We appear to be descending into the usual PPRuNe scenario of 'expert' analysis by people whose only experience of piloting a B757, never mind any other heavy jet or even any aircraft, is anecdotal, to say the least. Mixing that with an uncanny ability to interpret a brief synopsis of the accident and come up with conclusions that have been thoroughly examined in the report, only goes to show that they are either unable to read the whole thing or are somehow gifted with divine insight that warrants them a permanent job with the AAIB should their services be required.
Please, can we limit the discussion to facts that we, the people who fly these jets and operate into the airports, can learn from. There is no need for the 'schadenfreude' attitude of some posters (although I see some comments have since been removed) together with the 'green eyed monster' questioning by wannabes who are unable to comprehend that 1,145 hours on type with this operator represent about two years of operational experience into some very demanding airports and weather scenarios. Gaining successful employment on this type of equipment is not that uncommon in this business.
What I find slightly disturbing about the report are the references to fatigue and tiredness which are mentioned briefly but ignored in the conclusions. I know what I feel like on a third consecutive night duty. Add marginal, severe weather for a non-precision approach and I certainly wouldn't have envied this crew and what they had to deal with.
Section 2.3.1 specifically raises the points that whilst the crew did not think tiredness or fatigue were factors in the accident, considering that this was their third consecutive night flight, an analysis of their schedules carried out by DERA concluded that cumulative fatigue did not appear to be an issue but short term fatigue was a 'possibility' even though the recovery periods 'appeared' to be adequate. Even more interesting, I thought, was the reference to the previous two nights duty (Cardiff to Tenerife and Cardiff to Bodrum {and back}) exceeded the NASA and European Scientists 'recommended' 10 hour limit for duties starting or finishing between 0200 and 0600 local time.
In other areas of industry, studies have shown that the accident rate for shift workers increases on consecutive working nights. Also, scientific studies show that the change to being active in daytime rather than night, especially as you grow older, leads to difficulties in adapting to time changes as a result of the shortening of circadian rhythms. In the case of the commander, the report states specifically that
"he was within the risk spectrum and on his third consecutive night of duty and it is therefore probable that he had suffered an accumulative loss of sleep."
And that's it from the report with regard to fatigue and tiredness. Does anyone else sense that there is some conflict between DERA concluding that the duties were not fatiguing and the two reports referenced to, one by NASA AMES Research
(Principles and guidelines for duty and rest scheduling in commercial aviation) and one by Aviation Space and Environmental Medicine
(Age, circadian rhythms and sleep loss in flight crew)? Considering that DERA had a hand in recommending the rostering practices as some sort of 'balance' between managements & beancounters desire to get their pound of flesh from pilots and the pilots desire to work as much as possible during daylight rather than through the night, their conclusion that 'recovery periods' appeared to be 'adequate' seems rather feeble.