Hi,
Testing the water here, but is that an argument for a tail chute to be
fitted to civil transports, or is that too far off the wall?
Considering the fact "prevention" can fail what kind of resource could be used to "remedy"?
Unfortunately the "bean counters", ROI considerations are against us, technicians.
and would it add to problems in that it might cause structural damage to the airframe ?.
It would be better "written off" a/cīs than other similar tragedies.
If even for "sub heated Pitotīs" we have long delays for "fixing" one could easily imagine what will happen for airliners "stall recovery resource(s)". Probably no chances and probably there are better approaches to the issue. Like the ASAP introduction of "real redundant" air speed sensors. So, Airbus SAS seems to be working on that important issue, vital (AF447 is showing this) for their "advanced planes" reliable operation.
Probably the simplest fix would be just "hotter Pitotīs. And this can be "tested" by the "players". With benefits to A, B and other companies (and a/c operators, etc.)