A-11
As you can see I am a bit late to this thread but you observations are quite good. Irrespective of where one is sitting in the aluminum tube (cabin seat or cockpit) it begs the obvious that one cannot well stay up all night one night and then after only one day be expected awake at 3 a.m. and function well. One of the other problems with regulation is of course the differing opinions that the crewmembers themselves represent. For example, on the EK Melbourne incident there were posters quite adamant about which rest/work schedule works best for them. One poster was advocating a 24 or 36 rest as being best. Frankly for me a 24-28 hour rest when flying east on an internation segment crucifies me. Upon arrival I am going to bed at 3 a.m. body time and then the next morning must be getting up at 2:30 a.m body time to prepare for a 5 a.m. body time departure. For many, a 24 hour rest is onerous at best and leaves (even if one lives like a monk) one pretty K.O.
36 after an eastern ocean crossing works better but is also body time dependent and so a blanket rule would be hard to fit and in some instances, as I am sure you have experienced, can exacerbate the situation. Sadly as you may have noticed, so often when one brings up these issues a stock answer is given by others as to what works for them--great for the 10% who can sleep well at anytime and anywhere.
You might wish to look at some of the research that NASA Ames and Dr. Mark Rosekind have done. Although I strenously disagree with a great deal of it (although from a lay, but operator perspective), it is peer reviewed and leads to quite a bit of the corpus of research that is currently extent.
A-Girl - Excellent summation of what we go through. As you well stated it is not a matter of
intent, but rather the simple human limitations of trying to shift a schedule through the clock. As I mentioned to A11, 10% of the population can apparently do it and they, I have thought, are the ones who write the regulations
