This was the start of the problem,how did Airbus get away with fitting inferior pitot tubes with inferior heating elements?
Lonewolf_50
According to the report and about three years of discussion on this accident on these very forums, to include the ten threads now in the Tech log forum, the improvement to the Goodrich probes had been identified as a required fleet upgrade, and was underway. This was in response to an Airworthiness directive issued by a civil aviation authority.
This particular hull number had apparently not yet received the new probes at the time of the accident.
Why the upgrade was not pushed through sooner by Air France is certainly a question well asked. It is a question I do not doubt that lawyers for the 228 dead will ask in a court room somewhere
I think .. this is not a answer to the Iamhere question (or remark)
You explained why they made the change .....
I can be wrong but I think the meaning of the remark (or question) was "why Airbus (in the first place) fitted those particular brand and patent (Thales) Pitot tubes ? "
At the time of the original Pitots fitting on the A330 it was already better Pitot tubes on the market
To tell with your own words :
"It is a question I do not doubt that lawyers for the 228 dead will ask in a court room somewhere. "
Stepwilk
Pretty funny. We're more than a thousand posts into this thread and people are posting stuff that was probably on page two. ("How could they stall????" "How could the pitots have iced???") Soon we'll be back to "They must have flown into a thunderstorm."
Indeed ...
It's a indication that we are circling and waiting permission to land in the court room
It's a long time to wait and I hope we will not be short of fuel !