How safe is your airplane?

After the crash of American Airlines Flight 587, some pilots requested that all Airbus A300 planes be grounded. But they're still aloft.

By P. Smith

Mar 8, 2002 | A group of pilots at American Airlines, the world's largest air carrier, have been rallying for the grounding of American's fleet of Airbus A300s. Their concerns follow the mysterious crash of an American A300-600 after takeoff from John F. Kennedy Airport on Nov. 12, in which 265 people died. A letter of protest circulated in Miami, New York and Boston, the three stations at which American bases its 34-strong fleet of the European-built wide-body jet, and at least five dozen pilots added their signatures.

American Flight 587, en route from JFK to Santo Domingo, Dominican Republic, crashed moments after takeoff when, to put it coarsely but accurately, the tail fell off. Why this happened is not known, but the more investigators learn about Flight 587, the more its rudder is coming under scrutiny. The rudder is the large moveable surface attached to an aircraft's tail, controlling side-to-side movement, or yawing, along the plane's vertical axis.

The newest evidence suggests that extreme movements of the rudder, caused either by malfunction or induced inadvertently by the crew, may have stressed the entire tail to the point of failure, possibly with help from a small crack in the tail's composite structure, which had formed years ago but was heretofore undetected. Black box analysis shows marked oscillations of Flight 587's rudder prior to the crash. Whether these oscillations were the reason for the fatal tail separation, or merely a symptom of a greater malfunction, is under study, as is the theory that a structural weakness -- inherent or otherwise -- was exacerbated by an encounter with the wake of a 747 the Airbus was following.

The Allied Pilots Association (APA), which is the collective bargaining agent for American Airlines pilots, has not endorsed its members' outcry. After the initial petition, opinions have simmered but little progress has been made toward an actual grounding of the fleet. However, follow-up discoveries of rudder and tail problems on other A300s have rekindled unease.

An American A300 discontinued a flight from Miami to Caracas, Venezuela, when it experienced erratic fishtailing after takeoff. The captain returned to Miami and the airplane was examined. The following day, the fishtailing occurred again. American insists there is no connection between the Caracas flight and the crash of Flight 587, but nonetheless it took the jet out of service for more serious examination.

Another American A300 returned to Lima, Peru, just after departure, for a nearly identical problem. Control units from both rudders were sent to Europe for analysis by their manufacturer.

And most recently, a bent actuator rod was found in the rudder of a Federal Express A300 during a routine check at the carrier's hub in Memphis. This is considered a highly unusual discovery. Federal Aviation Administration officials were sent to determine if any connection could be made between the damaged actuator and what befell Flight 587.

But what does this seeming pathology really indicate? In the aftermath of air crashes, there is often a rush to judgment over what appear to be latent dangers in our flying machines.

"Are we completely comfortable putting our friends and family on an A300?" the petition at American asked. "If the answer to that question is not a resounding yes, then logic would lead a well-trained pilot to conclude that no one should be flying on them either."

That friends and family invocation is something pilots frequently employ when making a point about safety. If a pilot balks, the inference goes, at loading his mother or best friend aboard an airplane, then he must have a point.

Almost never, however, do the pilots put themselves into the equation. While we shouldn't slight such a chivalric and respectful gesture from our polyester-clad professionals, it might be a more jarring statement if the pilot, not just his loved one, were missing from the guinea pig seat. But examples of pilots -- at least en masse -- refusing to fly airplanes are extremely rare.

And, frankly, for good reason. We needn't launch into statistical rigmarole to illustrate the remarkable safety record of commercial flying, and even in these times of daredevil skyjackings and en route angst, not even the most brazen Vegas renegade would put so much as a nickel on the odds of a plane going down. Delving into the specifics of particular airplane types, not a whole lot changes. This or that model of airliner is occasionally cited as having "one of the best safety records." But when the stats are boiled down, every commercial airliner out there can make essentially the same boast, including, yes, the A300. Which is safest among all that are safe? When crashes are measured in the single digits, out of millions of departures each year, one or two unfortunate coincidences can throw a misleading spin on the résumé of a certain Airbus or Boeing.

But just because we are safe doesn't mean we cannot be safer. And while not outright refusing to fly their A300s, and perhaps giving Granny or a next-door neighbor the grudging go-ahead as well, the American pilots have legitimate concerns about November's disaster. Whether or not those concerns justify a grounding is another matter, but their nervousness is well-taken. As I'm sure the worried pilots are aware, the forced grounding of airplanes is not unprecedented.

Next Page: There is an acceptable threshold of disaster

• View blog reactions