Originally Posted by
HotDog
Westhawk, my assumption that crew had adequate rest is based on the following.
Originally Posted by Check 6
The crew landed at LEX Friday night, had Saturday off, and went back on duty Sunday morning.
Crew rest is not likely an issue.
I am well aware of flight time and duty limitations having operated 33 years of long haul.
Thank you HotDog, I suspected so. My point is that they got in Friday late and started Sunday early. 28 hours OFF IIRC. Look, we've all had to do it, and I don't offer it as an excuse, but most people don't go right to sleep immediately after a late duty shift and will not go to sleep early the next day after sleeping late. The body just doesn't adjust it's circadian rythyms very well in one day. This leaves a strong possibility that very little sleep was had by one or both crewmembers in the hours before arising at perhaps 04:00 and reporting at about 05:00 for that flight.
At least consider the effect that altering your work/sleep cycle by about 12 hours in just one day. I've had to live with and adjust to this nonsense as I'm sure you and most other working pilots have. Operating at some reduced percentage of your normal cognitive abilities due to sleep disruption is par for the course for many in aviation. Most pilots adjust to this over time and compensate for their degraded state by the practice of structured SOP and well established habit patterns.
Sometimes this is not sufficient to prevent an accident under just the wrong set of circumstances. Fatigue induced degradation of cognitive capability is not prevented by the duty rules as they currently exist and you know this very well from your own personal experience. With that being the case, why not consider that, in spite of duty reg compliance, fatigue may still have been a factor which contributed to the accident? That's all I'm saying. Just one more link in the chain, hole in the cheese, or whatever other illustrative analogy you might happen to favor.
Along with many of the other considerations previously mentioned, it may be possible, perhaps even likely IMHO, that fatigue could have played a part in this chain of events. I don't believe there is ample evidence to suggest that the idea can be dicarded just yet. Of course, there are still too few facts known to us to reach any solid conclusions. I will happily dismiss this, or any other possibility as the facts come to warrant it. That's why I say keep an open mind and don't be too quick to dismiss any reasonable possibilities until the known facts have eliminated them from consideration. I do not believe that compliance with the regulations alone is enough to dismiss fatigue as a factor at this time. I further believe there are at least a dozen or so of the possibilities posed on this thread so far which are still worthy of consideration. I feel it is safe to predict now that several of them will end up being cited as contributing factors and in analysis section of the final report. The effects of seemingly separate events often act in concert with each other to create outcomes.
We probably won't hear much more in the way of substantiated fact until such time as a NTSB public hearing is convened. Meanwhile, the press will occasionally prattle on as the public relations campaigns of the lawsuit originators proceeds. Don't count on any unbiased content there. That part is about $money$! Sorry, but for the lawyers and the press, it is a business.
Best,
Westhawk