I don't think it had an acronym until after 447 went in. "Unreliable Air Speed, UAS." The term gives me the willies. From the 38 logged incidents, and the asymmetrical "Recoveries" from this challenging and surprising fault, no one was ready to AD these tubes?
Devils advocate, historically do we know that the tubes in question (Thales?) were statistically significantly more liable to failure than the pitot tubes that were going to replace them and/or the pitots used on similar designs (e.g.777).
( Background: I've bashed around in military jets and the likes of the 747 and the 777 for over 15 k hours and never, ever had pitot icing - so what gives with the A330, is it really that fragile)?