Originally Posted by
HotDog
This crew had adequate and legal rest.
Anyone who has flown both sides of the clock within a short period of time knows that "legal rest" is meaningless where physical and mental fitness for flight is concerned. The complete duty logs for both flight crewmembers have not yet been disclosed to the public. How do you know that any rest prior to the accident was "adequate"? Perhaps you'd care to elaborate on just what you percieve to be "adequate". Just because they may have been "legal" in terms of regulatory rest requirements prior to duty does not necessarily imply that they were fit for duty in terms of their cognitive functionality at the time of the accident. The US rules are full of holes, require revision and we all know it. I'll be interested in reading of the crew's activities in the days leading up to that fateful day, in addition to the CVR transcript and many other facts not yet disclosed. A clearer picture of the dynamics involved in enabling this accident to occur will begin to form as more information is made available. Informed speculation relies on credible information, a resource which is presently in extremely short supply for the purposes of this discussion. Patience.
Originally Posted by
HotDog
One quick glance at his compass heading and the tragedy might never have happened.
Perhaps so. Wouldn't we all be interested in gaining some insight into why this last chance to avert the accident wasn't taken? Was there some extranious stimulus or other distraction involved? Were these guys just knackered from schedule disruption, confused by contradictory cues such as the recent changes to the taxiway, charts and NOTAMs? Something else perhaps? I would like to know the answers to these and several other questions, but realize that this is not possible until many more facts are made available for review. If the crew were just careless, that will become apparent. It's still a bit early to be satisfied with that as an answer at this time.
In all likelyhood, by the time the final report is released, it will become apparent that several factors enabled the sequence of failures that led to this accident. Speculating now about the
possible roles the factors presently known
may have played is understandable and serves some purpose. Reaching any conclusions without further evidence than is presently available is shortsighted and illogical at best, and at worst, is likely to create insurmountable and incorrect biases of opinion which will be difficult to overcome later when more facts
are known.
Please understand that even though I have quoted the above statements in my little rant, it is not my intent to single any one person out for criticism. Instead, I simply wish to illustrate the point that too many posters here are either promoting their own agenda by supporting unsustantiated conclusions which happen to support their agenda, or simply lack the patience to wait for more facts before reaching conclusions. In this world of instant gratification and yellow journalism, it may be understandable, but not really excusable in my view.
It's important that we keep an open mind at least until such time as the factual reports of the field investigation findings are released to us. The soonest this usually happens is if and when the NTSB chooses to hold a public hearing. If this occurs, it will likely not be for some time yet.
Thanks to the many regular posters who have attempted to act as the voice of reason on this thread. Your professionalism and calm logic is recognized and appreciated.
Best regards,