First, there is no problem on the Airbus 330 or Airbus 340. The problematic tubes were changed on those planes by official directive, years ago.

Second, it was the judgment of officials that the A320 did not require a directive. Even though the tube was problematic on the A330, it has not historically been problematic on the A340 or the A320.

When the tubes were changed by directive on the A330 and A340, should the directive have included the A320? It didn't because the A320s had been changed from an early model Thales tube to an updated one. It was believed that the updated Thales tube was better.

Then, some time after the A330 and A340 directive, wind tunnel tests by Airbus showed the updated Thales tube was no better than the original one. It was at that time that a directive to change the tube on the A320 from Thales to Goodrich might have been appropriate; but that didn't happen.

It is my belief that when the cause of the AirAsia crash is made public, the report will say that - for the first time - a Thales tube caused a serious problem on an A320.

The reason I believe this crash was due to bad speed readings is the extremely rapid climb the AirAsia plane before stalling. The climb rate is higher than would have been possible had the plane been flying at the right speed. The extremely rapid climb indicates the plane's speed had built up. Momentum from that extra speed is the only plausible explanation for the more rapid than ordinarily possible climb. Though an Indonesian official claimed it could have been caused by an updraft, that is daft.

Third, there are no thunderstorms on the route from Boston to Paris that could produce ice crystals that caused the problem with the old (replaced on the A330 and A340) tubes.

Last Edited By: Capt Tom Bunn MSW LCSW Jan 25 15 8:58 AM. Edited 1 times.