Originally Posted by
RangerNS
I'm not sure what level of sarcasm you have here, but the rudder would absolutely have multiple independent actuators; even in the '60s, several independent hydraulic systems and pistons. And if they all failed, or the (single) rudder itself fell off (I mean, they aren't made of cellophane, cardboard or cardboard derivatives), and you lost that particular control surface, aircraft could still turn by banking, or manipulating the engines independently. This would prove uncomfortable for the passengers, but if something happened that the rudder fell off, then some aerobatics is the least of their concern.
Originally Posted by
Stranger
That's not entirely false, but shall we say a bit optimistic. I believe there was at least one case, of an American Airline A300, which crashed following a rudder failure.
Controlling using engines surely is not a normal thing, surely not for the faint of heart.
I'd certainly rather lose rudder than vertical stabilizer - Alaska 262 was also a failed nut due to insufficient QA (this time in maintenance), while the AA flight you're thinking of - 587 - was caused by the flying pilot's overuse of rudder controls to compensate for wake turbulence from a preceding 744.
IANAP but I'm guessing a failed rudder nut would be a different issue from a failed vertical stabilizer jack screw, but I don't know enough about this to not worry about it at all.
One imagines at this point regulators are about out of patience with Boeing, but the effect that a longer ground stop on all 7MXs would have on AC (and many other airlines) would obviously be massive.