John Thanks, I'll remember that.
********
If a particular type is prone to eccentric behaviour it can be banal or it can be lethal. Boeing Rudder Actuator, TRENT FOHE, MD screwjack Mx demands, etc. I take particular note of NASA's warning re: Probe Icing. Rather than wait for UAS as a predictor of Probe Icing, how about a lit probe just out the F/O's side glass?
Kidding aside, Pitots are simply not the problem, not the proximal problem, anyway. There is a "procuring cause" but that remains to be seen.
OK465 "If the devices in question are state of the art, then would not the characteristics required of the other two be a step back? " See below? Anomalous design? The bold after "most definitely".
Machinbird "I would not advocate wholesale replacement of pitot tubes with a 'new concept' system, that would destroy diversity, not improve it."
Most definitely. "The original code for this system was written in isolation by three separate teams." Different is good, but not in sensors?
The AD's spend all their time assuring the three probes are not discrepant, then go all wonky when they are? Good mission, no follow through? This just smells like over reliance on development, and over confidence in outcome. Otherwise UAS would be a yawner.
kiwiandrew You and cogsim crossed.
If the leading edge of the Probe aperture needs to be razor sharp for less drag, why not polish the radome instead and make the business end of Thales a doughnut?
It isn't the pitots; with a boring flip (FMS) to the PF, who needs state of the art pitots?
The bottom line for me is that the system looks superb, but someone went to lunch instead of the meeting where the Pilots and the FMS were introduced.
Someone gas up the forklift. I think Friday, Truth be told, will be about humans, not pitots?
Machinbird: Pitch rate/g-rate transparency, Perpignan?
Last edited by bearfoil; 26th May 2011 at 06:56.