411A you are not short of a few opinions. It might help if you reflected a bit on what is being said, especially after others provide you with hints as to how you might view things a bit differently and, hence, maybe even learn something new. For instance, immediately after your post containing the words,
Report for duty, depart from the UK, fly for 3 hours...and arrive knackered?
Kansasw replied attempting to point out what was probably a major misunderstanding on your part - do you really believe that the implication was that a three hour flight is itself fatiguing? – and asking you a question as to why you take the line you do. But you just keep on going, whether it be fuel or fatigue, or whatever, asserting (rather than explaining) a rather narrow point of view and occasionally implying that those who do not agree are just mind-bogglingly silly. In an earlier post you even referred to the commander of the flight in question as being a “clown”, which is infinitely more telling of you than of him. For what it is worth, I found that gratuitously offensive.
May I commend to you the post by Dogs_ears_up on September 17th. He is not a pilot. Yet he wrote a balanced, sensible and entirely comprehensible piece in a very tactful manner. Yet more to the point, he seems to have no problem in taking the salient features from the accident report, understanding the contextual factors and having an appreciation of the human dimension (often lacking in these discussions). I think his take on – and grasp of - what took place is excellent. He also makes clear his absence of piloting qualification (in contrast to those contributors who seem to feel that to have a licence or to have flown into the same airport gives their opinions greater weight).
You are now doing with fatigue what you did earlier with fuel. Which is to miss what is actually being said. How come the non-pilot got it, but you don’t?