Thank you for the clarification.

As far as the scheme Airbus used to limit rudder travel with increasing speed, suffice it to say that for the A300 it was NOT the way Boeing did it or even Airbus (apparently) did it on other models. They didn't use a so-called ratio limiter; what they did was mechanically limit the pedal throw at higher speeds.

For example, a 2 inch throw on the ground in a Boeing might move the rudder 30 degrees, but in flight only 2. But in the A300, a 2 inch throw on the ground might equal 30 degrees, but in the air you were mechanically prevented from moving the pedals that far. IOW, if you are used to the Boeing way of doing things, that 2 inch pedal throw at high speed results in a minuscule movement of the rudder, whereas the 2 inch throw (it's actually a little less, btw) will give you FULL deflection in the A300, something that is clearly radically different in philosophy and needed to be addressed completely, the pros and cons of each system notwithstanding.

As it was, Airbus poorly informed training of the difference, it wasn't emphasized in any way, and therefore completely misunderstood in application. I personally think it would've taken a miracle for Sten to operate the machine the way it needed to be operated at that time to insure survival.

There but for the grace of God go several of us