Originally Posted by
Casper
Thanks, AirRabbit. That is interesting info. Boeing "suggested" that the amendment to the B737 QRH re rudder problems was effected due to "politics."
They also spent a considerable amount of money coming up with their own report saying that the crashes were both likely to be a result of pilot input rather than a design fault with the rudder system - aren't corporate lawyers great?
I was also under the impression that some local weather factor (mountain waves) may have contributed to the Colorado Springs accident.
It's plausible, but I'd have thought that a strong mountain rotor would have caused a mid-air breakup as with the BOAC 707 Mt. Fuji incident, rather than forcing the aircraft into the ground intact as happened in Colorado Springs.
Pointless speculation here, but the problem was with the PCU, which could jam and send the rudder into a hardover in the opposite direction to that commanded by the pilot. I've wondered for a while whether both those aircraft encountered some kind of turbulent air and when the rudder was used to correct, the PCU jammed and this 'reverse hardover' defect came into play.
Either way we're drifting off topic, although it's useful to note that no manufacturer is happy about admitting their arcraft has a fault.