Knew all those things about redundancy, you said nothing about PCU jamming overrides through elevator system. That's what I was interesting in. I guess is the same as rudder system.Working on my CPL, heading for a jet career in some years, flying small twins at the moment, so cable control, practiced some trim + power only landings, of course, if surface is flutter free (it is, at least theoretically, it should be) in a disconected elevator failure, trim + power works pretty well. At least no possibility for sudden and violent deflection in the rudder or I can't personally figure out a reason for this.Not really worried about these emergencies, most like a personal curiosity to know if these big jets systems are really designed to sustand and eliminate a surface hardover, a rare event but with deadly consequences, and, also, it's better to know them in advance. Not necessary for those "hide under the bed" advices. Anyway, it was funny to read them.LATER: Found a phrase in an article about 737 rudder hardover investigation. "The evaluation board recommended in the draft that Boeing modify the 737 rudder control system so that "no single failure, single jam, or any latent failure in combination with any single jam or failure will cause Class I[catastrophic] effects.""So, my question was, are there any others PART 25 transport aircrafts, especially well-known big jets which are airborne worldwide, which still don't comply with this "no single failure, single jam, or any latent failure in combination with any single jam or failure will cause Class I[catastrophic] effects." specification, as the 737 was before redesigning its rudder system?