Before Wino gets sent the full FAA / JAA list of all commercial aircraft, ‘that if flown inappropriately could exceed the rudder load limits’, just reflect that aircraft are not designed or certificated to be foolproof. The rationale is that fools do not fly aircraft, but it also presupposes that crews have some understanding of the aircraft design and certification that enable a safe operation; training provides this knowledge.
There are many assumptions made about pilot performance and behaviour in certification, some unfortunately have found to be wanting, as in this instance. There are still many other assumptions that crew need to know in order to prevent them breaking an aircraft; i.e. we assume that pilots will flare to land the aircraft, if they don’t most aircraft will be structurally weakened. That’s obvious, but who until recently remembered that Va was the limit speed for full control deflection … and what is Va.
The issue is not necessarily the rudder sensitivity, but that the rudder was cycled quickly between maximum values, causing dynamic over-loading of the fin. A single, quick maximum deflection (within Va) will not cause any harm to the structure. If crew’s were to use other aircraft controls in a cyclic manner, stop to stop with reversals, and it can be done in some conventional aircraft, then structural overload and failure is quite possible.
If you do something stupid in an aircraft it may break, the essential knowledge for pilots is to know all of the stupid things and avoid them.
“Somebody does somethin' stupid, that's human. They don't stop when they see it's wrong, that's a fool.” - Elvis Presley.
Because of this accident, it is probable that the certification requirements will be amended, either to eliminate the certification oversight or to provide tolerance in the event of crew abuse, but will this action result in the aircraft being closer to foolproof or is it just accepting that more fools are flying?
--------------------
Airspeed and Upwardness