The nose does not describe a lateral in sideslip, necessarily. Since relative airstream can emanate from a 360 circle from in front, there are vertical slippages to account for (Probe2?). That 1 and 2 are opposite and co-planar, we can assume the airflow position in stable air is a design consideration. So why a placement of Standby below the 1, 2 plane? 'Anomalous design' imo..
From BA 038, I have pointed out common mode as an enemy of redundant design. This suggests that anomalous design can counter mere "redundancy" design.
I have been discussing micro granular water Ice, not "accreted" water Ice.
I don't say that turbulence is a requisite for ice packing of probes, only that it is statistically more likely to be present in these events.
A working theory is that micro granular water Ice is less responsive to Pitot heat solutions than is accreted water ice, to include supercooled water as the progenitor...
In BA038 thread, I proposed: one engine RRTrent700, and one GE90. Since it turned out that the RR had designed insufficiencies in its ability to melt Ice in fuel, the supposition is available that 038 may have made the runway, and prevented hull loss if utilising a GE90 as one of two engines.
Only a what if. It strikes me that pitot or vane design is not germane to the discussion of Airbus 'system design' problems.
Systems fail, Ice is only one possible bubble in the cheese. What is of critical import is what the systems do when facing a failure.
Apparently, there are bubbles installed at the factory. And flight test continues....With occupants.
Last edited by Lyman; 6th Jan 2013 at 19:54.