Victims' Families Say 2001 Disaster Could Have Been Averted

Did Airbus know of major problems with the rudder on its A300-600 model, yet fail to tell anyone? That's the allegation from families suing for up to $100 million in damages, as American and Airbus point fingers at each other, each denying blame for the crash.

Airbus says the crash of AAL 587 was due to pilot error. American says Airbus failed to warn customers that strong, sudden rudder inputs could cause a structural overload and lead to a tragic airframe failure.

What Did Airbus Know About Other, Similar Incidents?

Consider this similar event:

1997: Off the coast of Florida, AAL 903, stalled, descending some 3000 feet before the flight crew, using very sharp rudder inputs, were able to bring the aircraft back under control. In the process, American says, they damaged the Airbus's vertical stabilizer. The NTSB blamed the pilots for the incident, saying they were flying much too close to stall speed when it all unraveled. That, say some safety experts, should have been a red light and siren to the folks over at Airbus.

Bernard Loeb, former NTSB Chief, told USA Today earlier this week, "When I heard (about what Airbus knew) it made me sick. People are kicking themselves." Carol Carmody, who was head of the NTSB when Airbus reported the 1997 incident, said the board missed a chance to take preventative action before the AAL 587 crash in 2001.

The results of the Flight 587 investigation are still months away. But already, the NTSB reports the A300 ran into heavy turbulence soon after take-off, as it was passing over Jamaica Bay (NY). Copilot Sten Molin fought the rough air by strong rudder control inputs.

The vertical stab then broke away from the aircraft and aerodynamic control was lost.

The investigation has so far found that there were no structural defects in the tail of the A300. Initial reports indicate Molin's maneuvers simply exceeded the maximum structural capabilities of the vertical stabilizer itself.

FMI: www.airbus.com