Originally Posted by
thermostat
My 2 cents worth. First I like the post by Machinbird. When it comes to controls, if it doesn't feel right, land the plane. Had I been flying that DC-9, it would have been put on the ground much earlier. I wouldn't give a heck what the company wanted, I'm flying, not the company or anyone in the company.
For what it's worth, they were planning to divert to LAX once they realised the problem was more serious than a simple electrical malfunction - unfortunately by then the damage was too severe and they ran out of time.
While the jackscrew/stab design was criticised in the NTSB report for not being "fail-safe", the fact is that because the DC-9's certification ("grandfathered" to the MD-80 series) was performed during an era where such designs could be permitted as long as maintenence schedules were strictly adhered to, the regulators had to allow it.
If I remember correctly, the FAA inspector did warn of shoddy work and was told to "shut up" or be transferred.
I'm pretty sure that the FAA inspectors just trusted the paperwork - the whistleblower in the Alaska case was one of their own senior engineers. The accident occurred after he had raised objections, but before his warning was heeded by the FAA. Despite his being completely in the right, he was (through inter-airline management collusion) effectively blacklisted from working in aviation ever again.