This is an interesting point, but I think incorrect. There was a very
interesting book about the DC-10 that came out a number of years ago. The
Sioux City incident was not the first one where control was lost, albeit for
different reasons. The locking mechanism on the cargo door of the DC-10 was
electromechanical, not hydraulic like on others. An electric motor was used
to pull toggles over center to lock the cargo door to the fuselage frame and
floor. That meant that when the locking mechanism jammed (and the locking
lever was capable of being jammed when forced to close), the fuselage
underwent an explosive decompression when the locking toggles failed,
rather than having the hydraulic mechanism gradually "overpowered" by
pressure differential. The control cables for the empennage were routed on
the underside of the floor, and when the fuselage underwent explosive
decompression, the floor buckled and the cables jammed. I think the first
incident happened over Windsor, Ontario. There was another in Ermenonville,
France. After that the DC-10 pilots actually practiced, in the sim of
course, flying the airplane by using differential thrust.

So, I agree with the premise, but I think the detail is wrong. I recognize
that in Sioux City the reason for the failure and the extent of control loss
was different. Captain Haines is one of my heroes.

The best example I can think of is United #232 (Sioux City, 1989). I
doubt Al Haines was ever trained to control a DC-10 without hydraulic
power to the flight control surfaces. Yet he managed to steer the jet
with differential thrust to a (scary) landing without the loss of all
aboard. There will never be a replacement for experience IMO.