Decided to un-block the old man for a change and read his posting....
Strangely enough, I partly agree with his statement about not re-checking Sten's understanding of rudder use, if that was what was at fault. But then, it's my observation from flying here in the US, both on exchange in the military and in the airlines, that a great deal of the training is just "filling boxes" and ticking squares to graduate a gradesheet at minimum cost. I have been horrified at some of the questions I have been asked by both students and instructors alike, and when probed deeper, the complete lack of in-depth understanding. Answers are vomited out parrot-fashion. The written exams are a good example. Students learn to pick the correct answer out of a collection without any understanding of the mechanisms at work; minimum cost, minimum delay....quickest route to that "dream job at our school affiliated commuter airline". Hmmmm.
Let's examine the rest of 411a's posting and daily AA rant....
"...aptly demonstrates what happens..." Absolute rubbish.
The 707 accident was ultimately a loss of control, but
not caused by structural failure or crew action. It no more demonstrates it than any other flight control abnormality-caused accident. There was no blame placed on the 707 crew by the NTSB and for you to relate the two is pathetic. Don't confuse the "youngsters" out there that you love to haze on. Loss of control from full-deflection of the rudder is different from structural failure of the base of the fin from exceeding the design strength side-loads on the bracket.
"...the first US operator to have rudder problems....". More complete rubbish. I suspect the Wright Brothers were the first. Plenty of other transport aircraft prior to the 707 had insufficient rudder and/or other problems in directional stability or vertical stabilizer failure. Vmca was discovered prior to you, mate. In fact, the dutch roll phenomena affecting early 707's and KC-135's was well before the Flushing smash, leading to the fin extension and lower strakes on the Intercontinental.
I strongly suspect 411a's career looks like this:
Flew for PanAm
Got laid off by PanAm in the 80's after enduring years of their dinosaur-speed seniority system just as he was getting somewhere
Bitterly blames the "Big 3" for putting PanAm out
Goes searching round the world for a job (too old for starting over in the US)
Lands at SQ, great place to practice CRM
Ah, but home beckons....back to Az to try his hand
Still very bitter at the Big 3, and the CX blokes (from seeing their A-scales when he was at SQ)
If AA, UA, or DAL went under, he'd be very happy -
revenge!
Oh, here's an interesting tit-bit:
PanAm's fatalities per million miles is higher than AA's, including an absolutely disgusting 9 fatal accidents (7 involving 707's) during the time you were probably there (1971-1982), killing well over a 1000 passengers. It's quite clear their management didn't learn anything from the "old hands" around at the time. Apparently lessons learnt were ignored at PanAm....
Some people never learn, blah, blah....
