Originally Posted by
AirRabbit
Yes, this is true; but would you expected to have Boeing, or anyone else for that matter, say, “Yep. Guilty. We’ve built the world’s most unsafe airplane.” ... But, if you don’t know (or can’t admit) how do you address the situation?
You're absolutely correct sir. As I stated below, I don't think any manufacturer would do that, and in fact it would probably have a negative impact of safety were the company to be scuttled rather than a fix found.
I just mentioned it to counteract the opinions of those who think that kind of behaviour is strictly a French or Airbus thing.
I suspect that laying the responsibility on the PCU was a reasonable route to follow. Was it the REAL cause? I don’t know. My guess is that Boeing would say that it was prudent to re-address the rudder control issues from top to bottom, including the PCU. In fact, I think that is exactly what they DID say – or something close to that.
Correct again. I've never disagreed with the PCU being the primary failure point. My speculation was purely on the basis of the PCU failing during an attempt to recover what was up until then a normal weather or wake encounter. The Seattle Times report suggested that Boeing may have known that there was something not quite right with the setup when a 747 elevator assembly (using the same or similar components) was reported as misbehaving some time before the 737 accidents occurred.
It just depresses me when I read things like 'What A French POS' regardless of the source, simply because while such statements are obviously provocative rather than helpful, it means that out there, someone does believe that to be the case. For all talk of lack of robustness, the only airliner to survive a missile strike and make a successful landing with a significant portion of the trailing edge of the wing missing, almost up to the aft spar, was an A300.