On Aug 14, 6:16*pm, "Flaps_50!" wrote:
On Aug 9, 12:41*am, a wrote:



John Smith wrote

"After being buffeted by the wake from a jet ahead of them, the pilots
made several sharp rudder movements." Note the key word "several".
"Several" sharp rudder movements may break any aircraft at any speed,
especially big ones, as any pilot sould know, especially after the
American Airlines crash from 2001.

True enough, but absent any conflicting factual information, if the
NTSB is indicating the controls are too sensitive and airframe damage
can happen even when special training is given. I'd call it a design
weakness or flaw.

The Airbus is a fly by wire airplane, pilot inputs for all intents are
'suggestions' to the software, and we've read elsewhere of accidents
caused because the software chose to ignore those inputs. A reasonable
person might find, then, that inputs that might damage the airframe
would be moderated by the programming. A jury made up of such
reasonable persons might be inclined to think harshly of Airbus.

If I was the plaintiff in such a lawsuit I'd ask for a change of venue
to, oh, Seattle comes to mind.

Typical litigous mentality. The plane passed certification but any
pilot can break a plane. Control surfaces have the power to break
wings, tailplanes and rudders -fact. I believe NASA had to use a test
plane recently to examine the increase in tail fin load induced by
rapid reversal of rudder input after significant yaw had developed and
the found the structural load could be more twice the design load -if
I remember correctly.

Cheers

Litigation is very much a factor in aviation, as well as in too many
other areas of human activity. I can assure you it is a real world
factor in our management decisions: is it not in yours?