But all things equal we are not talking about a plane flying through tops at Vmo with the pilots standing on the rudders, but a departure, slow speeds, well under Va. So a tail coming off at such slow speeds defies logic, unless, of course, it's a carbon fibre/aluminum hybrid, that can't be Xrayed for fissures, but none the less, after the accident was fortified.
That said, the fallacy that one right rudder load for instance at a given acceptable load factor, then swinging the other way, at an acceptable load factor, has some mysterious exponential effect is pure baloney (...) and Va doesn't mean full deflection but rather, a worthless number, because you know, Airbus says so.
Boeing and IFALPA seem to differ:
A structural design manoeuvring speed or Va is defined for evaluating aircraft structural design. At or below this speed, Boeing aircraft are capable of sustaining a single maximum deflection input to any control surface – elevators, ailerons or rudders (as limited by control surface limiters, blowdown or control stops). It should be noted that these control surface inputs are to be in one axis (i.e. not in combination) and do not include control input reversal or oscillatory inputs.
(...)
Boeing aircraft are not designed to a requirement of full authority rudder reversals from an "over yaw" condition. Sequential full or nearly full authority rudder reversals may not be within the structural design limits of the aircraft, even if the airspeed is below the design manoeuvring speed. There are no Boeing Procedures that require this type of pilot input. It should also be pointed out that excessive structural loads may be generated in other areas of the aircraft, such as engine struts, from this type of control input.
Source and more on the subject:
http://www.ifalpa.org/downloads/Leve...20aircraft.pdf , p. 2 & 4. They have one on rudder use in the Airbus, too:
Aircraft Design & Operation Committee (ADO)