The FAA View
The FAA argues that no one will ever know the cause with any certainty, so it has focused on making the plane safer.
Which is actually the most important thing, the plane was made safer!
The NTSB View
Dennis Crider, chairman of the NTSB’s Aircraft Performance Group, told the board members “A rudder reversal scenario will match all three events,”
The Boeing Co., hotly contests such a finding, saying there is no physical evidence that supports rudder reversal scenarios in the three incidents.
In this case there was only circumstantial evidence, for which they could only found the rudder-hardover as an explanation that fitted all 3 crashes.
Boeing dragged their feet for obvious reasons, since there was no hard evidence. No matter how much they dragged their feet they were forced to change the ruddersystem! It certainly doesn't deserve any compliments! A good example where the fear of hefty fines and lawsuits stopped an aicraft from becoming safer in a timely fashion.
So why use this example exactly guys? I want my airplane to be as safe as possible, without arrogance pride or potential lawsuits getting in the way.
With airbus we all know that alpha prot will override any pilot input if it gets the input signals to do so! It's a known fact!