For Your Light Reading....
#12
That's not exactly correct. There is a discussion of the CVR transcript where the crew discusses how tired they are ("If you don't hear anything fir a while, say something"). There are also charts in the back documenting duty/sleep cycles. So ... one could make a case that at least indirectly fatigue IS INCLUDED.
#13
Keep reading. Start at 3.1.2.e
As described in 2.5.4, the PIC and the FO had conversations about feeling tired. It is probable that they were fatigued to some extent. However, the subsequent conversations in the cockpit were as usual, and their rest layover time was considered adequate according to the last 72-hour history (See Attachment 5-2). It is probable that their fatigue level was such as the crew feels during the usual international flight. Although their fatigue level at the time of the accident might not be so high as to adversely affect their maneuvering performance or judgment, it could not be conclusively determined to what extent the fatigue influenced their maneuvering performance or judgment at that time.
According to the statements of their family members and other flight personnel, it is probable that there were no problems with their physical condition and they were not fatigued. However, in case of the accident flight, the PIC and the FO engaged in two duty flight during a period of time to obtain sleep, and the accident occurred during early morning hours, i.e., the time to wake up in Asia. It is probable that the alertness and concentration of the PIC and the FO was lowered.
According to the statements of their family members and other flight personnel, it is probable that there were no problems with their physical condition and they were not fatigued. However, in case of the accident flight, the PIC and the FO engaged in two duty flight during a period of time to obtain sleep, and the accident occurred during early morning hours, i.e., the time to wake up in Asia. It is probable that the alertness and concentration of the PIC and the FO was lowered.
#14
Defining adequate sleep seems easy but it's not.
24 hour layovers look great on paper. Pilots that don't fly the line also think it's "way more" than the min so must be extra good. They may even think it's long enough to be restorative.
When you really think about this interval, it's really not. Between long duty periods it does two things. It totally swaps your sleep cycle from day to night, or vice versa. Two 24 hr layovers in a row is bad, bad, bad.
To avoid creating a sleep deficit, the implication is 7-8 hours of sleep TWICE during the layover. Try doing that and get back to us.
24 hour layovers look great on paper. Pilots that don't fly the line also think it's "way more" than the min so must be extra good. They may even think it's long enough to be restorative.
When you really think about this interval, it's really not. Between long duty periods it does two things. It totally swaps your sleep cycle from day to night, or vice versa. Two 24 hr layovers in a row is bad, bad, bad.
To avoid creating a sleep deficit, the implication is 7-8 hours of sleep TWICE during the layover. Try doing that and get back to us.
#15
Indeed! In a previously life (Supplemental 121) it seemed the layovers were either 12-14 hours or 36 or more. WAY easier than 24 hours layovers. Let alone multiple 24 hour layovers.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
E1Out
Mergers and Acquisitions
75
07-31-2008 06:26 PM



