>>Have the British (or Irish, French, Dutch, German, Swiss...) "NTSB" ever ruled that fatigue was a major contributor to an airline accident over there? There must be plenty of hazardous airports over there, even in good weather, and not just in the Alps etc<<
Yes they have. I copy a relevant AAIB report below. This was to a foriegn registered aircraft not operating under CAP 371 - the British flight time limitations scheme. The low cost carriers are, in my opinion, pushing pilots into new territory as regards the intensity of working patterns. Coupled with commercial pressures, and levels of experience, my view is that a fatigue related accidents is on the cards. I just hope that such an accident can reveal the extent of the problem without injury or loss of life. then perhaps we can return to calmer, safer days.
Other AAIB reports are at:
http://www.aaib.dft.gov.uk/index.htm
Aircraft Incident Report 1/96
Report on the accident to Boeing 737-2D6C, 7T-VEE at Willenhall, Coventry, Warwickshire on 21 December 1994
Synopsis
The accident occurred when the aircraft, which had been chartered for the export of live animals to the Continent, was making a Surveillance Radar Approach (SRA) to Runway 23 at Coventry Airport in conditions of patchy lifting fog. The aircraft descended below the Minimum Descent Height (MDH) for the approach procedure, and collided with electricity cables and a transmission tower (pylon) which was situated on the extended centreline of the runway, some 1.1 miles from its threshold. The collision caused major damage to the inboard high lift devices on the left wing and the left engine. The consequent loss of lift on the left wing, and the thrust asymmetry, caused the aircraft to roll uncontrollably to the left. When passing through a wings vertical attitude, the left wingtip impacted the gable end of a house, causing major structural damage to the property. The aircraft continued rolling to an inverted attitude and impacted the ground in an area of woodland close to the edge of the housing conurbation. An intense fire ensued, during which a large part of the forward fuselage aft to the wheel well, including the wing centre section and the inboard portions of the wings were consumed. The five occupants suffered fatal multiple injuries on impact. There were no injuries to other persons.
The report identifies the following causal factors:
i) The flight crew allowed the aircraft to descend significantly below the normal approach glidepath during a Surveillance Radar Approach to Runway 23 at Coventry Airport, in conditions of patchy lifting fog. The descent was continued below the promulgated Minimum Descent Height without the appropriate visual reference to the approach lighting or the runway threshold.
ii) The standard company operating procedure of cross-checking altimeter height indications during the approach was not observed and the appropriate Minimum Descent Height was not called by the non handling pilot.
iii) The performance of the flight crew was impaired by the effects of tiredness, having completed over 10 hours of flight duty through the night during five flight sectors which included a total of six approaches to land.
Nine safety recommendations have been made.