Originally Posted by
MountainBear
I think the flight crew made compromises; I think Air France made compromises; I think Thales made compromises; I think Airbus made compromises.
In defense of Thales.... and possibly Goodrich.
(I worked for SFENA, then Sextant, now Thales, but in a totally different sector, so I've no axe to grind).
One thing that seems to have been neglected in recent discussions, is that engineers design to standards, and in particular certification standards.
(When Concorde was designed, an entire new "SST certification standard" had to be written, and I think much the same happened when the all-digital FBW came along.)
Todays certification standards for pitot tubes still date from the Stone Age.
Unless a real job is done to update those standards, and re-define the certification testing with regard to potential present-day (icing etc.) circumstances, "we" (the engineers) just try to do our best.... which, because of the lack of clearly defined design data, may not be good enough.
Both Thales (the 'AB' probes) and Goodrich seem to have tried to do "better than specs", but in the absence of new and more stringent specs and design data, how do you decide what is indeed "better"?
So maybe some of the "blame" should go to the regulators, or rather, there should have been a recommendation in the BEA report for the certification standards for pitots to be "brought up to scratch"?