Sleeping in a tent as part of a big Ex like SS2 when one of the objectives was to prove that the logistics of mounting such an event is feasible is one thing, however unpopular it may have been. But the Operation mounted on the back of the exercise is another. I suspect the Ex flying rate was not as intense as the Op - on which I gather the crews were flying the max 120 in 28. Cancelling a Ex sortie due to fatigue is no big deal. The Op is different.
The letter which sparked this debate was about the Op. It is inexcuseable to place such pressures on the crews when a viable alternative to the situation which could (and nearly did on one occaision I gather) so severely compromise flight safety.
A CEO of a major airline in the States some years back commented after his airline's third crash in a year "If you think flight safety is expensive - try the cost of an accident!"
