the case - does the Operating Manual for the aircraft make comment on this? (as required by the JAA regulations concerning handling characteristics unique to the aircraft).
It has all certainly made me think about how I will use the rudder in future in my little C152 and PA28.
Finally from ICAO Annex 13 - Accident Investigation."The sole purpose of accident investigation is to prevent repetition, not to apportion blame". It seems once again all and sundry are concerned with avoiding being blamed, whilst perhaps the true reason for the deaths of several hundred people has not been found.