Weather | Sports | Forums | Comics | Classifieds | Calendar | Movies
© St. Petersburg Times, published May 15, 2002
WASHINGTON -- Responding to a small group of American Airlines pilots who say the Airbus A300 might need to be grounded, the Federal Aviation Administration says that the plane is safe and that investigators have found no evidence that its unique composite tail was a factor in a November crash in Queens, N.Y.
"To date, no information has come to my attention that would warrant grounding the A300-600 fleet," John J. Hickey, the director of the FAA's Aircraft Certification Service, wrote in a response to eight American pilots who wrote a letter questioning the plane's safety in March.
The airline flies a version of the A300 known as the 600 series.
Hickey said that "composite technology has been used for the last 50 years and only a successful track record could account for its proliferation in both military and commercial applications."
Hickey said that the National Transportation Safety Board investigation into the crash is still under way but that so far there is no evidence that the composite structure of the fin "was a significant factor in the accident."
Investigators say American Airlines Flight 587 tumbled out of the sky after the tail fin snapped off the fuselage. They are trying to determine why that occurred.
Investigators say the fin might have been subjected to a strong air load after the pilots made alternating rudder movements. Or, they say, there could have been a malfunction in the rudder system or an undetected flaw in the fin.
On March 22, the pilots wrote the FAA and NTSB that there is "a pressing need to consider the grounding of the A300-600 fleet" because of doubts whether composites are strong enough and reliable enough for major structures such as the tail fin.
The pilots also said the FAA's current rules, which require only visual inspections of the fin, were not sufficient. The pilots said the government should require more sophisticated inspections using ultrasound and other technologies.
But Hickey responded that the current requirement for visual inspections is sufficient and that additional examinations are not needed unless damage can be seen.
That response hasn't satisfied some of the pilots, however.
They recently presented American with a petition with about 200 signatures from pilots who want the airline to conduct more extensive inspections of the A300 tail fins.