If you view an accident as a series of links in a chain, or a series of holes in slices of cheese - whichever one prefers - surely the elimination of any link, or hole, is a valuable goal. Granted, we do NOT know
yet, but we obviously have good reason to believe that UAS was a contributing factor here. Yes, we
could view that as something that "should" have been little more than another snag in the book for the makers of the pitot probes to ponder as they look toward eventual corrective actions... but the truth is, in this case, that may well have been a single link which, if it hadn't occurred, would have meant this conversation wouldn't be happening (and a ship load of trusting souls would still be alive!)
I
know UAS alone
should not have led to this result. ...but then, neither
should a fuel leak in one engine have led to all tanks empty.... but it did, and the fuel leak
should never have occurred. ...and, I feel just as strongly, airspeed indication
should never be unreliable.
This one is serious of course, but how did it become that way? That has been the question from the beginning...how did this aircraft go from stable, M0.82 flight at FL350, to a pancake impact with the sea in less than six minutes?
Thankfully, very soon we'll know much more.
I hope I'm not getting under your skin.
Cheers,
3hl