Originally Posted by
737Jock
The 737 rudder hardover problem was rare, but it was identified and countermeasures were taken.
It took almost ten years, a time during which Boeing submitted their own internal report to the FAA which blamed the pilots of UA535 for the crash. The PCU design was such that it could affect any of the 737s in the air at any time between 1967 and 2002.
Coincidentally, CONF iture says it would have been different had it happened the time of widespread internet. The 'net wasn't as widespread back in the late '90s and early '00s, but the case certainly was discussed online back then - and very vociferously as I recall!
For some reason though people are not willing to accept that there are flaws in the airbus design.
Not true - no-one's saying the design's perfect, but I don't think it's unreasonable to expect more detailed information before introducing changes to the system that would be expensive, yet unproven in terms ofwhether it would improve safety or not.
It's absolutely bonkers that a rare situation can develop where the pilots are not able to recover from an abnormal attitude with normal control inputs.
But that's exactly what happened with the 737 hardovers, and the aircraft was left flying with a known fault for nearly ten years. The workaround there involved maintaining a higher approach speed, but it didn't solve the underlying problem and there was no guarantee that it would save the aircraft if the crew did not correctly diagnose the fault in time.
That was after two confirmed fatal crashes as a result of the issue, and possible others. Right now with this AoA vane issue we have a single rogue incident which has not as yet been properly reported on, with no fatalities and no word of injuries or damage - and yet calls are coming in for a wholesale change to the design. Why should things be one way for Boeing and another for Airbus?