Loss of control inflight continues to be the leading contributor to airline accidents worldwide and unreliable airspeed has been a contributing factor in many of these accidents. Airlines and the FAA developed training programs for pilot recognition of these airspeed events and many checklists have been designed to help pilots troubleshoot. In addition, new aircraft designs incorporate features to detect and respond in such situations. NASA has been using unreliable airspeed events while conducting research recommended by the Commercial Aviation Safety Team. Even after significant industry focus on unreliable airspeed, research and other evidence shows that highly skilled and trained pilots can still be confused by the condition and there is a lack of understanding of what the associated checklist(s) attempts to uncover. Common mode failures of analog sensors designed for measuring airspeed continue to confound both humans and automation when determining which indicators are correct. This paper describes failures that have occurred in the past and where/how pilots may still struggle in determining reliable airspeed when confronted with conflicting information. Two latest generation aircraft architectures will be discussed and contrasted. This information will be used to describe why more sensors used in classic control theory will not solve the problem. Technology concepts are suggested for utilizing existing synoptic pages and a new synoptic page called System Interactive Synoptic (SIS). SIS details the flow of flight critical data through the avionics system and how it is used by the automation. This new synoptic page as well as existing synoptics can be designed to be used in concert with a simplified electronic checklist (sECL) to significantly reduce the time to configure the flight deck avionics in the event of a system or sensor failure.